The Eurasian Knot
- Episodes
- 384
- Released
- weekly
- Latest episode
- Nov 11, 2026
About the podcast
To many, Russia, and the wider Eurasia, is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma. But it doesn’t have to be. The Eurasian Knot dispels the stereotypes and myths about the region with lively and informative interviews on Eurasia’s complex past, present, and future. New episodes drop weekly with an eclectic mix of topics from punk rock to Putin, and everything in-between. Subscribe on your favorite podcasts app, grab your headphones, hit play, and tune in. Eurasia will never appear the same.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Episodes 384
Russia's Familial Colonialism
Colonialism comes with many ideological justifications. Like, the desire to “civilize” the “backward” native. To more efficiently extract and utilize natural resources. Because of racial superiority or …
Show notes
Colonialism comes with many ideological justifications. Like, the desire to “civilize” the “backward” native. To more efficiently extract and utilize natural resources. Because of racial superiority or religious mission. Or simply to settle “empty” and “unused” land. Russia, according to Galina Bogatova, casts its colonialism in familial terms. So, the various peoples within the former Russian empire are one big family where ethnic Russians serve as patriarchs. Like any good father, Russia is supportive, nurturing, and protective. But sometimes a father must discipline his family for stepping out of line. Like when Ukraine wants to abandon the family for another (the EU, West, etc) For Russia, this is the ultimate betrayal. Or how peoples in the Caucasus are like a wild mistress–both a subject of exotic desire but also abuse. I was skeptical of this conflation of family with colonialism until Galina Bogatova's book, Casting War as Love: Russian Colonialism in Familial Terms. She shows how concepts of the family saturate Russia’s colonial discourse. Where does this rhetoric come from? Why family? And how does the rhetoric of Russian imperialism compare with its Western peers? The Eurasian Knot spoke to Bogatova to learn just how Russia lords over its imagined regional family.
Guest:
Galina Bogatova is a Professor of Political Science at Butte College and a visiting scholar at New York University. She is the author of Casting War as Love: Russian Colonialism in Familial Terms published by Palgrave Macmillan.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
The Shandeans of the Soviet Union
"I wrote not to be fed but to be famous." This is one of the many, many humorous and whimsical sayings attributed to the writer Laurence Sterne. This Anglican cleric became a sensation in mid-18th century …
Show notes
"I wrote not to be fed but to be famous." This is one of the many, many humorous and whimsical sayings attributed to the writer Laurence Sterne. This Anglican cleric became a sensation in mid-18th century Britain after publishing his irreverent, stream-of-consciousness novel, The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman. Shandy was translated throughout Europe, eventually landing in the Russian empire. Sterne’s fandom continues there to this day. I knew nothing about Laurence Stearne. Then, I learned of Peter Burin’s book on the author’s reception in the Soviet Union. What did Soviet readers see in Sterne’s work? How did they relate to it, even for it to serve as a sort of lifestyle guide? And how did a sentimentalist author like Sterne square within an increasingly ideologically orthodox Stalinist society? The Eurasian Knot spoke to Budrin about Sterne in the USSR to learn more.
Guest:
Peter Budrin is a Leverhulme Early Career Fellow at Queen Mary University of London. He’s the author of Laurence Sterne and his Readers in Early Soviet Russia: The Secret Order of Shandeans published by Oxford University Press.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Dumplings!
They go by many names. Xiao mai. Samosa. Momo. Mani. Pelmeni. Vareniki. Khinkali. That’s right, dumplings! That delicious meat-wrapped-in-dough dish! The dumpling is one of the most transhistorical foods on the …
Show notes
They go by many names. Xiao mai. Samosa. Momo. Mani. Pelmeni. Vareniki. Khinkali. That’s right, dumplings! That delicious meat-wrapped-in-dough dish! The dumpling is one of the most transhistorical foods on the planet. Almost every culture has its own taste, shape and tradition. It’s a source of pride and pudge. The dumpling is a favorite of the anthropologist, Helen Faller. She’s embarked on a personal and cultural journey with the dumpling in Central Asia. How are they made? And why are they so damn difficult? Who does the labor? What kinds of community do dumplings create? The Eurasian Knot spoke to Faller about her love of the dumpling and its place in Kazakhstan family and society. And, of course, we talk about how yummy they are. Start drooling, dear listeners.
Guest:
Helen Faller is an anthropologist with expertise in Russia and Central Asia. She’s the author of Nation, Language, Islam: Tatarstan’s Sovereignty Movement published by Central European University Press. She’s now working on a book about the social and cultural life of the dumpling in Central Asia.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Marriage and Family in Chechnya
The history of Chechens, or Nokhchi, is defined by war, occupation, and ethnic cleansing. Yet despite these repeated traumas, the Nokhchi have persisted, resisted and survived. But how? Chechens comprise such a …
Show notes
The history of Chechens, or Nokhchi, is defined by war, occupation, and ethnic cleansing. Yet despite these repeated traumas, the Nokhchi have persisted, resisted and survived. But how? Chechens comprise such a relatively small population, almost 2 million today. This is the question Marat Iliyasov asked himself as he entered adulthood. Given this history of violence, and uncertain future, what has inspired Chechens to continue getting married and raising families? Marat set out to find answers, which eventually became a book, Reproducing Resistance: Chechen Demography in Times of War. Chechen survival, he argues, was the result of the collective identities born from their traumatic history. Knowing little about Chechnya, the Eurasian Knot spoke to Marat about his book, how he dealt with questions of marriage, family and sex, and Nokhchi identity in Chechnya and in the Chechen diaspora.
