As Professor Snyder has often said and written, Ukraine needs to win this war, and Russia needs to lose this war. The perpetrators of these past and continuing war crimes must be brought to justice.
Thank you for this new post and a follow up with regard to MH 17. What strikes me is with regard to Russian propaganda is just how much the issue for them is to confuse the story and subvert reality. Just keep throwing different versions out into the echo-sphere and see who picks up this or that piece and runs with it. I keep hoping that some new information will be found as to the origin of the missile that ended up in Poland and killed two people there. Of course if Russia were not shooting missiles and drones into Ukraine, there would be no "spill over" into a neighboring nation. But that is not the point right now. Russia wants to be right in this case which makes me wonder how a missile landed in Poland. I happened upon the Havel Albright lectures from Colby College yesterday and found the panel discussion absolutely fascinating. I hope you will post a link more directly for your readers here. I appreciated especially your discussion of the purpose of Freedom of Speech as not being able to say anything at any time (like on twitter or other social media - the smell of sulfur!) but speaking in a way that brings truth into perspective and places the speaker at a moment of risk . I cannot wait to read your new book!
I like what you say with the caveat that it does not matter that it is somehow found that the Russians were directly at fault, they were so obviously at fault ultimately. As for Russian- Putin's different versions of the story, as with the different reasons for the invasions Peter Pomerantsev also talks (& writes) about flooding the information zone so that people are confused about the truth so there is no truth only confusion. The confused ( on all levels) are quick to conclude throw their hands up, turn away. But there is truth. We need to keep ahead of this "post propaganda" somehow.
I am reading a fabulous biography of Vaclav Havel by Kieran Williams, which is a book on the reading list for the Yale course Dr. Snyder teaches. At the lectures I referred to there were a number comments about truth and the role of the person involved - the person who takes responsibility and risks themselves. In the biography, there are really wonderful sections about the whole matter of truth, and an individual taking responsibility. That came up in a way during the lecture by Dr. Shore that was just posted on Youtube. I hope you have a chance to listen/see those lectures. But even if you only get the most recent one with Dr. Shore it will be an excellent one to listen to.
I have been listening to them all and so appreciative of being able to. Some need twice listening to penetrate for all the sides and back and forth time-wise. Unfortunately I have not caught up with the reading as you have but plan to. I have been listening to Prof Snyder's other lectures on youtube as well- warnings, reading articles, and listening to Peter Pomerantsev, Marci Shore as well as others. This all connects and is awakening. I realize that my education, so many years ago, left out so much.. but maybe I am old enough to actually remember the events themselves. Now they are coming into view, into context regarding what we have going on today. Emotions are so important and history never ends. We knew that even when it was surmised that history was over and we said "yeah". I assumed that what was meant was ideological. We don't know where we are headed and we never do. This is the beauty and the tragedy. It's not good if we don't pay attention to what is coming. Snyder is so correct to remind about that as he teaches history. Thanks for the recommendation.
Thank you, Dr. Snyder, for posting this, and for sharing the excerpt from Road to Unfreedom. Yesterday's verdict is truly only the barest beginning. Russia's disregard for life and for human rights needs to be called out; it needs to stop.
Friday morning means your Tuesday lecture has posted. Woke at 6. Shared your lecture with a request for friends to listen and please contribute. Thank you
Isn’t this, at its core, the old KGB playbook updated for current events? Similar inventions to confuse or muddle were not only peddled during the Cold War but the USSR provided guidance, if not the scripts themselves, on such matters to its Warsaw Pact allies when needed (to justify, among other things, invading Hungary and Czechoslovakia) and its Arab allies to recast their revanchist imperial war against Israel as an anti-colonial venture pressed by an indigenous people (who, oddly enough, have no word in their native tongue for their supposed ancestral homeland).
Let's be clear: Modern Israel from its beginning in modern times has been admitting that it is a colonial endeavor and it still is. Regarding revanchism, (or irredentism?) Israel claims the right to this land (from the Jordan River to Mediterranean) because of a varied history of peoples, time, and place. This claim goes back for its validity 3,000 years while denying other "indigenous" people, some related, who have lived on this land all along. The many place names over the millennia of various tribes and peoples have no relevance in such arguments about modern times. What if the Vikings(Scandinavians) claimed Kyiv? (I will not respond).
To quote the late President Ronald Reagan, “there you go again.” If Israel is a “colonial” project, aside from its unique quality of “colonizing” your own homeland, what is the statute of limitations that magically transformed the 7th century Arab invasion and conquest of this same land from an Arab “colony” or imperial possession to “Arab” land?
And, for that matter, as your definition of indigenous permits a later arriving people to gain that mantle if the inhabitants already there cannot repel them, after how many years does the colonizer becomes indigenous? I’m sure there are many Americans (North, Central and South) not to mention Australians, New Zealanders, Boers and others who would love to know your answer.
The basis under international law for the re-establishment of a sovereign state for the Jewish people was and remains the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. It was expressly created as part of the vastly larger project of post-WWI territorial dispensation. And, it should be obvious, that the applicable international law is the one obtaining at the time. This is The basis for Israel’s legal claim to sovereignty over the Mandate lands as they existed in 1948. That it hasn’t extended its sovereignty fully so allows for the possibility of a political solution through a second partition.
You may personally believe this decision by the League of Nations was a mistake or unfair or should have no current viability. That changes nothing as to Israel’s legitimacy or the long historical connection of the Jewish people to their homeland.
Ah, the League of Nations Mandate. One could write a book about the events leading to that mandate, and in fact, someone has: David Fromkin, A Peace to End all Peace. In it you will find out how the present Middle East was shaped by the British and French, with American acquiescence if not outright participation, the primary purpose of which was to carve up the Ottoman Empire and divide the oil. It was based in large part on the Balfour Declaration, which included the text " it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." It goes without saying that that so-called clear understanding has never been accepted by the government of Israel.
Besides that, it is absurd to set up a state in territory that has been occupied since pre-history by a variety of peoples and declare that it belongs to just one of them.
Lastly, I find it ironic that a discussion of Israel's right to expel Palestinians and to claim whatever territory they currently have their eyes on as theirs here, in a forum where the similar actions of the Mostovites against Ukraine are being decried.
Yes S.S. It's ironic too that Jews are genetically related to Palestinians whose ancestry goes back to the Canaanites. Palestinians are accepted as such today including at the UN. (The UN supersedes the League). They are cousins to the Jewish people. Thinking, though, of all the intermarriages and conversions on both sides the Arabs are not incorrect to argue that some modern Jews are European (the Ashkenazim coalesced in the Holy Roman Empire). Some Sfardim are Arab, or so called. Palestinians have argued that their land is being colonized by Europeans and that they are being made to pay for the Holocaust. Some in Israel argue back about Arabs helping Hitler.. minor when you look into it. Some Jews helped Hitler. When Israel was created, not by the League, but by the UN, the Arab countries were left out. The Israeli War of Independence settled the matter by force (and aided by the West). Israel's acceptance at the UN as a legitimate nation member was on the promise to be at peace with neighbors. The borders then were 1948 borders.Then it changed in 1967 and it's been changing ever since.
