AI Resistance Art & Symbols of Resistance: A Visual Archive
Boston Plaza Demonstration
More…
A Graphic composed by Mentor Ehren Brav
Leveraging the power of AI image generation... Feel free to distribute - I certainly will be.
Christina Goldbaum's latest: Syria, Lebanon, and more
Recent articles, videos and podcasts from on the ground in some of the most fragile places in the world by wonderful alum and Convisero mentor Christina Goldbaum, winner of the 2025 Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Reporting for the New York Times.
To access the latest news from her: https://www.nytimes.com/by/christina-goldbaum#latest
Christina Goldbaum Wins 2025 Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Reporting
Christina Goldbaum, a young journalist at The New York Times and member of Convisero, has been awarded the 2025 Pulitzer Prize in Explanatory Reporting, alongside colleagues Azam Ahmed and Matthieu Aikins. The prize honors their remarkable work in the New York Times series titled “How the U.S. Lost Afghanistan.”
The award-winning reporting reveals how the United States, years before the fall of Kabul, laid the groundwork for the unraveling of its two-decade war in Afghanistan. Through in-depth investigations and frontline accounts, the series demonstrates the consequences of misaligned strategy, internal dysfunction, and long-ignored warnings.
Explore the full Pulitzer-winning series here:
How the U.S. Lost Afghanistan
Courtesy of The New York Times
In one of the centerpiece reports, Goldbaum and colleagues gained rare access to Sirajuddin Haqqani, one of the most powerful and controversial figures within the Taliban, offering a close view into the inner workings of the regime now governing Afghanistan.
Read the story: Sirajuddin Haqqani Is a Taliban Hard-Liner and Power Broker
A Voice for Critical Truths
Goldbaum’s recognition marks a significant moment not only for foreign reporting but for a new generation of journalists pushing boundaries in international investigative work. Her reporting has consistently centered the lived realities of those caught in conflict, while critically examining U.S. policy decisions with rigor and clarity.
Goldbaum has become known for her fieldwork in difficult and often dangerous conditions. Her work in Afghanistan stands as a testament to the power of explanatory journalism to illuminate complex geopolitical failures with humanity and urgency.
For more on Pulitzer Prize winners and featured stories, visit: Pulitzer.org
To explore more of Goldbaum’s international reporting, follow her work at The New York Times
Michael Poulshock on Power Structures
Michael Poulshock, of our community.
How Power Structures Advance IR Theory
Twelve potential upgrades to the theory of international relations
JUL 31
How should we understand international politics? Like any social science, the field of international relations (IR) is a bundle of models that attempt to answer that question. And as in any academic field, there will always be some models that are in tension with each other and don’t quite snap together they way we hope they would. Science is, after all, an ongoing process. But in international relations, there seems to be a distinct sense that the discipline lacks a unifying framework for solving the puzzles that are within its purview to address. Its dominant theories have not been reconciled and there is no consensus on the definition of its most fundamental concept.
As an analogy, imagine that each theory is a shape. Some theorists might see one shape and describe the phenomena of international politics as a rectangle. Another group of scholars might see a different shape and say, “No, it’s a circle.” A third group might be convinced that a triangle is the best explanation. The shapes are a bit hazy, but nonetheless there’s an accumulation of evidence in favor of each one and the debates ensue.
Yet it may be that there’s another perspective from which we can view the situation that offers a more coherent explanation. Perhaps what we’ve actually been looking at are shadows cast by some unexpected three dimensional object, rotated around in different ways. From one angle, the object creates a rectangular shadow; from another, a circular one; and from third, a triangle. From this new vantage point, some of our existing models may simply turn out to be special cases projected down from a higher dimensional idea that is somehow more fundamental.
A 3-dimensional object that casts rectangular, circular and triangular shadows.
Power structure theory is that deeper idea, and in this post I’m going to give you twelve reasons why I believe that it can help us unify international relations theory. For the sake of space, I’m not going to reiterate what power structure theory is; a primer can be found here. The diagram below is illustrative of the basic idea, and I’ll elaborate other key aspects of it as we go along.
A power structure is a system of relationships among political actors with varying levels of strength. More powerful actors are depicted as larger circles. Solid lines indicate cooperative relationships; dashed lines represent conflict. Power structures evolve over time: actors who cooperate get stronger, actors who fight get weaker, and relationships continually change.
Since I’ll be referring to academic concepts, some of my points may seem a bit obscure if you’re a nonspecialist. I’ll do my best to simplify and contextualize them. Conversely, if you’re an IR scholar, you may be unimpressed by my lack of nuance or my inadequate citations to the literature. In the end, it may be that this essay doesn’t quite work for anyone: it may be too technical for general readers and too sloppy for academic ones. What can I say? That’s my niche.
