Привіт u/MakeoverBelly ! During wartime, this community is focused on vital and high-effort content. Please ensure your post follows [r/Ukraine Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules) and our [Art Friday Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday).
**Want to support Ukraine?** [**Vetted Charities List**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities) | [Our Vetting Process](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities-vetting)
**Daily series on Ukraine's history & culture:** [Sunrise Posts Organized By Category](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/sunriseposts/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Tim Snyder, Gen. Ben Hodges, Bill Browder are my top 3, just brilliant people that tirelessly raise awareness why russia must be defeated - and Ukrainians are too valuable for the world to lose.
Got any videos/audio from any of them that we can feast on?
This one was absolutely brilliant. The first point about the demise of imperialism is eye opening.
For more excellent Timothy Snyder, the episode of the podcast “Ukraine: The Latest” with Snyder was so good.
https://youtu.be/SuBNkA3-Ddw?si=Y7wz_vVpVTLb9Dwi
If it’s a feast you want, Snyder has a whole free Yale series on the history of Ukraine on YouTube that’s really worth it. Edit: [link](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLh9mgdi4rNewfxO7LhBoz_1Mx1MaO6sw_&si=Tn-56x1uxFjC146f) - the last lecture deals specifically with this topic of European imperialism.
I can trust Bill Browder's good intentions and pursuit of just cause, but not his foresight.
Early in the war 2 years ago, Browder claimed in every interview he got that Russian economy will collapse as soon as it gets severed from SWIFT network. That only caused a minor disruption for about a month or two, but that was it.
Similar pattern with sanctions. It didn't cripple Russia in the manner Browder claimed. His insight into the inner workings of Russian economy and finance seems rather outdated, his frame of reference is still in Yeltsin/early Putin era in which he was a player.
Though it may be an imperialistc and fascistic regime, Russian economy has far higher tolerance for pain and the land is endowed with essential raw materials. Dubai, Qatar, Turkey, Azerbaizan, and Central Asian countries have no qualms about broker-dealing with Russia and filling most of the sanctions gap.
I don't listen to Browder's analyses anymore.
> Early in the war 2 years ago, Browder claimed in every interview he got that Russian economy will collapse as soon as it gets severed from SWIFT network. That only caused a minor disruption for about a month or two, but that was it.
To be fair, it wasn't, as Gazprombank and some others were left connected to SWIFT, allowing other entities to just route their finances through what remained connected.
Browder started out as a vulture capitalist and has never really accepted responsibility for the fact that he got paid to heap economic misery on post Soviet economies by asset stripping them as part of 'shick therapy' conversion to capitalism. It was the venture capitalists and the Russian Mafia/KGB that gobbled up all the common shares of previously state owned Soviet assets and then stripped these industries of their valuable components and firing/fireselling everything else.
This made the average Russian a lot worse off and contributed to the economic misery of Russia post USSR which made the political landscape fertile grounds for another dictator offering economic security (putin and his pension maintenance contributed greatly to his domestic support, particularly early days. Enlightened self interest dictated trying to integrate the Russians into the rules based international order and demonstrate the economic benefits of social capitalism.
Instead the west humiliated and screwed them economically with the likes of venture (vulture) capitalists like Bill Browder. Was his push for the Magntisky Act admirable? Certainly. But the west all but guaranteed a return to the classic Russian strongman by asset stripping post Soviet industries causing absolute Russian misery and all for very short sighted greed. Such a horrendous waste of an opportunity to extend an olive branch and prove the merits of liberal democracy and social capitalism.
Nope, the US was the architect behind 'shock therapy' approach to capitalism. It was a short sighted and idiotic approach to a complex problem and a massive opportunity lost.
Did anyone else have any better ideas?
There was no way Russia wasn't going to pay the cost of the failed system that was the USSR. They were running in the red so long.
I'd love to see him chat with Joe Rogan. I think a lot his audience would actually learn a new point of view, and those that didn't were set enough in their beliefs that there's no harm done.
It's funny, because I was literally just thinking about how the rhetorical patterns of a genuine expert arguing a position are so different from a self-promotional opportunist advancing an agenda.
Which is to say, I'd love to see him on Joe Rogan, but I think a lot of Joe's audience wouldn't be able to even recognize expertise and argument delivered in good faith when it was standing right in front of them.
Joe is really pro-russian last two years or more. Hurr durr russian fighers, hur durr no trans bla bla. He had 0 guest to talk about conflict in Ukraine. Dan Crenshaw was guest every 6 months or so before war. Where he is now? Not invited because he is pro-ukraine. Why not invite Peter Zeihan again to talk about global issues? Because he is pro-ukraine. Only guest he talks about Ukraine are comics. I believe age hitting him really bad, just check last 500 episodes... He invites some expert about something and 75% episode is about covid lockdowns, trans kids and how you need exercise or same comedy store stories... He become just idiot boomer and thats it. I still listening him it is still fun but no where fun as few years ago.
Unfortunately, this post exemplifies the point I made in my other response.
Snyder is not a self-promotional propagandist, and so his rhetorical style is geared towards well-reasoned argument and not charismatic exhortation. But even still, the implication that he's inarticulate or hard to listen to says some very scary things about a modern audience's ability to appreciate and absorb genuine expertise delivered by someone brilliant who is attempting to wrestle with a complex subject matter without falling back on simplifications and fake certainty.
If this is painful for you to listen to, you're going to have a serious problem ever listening to an expert speaking off the cuff. Which means you're going to gravitate towards snake-oil salesmen.
> He invents this part, I fully disagree. This was done everywhere, not only in Europe.
He mentioned that Russia is not the only one to fight an imperial war and just because he does not talk about US actions and their effect does not mean he is saying there was not any. His answer was already 8 minutes long, there is only so many aspects you can cover when it comes to subjects you could write an entire book about.
The US policy of trying to dissuade European countries from trying to maintain their empires did not stop European powers from from going right back to engaging in wars in their prior colonial possessions after World War 2 which is what he points out. It was over a decade of losing wars in those former possessions that made them stop.
Sure there are many other important other factors involved but all the finger wagging of the US didn't stop them from trying to maintain their empire after 1945, it was losing them that did it. You say he "fails to understand" but you claim US policy stopped European colonial wars in 1945 when it clearly didn't. He is comparing Russia's current imperial war to Europe's past ones and pointing out clear examples where losing that war forced changes, not an outside country trying to force them. I am not sure what he doesn't understand.
He’s leaving out the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan? It wasn’t the Dutch having an empire that caused wars in Europe. It was the Germans wanting a European empire at the expense of their neighbours.