Guest:
Marat Iliyasov is a Visiting Assistant Professor at the College of the Holy Cross. He’s the author of Reproducing Resistance: Chechen Demography in Times of War published by Bloomsbury.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
A Novel of Modern Russia
Maya, the heroine of Svetlana Satchkova’s The Undead: A Novel of Modern Russia, is an aspiring Russian filmmaker. And after fits and starts she finally gets a break when the producer Belov greenlights her …
Show notes
Maya, the heroine of Svetlana Satchkova’s The Undead: A Novel of Modern Russia, is an aspiring Russian filmmaker. And after fits and starts she finally gets a break when the producer Belov greenlights her project. Maya’s film is an art-house horror flick about a resurrected Lenin who seeks to take control of Moscow with an army of zombies at his back. Maya has no political intent with the movie. To her, it’s just a horror film. She’s also naive to what Russia has become. All art is politically infused. The artist’s intent is meaningless. Maya is eventually denounced to the authorities, who, in turn, see zombie Lenin as a political satire of Putin’s Russia. To her shock and distress, Maya’s life is quickly turned upside down. The plot of The Undead unfortunately has a long tradition. Think of Lydia Chukovskaya’s Sofia Petrovna or Milan Kundera's The Joke. It’s when ordinary, innocent people get sucked into the oppressive machine of the state. The Eurasian Knot spoke to Satchkova about The Undead, her English debut, and how Maya’s fate speaks not just to the realities of artists and art in Russia, but also, to art in other authoritarian states past and present. It’s a tale of shifting political sands, the meaning of collaboration, and how the system grinds up even the most unassuming people.
Guest:
Svetlana Satchkova is a Russian-born journalist and novelist. She’s the author of three novels in Russian. Her latest novel is The Undead: A Novel of Modern Russia, her English-language debut, published by Melville House.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Latvian Soldiers in WWII
World War II casts a long, dark shadow over eastern Europe. Especially in those nations caught between the Wehrmacht and Red Army. Some locals joined the Nazis, others served in the Red Army, and some others …
Show notes
World War II casts a long, dark shadow over eastern Europe. Especially in those nations caught between the Wehrmacht and Red Army. Some locals joined the Nazis, others served in the Red Army, and some others fought against both. Many more simply fled or hunkered down hoping just to survive. Regardless, the memory of the war doesn’t tolerate nuance. If you fought, you were either on the Nazi or Soviet side, even if the goal was to liberate yourself. Reality was much more complicated, says Harry Merritt in Latvian Soldiers of World War II: Fighting for the Homeland in Nazi and Soviet Service. Both Soviet and Nazis created special Latvian regiments to fight for their side. Why? What did it mean to Latvian in the service of the occupiers? And how does the experience of these Latvian soldiers complicate the war, its meaning, and memory then and now? The Eurasian Knot hasn’t given the Baltics its due, so we jumped at the opportunity to talk to Harry Merritt to learn more about this complex and controversial aspect of war on the eastern front.
Guest:
Harry C. Merritt teaches in the Department of History at Rhode Island College. He’s the author of Latvian Soldiers of World War II: Fighting for the Homeland in Nazi and Soviet Service published by Oxford University Press.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Los Rusos
An overlooked destination for thousands immigrating out of the Russian Empire and Soviet Union was Mexico. The reasons were many. Jews fled anti-semitic violence. Religious groups like the Molokans left because …
Show notes
An overlooked destination for thousands immigrating out of the Russian Empire and Soviet Union was Mexico. The reasons were many. Jews fled anti-semitic violence. Religious groups like the Molokans left because of persecution. Many more left in the wake of war, revolution, famine, and political repression. Regardless, Mexico was a viable alternative with the US borders closed to immigration in the interwar period. Collectively known as Los Rusos, these “Russians” built new lives, integrated into Mexican society, or eventually ended up in Los Angeles with the help of some dubious “ethnopolitical entrepreneurs.” Who were the Los Rusos? What was their immigrant experience like? How did the weather during the years of anti-communist hysteria, spy mania, and xenophobia? And why has Mexico eluded our attention as a destination for refugees from the Russian empire? The Eurasian Knot spoke to Andrew Jenks about his new book, Los Rusos: The Russian Departure to Mexico and Southern California, 1900-1965, to learn more.
Guest:
Andrew Jenks is a professor of history at California State University Long Beach. He has published books on the history of space exploration, folk art, the environment, and migration. He’s the author of Los Rusos: The Russian Departure to Mexico and Southern California, 1900–1965 published by Cornell University Press.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
The Origins of the Ukraine War
When did Putin decide to invade Ukraine? Was it shortly after 2012 when he returned as President? In 2014, after the seizure of Crimea and clashes in the Donbas? Or was it when Russian forces began massing at …
Show notes
When did Putin decide to invade Ukraine? Was it shortly after 2012 when he returned as President? In 2014, after the seizure of Crimea and clashes in the Donbas? Or was it when Russian forces began massing at the Ukraine-Russia-Belarus borders for a full-scale assault? The answer to when, Michael Kimmage says, is important because that would tell us what drove Putin and what might be necessary to bring a diplomatic solution. The Ukraine War has been raging longer than WWI and WWII with no end in sight. And Kimmage argues that the global context and ramifications need analysis. The Ukraine War is the most documented war in history and we might not have all the information to answer “why?” for years, maybe decades. Kimmage recently gave a talk at the University of Michigan's Center for Russian, East European, & Eurasian Studies on the origins of the Ukraine War, and Rusana, the Eurasian Knot’s Midwest correspondent, sat down with him for a wide ranging interview.
