I'm gonna start the recording I wonder if I can make it not make a sound when participants join? because that's going to be distracting.
Yeah, Okay. got rid of that. Thank you. So welcome everyone, and thank you for joining us to hear some State experts share their insight about Russians violent invasion of Ukraine.
So I am Vanessa Vigier i'm a professor in the politics, policy, and International Relations Department.
Here at Selen State University, and I will serve as a moderator for this panel.
Much of my own work has focused on the former Soviet Union as my ongoing scholarship examines labor migration to Russia, and I've also taught political science at the American University of Central Asia and
the U.S.A. Academy in kyrgyzstan 287, and I've been learning Russian language for many years. so I very much look forward to hearing my colleagues.
Analysis of this terrifying war. And why is that? What is that stick for Ukraine, Russia, and beyond?
So this event is being recorded, you should feel free to post your questions in the chat.
There will also be time at the end live questions and i'm going to introduce. now our 4 speakers, and i'm delighted that they're able to join us today to share their perspectives.
Our first speaker will be elizabeth kaufman. she's associate professor in a politics policy and International Relations Department.
She teaches courses in European politics, nationalism, ethnic identity, and genocide.
She has conducted research on the Polish military and Nato expansion, and she guest lecture at the Naval War College on Poland's place in Nato.
Our second speaker will be Adishonsky She's Professor of History and the coordinator of Latin.
American studies for work in us Latin American relations focuses on immigration policies, counterinsurgencies, usaid and hard and soft interventions.
Our third speaker is Chris Moorello, professor in the History department and Director of the Center for holocaust and Genocide Studies.
He also Coordinates the university's graduate certificate in holocaust and genocide studies.
And then, last, but not least, Kenish cancer testimony is professor in the department of politics, policy, and international relations.
He specializes in international security The international political economy. and foreign policy analysis, and he's also Director of the University's Base center for public and global affairs. So, Elizabeth.
Please take it away. Thank you so much again for being here.
Thank you, Vanessa. So I because I teach Nationalism. One of the things I like to talk about is how borders have moved.
And so I have a map here of as you see it's a map of Europe.
This is actually 1,400 and the i'm trying to my share thing is pushed over top of where I need to move my map.
That's not a good thing there, we go sorry about that It's a map of Europe with the outline of Ukraine superimposed over it as you see in 1,400 there was no
Ukraine. The first time that Ukraine really shows up on the map is in 1,649.
So the territory that's occupied by Ukraine was Poland, Lithuania, primarily in 1,649.
We have a area designated as having been ruled by the Ukrainian Cossacks, and 1,649 is an important date for Ukrainians in terms of their national narrative of their
existence, and the map continues to move so again. There's no Ukraine, as we hit 1,800.
There's also no Poland I tell my students sometimes that if you look at the city of Lavoo of Lavif, which is in Eastern Ukraine. that somewhat what Western Ukraine excuse me that someone born
in Levi in 1,900 would have been a citizen of the Austro-hungarian empire, and that same person would have then lived in Poland.
Ukraine, or in Poland, in Soviet, Ukraine, and now an independent Ukraine, without ever having moved.
So someone who lived from 1,900 to 1,995 would have lived under 4 different linguistic administrations, would have survived the Russian invasion, or the Soviet invasion of Poland and then the German
counter-invasion, and would have lived in an area of significant strife.
And all of that. through all of that you definitely have a Ukrainian identity.
You have a group of people who consider themselves not Russians, not Polls, but Ukrainians, and that's a really important part of the conflict, because, as one of the things that Vladimir Putin has said, is that
Ukraine was actually a creation of Soviet Russia, and that it did not exist before.
That you do have because of the movement of countries and the movement of boundaries.
You do have a lot of different populations. This map shows the distribution of Russian speakers, and you can see the area of Janetsk and Luhansk are the most highly Russian.
Speaking also Crimea. down here at the bottom, which is currently contested territory.
The Russians took it from ukraine in 2,014.
But you could basically give Crimea up without too much of a fight, because historically, Ukraine had been part of Or, excuse me, Crimea had been part of Russia.
It was given to Ukraine as a gift by Nikita Kristov in 1,956 and was actually an economic drain on Ukraine.
So the Ukrainians sort of felt like fine.
Let the Russians have the economic drain. This is also a map of linguistic.
The majority language by town, city, by city, town, and village councils; and, as you can see, Russian and Ukrainian are not the only 2 languages.
There are also significant populations to speak Romanian, Crimea and Tatar, Hungarian, Bulgarian, Valgals, Polish, and Albanian, so that the area of Ukraine is a multilinguistic country, the
Constitution in 1,996 did declare Ukrainian to be the official language.
When Ukraine became independent, when it declared its independence from the Soviet Union in 1,991, there were 3 major issues that caused the Ukrainian population to want to be independent from the
Soviet Union. One was a dispute over the existence of Ukrainian as an independent language.
The Russians had a tendency to claim that both Belarus and Ukrainian are dialects of Russian.
The Belarusians and the Ukrainians disagree strongly with that, and claim that Ukrainian has its own literature, its own existence as a language, and so clearly putin is making continuing to make the
claim that Ukrainian is not a separate culture and not a separate language, and this has been an ongoing dispute since before 1,991.
But it was part of the issue in 1,991, the other 2 issues in 91 that caused Ukraine to want to be independent were the Soviet response to the Chernobyl crisis. where it took them.
3 days before they started to evacuate people from Chernobyl, and the Ukrainians felt that Ukrainian lives had been sacrificed to the unwillingness of the Soviet
Government to admit that there had been an accident in Chernobyl, and the third issue was the Holomador.
The famine and genocide of the Ukrainian population.
In the 1,900, and Twentys and thirtys which had been a result of lenin's and Stalin's collectivization.
And also it's not just collectivization of farmlands in Ukraine, but also actually a political campaign against the Kulux, who were a class of peasants or not really peasants a class of
landowning farmers who own significant portions of land that were targeted to be collectivized, and as a result of collectivization, and of the export of massive amounts of grain from Ukraine the
several 1,000,000 people starved to death, and the Ukrainians see that as a targeted genocide of their population, one of the main issues that Putin is pursuing, of course, is this distinction between Russian speakers
and Ukrainian speakers, and the idea that the Russian speakers want to be part of Russia rather than part of Ukraine.