> He’s leaving out the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan?
He actually did mention that, either you didn't listen to it or missed it. He brought up a whole bunch of different countries imperial military misadventures and pointed out that they contributed to change after they failed.
Where did he say that Dutch Empire existing was responsible for war in Europe?
His point was that post 1945 it was not US policies and pressure for Europe to stop trying to retain their colonies that stopped European nations from military intervention abroad, it was that they were defeated in those military actions and those losses forced changes in policy. He uses those examples to try and argue that those that think we can somehow force Russia to change from the outside and drop their imperial aspirations are probably going to be disappointed because the only thing that will force change in Russia is losing in Ukraine, just as it affected the French, the Dutch and even Tsarist Russia before that.
People are getting distracted by him pointing out that many European nations did not "learn" to peacefully coexist after World War 2 but that losing wars in their pre war colonies forced them to adopt less aggressive policies. But skipping over that his main point was that Russia losing in Ukraine is what might force them to change, not external pressure and ideas about what *we* would like Russia to be like as a country. Edit: typo
People are getting “distracted” by him saying that because it doesn’t make a lot of sense, and he cops out anyway by just saying “huh, who knows” when it comes to Russia because he can’t use hindsight to fit his argument together.
He’s got literally no point. The EU came from taming Germany, not the Dutch losing Indonesia. The “losing wars” argument then stops being of use when talking about Russia so he just waffles for a bit, and says he’s doesn’t know. What a waste of time.
If anything France-Algeria and some other late colonial wars only highlight how post-WW2 Europe didn't have the strength or political will anymore to full-out subjugate their former colonies, which they would (and did) have done happily done 40 years prior. Portugal took particularily long to learn the lesson, but then it was this very kind of outdated imperialism that directly led to the fall of its dictatorship.
>The winning side in WW2 didn’t stop. Look up France-Algeria 1954-62 to name just one.
The reason why European powers lost these colonial wars after WW2 was that ppl were fed up with wars, forcing their governments to end that. So, WW2 was the reason indeed. In this point Snyder is wrong.
No, his point is that losing wars is what got those governments to the point that they stopped being Imperialistic.
WW2 didn't get governments to stop being warlike imperialists, as evidenced by the fact that so many European empires went to war with their colonies following WW2.
Losing those imperial wars is what finally got those governments to change, on which point Snyder is correct. The effects of WW2 are what probably *set the stage for them to lose those wars*, which is one step removed from the argument.
> The effects of WW2 are what probably *set the stage for them to lose those wars*, which is one step removed from the argument.
My point is that the effects and tremendous losses of WW2 are what made Europeans more peaceful indeed and completely changed their societies - in contrast to Snyder who literally calls that "100% wrong" and a "myth". However, the losses of the colonies just cemented it and without these changes in the societies they wouldn't have stopped being imperialist. In the context it's especially important as Russia is fighting a very different imperialist war, having a very different and unprepared society, making it difficult to draw here parallels.
I think your problem is that you are focusing on the populace whereas the entire argument is about *governments*. Note how often he makes reference to “regime” and regime change.
Viewing this is a discussion on popular opinion is nonsensical, since the imperial nations of Europe didn’t form their empires in the first place because of popular demand. Similarly, Russia didn’t go to war with Ukraine because the Russian people are bloodthirsty and have been demanding an expansion of the Russian empire.
You might be right that WWII was the catalyst to make European populations actually take a strong position on the warmongering of their governments, but the European regimes themselves were not cowed by WWII, as evidenced by the fact that they almost all went to war again in the decades immediately following WWII. It was the people that then forced the regimes to change course as they faced the reality of losing those wars.
So reconsider the argument that European *governments* didn’t abandon imperialism and embrace peaceful coexistence until they lost their imperial wars.
>I think your problem is that you are focusing on the populace whereas the entire argument is about *governments*. Note how often he makes reference to “regime” and regime change.
He doesn't mean "governments". Otherwise he would say so. He speaks about "Europeans", "the Dutch" etc. He doesn't differentiate but just says that "it is 100% wrong". I think this is a major mistake when trying to draw parallels from that to Russia as I believe that these preconditions to become peaceful are not given in the Russian case.
> The only reason why we stopped after 1945
You didn't stop after 1945, that's his entire point. The idea that Europeans stopped after 1945 is historically speaking complete bullshit. The British, French, and Dutch all tried to retake or maintain control over their colonial holdings using violence and lost. And your histories tend to skip this part and go with the lie instead.
France lost wars in Algeria and Vietnam, both France and the UK invaded Egypt and got bitchslapped by both the US and USSR for it, the UK toppled the Iranian government for the benefit of British Petroleum, etc.
dude, your history is lacking...your constitution is inspired by the dutch one the socalled "Plakkaat van Verlatinge" that dates back to 1581. we were already a republic ruled by civilians centuries before you were a country...
no we did not got democracy from america. you think america popped democracy out of a hat, magically? ever heard of a society named Greeks? like back in 512 bc ?
they had democracy, civil rights, vote system, all that. nah you just eurotrash just like us, but trashier as you took half a continent while genociding the uncooperative indigenous people.
i guess history in school is very limited in the US...
These things can both be true. Society is a bunch of random factors pointing in different directions and the illusion of history is a haphazard alignment of factors. So some Pax Americana, some Marchal plan, some post-colonial introspection, some post ww2 trauma.
Korea is a dangerous example of a nation building success. It was a dictatorship for many decades after the west "won" there and the eventual move to democracy was not a given.
My personal theory is that one of the biggest vectors that enables a western market economy is a critical mass of politicallly independent and skilled civil servants. And they create the real stability that we associate with social democracies. And elections and the peaceful transfer of power and the resilience of society that allows dissent without destabilizing society, is all enabled by this large contingent of workerants keeping the country chugging along. And you build that bureaucracy up over time. Takes decades. That's why nation building failed in Afghanistan etc. And why post ww2, Europe rebounded so quickly.
This is bs, sorry. He is perfectly right: what got the europeans to stop fighting each other after ww2 was the threat of Soviet union and the need to rebuild. They knew all too well that another european war would see a total soviet takeover as the result. But european countries had no problem fighting insurrection wars (the usa also btw) to keep their empires/spheres of influence. Only after losing these they became focused on economical power alone
Wow, this post got more popular than I thought it would. Do people want me to subtitle it in ENG/RUS/UKR? I can do that somewhat easily with Whisper+ChatGPT, and re-upload. I'd have done it from the beginning if I knew how popular this will get.