So much for your vow of silence. You managed to pack quite a bit of misinformation into your comment. My response, based on our prior exchanges, is really meant for others whose minds are open to facts and evidence.
First, if the Jews and Palestinians are “cousins”, then you are admitting that the Jews are indigenous under your earlier broad definition of the term. Yet, the fact is that a substantial portion of today’s Palestinians were relocated by the Ottomans from the Balkans and other regions in the 19th century to counter what was seen as Christian encroachment. Sfardim originate from Spain (hence the name) where they lived before the Arab conquest. And vanishingly few Jews refer to themselves as Arab Jews - but I’m sure you feel free to tell other groups what their true identity is.
The essential historical difference is that the peoplehood of the Jews can be said to have begun in the Land of Israel and many were then exiled or displaced, but with a remnant always there, while today’s Palestinians by and large came from other places and coalesced in that land over the last century or so. The irony perhaps is that the Jews remained a people because the majority groups within which they found themselves rejected their assimilation while the post-1948 Arabs of Palestine found themselves rejected by their Arab brethren with no pathway to citizenship thanks to Arab League resolutions and various apartheid-like laws in Arab states restricting their civil rights (with the exception of Jordan until 1988 when it unilaterally terminated their Jordanian citizenship).
Second, the Grand Mufti’s plans of annihilating the Jews of the Middle East with Nazi assistance were never carried out because of Field Marshal Montgomery’s defeat of Rommel at El Alamein. The Nazis then recalled their einsatzgruppen contingents that were prepositioned to enter the Mandate territories and expand the Final Solution. Throughout the war, though, the Grand Mufti has virulently antisemitic Nazi propaganda disseminated throughout the region and raised a Muslim battalion for the Third Reich. These facts are all well known.
Third, your comment that “some Jews helped Hitler” is, of course, a give away of your real feelings. Such an assertion is on par with claiming a parity between the hostage rescuer and the kidnapper, but on a far greater morally debased level.
Fourth, Israel was not “created” by the UN. The UN has no such power. Nor did it have unilateral authority to diminish in any way the rights granted the Jewish people under the Mandate. That was expressly denied it under Article 80 of the UN Charter.
What did happen was that in 1947, the UK announced that it was ending its role as Mandatory Power in May 1948, which meant the Mandate was terminating. In late 1947, the UN suggested a partition which the Jewish Agency accepted and the Arab states unanimously rejected, invading the territories the day the British left and Israel declared its independence.
Although Jordan seized what was then still called Judea and Samaria as well as the eastern part of Jerusalem and Egypt took the Gaza Strip, at no point between their illegal occupation and their loss of these territories did either contemplate the creation of a State of Palestine. In fact, article 24 of the 1964 PLO Charter expressly denied any Palestinian claim to sovereignty over the very lands they now claim as theirs from time immemorial. That article was conveniently changed only after Israel took possession.
Sixth in Israel’s war of independence, the West declared an arms embargo, nominally against all parties, though the British had armed and had officers, such as John Glubb “Pasha”, commanding Transjordan’s Arab Legion. It was Czechoslovakia with Stalin’s acquiescence that allowed arms and vintage planes to get to Israel. Some American private citizens succeeded in sneaking some arms munitions and mothballed warplanes to Israel, and most were prosecuted by the US for their efforts.
As to the Six Day War in 1967, perhaps Nasser should have abided by the 1957 settlement of the Sinai campaign or at the very least not drawn Syria (through treaty) and Jordan (through lies) to attack Israel as well. In 1967, taking land from an aggressor was permitted under international law which is why UNSC resolution 242 did not call for Israel to return all that it freed nor was Israel found by the UN to have been the aggressor - that resolution failed.
While it is tiresome to constantly correct things that are rather easily uncovered if only you were to look, it remains necessary to combat misinformation wherever and whenever it rears its head.
My response was not to you, but to Mr. Schiff (to "S.S." above) as you do not engage respectfully nor read carefully what is being said instead of what you think is being said. So there is no discussion. I will say (to you) that UNGA res 181 supersedes what else you go on about. As well being cousins genetically has nothing to do with land rights in the present nor what defines "indigenous". In my first response which was to you, I did scrub that same quote of Ronald Reagan, thought it trite. Funny. We agree on something. Done here.
A more nuanced and thoughtful book on the League of Nations, including an explanation of the Mandate system generally, is Prof. Susan Pederson’s “The Guardians: The League of Nations and The Crisis of Empire.”
As to Israel’s current treatment of its non-Jewish population (the provision you cite from the Balfour Declaration is repeated in the text of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine), let’s just say that Freedom House and The Economist’s Democracy Index disagree with you. And, it goes without saying, that Israel stands head and shoulders above all of its regional neighbors as a “rule of law” democracy. As to the additional caution against the dual loyalty canard deployed against the Jews, that aspiration is one that remains widely ignored.
On an historical note, the oil wealth of the Middle East was not really apparent until after WWI. The Sykes-Picot division had far more to do with protecting British access to India while using France as a buffer against Russia - a vestige of the Great Game. And, finally, as the US never declared war against the Ottoman Empire, it played no role in the region and in fact refused to become entangled there when it rejected offers to act as a Mandatory Power.
Your final paragraph suggests that you either did not finish reading my comment or didn’t understand it. Nowhere do I suggest expelling Palestinians nor is Israel engaging in such practices - outside of the minds of anti-Israel ideologues who seem impervious to facts.
And the lands that you say Israel has “their eyes on” are none other than those allotted to the Jewish people under the Mandate - minus the 78% that was severed in 1923 by the UK to create today’s Jordan.
As I said, you may find the post-WWI disposition of the Middle East holdings of the lands of the Ottoman Empire to have been wrongheaded, but that does not alter the fact that the Mandate system itself created the relevant framework in international law. It may, however, be the reason that so many choose to bury or ignore these stubborn facts in the region’s history.
As a final note, under the then-emergent idea of national self-determination, it is strange that the only indigenous people in the Middle East to be granted that right were the Jewish people. The Kurds, Armenians, Assyrians and others were left to the tender mercies of the Arabs. That seems a more unjust result than returning 99% of the Ottoman lands to be ruled by the very imperial colonizers the Ottomans had replaced and arguing over that last 1% (today’s Israel and the disputed territories), but perhaps that’s just me.
Both the domestic conflicts within Ukraine and the external aggression against Ukraine, along with politically coercive foreign influences, continue to prompt us to seek forums for popular participation to work toward resolution of both using collective effort, using cooperation for common interests realization. The world's leaders, with few exceptions, appear to work solely for selfish and political advantages and without caring about ordinary peoples' lives and aspirations for cooperation as opposed to confrontation and suspicion.
