Latest news with #FletcherSchool
AllAfrica
6 days ago
- Politics
- AllAfrica
Trump-Putin summit: This isn't how wars are ended
A hastily arranged summit between President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin is set for August 15, 2025, in Alaska, where the two leaders will discuss a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky will not attend, barring a last-minute change. Longtime diplomat Donald Heflin, now teaching at Tufts University's Fletcher School, shares his perspective on the unconventional meeting and why it's likely to produce, as he says, a photograph and a statement, but not a peace deal. Wars end for three reasons. One is that both sides get exhausted and decide to make peace. The second, which is more common: One side gets exhausted and raises its hand and says, 'Yeah, we're ready to come to the peace table.' And then the third is – we've seen this happen in the Mideast – outside forces like the US or Europe come in and say, 'That's enough. We're imposing our will from the outside. You guys stop this.' What we've seen in the Russia-Ukraine situation is that neither side has shown a real willingness to go to the conference table and give up territory. So the fighting continues. And the role that Trump and his administration are playing right now is that third possibility, an outside power comes in and says, 'Enough.' Now you have to look at Russia. Russia is maybe a former superpower, but a power, and it's got nuclear arms and it's got a big army. This is not some small, Middle Eastern country that the United States can completely dominate. They're nearly a peer. So can you really impose your will on them and get them to come to the conference table in seriousness if they don't want to? I kind of doubt it. Residents of Kramatorsk, Ukraine, step out of their car amid residential buildings bombed by Russian forces on Aug. 10, 2025. Photo: Pierre Crom / Getty Images via The Conversation The analogy a lot of people are using is the Munich Conference in 1938, where Great Britain met with Hitler's Germany. I don't like to make comparisons to Nazism or Hitler's Germany. Those guys started World War II and perpetrated the Holocaust and killed 30 or 40 million people. It's hard to compare anything to that. But in diplomatic terms, we go back to 1938. Germany said, 'Listen, we have all these German citizens living in this new country of Czechoslovakia. They're not being treated right. We want them to become part of Germany.' And they were poised to invade. The prime minister of Great Britain, Neville Chamberlain, went and met with Hitler in Munich and came up with an agreement by which the German parts of Czechoslovakia would become part of Germany. And that would be it. That would be all that Germany would ask for, and the West gave some kind of light security guarantees. Czechoslovakia wasn't there. This was a peace imposed on them. And sure enough, you know, within a year or two, Germany was saying, 'No, we want all of Czechoslovakia. And, P.S., we want Poland.' And thus World War II started. German dictator Adolf Hitler, right, shakes hands with British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain during their meeting at Godesberg, Germany, on Sept. 23, 1938. Photo: New York Times Co. / Getty Images via The Conversation Czechoslovakia wasn't at the table. Ukraine's not at the table. Again, I'm not sure I want to compare Putin to Hitler, but he is a strongman authoritarian president with a big military. Security guarantees were given to Czechoslovakia and not honored. The West gave Ukraine security guarantees when that country gave up its nuclear weapons in 1994. We told them, 'If you're going to be brave and give up your nuclear weapons, we'll make sure you're never invaded.' And they've been invaded twice since then, in 2014 and 2022. The West didn't step up. So history would tell us that the possibilities for a lasting peace coming out of this summit are pretty low. Here's what usually happens in most countries that have a big foreign policy or national security establishment, and even in some smaller countries. The political leaders come up with their policy goal, what they want to achieve. And then they tell the career civil servants and foreign service officers and military people, 'This is what we want to get at the negotiating table. How do we do that?' And then the experts say, 'Oh, we do this and we do that, and we'll assign staff to work it out. We'll work with our Russian counterparts and try to narrow the issues down, and we'll come up with numbers and maps.' With all the replacement of personnel since the inauguration, the US not only has a new group of political appointees – including some, like Marco Rubio, who, generally speaking, know what they're doing in terms of national security – but also many who don't know what they're doing. They've also fired the senior level of civil servants and foreign service officers, and a lot of the mid-levels are leaving, so that expertise isn't there. That's a real problem. The US national security establishment is increasingly being run by the B team – at best. You have two leaders of two big countries like this, they usually don't meet on a few days' notice. It would have