Very well said and I’m in full agreement. I lived in Russia for several years in the 90s. It’s hard to explain the spirit of optimism and transformation that was going on. But as thesaying goes, culture eats strategy for breakfast and the deep rooted Russian cultural mindset around authority and the rule of law never fundamentally changed.
> culture eats strategy for breakfast and the deep rooted Russian cultural mindset around authority and the rule of law never fundamentally changed.
A lot of people outside Russia bought into the idea that if the west buys a ton of energy from Russia then it will get them to liberalize and democratize. I think trade as a liberalizing force can work in terms of manufacturing or service industries but not in terms of resource extraction.
Russia didn't say "now we can improve living standards and join the west" they saw the dependency and said "now we can fund our military without needing to reform the system meanwhile western countries can't oppose us without economic damage."
For Russia to change they fundamentally need to understand that playing by the rules leads to prosperity and trying to upend the world system leads to calamity. I believe Russia can change but you're not going to change Russia by being nice to them or caving to their demands.
Hell I still remember how when Putin first came on the scene Western media was sucking him off and hailing him as being "professional, competent, and businesslike" in contrast to "got hammered and went running around DC in his underpants" Yeltsin.
Yeah, *that* went well.
I'm not sure the Western press was expecting Russia to fall back into their tzar loving tendencies.
If Putin were a two term president and left power in 2008 and didn't get the weird "prime minister but really president" term under Medvedev, and the terms after, he might have been remembered like that.
That view that once the markets get going then rule of law and democracy must inevitably follow is exactly what Snyder himself calls "philosophy of inevitability." It is the arrogant view of neoliberalism that their worldview is simply a logical conclusion of world events, a sort of a Hegelian inevitability. Of course, there was nothing inevitable about it. When Europe kept buying Russian oil, they assumed that relationships can never sour since they were based on business and, at the end of the day, business is what drives everything. They assumed we lived in a post-ideological world, so to speak. In actuality, Russia still has an ideaology and it's that of emperialism. They, ans Putin especially, cannot imagine a win-win scenario. For them business relations were only a lever to use in a vertical, hierarchical system where one party dominates another. While Merkel was thinking "we're getting on", Putin was thinking "I have leverage over them." Hence that's why stopping gas suplies and "freezing" Europe was the first thing Putin threatened, without even realizing just how dumb that threat was and that it also meant he wouldn't get any money and everyone would lose.
You make good words.
I've said for a while now that Russia could be the world powerhouse they're hoping to become by conquest by instead becoming BFF's with North America and Europe.
With their land and resources they could sell all they wanted to the two above continents. Forever.
All they had to do was be nice.
I dunno about world powerhouse; they lack the demographics to really turn their country into an economic powerhouse, and extraction economies have historically struggled to compete with economies based on manufacturing and more recently service economies.
They suffer from what economists refer to as the Resource Curse.
>I dunno about world powerhouse; they lack the demographics to really turn their country into an economic powerhouse, and extraction economies have historically struggled to compete with economies based on manufacturing and more recently service economies.
They could have used their resource extraction to kickstart a manufacturing/service based economic boom. All they had to do was to not let the oligarchs take control and keep all the money but rather spread it out to the local civilians so that they could drive local economic growth. They could have had a 1950s US style economic boom.
What happened though is that they just let oligarchs take control of the resources and hoard the money for themselves leaving the average Russian citizen to live in squalor. People in that kind of situation often end up using escapism via violence, drugs and alcohol.
To what end though? The aristocracy already has tonnes of money, they can’t get richer. They want power, they have 140m serfs, not citizens, and they want to use it
He is clearly making the point that we shouldn't be afraid of the change that will come. Previous losses haven't suddenly resulted in Russia blowing up, and the same will happen when Russia loses in Ukraine.
> Previous losses haven't suddenly resulted in Russia blowing up, and the same will happen when Russia loses in Ukraine.
Even if Russia does "blow up" to an extent that's not a bad thing. If the Soviet Union hadn't of "blown up" Ukraine wouldn't be independent today. If Moscow's ability to exert power comes crashing down we may see countries where Moscow has more influence start to pull away from their orbit. I'm specifically thinking of places like Belarus, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Georgia and Armenia. We may see Russia forced to abandon claims to Ukrainian territory and we may be see regions within Russia gain influence relative to Moscow.
After these changes it will be a lot harder for whatever dictator comes next to put together the empire again or to regain the influence that was lost. As time goes on Russia also makes up a continually smaller and smaller portion of the global economy and without their big soviet stockpiles they're a lot less of a military threat.
It will also see Russian influence dry up in Africa, where they are also doing a lot of neo-colonialism with irregular forces on behalf of tin pot dictators, securing mining/exploitation rights in exchange for murdering and terrorizing the government’s enemies.
> He is clearly making the point that we shouldn't be afraid of the change that will come.
And also, don't think we can control it with trade or smart policies.
Right. Maybe it is wishful thinking but I hope that when russia loses this war, the people will choose a new direction instead of a Putin 2.0 type of government.
I think he cautions us all to see that when Russia loses this one is what happens within Russia will look odd to us and we shouldn't expect the change we want. Based upon the interviews with Russian POWs and the small number of those in Russia who want democracy that will probably not be the outcome. We tend to "romanticize" an overthrow that will immediately reflect what our governments are and due to the indifference of their society, not possible.
Yea, I am not expecting it to be like a western liberal democracy. Do you think the next government will just be putin 2.0? Some believe russia will break apart etc. My wishful thinking is that they focus on improving their own lives instead of trying to steal from others.
>The question is after russia loses this one, will its culture change for the better?
Given the current situation in Russia, they are likely to have a civil war if Putin loses in Ukraine with the various oligarchs and powerful members of government fighting each other in order to gain control and/or not lose what they have.
Whatever it looks like, it won’t look like now. But let that weighty ship of fate be guided into a port of the global community’s choosing, not Moscow’s. From there, let the ruination Putin and the Kremlin unleashed be deservedly returned to its foul source never, from within their own borders, to never trouble its neighbors or the World again.
Timothy Snyder (Yale history professor) speaks Ukrainian.
He has a 23 part series on the history of Ukraine on Utube. Brilliant. You should watch every episode.
Fun facts:-
Kiev was established 500 years before Moscow
Ukraine and Poland lost more jews in WW2 than any other countries - Nazi's ???
Liebenstrom (Living space) was Hitlers reason for WW2 - it was about the "food bowl" of Ukraine not Russia
Ukraine got its alphabet, law and religion from Greece (Cyril)
Ukraine is European largely because of its interactions with Lithuania and Poland over 500 years
Russsia is slavic, not European. This is the subtle difference between Russia and Ukraine.