Definitely. There are some Russian speakers who do want to be part of Russia, and that's we can say that in donets in the haunts.
But there are also many Russian speakers, including the current President, who is himself a Russian, a native Russian speaker, who see Ukraine as a territorial entity that should retain its territorial integrity as it
stands, or, as it was in its 1,991 boundaries.
I think i've reached my time so i'm going to wait for questions to say anything else.
Thank you, Elizabeth. so we'll now, hear from have You shown me
That's good that you should stop the share screen I think I apologize.
Okay, So I too, I'm gonna show some slides and thank you so much for all that historical background, because strangely, you're the political scientist.
I'm the historian you're talking about the past i'm gonna talk about the present.
So I think I think we're we're put in the right porter.
So i'm going to talk about a latin American perspective on Ukraine.
Let's see if I can hide my okay and I wanna start out with this map.
Which is a map of sanctions placed on Russia by governments around the world.
And the reason I wanted to start on this map is because I think being located here in the United States, we are sort of exposed to a narrative that that makes a leap that I don't think all of the world makes so
the narrative is everybody opposes the Russian invasion, and that, I think, is pretty much true of every country, and most of the people in most of the world's countries opposed the Russian invasion.
But the leap is that if they oppose the Russian invasion, they then support the us-led policy that is called supporting Ukraine.
And I think for much of the world does not actually support the Us.
Led policy, and that we see that in this map, of which countries are actually following the U.
S pressure to impose sanctions on Ukraine on Russia.
That is so. A couple of things I wanted to mention about this map.
So what does it? And I think the question is what does it mean to support Ukraine?
The what We're hearing from the United States government now is that supporting Ukraine means arming Ukraine.
It means imposing sanctions on Russia. It means expanding and exacerbating this war, and to much of the world.
That is not the best way to support Ukraine and I would actually say that I think for many people in Ukraine.
That's also the case of course we don't really have any public opinion polls in ukraine right now, but many Ukrainians are voting with their feet, and saying what we want is to survive we
want. Our families are children, and we want survival, and they are fleeing, which is what happens in every war. That is, nobody once war.
But the question is, does pouring arms and upping the ante and exacerbating the tensions?
Is that really a way to support Ukrainians rather than Ukraine?
If we're talking about what is the government if you ukraine asking for clearly it's asking for more sanctions, more arms, no fly zone, more militarization more war. But i'm I do think we're seeing the
population of ukraine asking for that and I don't think we're seeing the population of the world asking for that. The other thing that I wanted to point out about this map is that it's very particular parts of the world
that are supporting the us-led effort to militarize to exacerbate the war it's.
The colonizers. it's the global north the world the formerly colonized world.
The global South. many of whom also formed the non-aligned movement.
They don't necessarily see a u s European alliance as the epitome of good in the world.
It's actually the United States in Europe that have colonized most of this world that we see not adopting the sanctions and that have repeatedly engaged in unprovoked invasions of sovereign nations in
the global South. So I think that the global South, in general and Latin America in particular, see a fairly high level of hypocrisy in the way that the United States and Europe are responding to the events and supporting
Ukraine could also mean pushing for a an off ramp to this war and a diplomatic and negotiated solution, which is much more what we are hearing from the global South.
So Latin America, of course, is politically diverse and we also don't have a lot of information in terms of public opinion polls of what to people in Latin America want now.
So i'm going to be looking primarily at governments in Latin America.
And how have they responded to the invasion and to the Us.
Role in everything that's happening right now. so I sort of divide the countries of Latin America into 3 categories countries, leaning to the right in terms of their government.
Brazil, Columbia, Costa, Rica, Domitic Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala Countries.
Leaning to the left. and I note that that the fact that the current governments lean one way or the other doesn't necessarily mean anything about the long term because Latin America is characterized by some pretty dramatic
swings from right to left in in different electoral moments and we're seeing that right now in terms of chile, which until March the Eleventh would have gone under countries leaning right and now, since the recent election and
transfer of power. On March the eleventh. The inauguration of the new President Bodhi, is now a country leaning left
And then I wanted to mention 3 Latin American countries that are currently facing us sanctions Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, and because of the harsh us sanctions against those 3 countries, I would
say 2 things. One Latin American countries in general are pretty leery of sanctions because they feel that their own sovereignty is continually violated by the threat of us sanctions.
That is, they are basically they're in the both their domestic policies, their economic policies, their foreign policies.
They are subject to the whims of the united States and international financial institutions, and if they try to pursue an independent domestic or foreign policy, they're likely to be hit with sanctions.
The other thing about sanctions is that because of the degree of control the United States has on the international financial system, countries under sanctions by the United States are much more dependent on other large countries like China and Russia, not necessarily because they like
the Chinese or Russian Government more than the u s Government but because that's their only alternative.
Once the United States has cut them out of the international financial system.
So in the little chart on the left, I show that basically no Latin American country actively supports Russia's invasion. those voices simply do not exist in Latin America, However, there has been a diversity
of opinion from these different countries on to what extent do they support the Us.
Response and that's basically what we see here those that cosigned the oasis Morgan organization of American States Declaration. Those who voted to open a Ukraine debate at the un human rights Council those who sponsored, the Un general
as that in general. we see. Oh, and I would also just say that Latin America has ever since the beginnings of the Cold War promoted non-alignment.
That is, every Latin American country was a member of, and continues to be either a member or an observer in the non-aligned movement, and have really tried to both during the Cold War and since the 1,900 and
Ninetys maintain a non-aligned stance.
So their reluctance to impose sanctions on Russia, I think, comes from that.
But we do see a kind of a left right split in in the countries and their responses here, in that the right leaning countries tend to support the Us.
Approach of sanctions, and arming Ukraine.
Whereas the left leaners are pressing much more for diplomacy compromised negotiations, and they believe that the Us. stances prolonging and exacerbating the war.
And I would point in particular to Columbia here one of the most consistently right-wing countries in Latin America in terms of its government, although that may be changing because there is a frontrunner in the upcoming election
Gustavo Petro, who would bring some pretty radical left-wing ideas into Columbia's government for the first time in a century.
And Columbia is the only Latin American country that has a partner relationship with Nato, and that has collaborated militarily with the United States, and is also participating in trying to arm Ukraine So the other thing.
