By Elena Tiedens
Published: June 29, 2026
To be young in Washington, D.C., is to be surrounded by an endless sea of International Relations majors. Occasionally, one might encounter a lone political science major navigating the halls of think tanks and government agencies. The professionalization of American higher education means that these academic tracks prepare students impeccably well for the day-to-day work required in the nation’s capital. Yet, key disciplinary assumptions heavily underpin their foundational courses, thereby shaping the foundational thinking of the next generation of policy professionals. I arrived at the Herbert Scoville Jr. Peace Fellowship and the intricate world of nuclear policy by a somewhat different route: through the discipline of history.
Historical assumptions have much to add to the modern policy conversation. While the theories, assumptions, and methodologies of political science contribute significantly to contemporary policy formulation, the Scoville Fellowship—which has long valued historical training in its fellow selection process—plays a vital role in bringing historical perspectives and alternative ways of thinking directly to Washington.
I chose to study history in college because I firmly believe that history undergirds the present. During my undergraduate studies at the University of Chicago, I chose to concentrate specifically in energy history. I wanted to understand the construction and evolution of the energy-intensive systems that continue to drive the global climate crisis. Over time, my research naturally evolved toward the logistics of energy-intensive shipping in the Arctic, with a particular focus on the geopolitical and environmental dynamics of the Russian Arctic.
Through the close study of nuclear energy flows in the far North, I also gained deep insight into the complex political climate of post-Soviet Russia during the 1990s. I was consistently struck by how the fall of the Soviet Union was not merely a moment of profound economic and social devastation for Russian citizens; it was also a moment of incredible historical possibility, a juncture when people actively reenvisioned the potential uses of nuclear technology and set into motion ambitious, far-reaching plans for nuclear weapons reductions. While I initially approached my academic project with a narrow question about energy and technology, I emerged from it with a profound understanding of the radical openness of nation-states during moments of deep political transition.
This historical understanding of the state diverges significantly from the prevailing perspective of International Relations, both in its methodological approach and in its core assumptions regarding institutions, the nation-state, and human nature itself. In contemporary IR frameworks, the nation-state is treated as the fundamental, unchanging unit of analysis. The state enters into conflicts and negotiates treaties primarily to advance its perceived national interests, categorizing some countries as adversaries and others as allies based on a ledger of historical conflict, political orientation, and domestic or international goals. Within this IR paradigm, states are rarely seen as having the internal room to radically evolve, reinvent, or remake themselves based on broader historical processes and unexpected contingencies.
Indeed, there are valid reasons for this analytical framework. States do organize modern political life across the entire globe, and the decades following the Second World War have witnessed the rise of a relatively stable international world order built firmly upon the principle of state sovereignty. As a Scoville Fellow placed at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) Project on Nuclear Issues (PONI), I was given a firsthand, front-row view of the undeniable eminence of states within the multilateral world order when I attended the 2026 Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference.
Sitting in the conference rooms, I observed how legitimate, deeply entrenched disagreements between sovereign countries prevented the adoption of a unified consensus document on the ongoing maintenance and enforcement of the treaty. For instance, the United States and Iran found themselves fundamentally unable to agree on whether Iran should be singled out explicitly in the consensus document as a violator of the NPT because of its ongoing uranium enrichment activities, or whether those same enrichment activities could be interpreted as remaining in compliance with the letter of the treaty.
State agency and the friction of sovereignty may be even more starkly evident outside the strictures of the increasingly decaying multilateral international order. During my fellowship year, the last remaining bilateral strategic arms control agreement between the United States and Russia, New START, expired without a successor agreement in place. As a Scoville Fellow, I was challenged to think deeply about the role of the United States in the international nuclear order during a period when the traditional guardrails are steadily disappearing. The Scoville Fellowship has proven to be a truly transformative experience for understanding state activity in an increasingly volatile and unstable world.
Yet, historical perspectives remind us that the nation-state is not nearly as permanent or stable as contemporary IR theory often suggests. As hallmark texts in modern history illustrate, people have continually contested, reshaped, and reconstructed the nation-state precisely during moments of vast political upheaval. A long view of history demonstrates that states can change radically—and they can change remarkably quickly.
Maintaining a historical point of view through my policy work has allowed me to see far beyond the constrictions and pessimism of the current geopolitical moment. The collapse of the Soviet Union, for example, demonstrates conclusively that the trajectory of Russian history was never predetermined. Especially during the 1990s, there were numerous critical junctures in which Russia could have fundamentally reinvented its domestic and foreign posture. Vladimir Putin’s eventual rise to power and the systematic reassertion of authoritarianism in Russia was by no means an inevitable reconquest. This vital recognition—coupled with an openness to the reality that states can undergo profound, radical self-transformation—suggests that nations could eventually find ways to remake their relationships with one another, particularly regarding the governance of both nuclear and non-nuclear technologies.
The prevailing consensus in Washington on the future of arms control, for example, remains remarkably dim. Given China’s ongoing historical nuclear buildup and Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine, the common refrain in policy circles is that this is simply not the right time for diplomacy. However, a historical perspective suggests that improved conditions for arms control may, in fact, be quietly taking shape on the horizon. As a Scoville Fellow at PONI, I have had the privilege of contributing to the foundational intellectual work that will ultimately lay the groundwork for future arms control frameworks when state relationships inevitably shift. Indeed, history teaches us that these relationships can change rapidly and radically. Effective arms control thinking should not simply wait on the sidelines; instead, it must remain prepared to seize upon even the smallest moments of geopolitical rupture.
The overarching goal of the Herbert Scoville Jr. Peace Fellowship is to bring diverse, fresh young professionals into the broader nuclear policy community. For me, bridging the gap between nuclear history and the day-to-day work of policy research has been an invaluable journey, offering a lens that enriches not only my own career but the broader conversation on global security.
Elena Tiedens was a Fall 2025 Scoville Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ Project on Nuclear Issues.
Related Posts