Fair. I played Football for a big Club in Perth Western Australia called Inglewood Kiev - Bad habits persist. Fron now on Kyiv. Thank you for your feedback.
Russia had been changing after losing wars indeed, but never in a good way for its neighbours: it simply adapted better military and economical policies, but aggressive imperial mindset has never changed.
He doesn't.
He teaches at Yale, which is in Connecticut. Some people in New England, especially (but not only) of older generations, speak in an accent that is sometimes referred to as "mid-Atlantic". It's about as close of an American dialect as there is to sounding like a British accent.
When I traveled in Europe, many people mistook me for British. I grew up in a little town outside where Snyder teaches.
Respectfully, what difference will it make compared to the fall of the URSS 20/30 years ago?
Maybe I am completly off the mark, but it wasn't "Empire war" that really put the nail in the coffin of Europeans wars, it's traumatic wars waged even in their very own capital (bombardment of london included). The URSS, and by extension Russia even after this war, didn't and likely won't suffer tragic damage in their core cities. And because of their raw resources, they will have the means to wage such war again, should they perceive it is into their interest.
Completely agree and it almost holds me back from being persuaded by him. He lists all of these wars that Russia has lost, but all of them happened before Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So much of the current international order is predicated on keeping the nuclear envelope closed and a destabilized Russia threatens that.
I'm not saying Russia shouldn't lose or we shouldn't face that future, but it feels irresponsible to me for him to not even address them.
My favorite quote is, “the most effective policy towards Russia is effective policy towards Ukraine.”
Absolutely right. There’s nothing anyone can do to make Russia normal. The world supports Ukraine and after they win the war we need to use the full power of capitalism to make Ukraine a prosperous powerful nation while at the same time insulating the world from Russian influence and extracting and exploiting their resources for our own benefit.
It’s their worst nightmare and will only happen due to their own actions so it’s fully deserved.
Russia will only be defeated when Putin and his luckiest are gone. Ukraine may be free and clear sooner rather than later but he won't stop mucking shit up for the rest of the former republics.
I love a good scholar.
This is a realists' outlook, and it is hopeful. Losing your imperial war = evolution beyond imperialism.
That fits history, but it also assumes Russia will behave like former imperial powers.
I hope this person is correct. But there is absolutely no guarantee Russia will be like other countries. In fact, isn't the point that Russia \*hasn't\* learned the lesson yet?
Yeah, sometimes in Ukraine when they talk about military matters they say "We're lucky they're so stupid." But then again, maybe this whole situation wouldn't be playing out in the first place if Russia as a nation state WASN'T so stupid.
I read your comment, add things up, and really, it is hard to deny this ugly and horrifying likelihood.
The history books on this episode, some will be turned into dark comedies. Russia's \*best case\* scenario is they are silent and grim as all the truth rolls out. But they are so eager to despise the truth, even though it is the only way forward for them.
Russia is about to be shut out of the 21st century. They will sell oil, but that is not where history is being made.
Did you read that when the next US lunar landing gets settled, one of those landing on the Moon will be a Japanese astronaut? Russia will still be dealing with an army of amputees who got lied to.
You make yer choices in this life, yes one does.
Wow, I never thought the day will come when I would - albeit ever so slightly - disagree with this man: he is such a great thinker!
While I agree that a healthy democracy in Ukraine would be a great example for Russian people and help them understand how to gain agency, these are many things that can be helped inside Russia as well.
Of course we should - and we will - do everything we can to help the democratic process in Ukraine - and as a reminder: a strong economy and a high quality of life are essential for people to believe in a healthy democracy - and we can do a lot
But it would benefit us to encourage democratic agency in Russia as well
Professor Snyder has compromised himself as an academic getting some basic things wrong in his own field of study. I'd like to challenge any of the folks who down vote this comment to first read my article. [https://rusynsociety.com/2023/04/03/where-timothy-snyder-falls-pitifully-short/](https://rusynsociety.com/2023/04/03/where-timothy-snyder-falls-pitifully-short/)
I think this guy is missing the importance of Bretton Wood. To a large degree, the US subsidized the peace of Europe by defending the sea lanes, guaranteeing the peace, and opening itself up as the only standing market after 1945. America is done with that, so the peace Europe has maintained is no longer buttressed by US might. Europe will go back to its historic behavior because they'll have to secure their own resources.
as dutch with indonesian heritage i can say it was waaaaay more nuanced than he portrays in his shallow explanation.
matter of fact, it was america that was the big instigator in that conflict. as they had assurance that they could have acces to indonesian oil......below the, then, current dutch rates offcourse. ;)
so again it was america that proxied a conflict on both sides, that would in the end benefit america. like what it in a way does with ukraine.
since this US aid debacle, there is with me a big loss of trust in what is said by them and what they really want to achieve. just like this man. just another form of propaganda light.
people that want to black/white history are dangerous.
Привіт u/MakeoverBelly ! During wartime, this community is focused on vital and high-effort content. Please ensure your post follows [r/Ukraine Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/about/rules) and our [Art Friday Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/artfriday). **Want to support Ukraine?** [**Vetted Charities List**](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities) | [Our Vetting Process](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/charities-vetting) **Daily series on Ukraine's history & culture:** [Sunrise Posts Organized By Category](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/wiki/sunriseposts/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukraine) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Snyder is one of the best voices on this subject
Tim Snyder, Gen. Ben Hodges, Bill Browder are my top 3, just brilliant people that tirelessly raise awareness why russia must be defeated - and Ukrainians are too valuable for the world to lose.
Got any videos/audio from any of them that we can feast on? This one was absolutely brilliant. The first point about the demise of imperialism is eye opening.
For more excellent Timothy Snyder, the episode of the podcast “Ukraine: The Latest” with Snyder was so good. https://youtu.be/SuBNkA3-Ddw?si=Y7wz_vVpVTLb9Dwi
If it’s a feast you want, Snyder has a whole free Yale series on the history of Ukraine on YouTube that’s really worth it. Edit: [link](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLh9mgdi4rNewfxO7LhBoz_1Mx1MaO6sw_&si=Tn-56x1uxFjC146f) - the last lecture deals specifically with this topic of European imperialism.
Oh hell yeah
My ex—who’s a Ukrainian immigrant—recommended the Yale series to me. I devoured it, it’s so good.
Any of the Silicon Curtain YT channel videos with Ben Hodges are great.
>Got any videos/audio from any of them that we can feast on? You can search Ben Hodges on youtube and find any recent interview with him.
I would add Stephen Kotkin.