Each of the points below could probably be an essay unto itself, and maybe I’ll expand upon some of them in future posts. For now, my goal is just to show you that power structure theory — which I’ll abbreviate as PST — has the potential to draw together a variety of loose ends in our current understanding of international politics. Here are twelve ways it might do that.
1. PST defines the central, unresolved concept in IR.
As Daniel Drezner wrote a few years ago, “International relations scholars do not agree about much, but they are certain about two facts: power is the defining concept of the discipline, and there is no consensus about what that concept means.”¹ This may at first seem like an astonishing admission and a bit of an embarrassment. However, it can take a long time for very simple things to be understood correctly. Consider physics, where it took two millennia — from Aristotle to Newton — until force and mass were properly defined. Or negative numbers, which required a thousand years before mathematicians fully accepted them. Many ideas that are now taught to elementary school students took centuries to figure out. Political power might be in this category.
We understand power in an experiential, biological way, and perhaps that’s why it’s hard to conceive of it at the appropriate level of abstraction. Power structure theory defines power as “an actor’s ability to affect the amount of power that other actors have.” It’s a sparse and circular definition, and for those reasons it is counterintuitive and controversial. However, it describes phenomena that are at the heart of power politics (see below), and therefore any idiosyncrasies of the definition are justified by the success of its ultimate results. In this way, PST plugs the most glaring hole in international relations theory — its central, unresolved concept.
2. PST describes processes of change in the international system.
PST describes the international system as a power structure — a system of relationships among actors with varying degrees of power. Power structures are not static, and power structure theory is based on assumptions about how these structures change over time. PST therefore provides a descriptive account of the dynamics of international politics.
One process of change is due to the relationships among states (or other actors): cooperation tends to make them stronger, whereas conflict weakens them — and this can be visualized as a flow of power in the network. But actors also change their relationships with each other in reaction to their place in the structure. The dynamics of the system are a feedback loop between these two processes, and result in familiar patterns like hierarchy formation, the balance of power, divide and rule tactics, and defensive alliances. Existing IR models endeavor to establish causal links between various phenomena. However, PST goes further and provides a way to express power struggles in an abstract model that accounts for the time evolution of the system.
3. PST provides a conception of utility that balances absolute and relative gains.
What do actors in a power structure want? They want to accumulate more power in absolute terms, so they can be stronger. But they also care about how much power they have relative to other actors, so they can avoid being dominated. Their satisfaction or utility within a power structure is based on their preference for absolute versus relative gains in power.
How actors strike this balance has a big effect on how they behave. Actors who have a stronger preference for absolute power will be more willing to cooperate for mutual gain, because they are not threatened by the fact that someone else is getting stronger. In contrast, actors who prefer relative gains tend to behave aggressively towards other actors. They are more prone to using violence to reduce the power of rivals to a more manageable level, weakening them to the point where they are submissive and unthreatening.
This conception of utility connects preferences for absolute and relative gains to the distribution of power — that is, to the amount of power that each actor in the system has. It explains the incentives that actors face when confronted with different distributions of power, and therefore it describes the causal effects of those distributions on actor behavior. For example, a powerful actor with a preference for relative gains in a unipolar system is likely to behave one way; a weak actor with a preference for absolute gains is likely to behave differently. Power structure theory elucidates how all of this works.
4. PST unifies neorealism and neoliberalism.
Neorealism and neoliberalism have for decades been the two predominant theories in IR. Neorealism views the international realm primarily as a struggle for power. Neoliberalism emphasizes cooperative interactions among states and the significance of international institutions. In the 1980s, attempts were made to unify these two theories under the framework of game theory and rational choice. However, this much sought-after “neo-neo synthesis” did not come to fruition.
Power structure theory supplies two ingredients necessary for that synthesis, ingredients that were missing in the 1980s. First, it offers a conception of power as dynamic flow (points 1 and 2 above). Second, it accommodates preferences for absolute and relative gains based on the distribution of power (point 3). These components are the missing links that connect complex interdependence (neoliberalism) and concerns for the distribution of power (neorealism) into a deeper framework. By combining these pieces, the phenomena described by neorealism and neoliberalism emerge as special cases of power structure theory.
The full rationale behind this unification requires some explanation, and you can find more details here.
5. PST reconciles structure and agency.
Which has more of an effect on outcomes in the international system: the agents within it or the structure of the system itself? Put another way: To what extent do actors determine the system, as opposed to the system determining them? This friction between structure and agency is another theoretical tension in IR.