I wanted to say about the left leaners, and even some of the right bleaners.
Do see a high degree of hypocrisy in the way the United States insists that this is an unprovoked invasion of a sovereign country.
As in particular, in their treatment of refugees and in their supposed support for international law, because from a Latin American perspective.
Those things Just don't make sense in this slide i'm not going to go over everything.
Obviously it's very detailed, but I just wanted to point out the bombs dropped by the United States in the past 20 years.
All of them in unprovoked attacks on sovereign countries.
300,000. that's a daily average of 46 people in the United States tend not to even be aware of this.
So when we hear criticism of Russia for an unprovoked attack on a sovereign country, we think oh, we would never do anything like that.
But in fact, we consistently have done things like that, and Latin Americans are quite aware of this number killed by us troops in unprovoked attacks against sovereign countries since world.
War Ii. about 12,000,000 and on the left-hand side I have unprovoked attacks against sovereign countries.
In Latin America on the right hand side, in other parts of the world, that again, I feel like much of the Us.
Population is not even aware of the ongoing, unprovoked attacks against sovereign countries that the United States has engaged in much less the history.
Latin Americans are also quite aware of how refugees from Latin American countries have been and continue to be treated by the United States.
And you know, when we look at that colonial division of the Mac that I showed you at the beginning. I also wanted to point to some of the commentaries in the media and from politicians that that support Latin Americans view, that there's a lot
of hypocrisy going on here and that race is playing a big role in why this war seems particularly bad to Europeans and the United States, whereas wars in their countries don't i'll just read a couple of these
Cbs News Senior. Foreign correspondent ukraine Isn't a place with all due respect like Iraq or Afghanistan that has seen conflict raging for decades.
This is a relatively civilized relatively European I have to choose these words carefully to city where one wouldn't expect that, or hope that it's going to happen.
Well, people of color in the third world understand that to be?
Oh, so our countries are where these things are supposed to happen, not white European countries.
Former deputy prosecutor, General of Ukraine, who told the Bbc.
It's very emotional for me, because I see European people with blue eyes and blonde hair being killed every day, and the Bbc.
Host replies, I understand and respect the emotion. so you can look at these on your own.
I see I'm running out of time but I did want to end with what we might call the far left outside of government in Latin America.
The Sabatista revolutionary movement in indigenous revolutionary movement in Japas, Mexico, which represents much more than just the Sabatistas.
I think there are very well understood to represent a coherent left-wing position in Latin America that clearly says there's an aggressor force the Russian army.
There are big capital capital interests involved on both sides. Those who now suffer the delusions of some and the cynical economic calculation of others, are the peoples of Russia and Ukraine and subatistas we Do not
support one state or another, but those who fight for life against the system.
During the multinational invasion of Iraq.
The U. S. army, with the U. S. army at its head.
There were mobilizations around the world against that war.
No one in their right mind thought that opposing the invasion meant siding with Saddam Hussein.
Now it's a similar situation. neither zelensky nor putin stop the war.
Those who win in this war are the great arms Consortia, and the big capitals that see the opportunity to conquer, destroy, rebuild territories.
The war must be stopped now, if it is maintained, and, as is to be expected, it escalates.
Then perhaps there will be no one to notice the scenery.
After the battle the South autistic communities call for protests and mobilizations against all capitalist wars currently being waged in multiple corners of the planet.
These wars are happening not only in Ukraine, but also in Palestine, Kurdistan, Syria, on the Makuchi people on all the originary peoples of the world.
Sorry I I tried so hard to keep it to 10 min. but I didn't quite make it.
I think you did actually so. Thank you so much. Our next speaker is Chris Moyle.
Hi! welcome everybody! Thank you for coming. Thank you, Abby, for those that insight an intellectual and cultural historian of modern Europe, with only 10 to 12 min to explain a conflict with hundreds of years of complex history.
I really struggle to frame my section for the panel, and I really am happy that Elizabeth did all the historical groundwork for the 2 historians.
But, as I often do when coming to speak about history, I turn to other historians, the lot being born Canadian historian motors, Eckstein's, in his brilliant Autobiographical book on World War
Ii walking since daybreak has included with this line 45 is not our victory, as we often like to think 1,945 is our problem for today.
I'd like to modify Mr. estein's words, and begin with the phrase, 1,989 is our problem.
What do I mean by 1,989 is our problem, after all.
The iconic image of that year was east and West Germans standing together, embracing atop the Berlin wall near the Brandenburg Gate.
The Cold war was over, Communism in the Soviet Union had collapsed, and a new age of freedom was dawning for the world. The 1,989 was not our victory.
As we assumed it, was our problem, because Europe had 3 very different versions of 1,989 that emerged and soon turned into different memories and meanings of that crucial year.
What i'd like to do now is just briefly go through in a very schematic way, and obviously an over generalized way, looking at how 3 different parts of Europe looked at 1,989 I'm going to start
with Western Europe, moved to Eastern Europe, and then to the former Soviet Union and Russia to start with.
In Western Europe there was a much more mood it's a muted sense of triumph, much less than the full-throated reagan and bush and American hubris that said that we won the cold war and we buried
Communism in the Soviet Union into the ash sheep of history.
This, I think, led to what historian Timothy Snider calls the politics of inevitability, or a belief in Western Europe that liberal democracy and capitalism were the inevitable, and that more individualism more capitalism
more consumerism, more technology, more oil and gas and more globalization automatically and naturally produced progress.
This attitude culminated in francis Wukiyama's famous but ill-informed thesis of the end of ideology.
Western European saw 1,989 is a continuation of the good decisions made after 1,945, and then how they successfully negotiated 45 years of politics culture and society between the
superpowers. Encouraged by the end of the Cold War and the politics of inevitability, Western European powers, integrated into the European Union, recommended to the security guarantees of the last remaining cold war defense
packs in Nato there's a very different memory of 1,989 in Eastern Europe and the errors formally under the totalitarian rule, and economic iron ring of the Soviet union's
Eastern bloc in those parts of Europe. 1,989 was the expression of numerous and very different people's, revolutions in countries like Poland, Czechoslovakia, hungry Romania, and
others Communism didn't collapse due to inevitability, but because East Europeans themselves provided an alternative civil society to the violent, oppressive, and economic failing, Soviet masters in their puppet
regimes. Communism didn't collapse eastern Europeans pushed it over.