In the interview, Rusana and Michael discussed the Kennan Institute’s project on the origins of the Ukraine war. You can watch the available videos here. Also, check out the Kennan’s Dispatches for reports from Ukraine.
Guest:
Michael Kimmage is the Director of Kennan Institute. He’s also a professor of history at the Catholic University of America. He publishes widely on international affairs and on U.S. policy toward Russia. His latest book is Collisions: The War in Ukraine and the Origins of the New Global Instability published by Oxford University Press.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
The Soviet Death Penalty
The fact that the USSR executed its citizens with little jurisprudence is well known. The word “troika” is synonymous with Stalinist repressions of the 1930s. What is less known is that the Soviet Union’s death …
Show notes
The fact that the USSR executed its citizens with little jurisprudence is well known. The word “troika” is synonymous with Stalinist repressions of the 1930s. What is less known is that the Soviet Union’s death penalty regime changed significantly in the postwar period. After a brief moratorium adopted by Stalin(!) in 1947, Khrushchev revived capital punishment in 1954 as part of his war on crime. Homicide became a capital offense. The application of the death penalty became professionalized with lawyers, forensics, psychologists, and an appeals process. The narrative of appeals for clemency also changed. Whereas those from the prewar generation often cited a convict’s service to the Soviet state, supplicants after the 1960s portrayed themselves as abandoned by the welfare state. In Fate in My Hands, Yana Skorobogatov looked at about a hundred of these death penalty cases and clemency appeals from 1954-1991 to understand this new regime. What were the circumstances of the crimes and their adjudication? How did those on death row make their appeals? And how did the Soviet system correspond with the death penalty in, say, the United States? Knowing nothing about the Soviet death penalty, the Eurasian Knot spoke to Skorobogatov about her book, Fate in My Hand: The Death Penalty in the Soviet Union, and what it means for the postwar USSR and for us as the death penalty once again appears on the political agenda.
Guest:
Yana Skorobogatov is the Gladys and Roland Harriman Assistant Professor of Russian and Soviet History in the Department of History at Columbia University. She’s the author of Fate in My Hands: The Death Penalty in the Soviet Union published by the University of Chicago Press.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Soviet Protestants
We tend to think of the 1990s when it comes to Protestantism in Russia. It was then that evangelicals descended on Russia to shine Jesus’ light into the post-Soviet void. Yet, the Soviet Union, despite its best …
Show notes
We tend to think of the 1990s when it comes to Protestantism in Russia. It was then that evangelicals descended on Russia to shine Jesus’ light into the post-Soviet void. Yet, the Soviet Union, despite its best efforts, was a multiconfessional state. And though officially atheist, religious belief persisted, including among the Union’s small pockets of Protestants. Like with other faiths, the state’s relations with Protestants vacillated between repression, accommodation, and control. As Miriam Dobson says in her new book, The Unorthodox, things shifted after Stalin’s death. By the 1960s, regulating religious life fell under the purview of the Council of Religious Affairs. Sure, the state still emphasized atheism, closed churches, and prosecuted Protestants. But its methods were more surgical and the Council relied more on policing the margins over mass repression. So what was life like for the USSR’s Protestant minority? How did they practice their faith and maintain community despite pressures of family, society, and the state? And how did all of this connect to the larger Cold War context where the USSR’s archenemy was a Protestant majority country? The Eurasian Knot talked to Miriam about The Unorthodox to learn more about Protestant faith and community during the Cold War.
Guest:
Miriam Dobson is a Reader in Modern History at the University of Sheffield. She is the author of Khrushchev's Cold Summer: Gulag Returnees, Crime, and the Fate of Reform after Stalin and The Unorthodox: Soviet Protestants in Cold-War Ukraine and Russia published by Cornell University Press.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Thresholds Part 7: Olga
Over the last century, tens of millions of people quit Eastern Europe for the United States. The push-pull factors were many—war, poverty, instability, persecution at home and opportunity, refuge, and liberty …
Show notes
Over the last century, tens of millions of people quit Eastern Europe for the United States. The push-pull factors were many—war, poverty, instability, persecution at home and opportunity, refuge, and liberty abroad. But manna didn’t simply fall from the sky in America. Immigrants from Eastern Europe confronted many of the same challenges migrants do everywhere—exploitation, hardship, and discrimination.
Thresholds is a REEES podcast series that will grapple with these histories through interviews with scholars and immigrants’ personal profiles. What pushed them to leave? What did they discover when they arrived? How did they change and be changed by American society? What opportunities and challenges did they face to become “American”? And what can we learn about immigration today?