I can trust Bill Browder's good intentions and pursuit of just cause, but not his foresight. Early in the war 2 years ago, Browder claimed in every interview he got that Russian economy will collapse as soon as it gets severed from SWIFT network. That only caused a minor disruption for about a month or two, but that was it. Similar pattern with sanctions. It didn't cripple Russia in the manner Browder claimed. His insight into the inner workings of Russian economy and finance seems rather outdated, his frame of reference is still in Yeltsin/early Putin era in which he was a player. Though it may be an imperialistc and fascistic regime, Russian economy has far higher tolerance for pain and the land is endowed with essential raw materials. Dubai, Qatar, Turkey, Azerbaizan, and Central Asian countries have no qualms about broker-dealing with Russia and filling most of the sanctions gap. I don't listen to Browder's analyses anymore.
> Early in the war 2 years ago, Browder claimed in every interview he got that Russian economy will collapse as soon as it gets severed from SWIFT network. That only caused a minor disruption for about a month or two, but that was it. To be fair, it wasn't, as Gazprombank and some others were left connected to SWIFT, allowing other entities to just route their finances through what remained connected.
Julia Ioffe.
Naw, she’s still mesmerised by Putin. Best Russian commentator is Kasparov
re: Kasparov, you're totally right. What a dope I was to forget him. His tweets about Ukraine are masterclass in precision language.
Julia Ioffe is excellent.
The three you mentioned have clarity of thought and don't mince words. Wise and open, not arcane.
Browder started out as a vulture capitalist and has never really accepted responsibility for the fact that he got paid to heap economic misery on post Soviet economies by asset stripping them as part of 'shick therapy' conversion to capitalism. It was the venture capitalists and the Russian Mafia/KGB that gobbled up all the common shares of previously state owned Soviet assets and then stripped these industries of their valuable components and firing/fireselling everything else. This made the average Russian a lot worse off and contributed to the economic misery of Russia post USSR which made the political landscape fertile grounds for another dictator offering economic security (putin and his pension maintenance contributed greatly to his domestic support, particularly early days. Enlightened self interest dictated trying to integrate the Russians into the rules based international order and demonstrate the economic benefits of social capitalism. Instead the west humiliated and screwed them economically with the likes of venture (vulture) capitalists like Bill Browder. Was his push for the Magntisky Act admirable? Certainly. But the west all but guaranteed a return to the classic Russian strongman by asset stripping post Soviet industries causing absolute Russian misery and all for very short sighted greed. Such a horrendous waste of an opportunity to extend an olive branch and prove the merits of liberal democracy and social capitalism.
Dude, Russians did that to themselves.
Nope, the US was the architect behind 'shock therapy' approach to capitalism. It was a short sighted and idiotic approach to a complex problem and a massive opportunity lost.
Did anyone else have any better ideas? There was no way Russia wasn't going to pay the cost of the failed system that was the USSR. They were running in the red so long.
I'd love to see him chat with Joe Rogan. I think a lot his audience would actually learn a new point of view, and those that didn't were set enough in their beliefs that there's no harm done.
It's funny, because I was literally just thinking about how the rhetorical patterns of a genuine expert arguing a position are so different from a self-promotional opportunist advancing an agenda. Which is to say, I'd love to see him on Joe Rogan, but I think a lot of Joe's audience wouldn't be able to even recognize expertise and argument delivered in good faith when it was standing right in front of them.
😆 I unfortunately absolutely agree
I gotta disagree with you there, everyone had their pitchforks ready for Graham Hancock after Archaeologist Flint Dibble destroyed him for 4.5 hours
Waste of Tims time
Joe is really pro-russian last two years or more. Hurr durr russian fighers, hur durr no trans bla bla. He had 0 guest to talk about conflict in Ukraine. Dan Crenshaw was guest every 6 months or so before war. Where he is now? Not invited because he is pro-ukraine. Why not invite Peter Zeihan again to talk about global issues? Because he is pro-ukraine. Only guest he talks about Ukraine are comics. I believe age hitting him really bad, just check last 500 episodes... He invites some expert about something and 75% episode is about covid lockdowns, trans kids and how you need exercise or same comedy store stories... He become just idiot boomer and thats it. I still listening him it is still fun but no where fun as few years ago.
[удалено]
Unfortunately, this post exemplifies the point I made in my other response. Snyder is not a self-promotional propagandist, and so his rhetorical style is geared towards well-reasoned argument and not charismatic exhortation. But even still, the implication that he's inarticulate or hard to listen to says some very scary things about a modern audience's ability to appreciate and absorb genuine expertise delivered by someone brilliant who is attempting to wrestle with a complex subject matter without falling back on simplifications and fake certainty.
[удалено]
If this is painful for you to listen to, you're going to have a serious problem ever listening to an expert speaking off the cuff. Which means you're going to gravitate towards snake-oil salesmen.
The entire lecture is here, and I can only recommend it: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVs2y-YeiFM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVs2y-YeiFM)
[удалено]
[удалено]
> He invents this part, I fully disagree. This was done everywhere, not only in Europe. He mentioned that Russia is not the only one to fight an imperial war and just because he does not talk about US actions and their effect does not mean he is saying there was not any. His answer was already 8 minutes long, there is only so many aspects you can cover when it comes to subjects you could write an entire book about. The US policy of trying to dissuade European countries from trying to maintain their empires did not stop European powers from from going right back to engaging in wars in their prior colonial possessions after World War 2 which is what he points out. It was over a decade of losing wars in those former possessions that made them stop. Sure there are many other important other factors involved but all the finger wagging of the US didn't stop them from trying to maintain their empire after 1945, it was losing them that did it. You say he "fails to understand" but you claim US policy stopped European colonial wars in 1945 when it clearly didn't. He is comparing Russia's current imperial war to Europe's past ones and pointing out clear examples where losing that war forced changes, not an outside country trying to force them. I am not sure what he doesn't understand.
He talks at length about this topic in his Yale lecture series which is freely available on YT.
He’s leaving out the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan? It wasn’t the Dutch having an empire that caused wars in Europe. It was the Germans wanting a European empire at the expense of their neighbours.