Unlike the democracies of Western Europe with Marshall aid and us investment. However, the new democracies of Eastern Europe were poor with mid-century infrastructure an environmental disaster left over from years of soviet economic
exploitation with the project of building a modern democracy and market economy in the shadow of the West.
Europe's poor cousins They looked at the eu membership, and the Nato protection against any revival of Russian colonialism.
Liberal democracy was far from inevitable. In Eastern Europe inequalities of wealth, corruption, the global financial crisis of 2,007, 2,008.
The migrant crisis after the war in Syria, in 2,014, created opportunities for nationalists and authoritarian Populist parties and leaders who rose and remain in power in places like Poland Hungry
Serbia and the Czech Republic the third area I'd like to focus on is the former Soviet Union. further to the east, as Russia and its immediate neighbors in Georgia.
Belarus, Ukraine, and Crimea struggled to come to terms with the suddenness of 1,989, a young former Kgb agent, Vladimir Putin, saw 1,900 and
89 as a catastrophe, Russian nationalist committed to the use of power.
He began a 30 year project to recraft the memory and change the consequences of 1,989 for Russia.
He created a kleptocracy among friends and families, an authoritarian regime. as an alternative to liberal democracy, which he saw as dangerous, foreign and weak.
He closed down opposition groups and free Press as decadent.
He imprisoned his political opponents and killed in Maine the leaders of other countries.
He used the precious resources and and rebuilt the once great Russian army into an offensive regional force.
He maintained a nuclear force, while those predecessors in 1,995, convinced the Ukrainians to surrender their nuclear weapons in the promise to quote never invade their nation over
the last 20 years he sought to counter every move of liberal democracies, and Western and Eastern Europe wrecked the expansion of the European Union In Nato.
You saw the West endless hunger for oil and natural gas, and use his resources to create a hydrocarbon weapon made up of refineries and pipelines that could cripple the West most
importantly to me, at least as an intellectual historian, he created an alternative, imagined history of Russia, and this relationship with Georgia, Belarus, Crimea, Ukraine, and he integrated this into his imagined history
of Russia. the He took old myths of Kiev as a soul of Russia, and consulted mystical national histories of Russia, and took them as truth.
He personally rewrote the history of the Nazi Soviet Pact in 1,939, and held it out as fact.
He spun conspiracy theories about fascists in Ukraine, culminating in the myths, spouted by his mouthpiece, and foreign minister Lavro right before the invasion
stating Ukraine was not a sovereign country, and that Russians living in the eastern provinces were victims of genocide by Ukrainian fascist.
The dangerous words. These were clearly false flags, planted on the eve of invasion, between 19, between 2,015 and 2,022.
He put his army and his mystical Russian nationalism into action, and invaded or manipulated politics to Pro-russian positions in Ukraine, Crimea, Georgia, and Belarus he planned to Overrun Ukraine in a matter of
days, and install a puppet regime loyal to him in his Russian imperial dream, he would erase the catastrophe of 1,989, and replace it with a new glorious
myth. So how do these different histories and memories of 1,989 explain the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 22?
It actually doesn't. But it does provide a context for you to understand and consider the competing interpretations of the conflict, invasion, and war that are filling our media feeds every reminds us that history is not mere fact but a
search for usable memory as Haitian historian, Michelle Ralph Tru.
Low States. History is in the seams between reality and storytelling, between what happened and what is said to have happened.
History is always subject to memory myths, and, most importantly, perspectives.
These perspectives create the realities in which politics are made.
Policies are crafted and wars are fought, but it does raise a essential questions about the meaning, significance, and consequence of the Russian invasion.
So I have 3 questions that I think we can consider did the triumphalism around 1,989, and the attendant politics of inevitability blind us and Western Europe to the danger of putin's
nationalistic and colonial ambitions in the territories of the former Soviet Union.
Equally importantly did the Us. and Western nations play a part in the current crisis by advocating for an expanded Eu and Nato membership.
Knowing of Russia's security concerns second question will populous regimes in Eastern Europe, and emergent ones in Western Europe and around the globe.
See Putin's nationalism and anti-western anti-us wreckage policy as an attractive model for post liberal Europe in the world. Putin thinks so as he tutors these populace and things like the
myth of sovereignty just yesterday, day before yesterday. Excuse me.
He gave a lecture on Cancel culture, the dangers of Lgbtq communities, the linkage of criminality and immigration, the centrality of aligning and politicizing the judiciary and the dangers of
an open and free media to. We know that American Populists are listening.
What is putin's endgame here like stalin before him?
Will he be able to negotiate from power when the tanks stop?
Or was this a colossal mistake made of his own hubris of inevitability that will further integrate liberal democracies into the West, solidify the Eu and expand the desire for 9 aligned European
nations in Europe to join Nato. Will Russia be a pariah State and its people suffer?
The economic disaster due to sanctions. I began this conversation with, I think, a broad look at 1,989, and particularly the politics of anevitability.
This idea that, believing that liberal democracy is the only pathway to modernity, and it comes about naturally and is progress, It's caused us to miss the possibilities of both putin and the contemporary
authoritarian Populism wave that is sweeping the world.
The threat posed by authoritarian populism is very real, and believe me, they have agency, and they have agents of change.
Second, and most importantly stop this war innocence.
Civilians are dying in Ukraine, and soldiers on both sides are being killed.
Advocate for our political leaders to help identify and negotiate a sensible off ramp that stops the war.
Resist the urge for revenge, or to make more weapons that will make more war and make more death.
Thank you, and i'll look forward to your questions thank you very much.
And then our last speaker is, Kanye said as well.
Thank you, Vanessa, and thank you to 3 colleagues for your for your excellent presentations.
Underdog, like the other 3 I actually don't have a formal presentation that I have put together, because the events in Ukraine and the consequences of what the events in the Crane they may bring things that have
been part of my academic and intellectual thinking for decades.
They're part of what I teach in my classes part of my what my research agenda has been on.
So it's it's not something new that I had to come up with in terms of my thinking just because this war happened.
And so that's where i'm going to focus on things that are not necessarily specific to Ukraine, but which have been activated or triggered by this this war in in Ukraine the
international system that we've been living under for centuries now, but especially in the Post World War.
