In Episode 236 of Hidden Forces, Demetri Kofinas speaks with Julia Friedlander, the C. Boyden Gray senior fellow & director of the Economic Statecraft Initiative at the Atlantic Council’s GeoEconomics Center. Ms. Friedlander served as senior policy advisor for Europe in the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, where she collaborated with EU partners on global sanctions policy and combatting illicit finance and as director for the European Union, Southern Europe and Economic Affairs at the National Security Council, charged with coordinating U.S. interagency policy on transatlantic relations and the European Union for White House.
Julia’s extensive experience in economic statecraft makes her the perfect person to speak to about the sanctions that have been and continue to be levied against the Russian economy and its political class. We discuss what these sanctions mean in practice and what it is that makes them so unprecedented, as well as the intended and unintended consequences for the prosecution of Russia’s war against Ukraine. Additional topics include the effect of sanctions on the geopolitical stability of Europe, the future of Russia, and the position of the dollar at the center of the international, financial system.
You can access the transcript and intelligence report to this week’s conversation by going directly to the episode page on our website and clicking on “premium extras.” All subscribers gain access to our premium feed, which can be easily added to your favorite podcast application.
You can access the full episode, transcript, and intelligence report to this week’s conversation by going directly to the episode page on our website and clicking on “premium extras.” All subscribers gain access to our premium feed, which can be easily added to your favorite podcast application.
If you enjoyed listening to today’s episode of Hidden Forces you can help support the show by doing the following:
Julia Friedlander is the C. Boyden Gray senior fellow & director of the Economic Statecraft Initiative in the GeoEconomics Center. Ms. Friedlander served as senior policy advisor for Europe in the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence at the U.S. Department of the Treasury from 2015-2017 and from 2019-20, where she collaborated with EU partners on global sanctions policy and combatting illicit finance. She also served as a macroeconomist in the Europe Office in the Treasury’s Department of International Affairs.
From April 2017 to July 2019, Julia was detailed to the White House as the director for the European Union, Southern Europe and Economic Affairs at the National Security Council, charged with coordinating U.S. interagency policy on transatlantic relations and the European Union and staffing the national security advisor on European engagements. Her work encompassed all aspects of security and economic relations but focused on trade, financial policy, and investment security.
Before joining the Treasury in 2015, Julia held multiple analytical positions within the Central Intelligence Agency, focusing on global economic stability and energy security. Julia is a Young Leader of the Munich Security Conference and the Atlantik-Brücke, and a term member of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Julia holds a B.A. in European History from Princeton University, where she wrote her senior thesis on the historical and economic origins of the European Union, and an M.A. in International Economics and International Relations from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). Before graduate school, she spent two years in Berlin on a fellowship from the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), working on European security and energy issues at the German Council on Foreign Relations and German Marshall Fund. She speaks French and German fluently and has a working knowledge of Russian. Julia lives in Washington with her husband Oliver Bose, a software architect from Berlin.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Apud imperitos tum illa dicta sunt, aliquid etiam coronae datum; Haec dicuntur inconstantissime. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Itaque si aut requietem natura non quaereret aut eam posset alia quadam ratione consequi. Philosophi autem in suis lectulis plerumque moriuntur. Ut placet, inquit, etsi enim illud erat aptius, aequum cuique concedere. Magno hic ingenio, sed res se tamen sic habet, ut nimis imperiosi philosophi sit vetare meminisse. In qua quid est boni praeter summam voluptatem, et eam sempiternam? Egone non intellego, quid sit don Graece, Latine voluptas? Estne, quaeso, inquam, sitienti in bibendo voluptas?
Quid me istud rogas? Hoc est non modo cor non habere, sed ne palatum quidem. Sit hoc ultimum bonorum, quod nunc a me defenditur; Graece donan, Latine voluptatem vocant. Morbo gravissimo affectus, exul, orbus, egens, torqueatur eculeo: quem hunc appellas, Zeno? Frater et T.
Quod quidem iam fit etiam in Academia. Qui enim voluptatem ipsam contemnunt, iis licet dicere se acupenserem maenae non anteponere. Bonum liberi: misera orbitas. Conferam tecum, quam cuique verso rem subicias; Sapientem locupletat ipsa natura, cuius divitias Epicurus parabiles esse docuit. Sin laboramus, quis est, qui alienae modum statuat industriae? Si mala non sunt, iacet omnis ratio Peripateticorum. Tertium autem omnibus aut maximis rebus iis, quae secundum naturam sint, fruentem vivere. Vos autem cum perspicuis dubia debeatis illustrare, dubiis perspicua conamini tollere. Levatio igitur vitiorum magna fit in iis, qui habent ad virtutem progressionis aliquantum.
Ita fit beatae vitae domina fortuna, quam Epicurus ait exiguam intervenire sapienti. Sed emolumenta communia esse dicuntur, recte autem facta et peccata non habentur communia. Itaque contra est, ac dicitis; Et ille ridens: Video, inquit, quid agas;
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Simus igitur contenti his. Huic ego, si negaret quicquam interesse ad beate vivendum quali uteretur victu, concederem, laudarem etiam; Satis est tibi in te, satis in legibus, satis in mediocribus amicitiis praesidii. Tum mihi Piso: Quid ergo? Nihil enim arbitror esse magna laude dignum, quod te praetermissurum credam aut mortis aut doloris metu. Duo Reges: constructio interrete.