The living world of which we are part provides countless examples that growth is self-correcting and utilitarian, with part of the utility being inter-generational in nature (not intention). The above conflicts are just two examples of how people consciously interfere with self-correcting tendencies, tending to put effort into managing 'change' to avoid or reduce the need to personally adapt and succeed in novel situations, both opportune and challenging, and to satisfy social inclinations by practicing cooperation, which too can be experienced as managing change. In nature, we see that in ecosystems that we delineate more broadly, such as maritime or oceanic, the more rapid is the succession of generations of living entities there is, the more sustainable is the management of change over long many many generations; flexibility in the form of ecological adaptability gives rise to our perception of a sort of partial harmony and sustainability, even though what we witness is change. By contrast, very long-lived individuals tend to associate with other individuals in less adaptable configurations and with less living diversity over time and, as we perceive multi-generational events horizons, in ecosystems that can be rapidly degraded by disruptions to just a few of its long-lived members.
It is remarkable then to witness so many persons and so many groups consciously working for avoiding and opposing disruption and adaption in all events concerning people and our communities; how can young people, as well as some others, be expected to witness the inadequacies and undesirable consequences of their elders' choices, and then, having witnessed them, be admonished by these elders (along with popular media and even some peers) to consciously resist working for better actions that better realize common interests of everyone and opportunities for novel forms of living that also appear to contribute to everyone living better?
Why choose stasis, which one in our group noted implies stagnant stability, without adaptive capacity AND informed by growing tension that is harmful to the health of people and their communities, bringing about confrontation or even civil strife?
It is telling that we forget or ignore the unexpected and unspun assertions of past prominent individuals in relation to this seeming contradiction of self-imposed misery. An example is from a dialogue between then British Prime Minister Thatcher and Russian President Gorbachev; Ms. Thatcher said:
"...In spite of all the differences between our systems, we can still exchange some useful experiences. We are deeply impressed by the vigorous policy of reform you are trying to implement. We have a common problem here -- how to manage change." (March 1987)
In communicating our perceptions of the situations in Ukraine and Russia among ourselves and among journalists, teachers, leaders of these nations, we are wanting dialogue to address stasis. We now have stagnation in many social, political, economic and creative areas of living, and we now have war, which many worked hard to prevent and to prevent by using honest dialogue and formation of collective agreements and protocols instead.
The danger of stasis in institutions and in civil relations is as dangerous in America as it now is in Eurasia; managing change is what is required of us, and this requires us each and as conscious communities to endure the hardships of disruptions to end stasis and to implement collective dialogue, come to agreements and implement them in order to cooperatively regain civic and institutional self-correction and improvement.
"I repeat, the key question is whether Ukraine can build a strong alternative project of political reform. Because among the political forces that are fighting for power today, I don’t see anyone who is really ready to change the country."
"Ukranians, like any country of peoples, is the country of their children and they themselves must work towards its future."
"The Russian art historian Nikolai Nikulin wrote that during the war and Stalinist repression, Darwinian selection took place in reverse. Who died first? The smart, the honest and the active. Who survived? The cunning and insidious opportunists...... This was how it worked till the collapse of the Soviet Union. And today we live in a post-genocide transition period where corruption is one of the consequences. Nations that have experienced extreme violence are particularly prone to corruption. Why? Because for them corruption is the only way of survival..... Moreover, violence creates an apathetic society… because passivity is the most certain way to survive." "What’s important is that Ukraine now has a whole generation that grew up during independence. These young people don’t have these characteristics nor do they remember, either genetically or personally."
"A historian who studies only one side of the question is not a historian, but a propagandist who defends the interests of one side. Conversely, a historian who tries to show the complexity of the situation and the moral and political choices that our ancestors faced allows different parties to find their place in history. ... Of course, this is a very personal approach. I’d like to write a history that unites Ukrainians. No, it won’t unite us; that’s an illusion. I want to write a history that reconciles Ukrainians with each other."
Recognizing the humanness and genuineness of the diversity of human outlook in respect of particulars need not be an obstacle for shared recognition and cooperative agreement on working together for adaptive change to arrive at (or move everyone closer to living) better living and improved chances for everyone's children to also do so together.
Not just the course of the war could be changed; after all, once the fighting stops, what defines the postwar attitudes, common interest efforts, and the character of domestic relations in, for example, Ukraine and Russia? Ditto the US, the West, elsewhere? Could bringing the war to an end through a carefully conducted defense be not only a domestic process for Ukrainians to achieve awareness of a collectively successful democratic state and of a differently politically self-unified or -modified state (different and self-determined for novel internal cooperation and regional collective security and cooperative prosperity), but also a deliberate and internationally articulated beginning of better Ukraine relations with all regional states, including Russia?
Could something like this occur in as Russian citizens and soldiers witness a Ukrainian defense of itself that is not assertively anti-Russia,...a defense that postulates the necessity and desirability of Russians being partners in choosing collectively how to 'end history', to end violent confrontation and to end creating winners and losers, and to instead begin to use cooperative planning and building of a 'future'?
Novel and better 'futures' are worth making mistakes together to achieve. Acting on an ever-longer list of historical grievances is futile and ends not a single problem, appears not ever to contribute to resolution to problems in ways and by means that evoke efforts (and optimism) for collectively decided and worked for changes.
It seems like an essential insight, the final paragraph in Prof. Snyder's essay here. For me, this stands out, "But even if all of these lies could not make a coherent story, they could at least break a story, one that happened to be true. Although there were Russians who grasped what had happened and apologized, the Russian population as a whole was denied the possibility to reflect on its responsibility for a war and its crimes."
Can we but ask, 'Well before 'the end', it would be helpful to know that we collectively chose how we would arrive, what we collectively changed along the way to end what needed ending and to ready ourselves for novel postwar conditions of perspectives, collective interest agreements, and collective mechanisms to making better futures. At the outset (which is now), it would be helpful to assert that there is the collective will to make the collective choices and efforts (and mistakes, and corrections) that gave everyone confidence to work together to end conflict, to set aside aims of conquest and reckonings, and to adopt cooperative means and ends to make the future a better future.' (from my correspondence with a humanitarian aid worker in the Ukraine, Oct 2022)
Perhaps it is worth considering Prof Snyder's, Prof Nicolai Petro's, Prof Serhii Plokhii's historical presentations and questions as having the capacities to change any person's willingness and capacities to choose among distinctly different futures, different efforts and sorts of efforts.
As Prof. Snyder suggests, we have a lot to do to work factual information into the Russian peoples' factual compendium and dialogue about the Ukraine and the current occupation and invasion and war. How long will the effort take before enough Russian soldiers and citizens have such information? Even in America, how many Americans have any historically and politically coherent narratives about the Ukraine and about post-cold war Russia and their relations and the West's relations with each of them? Few Americans do. Very few.
So, for example, imagine that Pres Biden, or Pres Putin, or Pres Zelenskyy listen to these presentations. In each of these persons, novel questions arise, novel alternative ways of looking at current and future alternative choices begin to form, and novel senses of opportunity and optimism for resolution to some or many or all of the problems besetting the Ukraine and Russia and Eurasia....
Other persons may experience these changes in perception and possibility, as well. By expressing and contrasting novel views and questions (and interpretations of past events), these people use history to reassess present and past international relationships and to suggest why and how people might adopt novel collective views and reinterpret collective common interests and the collective means to achieve them.