Guest:
Olga immigrated to the United States from Moscow, Russia in 1990 as a child. She’s a high school teacher and lives in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Thresholds Part 6: Yelena
Over the last century, tens of millions of people quit Eastern Europe for the United States. The push-pull factors were many—war, poverty, instability, persecution at home and opportunity, refuge, and liberty …
Show notes
Over the last century, tens of millions of people quit Eastern Europe for the United States. The push-pull factors were many—war, poverty, instability, persecution at home and opportunity, refuge, and liberty abroad. But manna didn’t simply fall from the sky in America. Immigrants from Eastern Europe confronted many of the same challenges migrants do everywhere—exploitation, hardship, and discrimination.
Thresholds is a REEES podcast series that will grapple with these histories through interviews with scholars and immigrants’ personal profiles. What pushed them to leave? What did they discover when they arrived? How did they change and be changed by American society? What opportunities and challenges did they face to become “American”? And what can we learn about immigration today?
Guest:
Yelena immigrated to the United States in 1979 as part of the wave of Soviet Jewish emigration. She’s a retired engineer and lives in Reading, Pennsylvania.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Thresholds Part 5: Julia
Over the last century, tens of millions of people quit Eastern Europe for the United States. The push-pull factors were many—war, poverty, instability, persecution at home and opportunity, refuge, and liberty …
Show notes
Over the last century, tens of millions of people quit Eastern Europe for the United States. The push-pull factors were many—war, poverty, instability, persecution at home and opportunity, refuge, and liberty abroad. But manna didn’t simply fall from the sky in America. Immigrants from Eastern Europe confronted many of the same challenges migrants do everywhere—exploitation, hardship, and discrimination.
Thresholds is a REEES podcast series that will grapple with these histories through interviews with scholars and immigrants’ personal profiles. What pushed them to leave? What did they discover when they arrived? How did they change and be changed by American society? What opportunities and challenges did they face to become “American”? And what can we learn about immigration today?
Guest:
Julia Alekseyeva immigrated to United States from Kyiv, Ukraine, in 1992. She’s Assistant Professor of English and Cinema and Media Studies at the University of Pennsylvania. She’s the author of Soviet Daughter: A Graphic Revolution and Antifascism and the Avant-Garde: Radical Documentary in the 1960s and Antifascism and the Avant-Garde: Radical Documentary in the 1960s.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Thresholds Part 4: New Immigrants
Over the last century, tens of millions of people quit Eastern Europe for the United States. The push-pull factors were many—war, poverty, instability, persecution at home and opportunity, refuge, and liberty …
Show notes
Over the last century, tens of millions of people quit Eastern Europe for the United States. The push-pull factors were many—war, poverty, instability, persecution at home and opportunity, refuge, and liberty abroad. But manna didn’t simply fall from the sky in America. Immigrants from Eastern Europe confronted many of the same challenges migrants do everywhere—exploitation, hardship, and discrimination.
Thresholds is a REEES podcast series that will grapple with these histories through interviews with scholars and immigrants’ personal profiles. What pushed them to leave? What did they discover when they arrived? How did they change and be changed by American society? What opportunities and challenges did they face to become “American”? And what can we learn about immigration today?
Guest:
Claudia Sadowski-Smith is Professor of English at Arizona State University. She is the author of The New Immigrant Whiteness: Race, Neoliberalism, and Post-Soviet Migration to the United States published by NYU Press.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Thresholds Part 3: Russians in San Francisco
Over the last century, tens of millions of people quit Eastern Europe for the United States. The push-pull factors were many—war, poverty, instability, persecution at home and opportunity, refuge, and liberty …
Show notes
Over the last century, tens of millions of people quit Eastern Europe for the United States. The push-pull factors were many—war, poverty, instability, persecution at home and opportunity, refuge, and liberty abroad. But manna didn’t simply fall from the sky in America. Immigrants from Eastern Europe confronted many of the same challenges migrants do everywhere—exploitation, hardship, and discrimination.
Thresholds is a REEES podcast series that will grapple with these histories through interviews with scholars and immigrants’ personal profiles. What pushed them to leave? What did they discover when they arrived? How did they change and be changed by American society? What opportunities and challenges did they face to become “American”? And what can we learn about immigration today?
Guest:
Nina Bogdan is a historian and cultural preservationist. She recently authored the “Russian American Historic Context Statement” for the San Francisco City Planning Department as part of the Citywide Cultural Resources Survey. She’s the author of Before We Disappear into Oblivion: San Francisco’s Russian Diaspora from Revolution to Cold War published by McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Thresholds Part 2: Becoming White
Over the last century, tens of millions of people quit Eastern Europe for the United States. The push-pull factors were many—war, poverty, instability, persecution at home and opportunity, refuge, and liberty …
Show notes
Over the last century, tens of millions of people quit Eastern Europe for the United States. The push-pull factors were many—war, poverty, instability, persecution at home and opportunity, refuge, and liberty abroad. But manna didn’t simply fall from the sky in America. Immigrants from Eastern Europe confronted many of the same challenges migrants do everywhere—exploitation, hardship, and discrimination.
Thresholds is a REEES podcast series that will grapple with these histories through interviews with scholars and immigrants’ personal profiles. What pushed them to leave? What did they discover when they arrived? How did they change and be changed by American society? What opportunities and challenges did they face to become “American”? And what can we learn about immigration today?
