The University of Rochester is one of the nation's leading private research universities, renowned for its commitment to innovation, interdisciplinary collaboration, and academic excellence. Guided by its motto, "Meliora"—Ever Better—the University fosters groundbreaking research and transformative education across its schools and centers.

University of Rochester

New Row

Contact expert @[Full Name](fullname), @[Job Title](job_title) at @[Organization](organization) for media, speaking, professional opportunities and more.

@[Full Name](fullname) at @[Organization](organization) | Contact Form

Expert Inquiry

Open Sans

War and Punishment: The Causes of War Termination and the First World War

What Do We Know about War?

Hein Goemans is an expert on international relations, conflict, and qualitative and historical research. His current research revolves around territory, borders and homelands, and why people are willing to fight and die for one piece of land and not another. His previous research examined the role of leaders in war initiation and termination.

Ukraine

International Conflict 

War termination

International Relations

War and Conflict

Territorial Disputes

International Conflict Resolution

The Peter D. Watson Center for Conflict and Cooperation

Three years since Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Trump sides with Russia

The Obstacles to Diplomacy in Ukraine Russia’s Extreme Demands—and Ukraine’s Desire to Survive—Make Negotiations Unlikely

How Russia and Ukraine interpret and signal information will determine the course of the war Hein Goemans and Branislav Slantchev argue that the fighting will not end until expectations converge

Historian predicts how Russia's war in Ukraine could end

Ukraine series: how long will the war last?

Russia Will Pursue Desperate Strategies After It Exhausts Its Missile Supply

How the War in Ukraine Might End

Is Putin's war in Ukraine at a turning point?

How Ukraine's advances are cornering Putin, making the war more dangerous

The prospects for a negotiated peace in Ukraine are bleak

What does Putin want from the Ukraine invasion?

Opinion | Why Regime Change in Russia Might Not Be a Good Idea

Maps to Die For

venezuela-why-regime-change-is-harder-than-removing-a-leader

Conflict scholar Hein Goemans and democracy expert Gretchen Helmke weigh in on why “decapitation” strategies often fail — and what they mean for global stability.

Professor of Political Science

The Thomas H. Jackson Distinguished University Professor of Political Science

  With global attention on Venezuela following the U.S. removal of Nicolás Maduro, one of the central questions is whether taking out a leader actually changes the political system that put him in power.

Two University of Rochester political scientists — Hein Goemans and Gretchen Helmke — study different sides of this issue, and can shed light on why authoritarian regimes often survive even when leaders fall and what the U.S. intervention means for Venezuela and the world order.

Goemans specializes in how wars begin and end, regime survival, and why so-called “decapitation strategies” — removing a leader without dismantling the broader power structure — so often fail to produce stable outcomes. His research draws on cases ranging from Iraq and Afghanistan to authoritarian regimes in Latin America.

In a recent interview with WXXI Public Media, Goemans warned that removing Maduro does not resolve the underlying system of military and economic control that sustained his rule. Without changes to those institutions, he said, power is likely to remain concentrated among the same elite networks.

“The problem isn’t just the leader,” Goemans explained. “It’s the structure that rewards loyalty and punishes defection. If that remains intact, the politics don’t fundamentally change.”

Helmke, a leading scholar of democracy and authoritarianism in Latin America, emphasizes that legitimacy, not just force, determines whether democratic transitions take hold.

Her research helps explain why democratic breakthroughs so often stall after moments of dramatic change, and why outside interventions can unintentionally weaken domestic opposition movements by shifting power toward regime insiders.

“When the institutions and elites remain in place, uncertainty — not democratic transition — often becomes the dominant political reality,” she said.

For journalists covering the fast-moving situation, Goemans and Helmke are available to discuss why removing leaders rarely brings the political transformation policymakers expect and what history suggests comes next. They can address:

• Why regime-change operations so often backfire, even when dictators are deeply unpopular
• What sidelining democratic opposition means for legitimacy
• Whether U.S. claims that Maduro is illegitimate hold up under international and U.S. law
• How prosecuting a foreign leader in U.S. courts could reshape norms of sovereignty
• The risks the U.S. intervention poses to the rules-based international order and NATO
• How interventions affect international norms, including sovereignty and the rule of law, and why short-term tactical successes can create long-term strategic risks.
• Why treating global politics as a series of “one-off” power plays misunderstands how states actually enforce norms over time
• How competing factions inside the U.S. administration may be driving incoherent foreign policy

Geomans also brings rare insight into the internal dynamics of U.S. policymaking, having taught and observed Stephen Miller, one of President Donald Trump’s closest aides who is helping shape the administration’s worldview. (Goemans taught Miller at Duke University in 2003.)

Click on the profiles for Goemans and Helmke to connect with them.



Venezuela: Why Regime Change Is Harder Than Removing A Leader

how-the-black-sea-ceasefire-could-backfire-for-ukraine

University of Rochester’s Hein Goemans says the deal suggests Russia is “playing” the United States.

Washington is touting the proposed Black Sea ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia, but there are signs that Russia could emerge from the deal with the upper hand.

 Hein Goemans, a political science professor at the University of Rochester whose research focuses on territorial disputes and what starts and ends wars, says the agreement “doesn’t really mean much.”

“What matters is territorial divisions,” Goemans says. “I see this ceasefire deal as Russia trying to play the United States.”

Goemans says the deal would be reasonable if the U.S. were willing to enforce it with sanctions if, or when, Russia reneges.

“Ukraine should not believe this deal is in any way credible if the U.S. is not willing to commit to sanctions if Russia reneges, which it will,” Goemans says. 

He adds that the deal also favors Russia if other parts of it, like the repatriation of Ukrainian children, are not effected.

“The chance that Russia would effectively help with the repatriation of Ukrainian abducted children is zero,” Goemans says. “It appears Russia has not compromised on any dimension.”

Goemans recently shared similar thoughts with Newsweek, and is regularly tapped by news outlets around the world for his insights on the war in Ukraine and territorial disputes in hotspots across the globe. Reach Goemans by clicking on his profile.



How the Black Sea ceasefire could backfire for Ukraine

Select Inquiry Type