U.S. and Russian Relations in Context 

 What sort of stage are we in when it comes to U.S.-Russian relations? Is this a period that matches some historical stage of foreign relations, or something entirely new? 

Kurilla answered that it was complicated: “On the one hand, there is always new. History does not repeat itself. Sometimes when we don't have enough words to describe the contemporary, we use the words from the past.” To him, while some similarities did exist, such as the U.S.-Russian relationship being marked by confrontation and nuclear arms, many differences are also at play. The key difference, according to him, is U.S. isolationism. For many Americans, Russia is not seen as an immediate threat, an ideological rival, nor an economic competitor to the U.S. like China is. For Kurilla, these differences make this stage of relations unlike a “new cold war”.  

What conditions would be required for the U.S. and Russia to experience a détente? Has the possibility for détente this generation already been compromised? 

 “I don't think a détente is possible until Putin is out of power. That's because he’s too personally involved in confrontation and the war,” Kurilla explained. He believes, however, “that almost the next day or very quickly after Putin dies or loses power, there will be an attempt from the Russian side to re-establish better relations with the West”.  
 
But even if Putin loses power, Kurilla cautioned relations wouldn’t necessarily improve immediately: “…what we know from history is that when Russia has reformist governments come to power, Americans experience an inertia that makes them believe this new government could still pose a threat.” An example he mentioned was with Boris Yeltsin being elected the president of Russia after the Soviet Union’s fall. Even when Russia could’ve been integrated to the west, Kurilla argued American suspicion prevented it, and that when Americans did eventually believe this integration could occur, it was too late.  

 The Use and Misuse of History 

 From what you have researched, is Putin using or manipulating history to justify his invasion of Ukraine and if so, is he drawing from any specific era of Russian history? 

Although he agrees that Putin has attempted to manipulate history to justify the invasion, Kurilla argued that: “He [Putin] does not understand how history is organized and works. He saw that one narrative can exist and just relies solely on that narrative — and tries to make everyone accept his version of the past. But now, historians know that there are multiple narratives and history is plural.” An example Kurilla mentioned was how after the 2014 annexation of Crimea, Putin argued it was the ‘site where the first Russian prince was baptized into Christianity’ which, in his retelling, supposedly confirms Russia’s territorial claims to Crimea. Kurilla added that many contemporary Ukrainian politicians present him as a Ukrainian prince; however, applying modern national labels to the early medieval period is anachronistic — and such reasoning does not, of course, legitimize territorial claims. 

In what ways does AI, be it in videos, text, or audio, play a role in the misuse of history? Has AI become more effective over time for this purpose? 

Kurilla noted that despite it being a relatively new development, AI is starting to be recognized as a problem that hasn’t had a proper response yet. This issue was explained to him by a colleague by using an example from the past: After the detonation of the atomic bombs in 1945, they released a small number of radionuclides into the atmosphere that then contaminated steel produced from that point onward. Yet uncontaminated, “low background steel” was still necessary for precise instruments such as Geiger counters to function, leading to a large search for any remaining, uncontaminated steel made before 1945. His colleague then cautioned, ‘At some point, it will be the same type of hunt for any materials like videos created before the advent of AI.’ 

Like the atomic bombs, the advent of AI changed everything. Because of AI’s ability to easily produce videos and photos, it creates a challenge for historians when trying to verify primary source materials, one that will only become more difficult as time goes on. Not only could these manipulated materials be used alongside manipulated history for political action, but Kurilla also mentioned that, “Soon, everybody will be hunting for sources created before that date (AI was made).” 

Advice for Students 

What advice would you give to students wanting to become scholars in the future, be it within history, political science, or another field? 

First, mainly for students of history, Kurilla answered, “Be prepared for plural history. There is no single narrative or explanation of history”. He noted that, depending on the angle you choose, the past takes on very different—and sometimes contradictory—forms. Rather than looking for one “bit of truth” in each version, he urged students to see each narrative as a lens that highlights some facts, hides others, and serves specific social or political purposes; understanding grows from comparing these lenses, not from declaring one of them universal. Second, he offered: “When you start researching, try to start with a narrow topic. Don’t attempt to solve a global problem in a freshman paper. Just make it very narrow. If you find narrow pieces of a problem, you can research them deeply”. He additionally explained that by looking at local or narrow topics, students may be able to find something new within them. After starting narrowly, he says students could then look to expand their research. 
 
What advice would you give to students or people around the world who want to stand up for what they believe is right, but feel anxious doing so because of the consequences associated with it? 

He first mentioned that: “What makes us people, individuals, is what we've done, not what we think or thought. Action is way more important than our thoughts”. If you keep your thoughts to yourself, nothing changes. Not only does action determine one’s character, but he said, “Looking back from some age, you’ll see that the most important moments in your life are what you've done and when you took action”. But in addition to acting, Kurilla mentioned the importance of having a dialogue. For him, “Your position may be correct or maybe you don't understand something. Maybe you're incorrect in your position. But until you pronounce it, until you take a stand, you do not understand it”. By starting a dialogue with an opponent, Kurilla explained how you are better able to understand your position and even adjust it by learning more.