Thus, might 'thinking about' history in distinctly novel ways that also are well supported by events become an effective rational vehicle or resource for imagining better, emerging, collectively achieved present and future relationships? If so, then this substack provides an environment and numerous forums for 'collective buildings-up of' historical evidence that, in turn and from recognizing missed opportunities and misused or unused relationship tools, can encourage citizens and leaders to amend and append each one's repertoire of novel futures, and in this situation, what might be conceived and what might be done differently to allow a collectively better "end" to this war to be managed.
Ukraine must win this war: Russia must be held accountable. There's no peace without truth and justice, and no real "countries" without the rule of law.
I wonder if subscribers can ask a question? (I’m aware that it must be impossible for Timothy Snyder to answer all questions perhaps someone else can help). I have a friend in India whose been eagerly reading all of Snyder’s books to fight off the anti-Ukrainian propaganda that is unfortunately ubiquitous in that part of the world. She’d very much like to find a reference for Timothy Snyders argument about Stalin talking about ‘internal colonialism’. The argument is not about whether this is a good way of describing what happened. Its about whether Stalin ever used the term internal colonialism to describe what he was doing in his own speeches. It would be hugely useful to get a reference. Many thanks to whoever can answer this question. It really would be hugely useful.
Prof. Snyder, one needs to be carefull about terminology here - there was never a notable separatist movement neither in ukrainian Donbas, nor in Crimea. There were local protests in Donbas and Crimea as a reaction to the Revolution of Dignity, both pro and contra, but neither in Crimea nor in ukrainian Donbas in reality it ever came to separatism with an idea of separating and forming own state - it did came to collaborationism with a goal of formally join Russia as soon as russian occupational (openly but with no insignia in Crimea and covertly in Donbas) forces arrived - as collaboration always emerges as you perfectly know as soon as occupation happens.
It is very unfortunate that in this case russian propaganda originated and implanted (long before the actual events) term was happily picked up by ukrainian journalists and spread among the ukrainian and foreign public. In fact one could analyse it as a part of russian informational warfare dedicated to divert and twist the reality in order to confuse western public and divert any reaction to another act of aggression and occupation.
It is even more unfortunate when such well-informed experts like you also use it.
P.S. As a volunteer since 2014-2015 I happen to know Khodakovsky colleagues, who communicated with him at the time and were explicitly agitated not to take part in some separatist movement, but to collaborate with Russia and rip the benefits, but did not betrayed their country and could provide you with their respective accounts on how it happened.
Thank you, Mr. Puzhay, for these observations and recollections of events. Your telling has been corroborated a few times by others living in these areas, and they are consistent with many of Prof. Snyder's retellings of manipulative media narratives of the course of these events. It does appear that separatism and collaboration became media objects of attention once Russian occupation expanded, and the media and the occupation advanced the prospects of collaboration, thus being much more self-fulfilling than might have otherwise been.
If you have additional information to share, please do.
Thank you for the details of this incident. I remember being confused by all the misinformation and conjecture at the time and then it was onto the next tragedy. It took so long for this verdict but we must be thankful for it. It goes to prove again the nature of Putin's Russia and how far along the road of unfreedom they are, sadly for us all. It adds to all else that has been happening since February 24th. May this verdict further break down believability, excuses, justifications, sympathy that Russia manages to keep alive with its propaganda. Listening to Peter Pomerantsev's lecture on Youtube from several months ago on his book "This is Not Propaganda". (Pennstate McCoutney Institute) connects as does your "The Road to Unfreedom". May such efforts have reverberations and effect.
Is it possible that the missile explosion in Poland that killed two farmers just now was somehow carried out by Russia? I am bothered that President Zelensky, in accusing Russia, appears to be at odds with his allies US and Poland, who state it seems to have been an accidental misfiring by Ukrainian defence forces.
I agreed. I would like to hear Professor Snyder's opinion on this--missile explosion in Poland that killed two farmers. I tend not to believe that they were not from Russia. I believe it cannot be intentionally from Ukraine. Because Poland is highly supportive of Ukraine and there is no reason for Ukraine to escalate the war. This bombing seems to fit Russia's behavioral pattern-- send out a provocation and deny it, or better still blame it on another nation and test out NATO's patience. Neither is it convincing to say it was a mis-fired missile from Ukraine since the Ukrainian army has been repeatedly praised for operating effectively the highly precise weapons from the West. Waiting for the result of an investigation may sound good. But like the HM 17 incident, it may take 10 years to know the result. This is way too long a wait when it comes to an ongoing warfare. I tend to think NATO does not want to escalate the war and hence it would rather say the missile was not from Russia. I do not like this reason but, on the other hand, to be pragmatic, I think trying to not escalate the war is more important at this point.
Pragmatism and appeasement were the mistakes made by western countries in dealing with the Russian Federation from its early days. So are we about to repeat such mistakes in this situation?
What I can't understand is Zelensky's denial. He's hugely intelligent as honest as you can be in these times. So why insist the Ukrainians are not responsible if there's no gain for him in so doing? It doesn't add up. Suggests he knows more than we are being told?
Zelenskyy said he asked his people and he didn't believe they would lie. It could have been a miscommunication, i.e. "Did we fire a missile into Poland?" Response, "No, we didn't fire in that direction," without considering the possibility that a ground-to-air missile, that is supposed to self-destruct if it doesn't hit the target, occasionally fails to do so. I'm not saying that's how the conversation went, just demonstrating how easy it is to err.
I watched a meeting Zelenskyy had with his people, where he concluded they needed access to the evidence to see for themselves. If it was their missile, he wants to apologize to the families.
The possibility of allies avoiding a confrontation with Russia by saying the missile was Ukrainian has also occurred to Zelenskyy. I can't imagine why he would fear us choosing expediency over truth to avoid a confrontation with Putin. 🙄 (Crimea, Donbas, Budapest Memorandum)
One last comment: Don't the allies bear some responsibility for the situation? We sent older, less reliable systems to protect Ukrainian civilians, even though Russia targeted apartment blocks, schools, etc. for months. Now that two people in another country have died, and half the Ukrainian electrical grid is destroyed, we are sending systems that are more accurate and less likely to spill over into neighboring countries. How many Ukrainians died while we were dragging our feet? How many more will die of hypothermia, home fires, and fumes from improper heating?
As Professor Snyder has often said and written, Ukraine needs to win this war, and Russia needs to lose this war. The perpetrators of these past and continuing war crimes must be brought to justice.