Ii time period. it's the thing known as the Liberal international order.
The origins of water go back to Westphalia in 1,648, and we have had several different types of orders in the centuries.
But following the end of the Second World War, 1,945, the victorious allies led by the United States created this new system.
The liberal international order a system that would be based on a lot of the things that Professor Mariello talked about in the context of 1,989.
But there are. There are things that go back to 1,945 simply the fact that from 1,945 to 1,989.
Those things were placed on boss, because the conflict with the Soviet Union in the Cold War, so 1,989 actually is a continuation intellectually, of ideas that began in 1,944 and one
1,945 that the victorious allies had hoped to create in the world.
In 1,945, but had to wait until 1,989 to truly get going in terms of creating that liberal international order.
The little international order relies on many different pieces. Central to the order was international Law, a so called rules based international system.
When we say rules phased it automatically, means things are black and white.
That's what is meant by a rule either you follow the rule or you don't.
There's not much space in a rules-based system 4 gray areas, and obviously the the people who run the system who control the system are going to create and enforce those rules based upon their preferences.
Their interests, their values. Sometimes that includes democracy. It happens in domestic rules, systems as well, right where the rich and the powerful or the connector sometimes get away with things that the rest of us would not be able to get away with
it happens, but a rule. Space system ultimately is about a very clear world, where everything is known and right and wrong are divided by cleaner line.
Good and bad, divided by a clear line problem, going beginning from, say, the late 1,900 ninetys onwards, and especially in recent years, is that the world that we are living in and going into in the future is not a black and white
world. it's decidedly. gray area where you don't have a lot of these clear lines separating things the lions are blurred at us, and this change in the kind of world we live in is being driven not by
politics or policy, but by science and technology. It is a diffusion of everybody, even such things as military power and economic power which for centuries had been entirely held by states and governments.
I'm no longer that way. you have significant diffusion in military power and power.
Financial power, wealth in the world, including 2 non-state actors.
But these rules that we have come up with for the system are based on things being clearly black and white, that can be applied to States and to governments.
So the reality of the world no longer matches liberal international rules-based order, and for years now we don't.
Even so, scholars who are ingrained in liberal internationalism.
People like Richard Has, or or Joni, or John Eichenberry.
All of these colors, who are very big on the liberal international system, have been admitting for years that you have this mismatch between the reality of the world and what the system.
Wants fine right? And so obviously the people who are vested in the system are going to desperately try to hold on to the system.
Hold on, you know. try to strengthen the system to whatever they can, to preserve the system.
Others have understood you. they're moving to a post liberal system, a post rules-based system.
That also, then, means a post. America dominated or West dominated system, where everything is gray area.
Nothing is right or wrong. clearly nothing is good or bad clearly rulestone to apply, or when they are applied, they're based on who's the strongest and not truly on the that's a very scary.
World a terrifying world. Most human beings actually would prefer authoritarian system over freedom, if that authoritarian system provided consistency and told them this is how things are.
That's what human beings want they want order they want consistency.
They want rules, even rules that are unfair because we understand them.
But a world without rules, a world without lines, a world that is completely great, amoral, not immoral, immoral.
No principles, no fundamental core values. Anything goes That is a terrifying world for most human beings.
So as we transition away from this American lead, Western dominated liberal international system based on rules so such as they were people out there in the world looking to see, what can we do to keep up with a new system to replace this because of
no rules gray area world. We don't want we cannot have we have to have something new to replace the outgoing system.
And where do you normally go to find something new? You actually go back in time.
In the history to look for things that exist at. Before that you can potentially bring that.
I say this is how we wanted to be so for Russia, for putting one of the main actors who understand the that deliberately to national order is not for them, not something they want.
What do you do? You will go back to the nineteenth century.
You go back to World War Ii. and to say, what are some of the things that we can draw from that time period, and insist that today is 20, s, 25 first secretary world.
Be that way. So so for Russia it is all about redrawing borders.
Russian nationalism. I echoing a lot of the same things that leaders in the 1,900 twentys and thirtys and fortys, because that's their frame of reference for Russia the high point of Russian
power and prestige in the world was 1,945, having just defeated Nazi Germany.
Their intellectual thinking is frozen from 1,945.
So they go back to 1,945.
As their frame of reference. Right? You want to get the Russian people mobilized in a war, do you say to them, the bad guys we are fighting are Nazis because nothing galvanizes the Russian people more than to be able
to say, these are the same people. Before packing the quarter for great patriotic war.
Russia wants to go back in time to create a system that is based on spheres of influence that is based on ultra-nationalism.
That is based on redrawing of borders based on a perceived sense of the Russian nation.
Right, I mean, Elizabeth talked earlier about these Russian speakers in Ukraine. let's be honest.
They're only Russian speakers that doesn't make them actually questions right. And these people spoke rashly only because in the Soviet Union that's what they needed to do to get a decent job to have any social
mobility. So yeah, I mean, you know, in in Uzbekistan.
They speak. Russian, too, does not make Uzbek's Russians 2. No, it doesn't in fact.
Now we have very solid evidence from new Hasque and and and don't ask, and Kurzan and even the Crimea, where these so-called Russian speakers taught what to be part of Russia then know what
a miserable life it is to be a part of Russia They'd much rather be part of a liberal Ukraine than putin's Russia support for being Russia has cratered in Crimea since 2,000
and 14 in Donazka Bluhansk.
Right ethnic Rush I mean I shouldn't say brush. and speaking Ukrainians are fighting alongside Ukrainian speaking Ukrainians openly telling any news media that Interviews them.
I don't want to be a part of putin as Russia, but for putting 1,945, and everything before is his only frame of reference, and that's where he wants to take us and so, do others the
Chinese, the Indians, the South Africans right who are all desperate for a new vision for the world, but who can't bear the idea of a gray area world that's just too scary, too too too frightening so
you look to history and say, What can we bring back from the nineteenth century?
What can we bring back from the twentieth century?
Because those things we understand those things. we are comfortable. Thank you so much to our for presenters.
So we know about 20 min for questions. So if you want to have ask a question, you can just unmute yourself, or you can post it in the chat.
I will money to the chat so please go ahead i'll make a quick comment.
Apologies I had to drop out. I had an advising appointment.