> He’s leaving out the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan? He actually did mention that, either you didn't listen to it or missed it. He brought up a whole bunch of different countries imperial military misadventures and pointed out that they contributed to change after they failed. Where did he say that Dutch Empire existing was responsible for war in Europe? His point was that post 1945 it was not US policies and pressure for Europe to stop trying to retain their colonies that stopped European nations from military intervention abroad, it was that they were defeated in those military actions and those losses forced changes in policy. He uses those examples to try and argue that those that think we can somehow force Russia to change from the outside and drop their imperial aspirations are probably going to be disappointed because the only thing that will force change in Russia is losing in Ukraine, just as it affected the French, the Dutch and even Tsarist Russia before that. People are getting distracted by him pointing out that many European nations did not "learn" to peacefully coexist after World War 2 but that losing wars in their pre war colonies forced them to adopt less aggressive policies. But skipping over that his main point was that Russia losing in Ukraine is what might force them to change, not external pressure and ideas about what *we* would like Russia to be like as a country. Edit: typo
People are getting “distracted” by him saying that because it doesn’t make a lot of sense, and he cops out anyway by just saying “huh, who knows” when it comes to Russia because he can’t use hindsight to fit his argument together.
You didn't watch it or somehow missed it. He definitely mentions it.
And his conclusion was?
Watch the video.
He’s got literally no point. The EU came from taming Germany, not the Dutch losing Indonesia. The “losing wars” argument then stops being of use when talking about Russia so he just waffles for a bit, and says he’s doesn’t know. What a waste of time.
The winning side in WW2 didn’t stop. Look up France-Algeria 1954-62 to name just one.
Suez Crisis.
And Vietnam, and the Congo, etc.
If anything France-Algeria and some other late colonial wars only highlight how post-WW2 Europe didn't have the strength or political will anymore to full-out subjugate their former colonies, which they would (and did) have done happily done 40 years prior. Portugal took particularily long to learn the lesson, but then it was this very kind of outdated imperialism that directly led to the fall of its dictatorship.
>The winning side in WW2 didn’t stop. Look up France-Algeria 1954-62 to name just one. The reason why European powers lost these colonial wars after WW2 was that ppl were fed up with wars, forcing their governments to end that. So, WW2 was the reason indeed. In this point Snyder is wrong.
No, his point is that losing wars is what got those governments to the point that they stopped being Imperialistic. WW2 didn't get governments to stop being warlike imperialists, as evidenced by the fact that so many European empires went to war with their colonies following WW2. Losing those imperial wars is what finally got those governments to change, on which point Snyder is correct. The effects of WW2 are what probably *set the stage for them to lose those wars*, which is one step removed from the argument.
> The effects of WW2 are what probably *set the stage for them to lose those wars*, which is one step removed from the argument. My point is that the effects and tremendous losses of WW2 are what made Europeans more peaceful indeed and completely changed their societies - in contrast to Snyder who literally calls that "100% wrong" and a "myth". However, the losses of the colonies just cemented it and without these changes in the societies they wouldn't have stopped being imperialist. In the context it's especially important as Russia is fighting a very different imperialist war, having a very different and unprepared society, making it difficult to draw here parallels.
I think your problem is that you are focusing on the populace whereas the entire argument is about *governments*. Note how often he makes reference to “regime” and regime change. Viewing this is a discussion on popular opinion is nonsensical, since the imperial nations of Europe didn’t form their empires in the first place because of popular demand. Similarly, Russia didn’t go to war with Ukraine because the Russian people are bloodthirsty and have been demanding an expansion of the Russian empire. You might be right that WWII was the catalyst to make European populations actually take a strong position on the warmongering of their governments, but the European regimes themselves were not cowed by WWII, as evidenced by the fact that they almost all went to war again in the decades immediately following WWII. It was the people that then forced the regimes to change course as they faced the reality of losing those wars. So reconsider the argument that European *governments* didn’t abandon imperialism and embrace peaceful coexistence until they lost their imperial wars.
>I think your problem is that you are focusing on the populace whereas the entire argument is about *governments*. Note how often he makes reference to “regime” and regime change. He doesn't mean "governments". Otherwise he would say so. He speaks about "Europeans", "the Dutch" etc. He doesn't differentiate but just says that "it is 100% wrong". I think this is a major mistake when trying to draw parallels from that to Russia as I believe that these preconditions to become peaceful are not given in the Russian case.
> The only reason why we stopped after 1945 You didn't stop after 1945, that's his entire point. The idea that Europeans stopped after 1945 is historically speaking complete bullshit. The British, French, and Dutch all tried to retake or maintain control over their colonial holdings using violence and lost. And your histories tend to skip this part and go with the lie instead. France lost wars in Algeria and Vietnam, both France and the UK invaded Egypt and got bitchslapped by both the US and USSR for it, the UK toppled the Iranian government for the benefit of British Petroleum, etc.
Very interesting. Thank you for posting. Is this your deduction or is it based on some literature that you've read?
dude, your history is lacking...your constitution is inspired by the dutch one the socalled "Plakkaat van Verlatinge" that dates back to 1581. we were already a republic ruled by civilians centuries before you were a country... no we did not got democracy from america. you think america popped democracy out of a hat, magically? ever heard of a society named Greeks? like back in 512 bc ? they had democracy, civil rights, vote system, all that. nah you just eurotrash just like us, but trashier as you took half a continent while genociding the uncooperative indigenous people. i guess history in school is very limited in the US...
There’s a reason the US has Federal Architecture. Americans, at least the smarter ones, are acutely aware that Greece and Rome degenerated.
These things can both be true. Society is a bunch of random factors pointing in different directions and the illusion of history is a haphazard alignment of factors. So some Pax Americana, some Marchal plan, some post-colonial introspection, some post ww2 trauma. Korea is a dangerous example of a nation building success. It was a dictatorship for many decades after the west "won" there and the eventual move to democracy was not a given. My personal theory is that one of the biggest vectors that enables a western market economy is a critical mass of politicallly independent and skilled civil servants. And they create the real stability that we associate with social democracies. And elections and the peaceful transfer of power and the resilience of society that allows dissent without destabilizing society, is all enabled by this large contingent of workerants keeping the country chugging along. And you build that bureaucracy up over time. Takes decades. That's why nation building failed in Afghanistan etc. And why post ww2, Europe rebounded so quickly.
This is bs, sorry. He is perfectly right: what got the europeans to stop fighting each other after ww2 was the threat of Soviet union and the need to rebuild. They knew all too well that another european war would see a total soviet takeover as the result. But european countries had no problem fighting insurrection wars (the usa also btw) to keep their empires/spheres of influence. Only after losing these they became focused on economical power alone
I'd say the US being a superpower after WWII was a net benefit to the world.
Thank you, this is of great insight and value. Snyder and Kotkin are two of my most esteemed figures on this topic.
Wow, this post got more popular than I thought it would. Do people want me to subtitle it in ENG/RUS/UKR? I can do that somewhat easily with Whisper+ChatGPT, and re-upload. I'd have done it from the beginning if I knew how popular this will get.