Thank you for this new post and a follow up with regard to MH 17. What strikes me is with regard to Russian propaganda is just how much the issue for them is to confuse the story and subvert reality. Just keep throwing different versions out into the echo-sphere and see who picks up this or that piece and runs with it. I keep hoping that some new information will be found as to the origin of the missile that ended up in Poland and killed two people there. Of course if Russia were not shooting missiles and drones into Ukraine, there would be no "spill over" into a neighboring nation. But that is not the point right now. Russia wants to be right in this case which makes me wonder how a missile landed in Poland. I happened upon the Havel Albright lectures from Colby College yesterday and found the panel discussion absolutely fascinating. I hope you will post a link more directly for your readers here. I appreciated especially your discussion of the purpose of Freedom of Speech as not being able to say anything at any time (like on twitter or other social media - the smell of sulfur!) but speaking in a way that brings truth into perspective and places the speaker at a moment of risk . I cannot wait to read your new book!
I like what you say with the caveat that it does not matter that it is somehow found that the Russians were directly at fault, they were so obviously at fault ultimately. As for Russian- Putin's different versions of the story, as with the different reasons for the invasions Peter Pomerantsev also talks (& writes) about flooding the information zone so that people are confused about the truth so there is no truth only confusion. The confused ( on all levels) are quick to conclude throw their hands up, turn away. But there is truth. We need to keep ahead of this "post propaganda" somehow.
I am reading a fabulous biography of Vaclav Havel by Kieran Williams, which is a book on the reading list for the Yale course Dr. Snyder teaches. At the lectures I referred to there were a number comments about truth and the role of the person involved - the person who takes responsibility and risks themselves. In the biography, there are really wonderful sections about the whole matter of truth, and an individual taking responsibility. That came up in a way during the lecture by Dr. Shore that was just posted on Youtube. I hope you have a chance to listen/see those lectures. But even if you only get the most recent one with Dr. Shore it will be an excellent one to listen to.
I have been listening to them all and so appreciative of being able to. Some need twice listening to penetrate for all the sides and back and forth time-wise. Unfortunately I have not caught up with the reading as you have but plan to. I have been listening to Prof Snyder's other lectures on youtube as well- warnings, reading articles, and listening to Peter Pomerantsev, Marci Shore as well as others. This all connects and is awakening. I realize that my education, so many years ago, left out so much.. but maybe I am old enough to actually remember the events themselves. Now they are coming into view, into context regarding what we have going on today. Emotions are so important and history never ends. We knew that even when it was surmised that history was over and we said "yeah". I assumed that what was meant was ideological. We don't know where we are headed and we never do. This is the beauty and the tragedy. It's not good if we don't pay attention to what is coming. Snyder is so correct to remind about that as he teaches history. Thanks for the recommendation.
Thank you, Dr. Snyder, for posting this, and for sharing the excerpt from Road to Unfreedom. Yesterday's verdict is truly only the barest beginning. Russia's disregard for life and for human rights needs to be called out; it needs to stop.
Friday morning means your Tuesday lecture has posted. Woke at 6. Shared your lecture with a request for friends to listen and please contribute. Thank you
Isn’t this, at its core, the old KGB playbook updated for current events? Similar inventions to confuse or muddle were not only peddled during the Cold War but the USSR provided guidance, if not the scripts themselves, on such matters to its Warsaw Pact allies when needed (to justify, among other things, invading Hungary and Czechoslovakia) and its Arab allies to recast their revanchist imperial war against Israel as an anti-colonial venture pressed by an indigenous people (who, oddly enough, have no word in their native tongue for their supposed ancestral homeland).
Let's be clear: Modern Israel from its beginning in modern times has been admitting that it is a colonial endeavor and it still is. Regarding revanchism, (or irredentism?) Israel claims the right to this land (from the Jordan River to Mediterranean) because of a varied history of peoples, time, and place. This claim goes back for its validity 3,000 years while denying other "indigenous" people, some related, who have lived on this land all along. The many place names over the millennia of various tribes and peoples have no relevance in such arguments about modern times. What if the Vikings(Scandinavians) claimed Kyiv? (I will not respond).
To quote the late President Ronald Reagan, “there you go again.” If Israel is a “colonial” project, aside from its unique quality of “colonizing” your own homeland, what is the statute of limitations that magically transformed the 7th century Arab invasion and conquest of this same land from an Arab “colony” or imperial possession to “Arab” land?
And, for that matter, as your definition of indigenous permits a later arriving people to gain that mantle if the inhabitants already there cannot repel them, after how many years does the colonizer becomes indigenous? I’m sure there are many Americans (North, Central and South) not to mention Australians, New Zealanders, Boers and others who would love to know your answer.
The basis under international law for the re-establishment of a sovereign state for the Jewish people was and remains the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. It was expressly created as part of the vastly larger project of post-WWI territorial dispensation. And, it should be obvious, that the applicable international law is the one obtaining at the time. This is The basis for Israel’s legal claim to sovereignty over the Mandate lands as they existed in 1948. That it hasn’t extended its sovereignty fully so allows for the possibility of a political solution through a second partition.
You may personally believe this decision by the League of Nations was a mistake or unfair or should have no current viability. That changes nothing as to Israel’s legitimacy or the long historical connection of the Jewish people to their homeland.
Ah, the League of Nations Mandate. One could write a book about the events leading to that mandate, and in fact, someone has: David Fromkin, A Peace to End all Peace. In it you will find out how the present Middle East was shaped by the British and French, with American acquiescence if not outright participation, the primary purpose of which was to carve up the Ottoman Empire and divide the oil. It was based in large part on the Balfour Declaration, which included the text " it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." It goes without saying that that so-called clear understanding has never been accepted by the government of Israel.
Besides that, it is absurd to set up a state in territory that has been occupied since pre-history by a variety of peoples and declare that it belongs to just one of them.
Lastly, I find it ironic that a discussion of Israel's right to expel Palestinians and to claim whatever territory they currently have their eyes on as theirs here, in a forum where the similar actions of the Mostovites against Ukraine are being decried.
Yes S.S. It's ironic too that Jews are genetically related to Palestinians whose ancestry goes back to the Canaanites. Palestinians are accepted as such today including at the UN. (The UN supersedes the League). They are cousins to the Jewish people. Thinking, though, of all the intermarriages and conversions on both sides the Arabs are not incorrect to argue that some modern Jews are European (the Ashkenazim coalesced in the Holy Roman Empire). Some Sfardim are Arab, or so called. Palestinians have argued that their land is being colonized by Europeans and that they are being made to pay for the Holocaust. Some in Israel argue back about Arabs helping Hitler.. minor when you look into it. Some Jews helped Hitler. When Israel was created, not by the League, but by the UN, the Arab countries were left out. The Israeli War of Independence settled the matter by force (and aided by the West). Israel's acceptance at the UN as a legitimate nation member was on the promise to be at peace with neighbors. The borders then were 1948 borders.Then it changed in 1967 and it's been changing ever since.
So much for your vow of silence. You managed to pack quite a bit of misinformation into your comment. My response, based on our prior exchanges, is really meant for others whose minds are open to facts and evidence.
First, if the Jews and Palestinians are “cousins”, then you are admitting that the Jews are indigenous under your earlier broad definition of the term. Yet, the fact is that a substantial portion of today’s Palestinians were relocated by the Ottomans from the Balkans and other regions in the 19th century to counter what was seen as Christian encroachment. Sfardim originate from Spain (hence the name) where they lived before the Arab conquest. And vanishingly few Jews refer to themselves as Arab Jews - but I’m sure you feel free to tell other groups what their true identity is.