Ut aliquid scire se gaudeant? Id mihi magnum videtur. Unum nescio, quo modo possit, si luxuriosus sit, finitas cupiditates habere. Iam id ipsum absurdum, maximum malum neglegi. Proclivi currit oratio. Nihilne est in his rebus, quod dignum libero aut indignum esse ducamus? Idemque diviserunt naturam hominis in animum et corpus. Igitur neque stultorum quisquam beatus neque sapientium non beatus.
Ut necesse sit omnium rerum, quae natura vigeant, similem esse finem, non eundem. Quae quidem sapientes sequuntur duce natura tamquam videntes; Plane idem, inquit, et maxima quidem, qua fieri nulla maior potest. Hoc loco discipulos quaerere videtur, ut, qui asoti esse velint, philosophi ante fiant. Omnia contraria, quos etiam insanos esse vultis. Ratio enim nostra consentit, pugnat oratio.
Praeclare hoc quidem. Nunc omni virtuti vitium contrario nomine opponitur. Aufert enim sensus actionemque tollit omnem. Itaque ab his ordiamur. Illud dico, ea, quae dicat, praeclare inter se cohaerere. Ita graviter et severe voluptatem secrevit a bono. Duarum enim vitarum nobis erunt instituta capienda. Aliter enim nosmet ipsos nosse non possumus. Qui non moveatur et offensione turpitudinis et comprobatione honestatis?
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Cuius similitudine perspecta in formarum specie ac dignitate transitum est ad honestatem dictorum atque factorum. Cum id fugiunt, re eadem defendunt, quae Peripatetici, verba. Qualis ista philosophia est, quae non interitum afferat pravitatis, sed sit contenta mediocritate vitiorum? Istam voluptatem perpetuam quis potest praestare sapienti? Eadem nunc mea adversum te oratio est. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Quia nec honesto quic quam honestius nec turpi turpius.
Itaque hic ipse iam pridem est reiectus; Ex quo intellegitur officium medium quiddam esse, quod neque in bonis ponatur neque in contrariis. Ea, quae dialectici nunc tradunt et docent, nonne ab illis instituta sunt aut inventa sunt? Atqui reperies, inquit, in hoc quidem pertinacem; Consequentia exquirere, quoad sit id, quod volumus, effectum. An tu me de L.
Quae cum magnifice primo dici viderentur, considerata minus probabantur. Non est igitur voluptas bonum. Eaedem res maneant alio modo. At modo dixeras nihil in istis rebus esse, quod interesset.
Quid enim ab antiquis ex eo genere, quod ad disserendum valet, praetermissum est? Quod eo liquidius faciet, si perspexerit rerum inter eas verborumne sit controversia. Hoc Hieronymus summum bonum esse dixit. Non ego tecum iam ita iocabor, ut isdem his de rebus, cum L. Eorum enim est haec querela, qui sibi cari sunt seseque diligunt. Beatus autem esse in maximarum rerum timore nemo potest. Item de contrariis, a quibus ad genera formasque generum venerunt. Summus dolor plures dies manere non potest? Nam de isto magna dissensio est.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. At enim, qua in vita est aliquid mali, ea beata esse non potest. Tria genera bonorum; Eam si varietatem diceres, intellegerem, ut etiam non dicente te intellego; Nec vero pietas adversus deos nec quanta iis gratia debeatur sine explicatione naturae intellegi potest. Sed ea mala virtuti magnitudine obruebantur.
Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Ut enim consuetudo loquitur, id solum dicitur honestum, quod est populari fama gloriosum. Quia dolori non voluptas contraria est, sed doloris privatio. Negat enim summo bono afferre incrementum diem. Quando enim Socrates, qui parens philosophiae iure dici potest, quicquam tale fecit? Facile est hoc cernere in primis puerorum aetatulis. Negat esse eam, inquit, propter se expetendam. Etenim nec iustitia nec amicitia esse omnino poterunt, nisi ipsae per se expetuntur. Ex ea difficultate illae fallaciloquae, ut ait Accius, malitiae natae sunt.
Quae cum dixisset paulumque institisset, Quid est? Nulla profecto est, quin suam vim retineat a primo ad extremum. Perge porro; Scio enim esse quosdam, qui quavis lingua philosophari possint; Nec vero hoc oratione solum, sed multo magis vita et factis et moribus comprobavit. Sed residamus, inquit, si placet. Sed tamen omne, quod de re bona dilucide dicitur, mihi praeclare dici videtur. Negat enim summo bono afferre incrementum diem.
Quis istud possit, inquit, negare? Conferam tecum, quam cuique verso rem subicias; De hominibus dici non necesse est. Sed quid ages tandem, si utilitas ab amicitia, ut fit saepe, defecerit?