Many of the things that we see on the news and Yes, we're seeing a very much a western oriented approach to the media.
What we're not seeing nearly enough is all of the nonviolent protests that are taking place, not only in Ukraine, but also in Russia.
There are many, many Russians who do not want this war.
Do not see it as a disaster for themselves in their countries, but particularly when we look at you know Msnbc.
Or cnn we're not seeing if it gets talked about it gets as sort of oh, by the way, and then we move on other countries.
News reporting does a little bit better but it's Still, there's very little that we focus on with respect to the nonviolence. And there's been some good examples really powerful examples of non-violence of
grandmothers in Kirson, who were protesting the Russian soldiers.
They villages around Zaparasia nuclear plant that slowed the advance of Russian soldiers to give, you know, plant workers enough time to sort of as best they could make safe the the nuclear power plant there. know they're the stories that really
should be being told, and we just don't see them also the stories of the Polish people in particular, who are greeting refugees with open arms and doing the best they can to provide Ukrainian
refugees with the services they need, which, as obvious pointed out, is also problematic.
The polls were not nearly as good when they had Syrian refugees, in fact, refused to take any
But although it's a selective response the polls have taken more than 60% of the refugees coming from Ukraine and are doing their best to integrate them, and in fact, Poland has been taking
Ukrainian refugees for a long time Now, the case of Russia also, Greg, I think one problem we might have now is that there is very little reporting.
That's happening because a lot of people have left I just read this morning that Novaya Gazetta, which was one of the only few remaining opposition voices in Russia, decided to suspend publication because of all the
risks involved in talking about the war and and i've noticed there's so much less coverage now of what's happening in Russia, because we just don't have the information coming out People are afraid to speak up because of
the the risk to themselves and people around them but I would say that you know to but what the work gonna stand track.
So you know it's it's amazing that in the face of all of these restrictions these new laws that have been passed in Russia, that you still have people willing to speak up that is amazing and and and that gives me a lot
of hope, and I guess I would also say it's kind of amazing Here, in the absence of many restrictions, except those restricting the Russian media, we still aren't hearing very many stories like we are still being I think I feel like we're being
fed a single narrative here from the entire spectrum of the mass media, and it's extremely hard to even get a hint that the rest of the world might be thinking about this a little bit differently than the united States is Well,
there is news media from the rest of the world and so I think that's a good segue for me to push back a little bit about this notion that that that in much of the non Western part of the world while people oppose the russian
invasion. They also just simply want the water to simply end, and for a diplomacy to replace the war as some sort of an alternative to us policy, and I strongly disagree with that India is a good example of a country
that we can look at a country that has tried to straddle the middle ground between the 2 sides that has abstained, and all the Security Council, and even a general assembly resolutions.
But in the Indian News media, which I read extensively, which is also quotes that these are not anonymous sources.
Indian Government officials. People from inside the prime minister's office are talking to the India news media, and they are absolutely on Ukraine's side, so to say.
I they are not on Ukraine side or that they're not, don't support Ukraine is absolutely wrong.
They agree with every substantive point being made by Western governments.
But then they also say we have no choice but to be deferential to the Russians, because someday in the future, India and China are likely to be in the war, and when that day comes, we need for the Russians to
stay neutral. That is the reason why we are abstaining at the Un. but we are horrified by what the Russians are doing, and fully support Ukraine.
So that narrative is there, and it is there in African countries.
It is then Middle Eastern countries, Not in my focus, is on Asia, Asia, and the Middle East Latin America is actually dead last in the regions of the world.
That I have much knowledge of, but I suspect that the that is true about ordinary average people in North America as well.
So the point that I was trying to make is that I think there's a kind of a false framing of the 2 sides.
So either you support Russia or support Ukraine.
And the reason I focused on the Sabatista statement, and also on the position of many, Virtually all Latin American governments are many Latin American governments is that
Opposing the Russian invasion does not mean supporting the us-led drive war drives that there's other ways of conceptualizing what opposing the Russian invasion means.
And you know I think the safatista said it very clearly.
We opposed the Us. invasion of Iraq.
That did not mean that we wanted to arm Saddam Hussein; that that that the 2 that the United States plays a really key role here, and one can oppose the Russian invasion, and not feel that the United States is
supporting Ukraine. What is exactly Ukraine?
What should be supported is supporting the War and making the war grow, actually supporting the people of Ukraine very much.
And but that's true of a weak country. right Ultimately the only country in the world that supports Ukraine is Ukraine.
Every other country in the world ultimately is going to be looking at this through the prism of their national interests, and for and for the United States, the primary national interest ought to be in my view right.
I mean, you know it's easy for us who are not members of the Government to say this, that on the other, but, for example, of the United States, the priority should be in my view less, about how we help the Ukrainian
and more about how we defeat the Russians, because defeating Russia is what is in the national interest of the United States.
Long term. So if we can bleed the Russians dry in Ukraine, tell us exactly the policy that what we're expecting the United States to pursue now that that policy may also be good for the
Ukrainians be an added benefit and that's for the Ukrainians to decide whether that is, that is the case or not, but that the United States is taking an anti-russia approach to this is entirely
logical. It's entirely logical. if you want to see a nuclear war, so not everybody thinks that's in the interests of the United States either.
See, Andrew Darian has a question I think you're muted through.
I do have a question, although a quick comment, which is to say, these, these were each really wonderful presentations, which I think offered a very unique vantage points.
One aspect of the conflict that wasn't discussed by any of the panelists is the role of the expansion of Nato in potentially contributing to this conflict.
A significant reason why Russia saw ukraine as an existential threat was because of the possible expansion of Nato, and given that, we're now at a point in which a negotiated settlement might in fact
be a quote unquote, neutral Ukraine that stays outside of Nato.
Why, from the perspective of the panelists, do you think the United States was so reticent to give that assurance to Russia?
And do you think it would have been enough to have kept the peace?
And maybe the answer would include a piece at what cost so i'll be interested to hear any comments about that I think that we need to keep in mind that the impetus to expand Nato to Central Europe and i'm gonna
differ with Chris here on the terminology Central Europeans don't like to be called Eastern Europeans, but the the impetus to expand Nato to Central Europe came from the Central Europeans themselves, so already in 1,900
and 89. The polls were lobbying to join the Eu and to join Nato, and so the requests have come from those countries.
