Political Science Professors Talk State of Russia-Ukraine War in Panel Discussion

Erica Biner ’29

Contributing Writer

On Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2025, the political science department hosted a discussion on the Russo-Ukrainian War with Professors Kevin McMahon and Sidra Hamidi. The Dangremond Family Commons was filled with students and faculty who were interested in understanding and discussing the war beginning with the Soviet Union and ending with predictions for the future.  

The event began with a brief history of NATO and Russian relations beginning in 1992 then quickly shifted into discussion of the current state of the war. One important discussion point involved the war’s origins. Hamidi explained two main perspectives that have been presented. She said, “The Russian perspective says the start of the war is NATO expansion. The West’s perspective and Ukraine’s perspective is focused on Russia.” 

Many student questions were based on President Donald Trump’s approach to dealing with the war and comparing it to former President Joe Biden’s previous strategies. “I think that the way that the Biden administration tried to manage the war was to fight it essentially as a proxy. There are no American troops, but it’s being fought with American hardware,” Hamidi said. She compared this tactic to an isolationist approach, adding, “I think that isolationist impulse does not take into account that some of these issues are not just things that are happening far away, but actually a product of policy making that the United States has engaged in.”  

This ties into another recurring conversation surrounding the chances of Russia ending the war. McMahon took the stance that Russia was not going to back down, explaining that “It’s unlikely that they will be willing to compromise unless they get a lot of what they want.” He did offer hope regarding Ukraine, stating that “They [Europe] would have to put some type of European force in Ukraine” to fully combat Russia. Before the Q&A section began, Hamidi updated the group on Russia’s new nuclear weapon and reactor that could cause a tsunami. When the discussion turned towards Ukraine’s lack of a nuclear arsenal, one question was whether the war would be different if Ukraine had nuclear weapons.” In response to this, Hamidi said: “Nuclear weapons are not for peace. They’re for stability.”  

The conversation ended with a discussion participant presenting a take on China’s perspective of the war. He stated that supporting Russia through resources such as drones was an inexpensive way for China’s enemies to destroy each other. Hamidi responded to this point with her own opinion on China’s stance on the war. “If Russia wins the war, then that’s good in terms of Chinese revenue rivalry in the United States,” she said. “But if Russia loses in some way, then China won’t be responsible.” This concluded the discussion at around 6 p.m. 

Trinity’s political science department will host another public talk this month: “Israel and Palestine: Breaking the Downward Spiral” on Nov. 13, featuring guest speaker and University of Connecticut Political Science Professor Jeremy Pressman.