RevDem Podcast

In this episode of the Review of Democracy podcast, Alexandra Medzibrodszky interviews Samuel Hirst on his new book, Against the Liberal Order, the Soviet Union, Turkey and Statist Internationalism from 1919 to 1939. The book examines the collaboration between early Republican Turkey and the Soviet Union during the interwar period, exploring the diplomatic, economic, cultural and international dimensions of their relationship. Hirst highlights how both Bolsheviks and Kemalists shared a strong opposition to the Western-led liberal order, positioning themselves as key challengers to it after the First World War. The partnership was marked by anti-imperialist rhetoric and state-led exchanges, including Soviet support for Turkey’s industrialization efforts. Hirst argues that, despite ideological differences, the relationship evolved into a statist alternative to liberal internationalism—a dynamic often overlooked in historical accounts. Hirst’s work provides a case study of how peripheral states and societies navigated the interwar liberal order, enriching our understanding of competing internationalisms. The Turkish-Soviet relationship exemplifies cooperation in areas like economy, industry and disarmament, demonstrating both nations’ commitment to bilateralism and rejection of the Paris order. Both countries viewed foreign investment as a threat to sovereignty and political independence, reflecting a complex relationship with the West. For Turkey and the Soviet Union alike, Western engagement offered opportunities for modernization and economic development but was tempered by concerns over external influence infringing upon their autonomy. The history of Soviet-Turkish relations in the interwar period serves as a compelling case within the broader international history of competing internationalisms. The shared commitment of the Bolsheviks and the Kemalists to statist internationalism underscores the variety of international relations frameworks that emerged in response to Western dominance. Today, as alternative models of governance and international relations gain attention once again, the Soviet-Turkish experience offers valuable insights into how states have historically navigated and contested global orders.

In June 2024, Martijn van den Brink’s monograph, Legislative Authority and Interpretation in the European Union was published by Oxford University Press. The book tackles deep conceptual issues about the EU legal order, and yet its insights are also relevant for some of the most pressing practical issues facing Europe today. Martijn van den Brink is an Assistant Professor of EU law at Maastricht University, and he has previously held positions at the Hertie School of Governance in Berlin, the University of Oxford, and the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity in Göttingen.

The European Commission published its fifth annual Rule of Law Report in July 2024. In this RevDem Rule of Law podcast Oliver Garner discusses the effectiveness of this mechanism for upholding the EU's values with Professor Petra Bárd and Professor Laurent Pech. They have collaborated with the CEU Democracy Institute's rule of law clinic to produce a shadow report that will turn the lens back on the EU itself.

In this conversation with M. V. Ramana, we delve into one of the most pressing issues of our time: the climate crisis. In response to this crisis, various solutions have been proposed, with nuclear energy emerging as one of the most prominent. After more than a decade of caution following the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, a global consensus has gradually formed around nuclear power as a viable and efficient solution to meet energy demands. Advocates argue that nuclear energy can not only complement fossil fuels but also fulfill the growing energy needs of the world.   However, these arguments often prioritize the energy requirements of developed countries, overlooking the high costs, significant risks, and the lengthy timeline needed to build the necessary infrastructure for nuclear energy optimization. Moreover, the current push for nuclear energy sidesteps democratic considerations, with decisions skewed by a technocratic and bureaucratic approach to energy regulation.   Professor M. V. Ramana critically examines the often-misleading optimism surrounding nuclear energy and highlights how this industry's resurgence signals a return to a techno-bureaucratic model of governance.

The Georgian Dream movement came to power over a decade ago. It initially claimed to want to uphold the European integration policies of its predecessor but has slowly moved towards a more sovereign discourse. Over time, Georgian Dream has increasingly fueled affective political polarization, and now accuses its pro-European critics of wanting to drag Georgia into a war with Russia. It has furthermore vehemently defended adopting controversial anti-democratic legislation such as the so called ‘foreign agents’ law.In this latest episode of the Review of Democracy podcast, Lia Tsuladze discusses how Georgian Dream’s discourse and actions have evolved over the years to hollow out Georgia’s fragile democracy, and how this is now impacting the current electoral environment. She talks about the role of CSOs and the media, as well as her hopes for the future.

In this conversation at the Review of Democracy, Diana Dumitru – co-editor, with Dirk Moses, of the new collection The Russian Invasion of Ukraine. Victims, Perpetrators, Justice, and the Question of Genocide – discusses the motives of various Russian perpetrators in Ukraine and how those motives might have evolved over time; shows how useful the concept of genocide proves when studying the multifaceted violence unleashed during Russia’s war of aggression; reflects on whether the current debates around genocide in Ukraine might reshape or expanding our understanding of genocide and mass violence; and addresses the challenges in pursuing accountability for Russian crimes.

Russia’s aggression against Ukraine has been ongoing for 10 years. It started with the occupation of Crimea and parts of the Donbas in 2014 and culminated in the full-scale invasion in 2022. Various domestic and international justice initiatives to ensure accountability for war crimes and other conflict related violations have been unfolding since 2014. However, 2022 marked the start of a new important debate. How can Russia be held accountable for the underlying crime of aggression? In this RevDem Rule of Law podcast Oliver Garner discusses the proposal for a special tribunal to address Russia's crime of aggression in Ukraine with Kateryna Busol.

In this conversation at the Review of Democracy, Jo Guldi explores the relationship between data sciences and the humanities; shows how the struggle for occupancy rights can help us reconsider global history; explains how her new project approaches climate change; and discusses the type of scholarship she finds most inspiring.

In our new podcast, Roland Freudenstein, Director of the Free Russia Foundation Brussels, and Founder and Executive Officer of the Brussels Freedom Hub discusses Russia’s geopolitical ambitions, how the war in Ukraine may end, and the potentials for a regime change in Moscow; reflects on democratic backsliding in EU Member States; and shares his thoughts about autocrats and how societies can be more resilient against authoritarianism.

In this conversation at the Review of Democracy, Benedek Jávor – Head of the Representation of Budapest to the European Union – discusses his current role and the evolving relationship between the European Union, the city of Budapest, and the Hungarian government; reflects on the green transition and critiques Hungary’s current energy policies; and pleads for talking responsibility locally.