The essential historical difference is that the peoplehood of the Jews can be said to have begun in the Land of Israel and many were then exiled or displaced, but with a remnant always there, while today’s Palestinians by and large came from other places and coalesced in that land over the last century or so. The irony perhaps is that the Jews remained a people because the majority groups within which they found themselves rejected their assimilation while the post-1948 Arabs of Palestine found themselves rejected by their Arab brethren with no pathway to citizenship thanks to Arab League resolutions and various apartheid-like laws in Arab states restricting their civil rights (with the exception of Jordan until 1988 when it unilaterally terminated their Jordanian citizenship).
Second, the Grand Mufti’s plans of annihilating the Jews of the Middle East with Nazi assistance were never carried out because of Field Marshal Montgomery’s defeat of Rommel at El Alamein. The Nazis then recalled their einsatzgruppen contingents that were prepositioned to enter the Mandate territories and expand the Final Solution. Throughout the war, though, the Grand Mufti has virulently antisemitic Nazi propaganda disseminated throughout the region and raised a Muslim battalion for the Third Reich. These facts are all well known.
Third, your comment that “some Jews helped Hitler” is, of course, a give away of your real feelings. Such an assertion is on par with claiming a parity between the hostage rescuer and the kidnapper, but on a far greater morally debased level.
Fourth, Israel was not “created” by the UN. The UN has no such power. Nor did it have unilateral authority to diminish in any way the rights granted the Jewish people under the Mandate. That was expressly denied it under Article 80 of the UN Charter.
What did happen was that in 1947, the UK announced that it was ending its role as Mandatory Power in May 1948, which meant the Mandate was terminating. In late 1947, the UN suggested a partition which the Jewish Agency accepted and the Arab states unanimously rejected, invading the territories the day the British left and Israel declared its independence.
Although Jordan seized what was then still called Judea and Samaria as well as the eastern part of Jerusalem and Egypt took the Gaza Strip, at no point between their illegal occupation and their loss of these territories did either contemplate the creation of a State of Palestine. In fact, article 24 of the 1964 PLO Charter expressly denied any Palestinian claim to sovereignty over the very lands they now claim as theirs from time immemorial. That article was conveniently changed only after Israel took possession.
Sixth in Israel’s war of independence, the West declared an arms embargo, nominally against all parties, though the British had armed and had officers, such as John Glubb “Pasha”, commanding Transjordan’s Arab Legion. It was Czechoslovakia with Stalin’s acquiescence that allowed arms and vintage planes to get to Israel. Some American private citizens succeeded in sneaking some arms munitions and mothballed warplanes to Israel, and most were prosecuted by the US for their efforts.
As to the Six Day War in 1967, perhaps Nasser should have abided by the 1957 settlement of the Sinai campaign or at the very least not drawn Syria (through treaty) and Jordan (through lies) to attack Israel as well. In 1967, taking land from an aggressor was permitted under international law which is why UNSC resolution 242 did not call for Israel to return all that it freed nor was Israel found by the UN to have been the aggressor - that resolution failed.
While it is tiresome to constantly correct things that are rather easily uncovered if only you were to look, it remains necessary to combat misinformation wherever and whenever it rears its head.
My response was not to you, but to Mr. Schiff (to "S.S." above) as you do not engage respectfully nor read carefully what is being said instead of what you think is being said. So there is no discussion. I will say (to you) that UNGA res 181 supersedes what else you go on about. As well being cousins genetically has nothing to do with land rights in the present nor what defines "indigenous". In my first response which was to you, I did scrub that same quote of Ronald Reagan, thought it trite. Funny. We agree on something. Done here.
A more nuanced and thoughtful book on the League of Nations, including an explanation of the Mandate system generally, is Prof. Susan Pederson’s “The Guardians: The League of Nations and The Crisis of Empire.”
As to Israel’s current treatment of its non-Jewish population (the provision you cite from the Balfour Declaration is repeated in the text of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine), let’s just say that Freedom House and The Economist’s Democracy Index disagree with you. And, it goes without saying, that Israel stands head and shoulders above all of its regional neighbors as a “rule of law” democracy. As to the additional caution against the dual loyalty canard deployed against the Jews, that aspiration is one that remains widely ignored.
On an historical note, the oil wealth of the Middle East was not really apparent until after WWI. The Sykes-Picot division had far more to do with protecting British access to India while using France as a buffer against Russia - a vestige of the Great Game. And, finally, as the US never declared war against the Ottoman Empire, it played no role in the region and in fact refused to become entangled there when it rejected offers to act as a Mandatory Power.
Your final paragraph suggests that you either did not finish reading my comment or didn’t understand it. Nowhere do I suggest expelling Palestinians nor is Israel engaging in such practices - outside of the minds of anti-Israel ideologues who seem impervious to facts.
And the lands that you say Israel has “their eyes on” are none other than those allotted to the Jewish people under the Mandate - minus the 78% that was severed in 1923 by the UK to create today’s Jordan.
As I said, you may find the post-WWI disposition of the Middle East holdings of the lands of the Ottoman Empire to have been wrongheaded, but that does not alter the fact that the Mandate system itself created the relevant framework in international law. It may, however, be the reason that so many choose to bury or ignore these stubborn facts in the region’s history.
As a final note, under the then-emergent idea of national self-determination, it is strange that the only indigenous people in the Middle East to be granted that right were the Jewish people. The Kurds, Armenians, Assyrians and others were left to the tender mercies of the Arabs. That seems a more unjust result than returning 99% of the Ottoman lands to be ruled by the very imperial colonizers the Ottomans had replaced and arguing over that last 1% (today’s Israel and the disputed territories), but perhaps that’s just me.
Donated. Thank you
For today, a last thought:
Both the domestic conflicts within Ukraine and the external aggression against Ukraine, along with politically coercive foreign influences, continue to prompt us to seek forums for popular participation to work toward resolution of both using collective effort, using cooperation for common interests realization. The world's leaders, with few exceptions, appear to work solely for selfish and political advantages and without caring about ordinary peoples' lives and aspirations for cooperation as opposed to confrontation and suspicion.
The living world of which we are part provides countless examples that growth is self-correcting and utilitarian, with part of the utility being inter-generational in nature (not intention). The above conflicts are just two examples of how people consciously interfere with self-correcting tendencies, tending to put effort into managing 'change' to avoid or reduce the need to personally adapt and succeed in novel situations, both opportune and challenging, and to satisfy social inclinations by practicing cooperation, which too can be experienced as managing change. In nature, we see that in ecosystems that we delineate more broadly, such as maritime or oceanic, the more rapid is the succession of generations of living entities there is, the more sustainable is the management of change over long many many generations; flexibility in the form of ecological adaptability gives rise to our perception of a sort of partial harmony and sustainability, even though what we witness is change. By contrast, very long-lived individuals tend to associate with other individuals in less adaptable configurations and with less living diversity over time and, as we perceive multi-generational events horizons, in ecosystems that can be rapidly degraded by disruptions to just a few of its long-lived members.