In power structure theory, this tension does not exist. The behavior of agents is what forms the structure; and the structure is what agents react to. Thestructure part of a power structure is the relationships among the actors. Each relationship is a stream of transactions, such as commercial transactions between trade partners or military attacks between countries at war. The overall structure is created by the sum total of these complex interactions among the various actors. How they choose to act — that is, how they adjust their existing relationships — is done in reaction to everyone else’s relationships and to the distribution of power. So agents continually create the structure, which in turn alters their incentives to undertake various actions in the future. The tension between structure and agency dissolves away.
6. PST applies to state, intrastate, and transnational actors.
Traditionally, IR theory applied only to states, but it was eventually realized that intrastate and transnational actors were also relevant and needed to be accounted for. Few models in IR apply broadly to state, intrastate, andtransnational actors. However, power structure theory does.
A power structure describes relationships among generic actors, be they countries, institutions, intergovernmental organizations, criminal gangs, city-states, or individuals. Each node in a power structure is a simplification that can often be decomposed into another power structure unto itself — meaning that power structures can be nested within each other. For example, if the countries of the world constitute a power structure with ~195 actors, each of those is also its own self-contained national power structure made up of government agencies, corporations, influential individuals, etc. Power structure theory is a theory about power, and since political power is relevant at various levels of social organization, the theory is generally applicable. One benefit of this generality is that PST helps connect power struggles occurring within states to their external behavior towards other states, and vice versa. Essentially, PST models each nation state “billiard ball” as a collection of smaller billiard balls that follow the same operational principles.
7. PST provides IR with an axiomatic foundation.
Scientific theories, including in the social sciences, should ideally state the assumptions upon which they are based. These assumptions should be simple and clear, and there should be as few of them as necessary. They should be mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive. And they should be capable of describing or explaining a wide variety of phenomena despite their minimalist nature.
Power structure theory provides just such an axiomatic foundation. It is based on a minimal set of principles upon which a variety of other conclusions can be drawn. Some examples of these axioms (stated informally) are: when actors cooperate, they get stronger; when actors fight, they get weaker; actors prefer some combination of absolute and relative power; and actors engage in ongoing interaction. There are a handful of other axioms (which I’m omitting so as not to overly confuse you) that together serve as the starting point for a comprehensive theory. By explicitly stating these assumptions, power structure theory wrings out as much ambiguity as it can from the conclusions it draws. The clearer the inputs, the clearer the outputs.
8. PST is fundamentally quantitative.
In addition to being axiomatic, it’s a bonus when a scientific theory is quantitative in nature. When we can not only say that A causes B, but that A causes B to a specific degree, or at a specific rate, then we have a framework that can output precise answers to precise questions.
The axioms of power structure theory are quantitative in nature. They don’t just say how things change; they can be parameterized to specify how muchthose things change. In fact, the core of power structure theory boils down to three simple mathematical equations. Not only is this intellectually satisfying, but it also enables us to calculate and model the way power structures can change over time by creating computational simulations of this time evolution, and to test whether the models align with reality. It also means that we can formalize phenomena like the balance of power, empire, instability, Graham Allison’s Thucydides Traps, David Lake’s theory of hierarchies, the loss of strength gradient, Lanchester’s laws, polarity, and the multiple logics of anarchy (my apologies to nontechnical readers for this sentence).
This doesn’t mean that we can predict the future. Power structure theory is not predictive per se. But the simulations can help us understand tendencies and likely outcomes in the system, even if they can’t tell us exactly what is going to happen in a given situation. If PST did claim to predict such things, it wouldn’t be believable, because politics is inherently unpredictable.
9. PST gives us a way to rank each state’s position in the system.
Because power structure theory is axiomatic and quantitative, it allows us to come up with novel metrics that help us understand what’s happening in the system. One such metric is called PrinceRank, which is a network centrality measure that takes into account negative links (i.e. destructive relationships). Essentially, it tells us — numerically — how happy each actor is with its place within a given power structure.
This is the same power structure as the one shown above, but with each actor colored on a blue-green spectrum that indicates PrinceRank. Light green represents the most favorable position in the network, whereas dark blue represents the least.
PrinceRank allows us to rank power structures based on an actor’s preferences and as a result it can help us see which actions or “foreign policies” would be most beneficial for that actor to take. This means that it can be used to explore the possible choices that each actor has when they play against each other in a simulated “game” of international politics.
10. PST explains why politics consists of perpetual change.
Political systems at every level — global, national, local — are constantly changing. Some actors rise to power and others fall in the continual turbulence of human events. Power structure theory helps us understand why this turbulence will never end.
Power structures are in perpetual disequilibrium. If they are ever static, they do not remain so for long. Even when the relationships in a power structure remain unchanged, the power levels of the actors fluctuate due to the flow of power across the network. And of course, relationships do not remain static, because there is always someone who wants to improve their position by forming a new alliance or fomenting conflict. Even unequal, hierarchical structures like empires and authoritarian regimes are in perpetual flux. Though these structures are relatively durable and can persist for some time, there are actors within them that nonetheless continually challenge the status quo in order to seek incremental gains in power. In short, power structures help explain why, in politics, change is the only constant.