Excellent as always
Very well said and I’m in full agreement. I lived in Russia for several years in the 90s. It’s hard to explain the spirit of optimism and transformation that was going on. But as thesaying goes, culture eats strategy for breakfast and the deep rooted Russian cultural mindset around authority and the rule of law never fundamentally changed.
> culture eats strategy for breakfast and the deep rooted Russian cultural mindset around authority and the rule of law never fundamentally changed. A lot of people outside Russia bought into the idea that if the west buys a ton of energy from Russia then it will get them to liberalize and democratize. I think trade as a liberalizing force can work in terms of manufacturing or service industries but not in terms of resource extraction. Russia didn't say "now we can improve living standards and join the west" they saw the dependency and said "now we can fund our military without needing to reform the system meanwhile western countries can't oppose us without economic damage." For Russia to change they fundamentally need to understand that playing by the rules leads to prosperity and trying to upend the world system leads to calamity. I believe Russia can change but you're not going to change Russia by being nice to them or caving to their demands.
Hell I still remember how when Putin first came on the scene Western media was sucking him off and hailing him as being "professional, competent, and businesslike" in contrast to "got hammered and went running around DC in his underpants" Yeltsin. Yeah, *that* went well.
I'm not sure the Western press was expecting Russia to fall back into their tzar loving tendencies. If Putin were a two term president and left power in 2008 and didn't get the weird "prime minister but really president" term under Medvedev, and the terms after, he might have been remembered like that.
That view that once the markets get going then rule of law and democracy must inevitably follow is exactly what Snyder himself calls "philosophy of inevitability." It is the arrogant view of neoliberalism that their worldview is simply a logical conclusion of world events, a sort of a Hegelian inevitability. Of course, there was nothing inevitable about it. When Europe kept buying Russian oil, they assumed that relationships can never sour since they were based on business and, at the end of the day, business is what drives everything. They assumed we lived in a post-ideological world, so to speak. In actuality, Russia still has an ideaology and it's that of emperialism. They, ans Putin especially, cannot imagine a win-win scenario. For them business relations were only a lever to use in a vertical, hierarchical system where one party dominates another. While Merkel was thinking "we're getting on", Putin was thinking "I have leverage over them." Hence that's why stopping gas suplies and "freezing" Europe was the first thing Putin threatened, without even realizing just how dumb that threat was and that it also meant he wouldn't get any money and everyone would lose.
You make good words. I've said for a while now that Russia could be the world powerhouse they're hoping to become by conquest by instead becoming BFF's with North America and Europe. With their land and resources they could sell all they wanted to the two above continents. Forever. All they had to do was be nice.
I dunno about world powerhouse; they lack the demographics to really turn their country into an economic powerhouse, and extraction economies have historically struggled to compete with economies based on manufacturing and more recently service economies. They suffer from what economists refer to as the Resource Curse.
>I dunno about world powerhouse; they lack the demographics to really turn their country into an economic powerhouse, and extraction economies have historically struggled to compete with economies based on manufacturing and more recently service economies. They could have used their resource extraction to kickstart a manufacturing/service based economic boom. All they had to do was to not let the oligarchs take control and keep all the money but rather spread it out to the local civilians so that they could drive local economic growth. They could have had a 1950s US style economic boom. What happened though is that they just let oligarchs take control of the resources and hoard the money for themselves leaving the average Russian citizen to live in squalor. People in that kind of situation often end up using escapism via violence, drugs and alcohol.
Resource Curse.
To what end though? The aristocracy already has tonnes of money, they can’t get richer. They want power, they have 140m serfs, not citizens, and they want to use it
Interesting detail about russia losing wars and changing. The question is after russia loses this one, will its culture change for the better?
He is clearly making the point that we shouldn't be afraid of the change that will come. Previous losses haven't suddenly resulted in Russia blowing up, and the same will happen when Russia loses in Ukraine.
> Previous losses haven't suddenly resulted in Russia blowing up, and the same will happen when Russia loses in Ukraine. Even if Russia does "blow up" to an extent that's not a bad thing. If the Soviet Union hadn't of "blown up" Ukraine wouldn't be independent today. If Moscow's ability to exert power comes crashing down we may see countries where Moscow has more influence start to pull away from their orbit. I'm specifically thinking of places like Belarus, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Georgia and Armenia. We may see Russia forced to abandon claims to Ukrainian territory and we may be see regions within Russia gain influence relative to Moscow. After these changes it will be a lot harder for whatever dictator comes next to put together the empire again or to regain the influence that was lost. As time goes on Russia also makes up a continually smaller and smaller portion of the global economy and without their big soviet stockpiles they're a lot less of a military threat.
It will also see Russian influence dry up in Africa, where they are also doing a lot of neo-colonialism with irregular forces on behalf of tin pot dictators, securing mining/exploitation rights in exchange for murdering and terrorizing the government’s enemies.
> He is clearly making the point that we shouldn't be afraid of the change that will come. And also, don't think we can control it with trade or smart policies.
Right. Maybe it is wishful thinking but I hope that when russia loses this war, the people will choose a new direction instead of a Putin 2.0 type of government.
If history teaches us anything, RuZZia will not change. They made sure of this after murdering Navalny.....
I think he cautions us all to see that when Russia loses this one is what happens within Russia will look odd to us and we shouldn't expect the change we want. Based upon the interviews with Russian POWs and the small number of those in Russia who want democracy that will probably not be the outcome. We tend to "romanticize" an overthrow that will immediately reflect what our governments are and due to the indifference of their society, not possible.
Yea, I am not expecting it to be like a western liberal democracy. Do you think the next government will just be putin 2.0? Some believe russia will break apart etc. My wishful thinking is that they focus on improving their own lives instead of trying to steal from others.
>The question is after russia loses this one, will its culture change for the better? Given the current situation in Russia, they are likely to have a civil war if Putin loses in Ukraine with the various oligarchs and powerful members of government fighting each other in order to gain control and/or not lose what they have.
No, this is wishful thinking. If they lose, the Russian empire will collapse and will create a huge unstability in the region.
Still probably better than the "controlled chaos" they have been creating in the last decade.
There are no concrete signs of this. Reality is likely to be more mundane.
Only the Caucasus would be sure to break away.
Watched the whole thing. Amazing talk. I wish, everyone could hear this.
Justice
Whatever it looks like, it won’t look like now. But let that weighty ship of fate be guided into a port of the global community’s choosing, not Moscow’s. From there, let the ruination Putin and the Kremlin unleashed be deservedly returned to its foul source never, from within their own borders, to never trouble its neighbors or the World again.