It is remarkable then to witness so many persons and so many groups consciously working for avoiding and opposing disruption and adaption in all events concerning people and our communities; how can young people, as well as some others, be expected to witness the inadequacies and undesirable consequences of their elders' choices, and then, having witnessed them, be admonished by these elders (along with popular media and even some peers) to consciously resist working for better actions that better realize common interests of everyone and opportunities for novel forms of living that also appear to contribute to everyone living better?
Why choose stasis, which one in our group noted implies stagnant stability, without adaptive capacity AND informed by growing tension that is harmful to the health of people and their communities, bringing about confrontation or even civil strife?
It is telling that we forget or ignore the unexpected and unspun assertions of past prominent individuals in relation to this seeming contradiction of self-imposed misery. An example is from a dialogue between then British Prime Minister Thatcher and Russian President Gorbachev; Ms. Thatcher said:
"...In spite of all the differences between our systems, we can still exchange some useful experiences. We are deeply impressed by the vigorous policy of reform you are trying to implement. We have a common problem here -- how to manage change." (March 1987)
In communicating our perceptions of the situations in Ukraine and Russia among ourselves and among journalists, teachers, leaders of these nations, we are wanting dialogue to address stasis. We now have stagnation in many social, political, economic and creative areas of living, and we now have war, which many worked hard to prevent and to prevent by using honest dialogue and formation of collective agreements and protocols instead.
The danger of stasis in institutions and in civil relations is as dangerous in America as it now is in Eurasia; managing change is what is required of us, and this requires us each and as conscious communities to endure the hardships of disruptions to end stasis and to implement collective dialogue, come to agreements and implement them in order to cooperatively regain civic and institutional self-correction and improvement.
One might well consider observations by Yaroslav Hyrtsak of Ukraine; his observations appear in https://euromaidanpress.com/2020/12/20/historian-yaroslav-hrytsak-ukraine-is-in-a-state-of-permanent-revolution/ , Ukraine -- a state of permanent revolution, dec 20 2020:
"I repeat, the key question is whether Ukraine can build a strong alternative project of political reform. Because among the political forces that are fighting for power today, I don’t see anyone who is really ready to change the country."
"Ukranians, like any country of peoples, is the country of their children and they themselves must work towards its future."
"The Russian art historian Nikolai Nikulin wrote that during the war and Stalinist repression, Darwinian selection took place in reverse. Who died first? The smart, the honest and the active. Who survived? The cunning and insidious opportunists...... This was how it worked till the collapse of the Soviet Union. And today we live in a post-genocide transition period where corruption is one of the consequences. Nations that have experienced extreme violence are particularly prone to corruption. Why? Because for them corruption is the only way of survival..... Moreover, violence creates an apathetic society… because passivity is the most certain way to survive." "What’s important is that Ukraine now has a whole generation that grew up during independence. These young people don’t have these characteristics nor do they remember, either genetically or personally."
"A historian who studies only one side of the question is not a historian, but a propagandist who defends the interests of one side. Conversely, a historian who tries to show the complexity of the situation and the moral and political choices that our ancestors faced allows different parties to find their place in history. ... Of course, this is a very personal approach. I’d like to write a history that unites Ukrainians. No, it won’t unite us; that’s an illusion. I want to write a history that reconciles Ukrainians with each other."
Recognizing the humanness and genuineness of the diversity of human outlook in respect of particulars need not be an obstacle for shared recognition and cooperative agreement on working together for adaptive change to arrive at (or move everyone closer to living) better living and improved chances for everyone's children to also do so together.
Another thought:
Not just the course of the war could be changed; after all, once the fighting stops, what defines the postwar attitudes, common interest efforts, and the character of domestic relations in, for example, Ukraine and Russia? Ditto the US, the West, elsewhere? Could bringing the war to an end through a carefully conducted defense be not only a domestic process for Ukrainians to achieve awareness of a collectively successful democratic state and of a differently politically self-unified or -modified state (different and self-determined for novel internal cooperation and regional collective security and cooperative prosperity), but also a deliberate and internationally articulated beginning of better Ukraine relations with all regional states, including Russia?
Could something like this occur in as Russian citizens and soldiers witness a Ukrainian defense of itself that is not assertively anti-Russia,...a defense that postulates the necessity and desirability of Russians being partners in choosing collectively how to 'end history', to end violent confrontation and to end creating winners and losers, and to instead begin to use cooperative planning and building of a 'future'?
Novel and better 'futures' are worth making mistakes together to achieve. Acting on an ever-longer list of historical grievances is futile and ends not a single problem, appears not ever to contribute to resolution to problems in ways and by means that evoke efforts (and optimism) for collectively decided and worked for changes.
It seems like an essential insight, the final paragraph in Prof. Snyder's essay here. For me, this stands out, "But even if all of these lies could not make a coherent story, they could at least break a story, one that happened to be true. Although there were Russians who grasped what had happened and apologized, the Russian population as a whole was denied the possibility to reflect on its responsibility for a war and its crimes."
Can we but ask, 'Well before 'the end', it would be helpful to know that we collectively chose how we would arrive, what we collectively changed along the way to end what needed ending and to ready ourselves for novel postwar conditions of perspectives, collective interest agreements, and collective mechanisms to making better futures. At the outset (which is now), it would be helpful to assert that there is the collective will to make the collective choices and efforts (and mistakes, and corrections) that gave everyone confidence to work together to end conflict, to set aside aims of conquest and reckonings, and to adopt cooperative means and ends to make the future a better future.' (from my correspondence with a humanitarian aid worker in the Ukraine, Oct 2022)
Perhaps it is worth considering Prof Snyder's, Prof Nicolai Petro's, Prof Serhii Plokhii's historical presentations and questions as having the capacities to change any person's willingness and capacities to choose among distinctly different futures, different efforts and sorts of efforts.
As Prof. Snyder suggests, we have a lot to do to work factual information into the Russian peoples' factual compendium and dialogue about the Ukraine and the current occupation and invasion and war. How long will the effort take before enough Russian soldiers and citizens have such information? Even in America, how many Americans have any historically and politically coherent narratives about the Ukraine and about post-cold war Russia and their relations and the West's relations with each of them? Few Americans do. Very few.
So, for example, imagine that Pres Biden, or Pres Putin, or Pres Zelenskyy listen to these presentations. In each of these persons, novel questions arise, novel alternative ways of looking at current and future alternative choices begin to form, and novel senses of opportunity and optimism for resolution to some or many or all of the problems besetting the Ukraine and Russia and Eurasia....
Other persons may experience these changes in perception and possibility, as well. By expressing and contrasting novel views and questions (and interpretations of past events), these people use history to reassess present and past international relationships and to suggest why and how people might adopt novel collective views and reinterpret collective common interests and the collective means to achieve them.