They have been met by rhetoric, especially from the Bush administration, but from other Us.
Administrations about expanding Nato. but the the drive has always been from the Europeans rather than the Us.
And, in fact, Germany was a much bigger supporter of expanding Nato than the Us.
Was in terms of neutrality. The Soviet Union tried to impose neutrality on Austria when it became independent in night, in the 1,900 fiftys and the Austrians refused the soviets.
Wanted it to be part of the Austrian constitution.
Austria declared neutrality, but they refused to have it be part of their constitution, because they refused to have it imposed from the outside, and I think Ukraine feels the same way.
Ukraine is a sovereign state that has the right to pick who its alliances are, and to move in one direction or the other.
And even now Zelensky is vacillating on the issue of neutrality.
On the one hand, he would like to end the war. On the other hand, he would like to come out with a sovereign and integral Ukraine.
I also want to take the time to, You know, when we talk about narratives.
One of the narratives is popular in the United States is that Zelensky is a political meophyte and a political outsider.
Outsider. Yes, but calling him a political neophyte, would be like calling Stephen Colbert or Trevor.
Nay, Noah i'll political neophyte Zelensky has been involved in politics and involved in Ukrainian culture for a long time, and has been a major player, and so that's something to keep in
mind. he's not somebody who suddenly arose to take on this role.
He has been a Nationalist and a national leader. But the the Nato expansion is really is a question not just of the United States agenda, but of the agenda of the countries who have themselves worked hard to join both
Nato and the Eu can I quickly add something Oh, go ahead, Amy, i'll wait.
I was actually going to refer to what you said before in answering Professor Darian, that I think Connie actually articulated quite well.
The policy of the United States which is to destroy Russia at all costs, and that's why I didn't go that far, not destroy at all costs.
Go ahead. no no, I wouldn't say that and in fact. you know I I consider myself to come from the real school of international relations, and in in that school the the cardinal rule is that great powers are never ever destroyed right?
That's why the victorious powers restored the from France to sovereignty in 1,815.
Because you never ever destroy another great power so anyway.
To drew this question. It is a very good question too, because see, that's the difference between policy and rhetoric and and the There's a big gap between policy and rhetoric.
Coming from Washington. Reason v. Ukraine and Nato right that the rhetoric is all about.
Well, you know we can't rule out ukraine being part of Nato ever we can't close the door.
There's going to be no arbitrary closing of goes to Nato membership for any country right? although technically there is one door that is close right, and that is Russian membership.
In Nato that, though, is effective because but the dough is open for every other country in the in the sort of the Eurasian space to be a member of data that's the rhetoric But policy.
Wise. The United States actually has always agreed that Ukraine could never be a part of Nato right.
And and the reason is very simple. Ukraine ever became a member of Nato.
The United States would probably have to increase its defense budget by a good 20 to 30%, because we would have to station 4 or 5 armored divisions in Eastern Ukraine to be able to Guarantee
ukraine's article 5 defense it's not defensible.
We Can't do that right now. we can't so from a policy standpoint. Ukraine is not defensible, especially by a United States that is wanting to cut defense budgets a shift defense
resources away to other areas, and is extremely unserious about its article.
5 commitments to the countries that are already in Nato.
So So if the United States was never going to seriously defend Ukraine, and you are a realist wouldn't a realist position, Say that putin's perspective and behavior are predictable, he said he showed us the
template in Chechnya, in Georgia and in Syria, just absolutely true.
I agree right, and we had a panel. Alex was on that panel with me in 2,014.
After the Crimean invasion, where I predicted that this was going to happen down the road right?
And this woman itself, going all the way back to October and November.
But students in my fall semester classes will be able to tell you.
I said, this war is happening It's happening for sure and I even said, it'll happen the week after the end of the Olympics.
I said that in October and November of of the fall, because yes, you are absolutely correct.
But , , they're most, I mean, not my area of expertise, but it seems like there will most likely be a negotiated settlement.
It will be a dirty deal in which both sides are very unhappy, and what we, I think, will have to show, for it is a neutered, broken, neutral Ukraine that stands outside of Nato
with massive loss of life. millions of refugees, destruction of homes.
Could that have been pre-empted by a less firm stance on Nato by the United States and its allies and a negotiated settlement?
If, in fact, we are all on the side of the Ukrainians, could there not have been another?
Yeah, right? exactly. right and that's how it should have been true right in in that I real world, that's how it should have been right.
And let's you know, remember that Zelensky all the way up to the moment of the first Russian bombs falling on Ukraine kept pleading with put in to negotiate and to talk and
it was put in who flatly said, I have nothing to say to Zalenski: I don't even recognize Zalanski right.
That was the problem Right? Yes, the Us. made a whole bunch of mistakes. you know.
Don't even get we started on biden's what passes for diplomacy in the Biden administration, and that's that's been the case for 5 us administrations in a row.
Now. Okay, but let's not get side tracked on any of that right Ukraine versus Russia.
The only problem to everything you just said to was putin's ego, put in Ego dictated that he was going to get everything that he wanted, not a negotiated settlement a crushing of the ukrainians and
him, getting unilaterally everything what he wanted right for the first 3 weeks of the war.
What was the operative word that put it in. All of his lackeys, kept using surrender.
So surrender, surrender. We want a Ukrainian surrender now.
They have stopped using that work. But that was the word before, and that was the problem.
And you. We had to go through this war, and the misery and the suffering and the death and the destruction, because that is what has led, put in to climb down from his ego perch.
And to now be willing to say over i'm willing to compromise which he was unwilling to do previous to February the 20 fourth, and the Wednesday before the war started last thing Zelensky
said, is that Nato membership for ukraine is a dream that he was willing to back down on that.
And I said that's the off-ram and but putin had no intention of taking that off Rampusier, or decided on the all or nothing war, that he thought it could win in 4 days.
That's right well, but but it's also makes sense that he would say that right, Chris, because you all you don't want to just unilaterally throw away. a bargaining chip right good and and there's 2 things
Here, too, one is that the United States has a history of encouraging countries in bad positions to stand up so Hungary in 1,956, for example.
And then not providing not ponying up the assistance because it's not in our national interest to opponent the assistance.
So We've. done this before. the other thing is that putin invading Ukraine would be like putin invading Poland.
