Eric Shiraev

The Reputational Ghost of Socialism: carplab.substack.com/publish/post/1…

Prague welcomed #CARP earlier this month—and the city was as radiant as ever. Three presentations in three days illuminated different facets of our ongoing research. At the Anglo-American University, my talk was: “A Worn-Out Galosh: The Political Psychology of Personal Insults as Character Attack.” The following day, at the Czech Academy of Sciences, the focus shifted to “Character Assassination in Putin’s Russia”. At the Centre for Theoretical Studies at Charles University, the topic was: “The Use and Misuse of Historical Names: Who Gets Remembered and Why It Matters,” Most heartfelt thanks to our great Czech colleagues and #CARP friends and associates!

Greetings, CARP associates! Our Webinar on "Attack Politics" link now: uva-live.zoom.us/j/62675749925 Passcode: 204338

Ghosting: A Disappearing Act with a Reputational Stain open.substack.com/pub/carplab/p/…

For more than fifteen years, we at CARP ( communication.gmu.edu/research-and-c… ). For more than fifteen years, we at CARP — a diverse international community of scholars and educators, supported by a dedicated team of students, interns, and research assistants — have committed ourselves to studying and exposing one of the most persistent phenomena of human life: the character attack. And we carry this mission forward today. From the Senate of ancient Rome to the intrigues of medieval castles, from the pamphlets of revolutionary France and the caricatures of Imperial Japan to the smears in Soviet newspapers and today’s viral name-calling and allegations, human beings have wielded words and images as weapons. Letters, cartoons, photographs, and digital platforms have all served as ammunition for emotional salvos — sometimes fair, but far more often unjust — aimed at toppling careers, tarnishing legacies, insulting leaders at home and abroad, and inflating egos. Through hundreds of papers, books, essays, and podcasts, we at CARP have carried a consistent message: it is not enough to treat incivility and smears as unfortunate historical curiosities. They must be unmasked and explained — and people must be equipped with the knowledge and tools to defend both their character and their reputation today. We stand for constructive dialogue, for education that opens rather than closes minds, and for passionate debate that illuminates complex truths rather than obscures them. We are not naïve: character attacks will not disappear simply because we expose them. They are woven into politics, power struggles, individual vanity, and human culture itself. But what we can — and must — do is ensure that our response remains civil. That single word, civil, carries the full weight of our mission. It means refusing to respond to words — even harsh ones — with malice. It means choosing reason over rage, knowledge over ignorance, and dialogue over destruction. At CARP, we teach not only the anatomy of attacks but also the art of defense — a defense grounded in civility, dignity, and peace. For we believe that only by embracing these values can we resolve conflict without violence, and only then can we, as individuals, safeguard both our reputation and our humanity.

In our latest CARP video, we spotlight the Roman senator and orator Cicero, showcasing how he wielded the power of words to deliver one of history’s most famous character attacks—his scathing assault on Catiline. This episode brings to life the drama of ancient Rome, where rhetoric could shape reputations, topple rivals, and alter the course of politics. Special thanks to Raghu Manjunatha, the creative force behind this production. Watch here: drive.google.com/.../1jqOmDusBG…... The video draws on the article: Icks, M., & Shiraev, E. (2019). Character assassination in Ancient Rome: Defamation in Cicero’s First Catilinarian Oration from a historical-psychological perspective. The Journal of Psychohistory, 46(4), 270–289.

Hard to see any light at the end of this newly dug tunnel.

Folks, if you are confused by where we are with "security guarantees" for Ukraine, I've prepared a very detailed breakdown, and options for future negotiations. It's all in this Substack post: open.substack.com/pub/profradche…

Perhaps the best verdict on the Trump–Putin Summit comes from the immortal wit of The Simpsons: "What’s this? Number 5, Duncan—the horse no one expected to do anything—isn’t doing anything! He hasn’t even left the starting gate. Come on, boy." Putin came off like a weary old man weighed down by his speechwriter, while Trump looked tired and irritated. @CarpLab

Putin and Trump said virtually nothing, as expected, except self-congratulating and exchanging pleasantries.

I was asked to predict the Alaska summit. Three possible endings to the Trump–Putin summit — and none of them are pretty. My odds: 50% — a staged “listening session” with smiles and talk of “progress.” 30% — Trump calls Putin a “buddy,” blames “Biden’s war,” and pushes Ukraine to concede. 20% — sparks fly, Trump storms out and lectures Putin on camera. Feels like the hype before a soccer championship match — except people are dying every day on the front lines and in Ukrainian cities.

Fiona Hill warns it’s a mistake for Trump to meet Putin alone — says he’ll be vulnerable to manipulation. But who knows? In bare-bones reputational terms, it’s a KGB officer vs. a building contractor. Which one’s really more at risk of being played?

The worst thing about the Trump-Putin summit is the confusion it creates. Everybody is discussing territory again. But this war is not about territory. No matter how much Russia gains, it won't bring about peace. For Putin, territory is merely a step in the process, not the goal.

The Trump-Putin meeting in Alaska cannot become Yalta 2.0. I hope President Trump , @SecRubio, and their team are working hard to make this a meaningful summit, and not a moment of capitulation.

My recent article with Holger Molder in the National Interest nationalinterest.org/feature/decodi…

Character Assassination in a Major Key: Ozzy’s Reputational Victory open.substack.com/pub/carplab/p/…

Trump’s comment that Putin’s bombings were “not necessary” and showed “very bad timing” isn’t a real rebuke — it’s reputational servility. He wasn’t condemning aggression itself, only its bad optics. A reminder: in reputational politics, wording is no excuse for submission.

My new op-ed in The National Interest... History remembers the builders and the destroyers. But more often, it remembers the stories told about them — and it is the public that holds the final word..... nationalinterest.org/blog/energy-wo…

According to my sources, the Kremlin has instructed that, starting September 1, school textbooks be updated to include sections highlighting Donald Trump’s positive role in improving U.S.-Russia relations and resolving the conflict in Ukraine.