11. PST helps crystallize what actors construct when they engage in “social construction.”
Constructivism is another major theory of international relations, along with neorealism and neoliberalism. The thrust of it is that the key structures of the international system are socially constructed through shared ideas, norms, identities, and beliefs, rather than being solely determined by material forces.
Power structures are, in part, socially constructed. While they are objectively real, they are so large and complex that no one knows them in their entirety, and hence it is necessary for actors to form mental simplifications. Everyone then acts based upon their subjective understanding, as if it’s a board game night where no one can see the actual board. How these simplified understandings are formed is part of the game of politics: convincing others about who has too much power, who has too little, who’s abusing it, and what should be done with the power at one’s disposal. In other words, significant aspects of those shared ideas, norms, identities, and beliefs can be conceptualized in the vernacular of power structures, because fundamentally they are about some struggle for power.
12. PST provides a launch point for the development of normative theory.
Power structure theory provides a basis for the development of a normative theory of international politics. PST is a descriptive theory. It describes what can and may happen, not what should happen. What should or ought to happen falls into the realm of ethics, and it’s important to try to separate such normative theories from descriptive ones, for clarity’s sake. But normative theories should start by taking the world as it is, and if at the most fundamental level the international system is best represented as a power structure, then normative theories should use PST as a starting point. They should build upon the assumptions of PST and use its conceptual language when developing arguments about how actors in the system ought to act.
Hopefully, I’ve opened your mind to the possibility that power structure theory can tie together a variety of existing ideas in IR by offering a solid foundation upon which they can rest. PST doesn’t necessarily conflict with mainstream theory. To the contrary, I believe that it shows how existing ideas are interconnected via a deeper conceptual substrate — a three dimensional object that has been casting a bunch of familiar theoretical shadows.
There’s a lot more that can be said about each of the arguments above. If you’re interested in learning more, most of these themes are discussed in greater detail in my book, Power Structures in International Politics (2023). Also feel free to message me directly if you feel so inclined.
Drezner, D. (2020). Power and International Relations: a Temporal View. European Journal of International Relations, 27(1), 29-52.https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066120969800.
Podcasts by Mukesh Kapila
These extraordinary podcasts are coming to you from Mukesh Kapila:
Thirty years after the Srebrenica genocide, what has been learnt? Especially for our age of endless wars. That is the topic for my last opinion piece.
Also, my new "Fading Causes" podcast is getting established. In the latest Episode, I talk to model Noella Coursaris about the power of loss that drives the passion to make a difference to others. In the earlier episode, I question Major General James Cowan on being good soldiers in bad wars.
You can also access these items via my website. You can contact me HERE. Your suggestions and comments are always welcome.
The complex legacy of Srebrenica and why today's wars never seem to end.
24 July 2025
When there is no universal settled truth, there is no final peace either
Episode 4 Fading Causes Podcast: model Noella Coursaris
29 July 2025
Can personal passion make a lasting difference?
Episode 3 Fading Causes Podcast: Major General James Cowan
22 July 2025
Léo Stern - France’s Recognition of the State of Palestine
A note, composed by Léo Stern , of our community.
C4ADS launches Horizons
I have had the fortune of working with C4ADS in my instruction at various universities. Several of my wonderful alumni, including Jack Margolin, have been directors of research at C4ADS. I urge that its platform be utilized: Horizons is a wonderful oppurtunity.
From uncovering illicit networks to tracing financial flows, the strongest investigations rely on fast, reliable access to publicly available information. But the software solutions that help uncover connections within this data have not evolved to meet the complexity of modern investigations.
So C4ADS built their own: Horizons.
Supporting Journalism that Builds Peace, Not Polarization
Amanda Ripley
Polarization is no longer just a cultural concern — it has become a structural threat to democratic societies. When public discourse loses its nuance, trust erodes, and collective problem-solving becomes more difficult. In such times, journalism plays a critical role in bridging divides. This is the core mission of Making Peace Visible (MPV).
MPV works to amplify the efforts of journalists who cover conflict with complexity and depth. These are reporters who refuse the simplicity of binary narratives and instead bring clarity to how conflicts arise — and more importantly, how they can be resolved.
Elevating Journalism That Interrupts Conflict
Daniel Sagar
American journalist Amanda Ripley has been a leading voice in understanding “high conflict” — persistent and identity-driven disputes that escalate through outrage and fear. Her work sheds light on the media’s role in either inflaming or de-escalating tensions. Through training programs and fieldwork, Ripley encourages journalists to move away from “us vs. them” narratives and to ask more constructive questions that foster civic dialogue.