to be a real crisis. This meeting could happen two or three weeks from now as easily as it could this week. And if that happened, you would have a chance to prepare. You'd have a chance to get all kinds of documents in front of the American participants. You would meet with your Russian counterparts. You'd meet with Ukrainian counterparts, maybe some of the Western European countries. And when the two sides sat down at the table, it would be very professional. They would have very similar briefing papers in front of them. The issues would be narrowed down. None of that's going to happen in Alaska. It's going to be two political leaders meeting and deciding things, often driven by political considerations, but without any real idea of whether they can really be implemented or how they could be implemented. Again, the situation is kind of haunted by the West never enforcing security guarantees promised in 1994. So I'm not sure how well this could be enforced. Historically, Russia and Ukraine were always linked up, and that's the problem. What's Putin's bottom line? Would he give up Crimea? No. Would he give up the part of eastern Ukraine that de facto had been taken over by Russia before this war even started? Probably not. Would he give up what they've gained since then? OK, maybe. Then let's put ourselves in Ukraine's shoes. Will they want to give up Crimea? They say, 'No.' Do they want to give up any of the eastern part of the country? They say, 'No.' People who understand the process of diplomacy think that this is very amateurish and is unlikely to yield real results that are enforceable. It will yield some kind of statement and a photo of Trump and Putin shaking hands. There will be people who believe that this will solve the problem. It won't. Donald Heflin is executive director of the Edward R Murrow Center and Senior Fellow of Diplomatic Practice, The Fletcher School, Tufts University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Yahoo
14-07-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
Tesla stock needs 'Elon Musk magic,' expert says
Elon Musk's announcement that he wants to launch a new third party has some Tesla (TSLA) investors and analysts upset. They don't want to see the CEO distracted by politics. In the video above, Tufts University Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy adjunct associate professor Gautam Mukunda explains why "Elon Musk magic" is so important to the EV maker's stock. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Market Domination Overtime here. No company on Earth has as much key risk as Tesla does, right? To believe in Tesla's current valuation, you have to attribute some enormous ranco amount to Elon Musk magic. You just do, right? I mean, the theory is that somehow self-driving cars are going to generate the returns they have, but they're not the leader in the technology or autonomous robots are gonna do it, but there not the leader in that technology either. So there has to be some theory by way which Elon Musk can do that. And look, after SpaceX, who's gonna say that's impossible. But if Elon Musk isn't involved in Tesla, then your value, the value you're attributing to Elon Musk magic has to get much higher because now you're saying it's like 20% of Elon is going to deliver that. You're stretching the credulity of that story further and further with every. And then adding to that, of course, the fact that the other adventure, his other adventures aren't the sort of things that give you confidence in what we're doing at Tesla. If Tesla's valuation is driven by, you know, its ability to do autonomous cars, which is driven by its mastery of AI technologies, and Grok is currently declaring itself to be Mecca Hitler, well then you've got to wonder about the mastery of AI technologies part. Go with the final question, what if you're a Tesla investor and you think to yourself, you know what, maybe I just look through this drama. I look through the deadlines. I look through the posts on X. When it comes to Tesla, I just stay focused on, really what matters now, which is the cars. The EVs are still what drives the P&L and the Q2 deliveries, hey, they were better than what some feared on the streets why the stock popped and we got that number. And I'll just say focus on that. I'll say focus on the EVs and the fundamentals. I'll ignore what I see on X. What would you say to that investor? I mean, if you're a Tesla investor, you have already made the decision to ignore all of this, right? It's not like Elon doing things that no one else in the world would do is happened last week. We have years of this. So you have already made that choice. And what I would say is if you're just focused on the cars. What's your theory behind why Tesla is going to maintain or increase its dominance of the electric car market when rivals are coming in who are producing cars as good or better than anything Tesla can do? If you've got a theory for that, that says exactly how they're gonna do that, first, you should share that with Tesla, because I'm sure they'd like to know what it is, and second, then you should buy it, because OK, because then it makes sense. But I haven't heard anyone propose a plausible version of that story yet.