Thus, might 'thinking about' history in distinctly novel ways that also are well supported by events become an effective rational vehicle or resource for imagining better, emerging, collectively achieved present and future relationships? If so, then this substack provides an environment and numerous forums for 'collective buildings-up of' historical evidence that, in turn and from recognizing missed opportunities and misused or unused relationship tools, can encourage citizens and leaders to amend and append each one's repertoire of novel futures, and in this situation, what might be conceived and what might be done differently to allow a collectively better "end" to this war to be managed.
After the death of two in Poland on the day Putin's Terror lobbed ~100 missiles on Ukraine, Russian TV propagandists watched the international response. One of them boasted: "now we know how to proceed." Shortly after this, the denegation of Zelenskyy by trolls on Twitter exploded on my feed, and I see increasing calls from "progressive" orgs blaming him for not pursuing "peace". Today I am sickened by the US press falling for Both Siderism: https://www.google.com/search?q=russian+shelling+nuclear+plant&oq=russian+shelling+nuclear+plant&aqs=chrome..69i57.26586j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Ukraine must win this war: Russia must be held accountable. There's no peace without truth and justice, and no real "countries" without the rule of law.
Thank you, Deborah, for your observations, about which all Americans need be clear, citizens and leaders alike. Thanks, again.
Thank you, Bob.
I wonder if subscribers can ask a question? (I’m aware that it must be impossible for Timothy Snyder to answer all questions perhaps someone else can help). I have a friend in India whose been eagerly reading all of Snyder’s books to fight off the anti-Ukrainian propaganda that is unfortunately ubiquitous in that part of the world. She’d very much like to find a reference for Timothy Snyders argument about Stalin talking about ‘internal colonialism’. The argument is not about whether this is a good way of describing what happened. Its about whether Stalin ever used the term internal colonialism to describe what he was doing in his own speeches. It would be hugely useful to get a reference. Many thanks to whoever can answer this question. It really would be hugely useful.
"Another separatist commander"
Prof. Snyder, one needs to be carefull about terminology here - there was never a notable separatist movement neither in ukrainian Donbas, nor in Crimea. There were local protests in Donbas and Crimea as a reaction to the Revolution of Dignity, both pro and contra, but neither in Crimea nor in ukrainian Donbas in reality it ever came to separatism with an idea of separating and forming own state - it did came to collaborationism with a goal of formally join Russia as soon as russian occupational (openly but with no insignia in Crimea and covertly in Donbas) forces arrived - as collaboration always emerges as you perfectly know as soon as occupation happens.
It is very unfortunate that in this case russian propaganda originated and implanted (long before the actual events) term was happily picked up by ukrainian journalists and spread among the ukrainian and foreign public. In fact one could analyse it as a part of russian informational warfare dedicated to divert and twist the reality in order to confuse western public and divert any reaction to another act of aggression and occupation.
It is even more unfortunate when such well-informed experts like you also use it.
P.S. As a volunteer since 2014-2015 I happen to know Khodakovsky colleagues, who communicated with him at the time and were explicitly agitated not to take part in some separatist movement, but to collaborate with Russia and rip the benefits, but did not betrayed their country and could provide you with their respective accounts on how it happened.
Thank you, Mr. Puzhay, for these observations and recollections of events. Your telling has been corroborated a few times by others living in these areas, and they are consistent with many of Prof. Snyder's retellings of manipulative media narratives of the course of these events. It does appear that separatism and collaboration became media objects of attention once Russian occupation expanded, and the media and the occupation advanced the prospects of collaboration, thus being much more self-fulfilling than might have otherwise been.
If you have additional information to share, please do.
Does this imply the still missing Malaysia airlines 370 was also a potential victim of Russia?
Thank you for the details of this incident. I remember being confused by all the misinformation and conjecture at the time and then it was onto the next tragedy. It took so long for this verdict but we must be thankful for it. It goes to prove again the nature of Putin's Russia and how far along the road of unfreedom they are, sadly for us all. It adds to all else that has been happening since February 24th. May this verdict further break down believability, excuses, justifications, sympathy that Russia manages to keep alive with its propaganda. Listening to Peter Pomerantsev's lecture on Youtube from several months ago on his book "This is Not Propaganda". (Pennstate McCoutney Institute) connects as does your "The Road to Unfreedom". May such efforts have reverberations and effect.
Is it possible that the missile explosion in Poland that killed two farmers just now was somehow carried out by Russia? I am bothered that President Zelensky, in accusing Russia, appears to be at odds with his allies US and Poland, who state it seems to have been an accidental misfiring by Ukrainian defence forces.
I agreed. I would like to hear Professor Snyder's opinion on this--missile explosion in Poland that killed two farmers. I tend not to believe that they were not from Russia. I believe it cannot be intentionally from Ukraine. Because Poland is highly supportive of Ukraine and there is no reason for Ukraine to escalate the war. This bombing seems to fit Russia's behavioral pattern-- send out a provocation and deny it, or better still blame it on another nation and test out NATO's patience. Neither is it convincing to say it was a mis-fired missile from Ukraine since the Ukrainian army has been repeatedly praised for operating effectively the highly precise weapons from the West. Waiting for the result of an investigation may sound good. But like the HM 17 incident, it may take 10 years to know the result. This is way too long a wait when it comes to an ongoing warfare. I tend to think NATO does not want to escalate the war and hence it would rather say the missile was not from Russia. I do not like this reason but, on the other hand, to be pragmatic, I think trying to not escalate the war is more important at this point.
Pragmatism and appeasement were the mistakes made by western countries in dealing with the Russian Federation from its early days. So are we about to repeat such mistakes in this situation?
What I can't understand is Zelensky's denial. He's hugely intelligent as honest as you can be in these times. So why insist the Ukrainians are not responsible if there's no gain for him in so doing? It doesn't add up. Suggests he knows more than we are being told?
Zelenskyy said he asked his people and he didn't believe they would lie. It could have been a miscommunication, i.e. "Did we fire a missile into Poland?" Response, "No, we didn't fire in that direction," without considering the possibility that a ground-to-air missile, that is supposed to self-destruct if it doesn't hit the target, occasionally fails to do so. I'm not saying that's how the conversation went, just demonstrating how easy it is to err.
I watched a meeting Zelenskyy had with his people, where he concluded they needed access to the evidence to see for themselves. If it was their missile, he wants to apologize to the families.
The possibility of allies avoiding a confrontation with Russia by saying the missile was Ukrainian has also occurred to Zelenskyy. I can't imagine why he would fear us choosing expediency over truth to avoid a confrontation with Putin. 🙄 (Crimea, Donbas, Budapest Memorandum)
One last comment: Don't the allies bear some responsibility for the situation? We sent older, less reliable systems to protect Ukrainian civilians, even though Russia targeted apartment blocks, schools, etc. for months. Now that two people in another country have died, and half the Ukrainian electrical grid is destroyed, we are sending systems that are more accurate and less likely to spill over into neighboring countries. How many Ukrainians died while we were dragging our feet? How many more will die of hypothermia, home fires, and fumes from improper heating?
Thankyou for a really helpful reply. I agree wholeheartedly about western foot dragging.
✌️❤️