In Colombia, journalist Daniel Salgar reported on the reintegration of former FARC fighters following the 2016 peace accord. His coverage moved beyond the traditional enemy-versus-hero framework and helped create space for reconciliation and inclusion. His storytelling exemplifies journalism’s capacity to support peacebuilding.
A Call to Support Peace-Focused Journalism
This July, MPV is aiming to raise $40,000 to expand its work. A 3-to-1 matching donation offer means each contribution will be tripled. Funds raised will directly support:
Journalists producing in-depth, underreported stories on peace and conflict transformation through the MPV Story Awards
Public symposia and gatherings that connect journalists with peacebuilders to reframe how stories are told
The Making Peace Visible podcast, which brings solutions-focused journalism to audiences in over 120 countries
In a time of rising division, investing in journalism that makes room for nuance and reconciliation is a step toward safeguarding democratic values.
About Making Peace Visible
Founded by Jamil Simon, MPV is a US-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit dedicated to reshaping how conflict is reported. Donations are tax-deductible as allowed by law.
For more information or to contribute to MPV’s mission, visit Making Peace Visible.
Legal and Humanitarian Reflections on the Gaza Crisis
In a recent essay published by The New Statesman, legal historian and former UK Supreme Court justice Jonathan Sumption offers a powerful critique of Israel's ongoing military actions in Gaza, situating the conflict within the frameworks of international law and humanitarian standards. Sumption states that his analysis is not driven by ideology, but by the standards of legal and historical inquiry.
He begins by highlighting that Operation "Gideon’s Chariots" — launched by Israel in May 2025 — demonstrates a pattern of collective punishment against Gaza’s civilian population. While Israel claims to be targeting Hamas, Sumption argues that the scale and manner of its military actions go far beyond proportional self-defense and amount to collective retribution.
International Law and War Crimes
Sumption outlines key provisions of international humanitarian law, particularly the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit targeting civilian infrastructure, displacing populations, and using starvation as a method of warfare. He asserts that Israeli operations in Gaza have violated several of these provisions. The destruction of hospitals, residential buildings, water systems, and the restriction of humanitarian aid are all cited as breaches of established legal norms.
He also notes that the International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for Israeli officials and that international bodies, including the United Nations and several Western governments, have openly criticized the conduct of the Israeli military.
Genocide and Displacement
One of the central questions in Sumption’s essay is whether Israel’s actions amount to genocide. While genocide requires the intent to destroy a group in whole or in part, Sumption points to statements made by senior Israeli officials advocating for the displacement of Palestinians as potential evidence of such intent. These, he argues, are not isolated political remarks but reflect broader government policy, including proposals to build internment camps and displace Gaza’s population to third countries.
According to Sumption, the scale of destruction — with over 57,000 Palestinian deaths reported, most of them women and children — along with deliberate restrictions on aid, signals a campaign not only against Hamas but against the civilian population as a whole.
Consequences and the Future
Sumption warns that such strategies are not only legally indefensible but strategically flawed. He suggests that even if Hamas were to be physically dismantled, its ideology — rooted in the lived experience of oppression — would endure. Lasting peace, he argues, can only be achieved through a political solution that acknowledges the rights and attachments of both Israelis and Palestinians to the land.
The article concludes by rejecting the binary framing of the conflict that equates criticism of Israeli policy with anti-Semitism. Drawing from historical examples and legal precedent, Sumption urges the international community to uphold humanitarian standards universally — whether in Gaza, Ukraine, or elsewhere.
Mid-Year Check-In for Fundraising and Social Impact Goals
As we pass the midpoint of the year, it is an ideal time for nonprofit and social impact teams to pause and conduct a strategic review of their progress. A mid-year check-in offers an opportunity to evaluate what has been accomplished so far and determine whether current strategies remain aligned with overarching goals.
Organizations are encouraged to reflect on the fundraising or corporate social impact objectives set at the beginning of the year. Key questions to guide this process include:
What initiatives or strategies have proven effective so far?
What should be scaled or emphasized further?
Are there important actions or approaches not currently in place that should be initiated?
What should be discontinued or revised based on current outcomes?
Following this review, teams should assess whether their existing goals and strategies require adjustments. This may involve redefining specific targets, reallocating resources, or revising timelines. Importantly, any updated approach should be followed by clearly defined next steps, with roles assigned and deadlines established.
Additionally, teams are encouraged to seek external input to help validate or challenge internal assumptions. This can be particularly useful when shaping new strategies or entering unfamiliar territory.