Yahoo
14-07-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
Tesla stock needs 'Elon Musk magic,' expert says
Elon Musk's announcement that he wants to launch a new third party has some Tesla (TSLA) investors and analysts upset. They don't want to see the CEO distracted by politics. In the video above, Tufts University Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy adjunct associate professor Gautam Mukunda explains why "Elon Musk magic" is so important to the EV maker's stock. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Market Domination Overtime here. No company on Earth has as much key man risk as as Tesla does, right? To believe in Tesla's current valuation, you have to attribute some enormous amount to Elon Musk magic. You just do, right? I mean, the theory is that somehow self-driving cars are going to generate the returns they have, but they're not the leader in that technology or autonomous robots are going to do it, but they're not the leader in that technology either. So there has to be some theory by which Elon Musk can do that. And look, after SpaceX, who's going to say that's impossible? But if Elon Musk isn't involved in Tesla, then your value, the value you're attributing to Elon Musk magic has to get much higher because now you're saying it's like 20% of Elon is going to deliver that. You're stretching the credulity of that story further and further with every beat. And then adding to that, of course, the fact that the other adventure, his other adventures aren't the sort of things that give you confidence in what we're doing at Tesla. If Tesla's valuation is driven by, you know, its ability to do autonomous cars, which is driven by its mastery of AI technologies, and Grock is currently declaring itself to be Mecca Hitler. Well, then you got to wonder about the mastery of AI technologies part. Go to final question. What if you're a Tesla investor and you think to yourself, you know what? Maybe I just look through this drama. I look through the deadlines. I look through the posts on X. When it comes to Tesla, I just stay focused on really what matters now, which is the cars. The EVs are still what drives the P&L and the Q2 deliveries. Hey, they were better than what some feared on the streets, why the stock popped when we got that number. And I'll just stay focused on that. I'll stay focused on the EVs and the fundamentals. I'll ignore what I see on X. What would you say to that investor? I mean, if you're a Tesla investor, you have already made the decision to ignore all of this, right? It's not like Elon doing things that no one else in the world would do is happened last week. We have years of this. So you have already made that choice. And what I would say is, if if you're just focused on the cars, what's your theory behind by which Tesla is going to maintain or increase its dominance of the electric car market when rivals are coming in who are producing cars as good or better as anything Tesla can do. If you've got a theory for that, that says exactly how they're going to do that, first, you should share that with Tesla because I'm sure they'd like to know what it is. And second, then you should buy it because okay, then it makes sense. But I haven't heard anyone propose a plausible version of that story yet. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
11-07-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Why Apple shouldn't replace Tim Cook yet
An analyst at LightShed Partners suggested that Apple (AAPL) should replace CEO Tim Cook. Tufts University Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy adjunct associate professor Gautam Mukunda doesn't think the tech giant should be rushing to replace its leader. He explains why in the video above. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Market Domination Overtime here. Let's start with Apple. Big topic this week, Gotham. We had analysts at Lightshed put out this note asking, is it time for a new CEO at Apple? You, my friend, as a guru on all things C-suite leadership, management, your answer to that question, Gotham. What do you think? No, it's not. Um, it wasn't that long ago that you could give Tim Cook credit as having created more value as a CEO than any other CEO in history. And we're talking about like two to three years ago. It's not that long ago. Um, from a customer's perspective, it's not like Apple is falling down on the job. Sales on their products are phenomenal. People like what they're doing. Even if you hear this sort of rent complaint that Apple's not what it once was, nobody doesn't think it's anything but pretty great. Um, this seems largely a market thing about the fact that Apple is not taking advantage of the same boom that AI in that price rise up that AI is giving to a lot of the other magnificent seven. And look, Apple's acting differently than the other ones. That is true. Like they're clearly behaving in a different way. You know, historically, when Apple's behaved in a way different than other high-tech companies, that's worked out pretty well for the shareholders. I would not want to pull the trigger quite so quickly that it's going to fail this time. Also, Gotham, just talk to me about, well, I come back to is also the skill set you need to run a multinational giant like this. I mean, Cook, he's got roughly 160,000 employees. He's got literally billions of devices all around the world. To run a, a giant like this, Gotham, I just think through how much you have to know about product and tech, about operations, about supply chain. You also have to be a diplomat. You have to be the the the person who can get on the phone with the president of the United States and make your case eloquently and powerfully. How rare is that, Gotham? See, I mean, it's vanishingly rare. Sort of the the list of people on earth who have the experience to do something like this is incredibly small. Almost all of them are the CEOs of other companies who aren't going to Apple. And let's sort of let's think through the logic here, right? So either you're going to go with an insider or an outsider. If you're going to go with an insider, it's going to be someone who was picked by Cook, who grows groomed by Cook, who grew up in this environment. So the odds that he or she is going to do something radically different are really low. If you're going to go with an outsider, then first, since you're going with an outsider, you have essentially no way to guarantee that they have the incredibly rare and diverse set of skills that you just described. So you're taking enormous, you're taking a very large risk by putting in a leader who you really can't be sure of in sort of the crown jewel of American capitalism. On both sides of that equation, that strikes me as a pretty risky bet to make. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
13-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
How chipmakers are navigating manufacturing & export shifts
Christopher Miller, professor at Tufts University's Fletcher School, joins Asking for a Trend with Josh Lipton to discuss the current state of the chip sector, including Micron's (MU) increase in US investing. Miller is also the author of "Chip War: The Fight for the World's Most Critical Technology." To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Asking for a Trend here. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