Guest:
David Roediger is the Foundation Distinguished Professor of American Studies and History at the University of Kansas. He is the author of Working Toward Whiteness: How America's Immigrants Became White: The Strange Journey from Ellis Island to the Suburbs published by Basic Books.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Thresholds Part 1: Leaving the Old Country
Over the last century, tens of millions of people quit Eastern Europe for the United States. The push-pull factors were many—war, poverty, instability, persecution at home and opportunity, refuge, and liberty …
Show notes
Over the last century, tens of millions of people quit Eastern Europe for the United States. The push-pull factors were many—war, poverty, instability, persecution at home and opportunity, refuge, and liberty abroad. But manna didn’t simply fall from the sky in America. Immigrants from Eastern Europe confronted many of the same challenges migrants do everywhere—exploitation, hardship, and discrimination.
Thresholds is a REEES podcast series that will grapple with these histories through interviews with scholars and immigrants’ personal profiles. What pushed them to leave? What did they discover when they arrived? How did they change and be changed by American society? What opportunities and challenges did they face to become “American”? And what can we learn about immigration today?
Guest:
Tara Zahra is the Hanna Holborn Gray Professor of East European History at the University of Chicago. She’s the author of The Great Departure: Mass Migration and the Making of the Free World published by W. W. Norton & Company.
Thresholds was edited and produced by Jojo Ellis and Sean Guillory.
Music by Blue Dot Sessions.
Theme song: "Immigration Rose" by James Doherty, 1924.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
The Rise and Fall of the Georgian Democratic Republic
The Georgian Democratic Republic lasted a mere three years, from 1918-1921. And though it was viewed as an oddity at the time, many European social democrats marveled at its possibilities. Here was a state …
Show notes
The Georgian Democratic Republic lasted a mere three years, from 1918-1921. And though it was viewed as an oddity at the time, many European social democrats marveled at its possibilities. Here was a state committed to social democracy in a mostly backward peasant and multiethnic country. What promises did it hold for the future? Unfortunately, the world never learned because the Bolsheviks crushed it in 1921 and proceeded to sovietize Georgia. The republic was denounced as counter revolutionary and its memory faded as its founders died in exile. So what was this brief experiment in social democracy in the south Caucasus? What were its political positions and aspirations? What does it say about the history of the Russian Revolution? How and why did it fall after only three years? Stephen Jones has been researching these questions for over 40 years, and that has culminated in his opus The First Social Democracy: The Democratic Republic of Georgia, 1918-1921. The Eurasian Knot spoke to Jones about his highly anticipated book to learn more about this historical “oddity” and how it might speak to us today.
Guest:
Stephen Jones is Professor of Georgian Modern History at Ilia State University in Georgia. His books include Socialism in Georgian Colors: The European Road to Social Democracy, 1883-1917 and Georgia: A Political History Since Independence. His latest book is The First Social Democracy: The Democratic Republic of Georgia, 1918-1921 published by Harvard University Press.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
The Man Who Knew Russia
Everyone has an opinion about the late Russian historian Richard Pipes. Some loved him. Many hated him. He was a conservative and anti-communist. A hardliner on American policy toward the Soviet Union. Some …
Show notes
Everyone has an opinion about the late Russian historian Richard Pipes. Some loved him. Many hated him. He was a conservative and anti-communist. A hardliner on American policy toward the Soviet Union. Some would even say he was a Russophobe and cultural essentialist. But Pipes was a far more complicated figure. A Polish Jew whose family fled before the Nazis arrived, Pipes possessed a strong moral center that stood at the heart of his rejection of the USSR. He eventually applied his vision to his work as a Russian historian at Harvard. Pipes was also at the ground floor of a new academic discipline. He studied under Michael Karpovich, the founder of Russian studies in the US, and was part of a grad cohort that included Russian history Brahmins Leopold Haimson, Marc Raeff, Martian Malia, and Nicholas Raisonovsky. All these men would staff history departments at Berkeley, Harvard, and Columbia, and train a generation of scholars. Pipes knew his stuff, and eventually applied his knowledge in public debate and advice to the Reagan Administration. Pipes was a man of the 20th century, and in my opinion, one of the last serious intellectual conservatives. So who was he? How did he “know” Russia? And in what ways does his historical analysis of Russia, which spanned centuries, echo today? The Eurasian Knot spoke to Jonathan Daly, a former Pipes student, about his new biography of Pipes, The Man Who Knew Russia, and what drove this self-identified perennial outsider.
Also, check out my article “Richard Pipes, the Historian as Essentialist” published in Jacobin in 2018.
Guest:
Jonathan Daly teaches Russian, European, and world history at the University of Illinois Chicago. He’s the author of several books, most recently he edited Pillars of the Profession: The Correspondence of Richard Pipes and Marc Raeff and wrote The Man Who Knew Russia: Richard Pipes, Humanist and Cold Warrior published by Stanford University Press.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Reporting Russia's Descent
Marc Bennets has been reporting from Russia for over two decades. He’s covered Putin’s rise and consolidation of power, assassinations of oppositionists, mass protests, daily life, and even Russian football …
Show notes
Marc Bennets has been reporting from Russia for over two decades. He’s covered Putin’s rise and consolidation of power, assassinations of oppositionists, mass protests, daily life, and even Russian football. It’s a storied career filled with zipping back and forth between Moscow and its regions. Marc also planted roots. He got married and became a dad. But then everything changed in February 2022 with Russia’s full invasion of Ukraine. Should he stay and keep reporting and risk arrest or worse? Or should he pick up his life and family and leave like so many of his colleagues? Marc finally settled on the latter when word came he might be arrested. Now he focuses most of his reporting on the war and Ukraine. How did this all happen? How did Russia descend into madness? Marc’s new book looks to answer that question with personal fire and passion. Is Russia really saturated with Putin? Is there any way back? It’s been a decade since the Eurasian Knot spoke with Marc. So, we caught up and discussed his new book, The Descent: Witnessing Russia's Spiral Into Madness Under Putin, and how the war has irrevocably changed his life, profession, and Russia itself.