For those exploring grant funding, it is important to note that identifying potential funders is only one part of the equation. A strategic approach, coupled with the right skills, is essential for turning potential into actual funding. A free masterclass is available to provide insight into this process, offering guidance on what it truly takes to secure grants effectively. [Watch here]
Nonprofit professionals and social impact leaders seeking more guidance can subscribe to regular updates and tools, or share this information with colleagues who may benefit from a structured approach to planning and fundraising.
Social Impact Compass: www.socialimpactcompass.org
From Oscars to the Trenches: Mstyslav Chernov’s Haunting Return to Ukraine’s Frontline
Mstyslav Chernov
Following the global success of 20 Days in Mariupol, acclaimed Ukrainian journalist and filmmaker Mstyslav Chernov returns with a powerful new documentary, 2,000 Meters to Andriivka — a raw, intimate portrait of war as lived by the Ukrainian 3rd Assault Brigade.
Filmed at the height of Ukraine’s 2023 counteroffensive, the documentary chronicles a deadly mission to liberate the village of Andriivka in Donetsk. The route: a harrowing 2km stretch through exposed terrain and dense woods, captured through bodycams and frontline footage by Chernov and his crew.
A still from 2,000 Meters to Andriivka
What emerges is not just a thriller or military chronicle — it’s a lament, a memorial, and a plea for understanding. Many of the soldiers featured, including those who formed the emotional core of the film, were killed before the edit was complete. During film festival red carpets and Oscar ceremonies, Chernov received texts informing him of their deaths. “There was always guilt,” he says.
The film’s Ukrainian premiere in Kyiv in May was met with a 10-minute standing ovation. Families of fallen soldiers attended — including the wife of a soldier called Sheva, who told Chernov: “Thank you: now I will be able to show his grandson who his grandfather was.”
Chernov resists labeling 2,000 Meters as "anti-war," instead presenting it as a portrait of dignity, grief, and truth. “It’s about salvaging pieces of these people’s lives,” he says. “War came to them — to their homes, to their land.”
The landscapes — scorched steppes and forest trenches — are personal to Chernov. “It’s the geography of my childhood,” he reflects. “Now I feel like I’m in Verdun, 100 years ago.”
At a private screening for frontline soldiers, Chernov was told: “We want civilians to see this film. We want them to know what we’re going through.” For Chernov, the film bridges the invisible distance between the battlefield and the everyday — the emotional chasm separating soldiers and the societies they fight for.
2,000 Meters to Andriivka premieres globally on August 1, 2025. It stands not just as a cinematic achievement, but as a deeply human witness to sacrifice, memory, and the cost of forgetting.
Genocide Scholar Dr. Omer Bartov Raises Alarm Over Gaza
Photo illustration by Kristie Bailey (The New York Times); source images from Iryna Veklich, Anadolu (Getty Images)
In a recent guest essay for The New York Times, Dr. Omer Bartov, professor of Holocaust and Genocide Studies at Brown University, has publicly concluded that Israel’s military campaign in Gaza constitutes genocide. Bartov, a prominent voice in the field of genocide studies, previously expressed concern over war crimes and crimes against humanity, but stopped short of calling it genocide. His latest statement marks a significant shift.
By tracing a timeline of military actions from October 2023 to mid-2024 — including the evacuation of over a million Palestinians from Rafah and the subsequent large-scale destruction of the region — Bartov argues that Israel’s strategy demonstrates an “expressed intent” to render Gaza uninhabitable. He cites official Israeli rhetoric that includes calls for “total annihilation,” the use of dehumanizing language such as “human animals,” and historical references interpreted as advocating indiscriminate killing.
Bartov’s perspective is particularly notable due to his personal background: raised in a Zionist household, having served in the Israel Defense Forces, and spending decades researching war crimes and genocide. Despite this, he states: “I can recognize [a genocide] when I see one.”
His position aligns with that of several other genocide and international law scholars, as well as organizations like Amnesty International and Francesca Albanese, the United Nations Special Rapporteur for the Occupied Palestinian Territories. South Africa has also initiated proceedings against Israel at the International Court of Justice, alleging genocide in Gaza.
As public discourse intensifies around international legal accountability, Bartov’s article contributes to the growing debate among scholars, legal institutions, and governments regarding the classification and consequences of the Gaza conflict.
The VII Foundation Hosts Panel on Documenting Environmental Crises
A sunrise seen through the trees of Gorongosa National Park in Mozambique on September 10, 2023.
© Guerchom Ndebo.
On July 11, The VII Foundation in Arles hosted a timely and vital discussion titled "Documenting Environmental Crises: Repression, Resistance, Solutions." The event, held both in-person and online at 1700 CEST, brought together leading voices from the worlds of activism, conservation, filmmaking, and photojournalism to examine the intersection of environmental documentation and the growing repression of climate activism worldwide.