It was a stupid thing to do, and history should have told him not to do it.
But You're Right He has enormous hubris and he's learning now from experience that his soldiers aren't really interested, and the Ukrainian soldiers are highly motivated.
Ukrainian civilians are highly motivated and the idea of invading and holding ukraine is something that putin needs to back down and away from, because it will be enormously costly for him to right
and, in fact, i'll take from last week's negotiations from But I I had got from directly from Ukrainian sources was that on all these other issues there is no agreement between the 2 sides on the issue of Nato
and the issue of the Russian language on the issue of the quote, unquote denatsification of Ukraine.
On all of these issues There's a deal the only problem is that the Russians are still insisting on dismembering Ukrainian territory.
And on that issue the Zelensky government cannot Give him, I I think I think there's a compromise to be had on Crimea, not on the Don das.
No, we have time, probably for another one or 2 questions comments by our panelists.
I just have one quick observation, which is that Ukraine is a semi-presidential state, which means it has a powerful Prime Minister, and I bet you nobody can tell me who the Prime Minister.
Is because he gets no airtime at all, no news at all.
If you Google Danish Spielv, you get nothing which is fascinating to me.
Well, you know that you know the deputy prime minister a woman. she's fantastic, and I mean she only talks in Ukrainian, and I have to read all the English subtitles.
But she's fantastic, too, can I then ask I mean unless someone else has a question.
I don't wanna localize, but otherwise I have a quick questions for all of you, which is obviously this has affected our classroom very much.
I have a lot of students who feel really overwhelmed by what's happening.
They're worried they sometimes don't have all the information they need to really understand what's happening, or the consequences are.
So i'm just wondering if you could just tell us what you have done in your classroom to address to talk about this conflict, and what you have found helpful.
And then oh, there's one more question in the chat news sources.
So that actually relates to my questions. So basically, how what do we tell to our students?
How do we tie them in understanding the conflict, and how do we help them?
Just process all this for new sources if you're on a platform called Telegram.
There is a man named Troy Mcgrath, who has been posting updates from Russia regularly, and they are amazing updates.
I get them actually on Facebook through a group called Why we Study Eastern Europe.
But he claims that he posts a telegram as well.
So telegram is apparently a good place to get things.
So my part, I don't have any specific sources to give because I have long been one of those people who believes that all new media sources nowadays are tainted and are problematic, and have their biases, and and so on
so I have learned over the years to cast a very wide net in terms of the sources that I read regardless of. you know which side they come from. and so I don't I don't hold to anyone or even a small group
of users that are my sources, you know. I I look at I just here I look at, I look at the Bbc.
I I I have extensively been interviewed in the past by Sputnik News, which is a State-owned news organization in Russia.
And with whom I've had a very good relationship although the last interview they did of me was back in September to talk about Afghanistan. and They have not come to me about Ukraine for
obvious reasons. So I I actually you know, get information from a wide range of sources, and and I can't point to any one source.
Sorry I found it necessary. Thanks, Connie. I found it necessary.
My classes. I teach contemporary European history and world history, actually taking time out of my regular schedule classes to lay out a framework for understanding the conflict.
Looking at 2 or 3 of the major interpretations of the crisis, and I think students appreciate that, and I noticed that they started to talk a little bit more about the crisis.
Once they knew the context for the crisis. I think a lot of our students had no context for it.
So I think anything that you can do to help shape that context and raise questions that are important.
And then, you know, I just told them to look at the different perspectives, because really our students have had gone through a lot in the last 2 years, and there's a lot in their plate.
We all have right, and this is just like around 15 of a 15 around fight, so far as I can tell, that we keep getting pummeled with bad news.
So you know I I try to frame things for my students, and then I let them make their own decisions, would just pick up on what Chris was saying about context.
And say, you know i'm obviously not a europeanist at all but I think that it's important to think about the context beyond just the immediate what's happening.
Between Russia and ukraine. right now, and I want to use this to respond to the question that Oh, it just jumped up so I can't see the person.
Oh, Caitlin asked. Has the United States ever done something similar to influence the elections of other countries?
Will ask any Latin American that, and they would reframe.
The question. Has there ever been an election in latin America where the United States has not been involved with promoting particular candidates, and using this information campaigns that I think I think that it's very hard within the United States to
understand the expense and power that the United States wields in the world, and what that means for the third World, and what that has meant for the Third World for centuries.
And in particular, since world war ii that that's also part of the context that we need to understand so much. You're almost out of time.
But there's one last question I Don't know if we have time To what can we address Becky's question on the chat?
Oh, I think Avatar did. but we Yes, if you want to add to that absolutely, and then we want to back his questions as well, Well, because question.
I thought was a really good good question. Because, yeah, I mean, you know, from a moral standpoint that is the problem right?
We, you know. Do you do get a prospective murderer to back down by giving them rewards in return for them?
Not to can be dig a murder. Right is so. yeah, why should the Ukrainians give the Russians anything to get the Russians to stop doing something utterly wrong and and bad to them? right But as a spid point about the reality?
Of the world is that great Powers get away with things that other States want to be able to get away with.
As I have pointed out, this great power is a nuclear weapons processing great power.
So we have no choice. We have to grit our teeth, and as much as we might hate it.
Do what Chris pointed out, which is that you have to give.
Put in an off wrap so some way for him to save face and take some sort of a win back home from this war as much as it may not be.
You know more the correct thing to do to reward and aggressive any final thoughts or replies to the last couple questions that came in.
I would just like to know where Elizabeth got that great map of the changing borders of Ukraine, which makes me doubt all the 23 and me genetic tests, because you have to ask what year was that genetic
test. You might be a Mediterranean so I because I'm teaching nationalism and nationalism.
Ethnic identity and genocide. This semester I took a class to pivot to Ukraine, and I.
I go into class with maps, right? I I just think that maps are so interesting, and they explain so much.
And so I got them there. But I can definitely send you the link I would love.
I especially like the moving maps that show you sort of, you know.
Have the borders of Europe, have moved because we're used immigrants. but a lot of the ethnic tension in Europe happens because not because people moved, but because borders move right right, Well, Thank you so much.
Everyone. Thank you in particular to our presenters for their thoughts for thought, provoking remarks.
And then, thanks to all of you who attended, there will be a recording available to watch afterwards.