Guest:
Marc Bennetts spent 25 years as a foreign correspondent for The Times and The Sunday Times in Russia. He left in May 2022, after the start of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. He has since made over a dozen reporting trips to Ukraine. He’s the author of The Descent: Witnessing Russia's Spiral Into Madness Under Putin published by Bloomsbury.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Boris Nemtsov
On the night of 27 February 2015, assassins gunned down Boris Nemtsov as he crossed the Bolshoi Moskvoretskii Bridge. Shock quickly spread throughout Russia, particularly among its political opposition. Not …
Show notes
On the night of 27 February 2015, assassins gunned down Boris Nemtsov as he crossed the Bolshoi Moskvoretskii Bridge. Shock quickly spread throughout Russia, particularly among its political opposition. Not because Nemtsov was so brazenly gunned down. Such are the risks of being politically active in Putin’s Russia. Nemtsov had been a fixture in the movement since its earliest days, and in many ways one of its founders. That such an internationally well-connected figure could be wiped out in central Moscow signaled a grim turning point. Hindsight has proven this correct. A decade later, Russia is a very different place. But it always wasn’t like that. In the 1990s, Nemtsov was a young liberal darling, the charismatic hope to succeed Boris Yeltsin. That didn’t happen, as we all know. And another, totally different figure became President. As Mikhail Fishman writes in his political biography, The Successor: Boris Nemtsov, Vladimir Putin, and the Decline of Modern Russia, Nemtsov’s life and death had a profound influence on the political consciousness of his generation and nascent Russian liberalism. Who was Boris Nemtsov? How did he rise so quickly to political prominence in the 1990s only to be politically marginalized in the 2000s? Why was he murdered and who murdered him? The Eurasian Knot spoke to Fishman about Nemtsov, his life, and how it reflected Russia’s post-Soviet political development.
Guest:
Mikhail Fishman is one of Russia’s leading independent journalists, liberal thinkers, and political commentators. He’s the author of The Successor: Boris Nemtsov, Vladimir Putin, and the Decline of Modern Russia published by Penguin.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
The Last Soviet Artist
I met the graphic artist, Victoria Lomasko, about 10 years ago when she was a resident at the City of Asylum in Pittsburgh. I emceed an event with her back then. So I was happy when Victoria recently returned …
Show notes
I met the graphic artist, Victoria Lomasko, about 10 years ago when she was a resident at the City of Asylum in Pittsburgh. I emceed an event with her back then. So I was happy when Victoria recently returned to the city to give a few talks at the University of Pittsburgh. Of course, the Eurasian Knot dragged her into a studio for an interview. A lot has changed for Victoria over the decade. Her graphic novel, Other Russias, represented the marginals of Russian society, and she won a Pushkin prize for the work. She got invited to speak, to show her art, and teach. She then went to Belarus to chronicle the mass protests. More art. More shows. But then Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. The invites dried up as everything Russia became toxic. And political art forced her into exile in Germany. These experiences have caused her to question the efficacy of political art, and even her graphic style. Today, she’s embraced symbolic art that speaks to her political disillusion and difficulty in representing our current conjecture. Where does Lomasko stand today when it comes to art and politics? Tune in and find out.
Guest
Victoria Lomasko is a graphic artist and has lectured and written widely on graphic reportage. She lived in Moscow until March 2022 and now lives in exile. She is the author of Other Russias which received the Pushkin House Best Book in Translation award. Her latest book is The Last Soviet Artist published by N+1 Books
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Remembering Alexander Rabinowitch
When I opened Facebook this morning, as I do every morning, I learned that Alexander Rabinowitch died at 91 years old. Rabinowitch was arguably one of the most important historians of the Russian Revolution …
Show notes
When I opened Facebook this morning, as I do every morning, I learned that Alexander Rabinowitch died at 91 years old. Rabinowitch was arguably one of the most important historians of the Russian Revolution. It's hard to state how much Rabinowitch's work influence our understanding of 1917. Before him, it was assumed that the Bolsheviks were a highly disciplined, unpopular political party that came to power through a coup. What Rabinowitch repeatedly showed in his four books on Revolution, the Bolsheviks had popular support, most importantly in factories in Petrograd and in other large cities and at the front. Lenin's slogans, particularly, "Peace, Land, Bread!" had mass support, and by October 1917, successfully rode a wave of revolution into power.
And now that Alexander Rabinowitch has left us, I figured I’d dig out my old interview with him from 2017, clean it up, and re-release it to commemorate the life and work of this scholarly giant.