The panel featured:
Mathieu Asselin, social activist and artist
Sébastien Mabile, vice-president of the French committee of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)
Jacqueline Farmer, award-winning filmmaker
Guerchom Ndebo, VII Community member and documentary photographer
Moderated by Dr. David Campbell, the session addressed how visual storytelling can go beyond simply documenting climate-related destruction. The conversation emphasized the need for solution-oriented approaches in visual reporting — not only to highlight resistance movements but also to inform and inspire actionable change.
In an era marked by intensifying climate impacts and escalating threats to environmental defenders, the discussion called attention to the responsibilities and possibilities of media practitioners in shaping public understanding and advocacy.
Light refreshments were served at the venue, and remote participants were able to engage with the discussion via an online registration portal.
For more information on upcoming events or to view the recording, please visit The VII Foundation’s website.
Special Issue of the New England Journal of Public Policy Explores How Wars End
The latest issue of the New England Journal of Public Policy (Volume 37, Issue 1) focuses on one of the most urgent and complex questions of our time: how wars come to an end. Titled “Ending Wars”, this special edition is guest edited once again by Lord John Alderdice, a member of the House of Lords Select Committee on International Relations and Executive Chairman of the Changing Character of War Centre at Pembroke College, University of Oxford.
This volume builds on the Journal’s previous issue, which explored the changing character of war and peacemaking. Together, these editions offer a layered and interdisciplinary understanding of conflict resolution and the fragile transition from violence to peace.
The editorial team includes:
Editor: Padraig O’Malley, noted for his work in divided societies,
Guest Editor: Lord John Alderdice,
Design Editor: Paul Cain,
Copy Editor: K. Rhett Nichols,
Citation Editor: Erin K. Maher.
Readers are encouraged to explore the full issue here and reflect on the policy implications of ending contemporary wars. For those interested in additional context and scholarship, past editions of the New England Journal of Public Policy are also accessible through the University of Massachusetts Boston’s portal.
Updating the Kwajalein Atoll Disaster Plan: A Call for Collaboration
The Kwajalein Atoll community is taking critical steps toward strengthening its disaster preparedness through a collaborative update of its disaster response plan. As the Asia-Pacific region continues to experience 40% of the world’s natural disasters—and accounts for 60% of global disaster-related deaths—the urgency of coordinated civil-military readiness cannot be overstated.
With USAID no longer operating in the region and the U.S. having exited the World Health Organization (WHO), any future American support in the event of crises—including pandemics or natural disasters—is expected to come from the U.S. military. In response, stakeholders are revisiting the original 1988 English-language disaster plan for Kwajalein Atoll with the support of Lt. Col. (ret.) James Faumuina, former Commanding Officer of Hawaii’s National Guard CBRNE Technical Response Team.
One key innovation being explored is the integration of telehealth solutions powered by Starlink. VSee, a telehealth company, is helping to develop an amphibious medical drone network that could provide remote care across the Marshall Islands. If successful, this pilot—tentatively scheduled for demonstration in summer 2025—will pave the way for a follow-up CSAR (combat search and rescue) simulation called Kennedy’s Coconut, potentially running alongside RIMPAC 2026.
This community-led effort is anchored in a “crawl-walk-run” approach, aiming first to assess the current state of preparedness as of July 2025 and build a culture of continuous improvement. Participants are encouraged to review the original disaster plan and related materials, available here, and join the review process.
As Gregg writes: “Our goal is simply to assess where we are today... and begin making a habit of improving a little bit more each year.”
Those interested in supporting or participating in this review are welcome to join the initiative.
Reflections and Growth at the VII Foundation
As the landscape of journalism continues to shift, the VII Foundation remains committed to fostering ethical storytelling in times of crisis. In a recent update, Gary Knight, co-founder of the foundation, shared reflections on the evolving responsibilities of journalists amid global conflict and trauma. No longer limited to bearing witness, today’s journalists are also expected to navigate public discourse and advocacy, often while still in training.
Despite these complexities, the VII Foundation reports a strong year of growth and engagement. Based in the south of France—with easy access from Paris and Marseille—the Foundation has hosted students from around the world, equipping them with the skills and ethical grounding needed for contemporary journalism. Gary notes that the current cohort approaches their work with a level of awareness and adaptability that surpasses even his early career experiences.
The Foundation’s recently released annual review outlines its expanding initiatives, educational programs, and ongoing commitment to supporting visual journalism in regions impacted by war and repression. Accompanying this is a fundraising brief for those interested in supporting its mission. These documents underscore how the VII Foundation continues to build spaces for training, collaboration, and critical reflection in a time when responsible reporting is more important than ever.