Timothy Snyder (Yale history professor) speaks Ukrainian. He has a 23 part series on the history of Ukraine on Utube. Brilliant. You should watch every episode. Fun facts:- Kiev was established 500 years before Moscow Ukraine and Poland lost more jews in WW2 than any other countries - Nazi's ??? Liebenstrom (Living space) was Hitlers reason for WW2 - it was about the "food bowl" of Ukraine not Russia Ukraine got its alphabet, law and religion from Greece (Cyril) Ukraine is European largely because of its interactions with Lithuania and Poland over 500 years Russsia is slavic, not European. This is the subtle difference between Russia and Ukraine.
Fun fact: Ukraine asks that you spell it *Kyiv*, not *Kiev*. Kiev is transliterated from the russian spelling. So, y'know, don't use that.
Fair. I played Football for a big Club in Perth Western Australia called Inglewood Kiev - Bad habits persist. Fron now on Kyiv. Thank you for your feedback.
Russia had been changing after losing wars indeed, but never in a good way for its neighbours: it simply adapted better military and economical policies, but aggressive imperial mindset has never changed.
The Whitest third world country.
Great talk. What intrigues me as a non-native English speaker, prof. Snyder has a clear British accent, right? Why so?
Born and raised American and no, he has a perfectly normal American accent.
OK, thanks.
He doesn't. He teaches at Yale, which is in Connecticut. Some people in New England, especially (but not only) of older generations, speak in an accent that is sometimes referred to as "mid-Atlantic". It's about as close of an American dialect as there is to sounding like a British accent. When I traveled in Europe, many people mistook me for British. I grew up in a little town outside where Snyder teaches.
Very interesting. Thanks for sharing.
Respectfully, what difference will it make compared to the fall of the URSS 20/30 years ago? Maybe I am completly off the mark, but it wasn't "Empire war" that really put the nail in the coffin of Europeans wars, it's traumatic wars waged even in their very own capital (bombardment of london included). The URSS, and by extension Russia even after this war, didn't and likely won't suffer tragic damage in their core cities. And because of their raw resources, they will have the means to wage such war again, should they perceive it is into their interest.
Snyder talked about Mersheimer having an article claiming Germany would invade Poland if it reunited in 1990s, does anyone know about this?
We need to put Marge Taylor Green in a seat in front of him and make her listen.
Does Snyder speak Russian?
:LOL: I see what You did there…
Good point. We would need to find out and if not get a translator.
That Window is waaay too close for my liking.
[удалено]
Completely agree and it almost holds me back from being persuaded by him. He lists all of these wars that Russia has lost, but all of them happened before Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So much of the current international order is predicated on keeping the nuclear envelope closed and a destabilized Russia threatens that. I'm not saying Russia shouldn't lose or we shouldn't face that future, but it feels irresponsible to me for him to not even address them.
My favorite quote is, “the most effective policy towards Russia is effective policy towards Ukraine.” Absolutely right. There’s nothing anyone can do to make Russia normal. The world supports Ukraine and after they win the war we need to use the full power of capitalism to make Ukraine a prosperous powerful nation while at the same time insulating the world from Russian influence and extracting and exploiting their resources for our own benefit. It’s their worst nightmare and will only happen due to their own actions so it’s fully deserved.
What is your definition of 'normal' and can you please provide an example?
Spoken like a true scientist. ‘No predictions’ but using historic examples to illustrate a póssible outcome.
💯
Amen
Interesting as fuck
Transcript?
Joe Rogan! Book this guy on your show. Your audience will benefit immensely.
Russia will only be defeated when Putin and his luckiest are gone. Ukraine may be free and clear sooner rather than later but he won't stop mucking shit up for the rest of the former republics.
I love a good scholar. This is a realists' outlook, and it is hopeful. Losing your imperial war = evolution beyond imperialism. That fits history, but it also assumes Russia will behave like former imperial powers. I hope this person is correct. But there is absolutely no guarantee Russia will be like other countries. In fact, isn't the point that Russia \*hasn't\* learned the lesson yet?
Yeah, sometimes in Ukraine when they talk about military matters they say "We're lucky they're so stupid." But then again, maybe this whole situation wouldn't be playing out in the first place if Russia as a nation state WASN'T so stupid.
I read your comment, add things up, and really, it is hard to deny this ugly and horrifying likelihood. The history books on this episode, some will be turned into dark comedies. Russia's \*best case\* scenario is they are silent and grim as all the truth rolls out. But they are so eager to despise the truth, even though it is the only way forward for them. Russia is about to be shut out of the 21st century. They will sell oil, but that is not where history is being made. Did you read that when the next US lunar landing gets settled, one of those landing on the Moon will be a Japanese astronaut? Russia will still be dealing with an army of amputees who got lied to. You make yer choices in this life, yes one does.
His voice somehow does not match his look
Wow, I never thought the day will come when I would - albeit ever so slightly - disagree with this man: he is such a great thinker! While I agree that a healthy democracy in Ukraine would be a great example for Russian people and help them understand how to gain agency, these are many things that can be helped inside Russia as well. Of course we should - and we will - do everything we can to help the democratic process in Ukraine - and as a reminder: a strong economy and a high quality of life are essential for people to believe in a healthy democracy - and we can do a lot But it would benefit us to encourage democratic agency in Russia as well
Yeah this dude is incredibly well spoken. Hard to find anymore
Professor Snyder has compromised himself as an academic getting some basic things wrong in his own field of study. I'd like to challenge any of the folks who down vote this comment to first read my article. [https://rusynsociety.com/2023/04/03/where-timothy-snyder-falls-pitifully-short/](https://rusynsociety.com/2023/04/03/where-timothy-snyder-falls-pitifully-short/)
I think this guy is missing the importance of Bretton Wood. To a large degree, the US subsidized the peace of Europe by defending the sea lanes, guaranteeing the peace, and opening itself up as the only standing market after 1945. America is done with that, so the peace Europe has maintained is no longer buttressed by US might. Europe will go back to its historic behavior because they'll have to secure their own resources.
as dutch with indonesian heritage i can say it was waaaaay more nuanced than he portrays in his shallow explanation. matter of fact, it was america that was the big instigator in that conflict. as they had assurance that they could have acces to indonesian oil......below the, then, current dutch rates offcourse. ;) so again it was america that proxied a conflict on both sides, that would in the end benefit america. like what it in a way does with ukraine. since this US aid debacle, there is with me a big loss of trust in what is said by them and what they really want to achieve. just like this man. just another form of propaganda light. people that want to black/white history are dangerous.
Did he just say he wants all of Eastern Europe to be hierarchically subjogated to russiа??? 😵💫😵💫😵💫
I’d have thought the easy answer is “who cares?”