Guest:
Alexander Rabinowitch was a Professor Emeritus of History at Indiana University, where he taught from 1968 until 1999. He’s the author of four books on the Russian Revolution: Prelude to Revolution: The Petrograd Bolsheviks and the July 1917 Uprising; The Bolsheviks Come To Power: The Revolution of 1917 in Petrograd; The Bolsheviks in Power: The First Year of Soviet Rule in Petrograd; and finally his fourth and last book which was just published in April, The Bolsheviks Survive: Petrograd 1919 published by the University of Pittsburgh Press.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Anastas Mikoyan
How Stalin personally ran the Soviet Union has rightly received much attention. Less discussed is the small group of men that served as his top lieutenants. They carried out his orders, and after his death …
Show notes
How Stalin personally ran the Soviet Union has rightly received much attention. Less discussed is the small group of men that served as his top lieutenants. They carried out his orders, and after his death, were instrumental in establishing the post-Stalin order. This week, the Eurasian Knot features a discussion with Pietro Shakarian about his new book Anastas Mikoyan: An Armenian Reformer in Khrushchev's Kremlin. We mostly know Mikoyan as a statesman and political survivor who successfully navigated Stalin’s Kremlin. But who was Anastas Mikoyan beyond that? What did he believe? What was his role as Stalin’s henchman? How did he push for de-Stalinization after the leader’s death in 1953, particularly on Soviet nationality policy. Shakarian tells us that in the end, Mikoyan was more than a survivor. He was a critical player in shaping the post-Stalinist Soviet Union.
Guest:
Pietro A. Shakarian is a historian of Russia and the Soviet Union and a lecturer at the American University of Armenia in Yerevan. He’s the author of Anastas Mikoyan: An Armenian Reformer in Khrushchev's Kremlin published by Indiana University Press.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Soviet Holocaust Literature
It has long been assumed that there was no Holocaust memory in the Soviet Union. Official Soviet ideology lumped the 1.5 million Soviet Jews exterminated by the Nazis into the 26 million Soviet war deaths. So …
Show notes
It has long been assumed that there was no Holocaust memory in the Soviet Union. Official Soviet ideology lumped the 1.5 million Soviet Jews exterminated by the Nazis into the 26 million Soviet war deaths. So, the little Holocaust memory that existed was hidden away in families and communities. Recent scholarship, however, has painted a more complicated picture. Yes, official Holocaust memory was circumscribed. And, true, many privately commemorated its memory. But, as a new collection of Soviet Holocaust fiction, translated by Sasha Senderovich and Harriet Murav, shows that there was published Holocaust literature in the Soviet Union. Especially in the Yiddish language journal, Sovetish Heymland. How did Soviet authors treat the Holocaust? How did it differ from work elsewhere? And what are some of the challenges translating these works into English? To find out more, the Eurasian Knot spoke to Sasha and Harriet about their recent collection, In the Shadow of the Holocaust: Short Fiction by Jewish Writers from the Soviet Union, published by Stanford University Press.
Guests:
Sasha Senderovich is Associate Professor of Slavic Languages & Literatures and of International Studies at the University of Washington. He is the author of How the Soviet Jew Was Made.
Harriet Murav is Center for Advanced Study Professor Emerita at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Her most recent book is As the Dust of the Earth: The Literature of Abandonment in Revolutionary Russia and Ukraine.
They are the translators of In the Shadow of the Holocaust: Short Fiction by Jewish Writers from the Soviet Union, published by Stanford University Press.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
The Russian Paradox
Many studies focus on how Russia doesn’t work and why. There’s a laundry list of reasons. Corruption. Autocracy. Imperialism. Exceptionalism. But, how, then, does Russia work? Because there are people, a state …
Show notes
Many studies focus on how Russia doesn’t work and why. There’s a laundry list of reasons. Corruption. Autocracy. Imperialism. Exceptionalism. But, how, then, does Russia work? Because there are people, a state, and society. What greases the wheels? Alena Ledeneva has made this question the focus of her career. For her, it’s the informal networks and practices that allow the system, with all its deficiencies, to function. Her new book, Russian Pendulum, is a synthesis of her three books on informality. But instead of focusing on post-Soviet Russia, she examines the long duree of informality through the concept of paradox. For example, the Soviet paradox, “Shops are empty, but fridges are full.” Ledeneva says that this paradox contains a hidden informal relation that ameliorates shortage. She also takes a novel approach to this subject using sculpture and music to represent the paradoxes and practices of Russian everyday life. We at the Eurasian Knot wanted to know more. So we put the question to Ledeneva–How does Russia work? And what does that say about Russia’s historical development over the last few centuries?
Russian Pendulum has a soundtrack: “The System Made Me Do It,” available on Spotify and elsewhere.
Guest:
Alena Ledeneva is Professor of Politics and Society at the University College London and a founder of the Global Informality Project. She’s the author of the trilogy: Russia's Economy of Favours (1998), How Russia Really Works (2006), Can Russia Modernize? (2013), Her new book is The Russian Pendulum: Paradoxes, Practices and Patterns published by UCL Press.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Kurt Vonnegut in the USSR
I went through my Kurt Vonnegut phase in my late teens. I read Player Piano, Cat’s Cradle, I think, Deadeye Dick, and of course, Slaughterhouse Five. I can’t say I remember much from those novels. Nor can I …
Show notes
I went through my Kurt Vonnegut phase in my late teens. I read Player Piano, Cat’s Cradle, I think, Deadeye Dick, and of course, Slaughterhouse Five. I can’t say I remember much from those novels. Nor can I recall why Vonnegut connected with me. Perhaps now is a good time to revisit them. Little did I know that Vonnegut had a large readership in the Soviet Union. His books were translated by Rita Rait-Kovaleva and published in hundreds of thousands of copies. And in late Soviet fashion they were also passed around by hand to those who couldn’t secure copies. What did Soviet readers see in Kurt Vonnegut? How did the authorities regard this so-called “Anti-American American”? And what did Vonnegut think about his Soviet fans? Sarah Phillips wondered too after she participated in a project on Vonnegut. The result is her book, Kurt Vonnegut in the USSR. Sarah reached out to us, so we booked an interview. It turns out that Vonnegut has transcultural appeal. There’s even a revival in Ukraine. But what does Vonnegut’s popularity among Soviet youth say about really existing state socialism? Tune in to find out.