Supporters and friends are encouraged to share the foundation’s latest materials across their networks and are warmly invited to visit and witness the ongoing work firsthand.
New Study by Dr. Turhan Canli and Mark Cameron Highlights Civilian Trauma in Syrian Warzone
After five years of dedicated research and collaboration, a landmark scientific paper documenting trauma in civilians living through the Syrian conflict has finally been published. The study, initiated during a Harvard certification course on refugee trauma, represents a partnership between Dr. Turhan Canli, Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at Stony Brook University, and Mark Cameron, a Canadian co-founder of an international medical NGO working in Syria.
The NGO collected self-reported trauma data from civilians inside an active warzone—an effort rarely attempted due to safety and logistical challenges. Dr. Canli led the data analysis and academic write-up, resulting in a peer-reviewed publication that went live just 48 hours ago and has already surpassed 400 reads—an unusually high number in the academic sphere.
The research offers a critical foundation for understanding mental health needs in conflict zones and is already helping catalyze new conversations on how to design effective PTSD interventions in similar settings. Follow-up projects are now being planned in Ukraine, Yemen, Sudan, and Gaza.
As part of these next steps, Dr. Canli and his team are actively seeking support—both in terms of fundraising and field expertise. They are particularly interested in identifying mental health practitioners who can assist in data collection efforts in Gaza, where the psychological toll of war is mounting and under-documented.
This project serves as a vital reminder that amidst destruction, efforts to preserve and restore mental health remain both possible and necessary.
For more about Dr. Canli’s work, visit Stony Brook University Faculty Page.
Oslo Freedom Forum Talks
The Oslo Freedom Forum, an annual event hosted by the Human Rights Foundation since 2009, features a wide range of global speakers—dissidents, activists, journalists, technologists, artists, and former heads of state—sharing firsthand accounts from regions experiencing repression. This year’s talks, available on the OFF website, cover urgent issues of democracy, free expression, and digital resilience.
Notable recent presentations include “A Daring Escape Across the Ocean” by Kim Yumi, the story of maritime flight to freedom; “Mozambique’s People’s President”, in conversation with Venâncio Mondlane; “No Retreat, No Surrender” by Maria Sarungi Tsehai; and a panel featuring Pavel Durov in discussion with Thor Halvorssen. Each talk underscores the human experience behind headlines—whether fleeing authoritarian regimes, challenging oppressive governments, or harnessing technology for free speech.
The forum explores not only personal narratives but also themes like digital surveillance, open-source movements, and human-rights advocacy in closed societies. OFF’s programming structure blends rapid-fire TED-style presentations with targeted panels and workshops to foster collaboration and innovation.
Viewers can access complete OFF talk archives—including recent sessions on topics such as sanctions debates, conflict resolution, and digital freedom—via the official OFF website and YouTube channel . The availability of these resources enables global audiences to engage with frontline perspectives on pressing issues like Gaza, Nicaragua, Cambodia, and the digital free-speech crackdown in Uganda.
Explore the Oslo Freedom Forum’s collection of inspirational talks featuring global leaders, activists, and change makers here: https://oslofreedomforum.com/alltalks/
Revisiting Media Narratives in Conflict: Bette Dam on Afghanistan and Beyond
A new podcast episode revisits the Western media’s coverage of the war in Afghanistan, offering insights into how conflict narratives are shaped and often distorted. As global tensions rise following U.S. missile strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, the discussion serves as a timely reflection on past reporting failures and their ongoing implications.
Guest Bette Dam, a Dutch journalist who spent 15 years reporting from Afghanistan, began her career in 2006 embedded with the Dutch military. Over time, she observed a consistent omission of Afghan civilian perspectives in Western media coverage, resulting in a portrayal of Afghanistan as uniformly violent and unstable. One of the most critical oversights, Dam argues, was the media’s failure to report that the Taliban attempted to surrender as early as December 2001.
In 2024, Dam completed a PhD at the Vrije Universiteit in Brussels focusing on the role of Western media in conflict coverage. In 2025, she launched UNHEARD, a research initiative supported by the Tow Center at Columbia University. The project uses artificial intelligence to examine who is quoted in conflict reporting, aiming to surface narratives that are often overlooked or excluded. Dam is also the author of Looking for the Enemy: Mullah Omar and the Unknown Taliban and A Man in a Motorcycle: How Hamid Karzai Came to Power.
The podcast is part of an ongoing series featuring journalists and peacebuilders working across a range of global contexts—from negotiations in Colombia and anti-violence efforts in Chicago to women’s rights activism during the Syrian civil war. The series emphasizes the importance of understanding conflict through grounded, human-centered storytelling.
Listeners are encouraged to explore the episode and support the podcast’s independent journalism through tax-deductible contributions.