Guest:
Sarah Phillips is professor of anthropology at Indiana University-Bloomington. She’s the author of Women's Social Activism in the New Ukraine and Disability and Mobile Citizenship in Postsocialist Ukraine, both published by Indiana University Press. Her new book is Kurt Vonnegut in the USSR published by Bloomsbury.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
The Post-Soviet Human Condition
The Eurasian Knot hasn’t featured many philosophers. So, when Ukrainian political philosopher, Mikhail Minakov, came to the University of Pittsburgh to give a talk, I eagerly pulled him into a studio. The …
Show notes
The Eurasian Knot hasn’t featured many philosophers. So, when Ukrainian political philosopher, Mikhail Minakov, came to the University of Pittsburgh to give a talk, I eagerly pulled him into a studio. The result was a wide-ranging conversation on the collapse of communism, the post-Soviet human, Kantian philosophy, our current global political conjecture, and the crisis of liberalism. What is a post-Soviet human and how does s/he differ from their Soviet counterpart? What are the seeds and expressions of our political discontent? And to what extent does liberalism need a revival to meet the political creativity of the global illiberal right? Minakov has some fascinating insights. He gave me so much to chew on. I have no doubt you will too after listening to this conversation.
Guest:
Mikhail Minakov is a political philosopher residing in Kyiv and Milan. His primary philosophical inquiries focus on human experience, social knowledge, political systems, historical consciousness, and multiple modernities. His most recent book is The Post-Soviet Human: Philosophical Reflections on Social History after the End of Communism published by ibidem Press.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Bye, Bye Orban
On April 12, 2026, Hungarians overwhelmingly voted Peter Magyar into office ending the sixteen-year rule of Viktor Orban. It was a stunning victory that sent voters into the streets to celebrate. Now, observers …
Show notes
On April 12, 2026, Hungarians overwhelmingly voted Peter Magyar into office ending the sixteen-year rule of Viktor Orban. It was a stunning victory that sent voters into the streets to celebrate. Now, observers are looking to see whether Magyar will roll back Orban’s illiberal system and even prosecute Orban and his clients for corruption. Commentators will also watch now how the strongman’s defeat will reverberate in the region and what it might mean for rightwing authoritarianism throughout the world. What led to Orban’s rise and fall? Was his regime an anomaly or consistent with Hungarian political history? And who is Peter Magyar? What does he stand for? And does he have enough political will and capital to set Hungary’s ailing economy and scarred democracy right? The Eurasian Knot turned to Stefano Bottoni to make sense of what Hungary’s past and future might foretell. Is the fall of Orban akin to regime change as Bottoni suggests? Tune in and find out.
Guest:
Stefano Bottoni is Associate Professor at the University of Florence. He is the author of several books. He’s the author of The Orbán Enigma forthcoming from Hurst Publishers.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
The Georgian August 1924 Uprising
In August 1924, a group of rebels organized by the anti-Bolshevik Committee for the Independence of Georgia and led by the Georgian Social Democratic Party, rose up against Soviet forces in the mining town of …
Show notes
In August 1924, a group of rebels organized by the anti-Bolshevik Committee for the Independence of Georgia and led by the Georgian Social Democratic Party, rose up against Soviet forces in the mining town of Chiatura. The Bolshevik reaction was swift and harsh. The fear of another "Kronstadt” still haunted the Bolsheviks, especially since their control over Georgia was tenuous. The uprising failed. Thousands were killed. Its ringleaders either fled into exile or were executed by the Georgian Cheka, then led by Levrenti Beria. The uprising was the culmination of Georgian opposition to Bolshevik rule after the fall of the Menshevik-led Republic in 1921. This small but significant story about Georgian resistance and a social-democratic alternative to Bolshevism has remained in obscurity. That is, until Eric Lee came along. Eric is a passionate partisan for Georgia. Not just for the place and its people. But for the promise that early Republic and its Menshevik leaders represented for the history of social democracy. What were the roots of this uprising? What was Bolshevik rule in Georgia? And how does the Social Democratic Republic and the August Uprising fit into today’s memory politics in Georgia? The Eurasian Knot spoke to Lee to get a fuller story behind this almost forgotten moment in the history of Georgian resistance to Russian rule.
Guest:
Eric Lee is an author, journalist and historian. He’s the author of several books. The most recent is The August Uprising, 1924: The Georgian Anti-Soviet Revolt and the Birth of Democratic Socialism published by McFarland Publishers.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
These are the latest 40 of 384 episodes. You’ll find older episodes in the podcast’s feed.
Similar podcasts
More History podcasts
Is this your podcast?
Confirm it with an entry in your feed: you get a code here, add it as podcast:txt to the channel of your feed, and we check it. Your podcast is then shown as “verified” on SoundNode.