The Russo-Ukrainian War: The Return of History

Product Information

But there were domestic forces too. They encouraged Ukraine’s recurrent democratic corrections, whenever one strongman or another tried to move the country towards autocracy. Here, Plokhy turns perceived wisdom on its head. Plokhy maakt in opeenvolgende hoofdstukken duidelijk hoe vanaf 1991 de politieke ontwikkeling van Rusland en Oekraïne steeds verder uiteenliep, een divergente ontwikkeling die de dynamiek tussen Moskou en Kiev diepgaand zou gaan beïnvloeden. Terwijl het democratische experiment in Rusland een kort leven was beschoren, schoot deze in Oekraïne geleidelijk aan wortel (in weerwil van de wijdverbreide corruptie en van Russische beïnvloeding). But soon he began to change his mind. History, after all, is a weapon in this conflict. Vladimir Putin’s justification for his aggression towards Ukraine is rooted in his (twisted and faulty) understanding of the past. He even wrote a sprawling, inaccurate essay laying out his views in 2021, titled On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians. Plokhy began to feel compelled to fight the Russian president’s terrible history writing with good, solid history writing of his own.

Before my first reporting trip to Ukraine, one of my seasoned war correspondent colleagues had two pieces of advice. First, not to miss the delicious coffee and pastries you can find in Kyiv (which is a wonderfully reassuring thing to hear as you head off towards a conflict). Second, that it was absolutely necessary to read Serhii Plokhy’s 2015 book The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine. I did, and it unwound 2,500 years of complex, fascinating and often tragic events, all the way from Herodotus’s accounts of the ancient Scythians to the Maidan protests in Kyiv a decade ago. Now Plokhy and I are speaking by Zoom – me from London, he from his home near Harvard, where he is professor of Ukrainian history. He’s in his study. There are globes on every surface, and antique maps of Ukraine hang on the walls. At the time of writing this review, we still await the big Ukrainian counter-offensive. On its success or failure will depend the future course of the war. In February, when the detailed planning for the Big Push was already starting, President Volodymyr Zelenskiy told me how nervous he was about it. Such frankness is typical of him. A charming, natural-seeming former actor, he has brought his professional abilities to the job of representing Ukraine at the highest level: providing the roar, he says, channelling Winston Churchill. This book is in two halves, before 22 February 2022 and after. I needed the first part (but not the second) because after all the millions of words spouted forth by the journalists and professors, still my brain could not quite grasp exactly why Putin decided to roll his tanks. It is a cruel game to ask a historian to look into the future. But here we are and, as Plokhy himself says, rephrasing Churchill, historians are probably “the worst commentators on contemporary events except for all the others”. So what about the Ukrainians’ spring counteroffensive, I ask – which, when we speak in the last days of April, is expected any day.Intelligence failure’ of ‘error of judgment’? Of allebei? Poetin had in ieder geval beter kunnen weten als hij had geluisterd naar kolonel-generaal b.d. Leonid Ivashov, die hem als voorzitter van de Russische officieren vereniging in januari 2021, enkele weken vóór de inval, een open brief schreef: “The use of military force against Ukraine will, in the first place, put into question the existence of Russia itself as a state. Secondly, it will make Russians and Ukrainians mortal enemies for ever. Thirdly, thousands (tens of thousands) of healthy young men will perish on both sides, and that will unquestionably affect the future demographic situation in our countries, which are dying out.” (149)

Plokhy is the foremost chronicler of early and modern Ukraine and the author of numerous books. They include The Gates of Europe, Lost Kingdom, The Man With the Poison Gun and Chernobyl, a compelling account of the 1986 nuclear disaster, which won the 2018 Baillie Gifford prize. His work is rigorous and objective, and also wonderfully readable and lucid. Historians, used to slow-burning research projects, have so far been absent from this developing historiography of the war. This is beginning to change, and it is only appropriate that the lead is taken by one of the most accomplished English-language historians of Ukraine, Harvard University’s Serhii Plokhy. For historians, he’s concluded, “It’s important not to always wait until things are over before you speak.” The past makes the present legible, even as events keep tumbling rapidly, messily, relentlessly forward. Oekraïnes toenadering tot de Europese Unie was voor Poetin ondertussen bijna net zo onverteerbaar als Navo-lidmaatschap. Het streven van Kiev naar een associatieovereenkomst met de EU stond haaks op zijn plannen voor een ‘Euraziatische unie’, waarin Oekraïne niet kon worden gemist en waarvan Rusland de leider zou moeten zijn. Poetin deinste er niet voor terug de militaire troefkaart te spelen. Op het allerlaatste moment zag president Janoekovitsj, na telefonisch overleg met Poetin, af van ondertekening van de associatieovereenkomst. Plokhy: “If Yanukovych signed the EU agreement, Putin threatened to occupy the Crimea and a good part of southeastern Ukraine, including the Donbas.” (95) Na de onverwachte wending in het standpunt van Janoekovitsj braken in Oekraïne grootschalige demonstraties uit, in januari 2014 uitmondend in een volksopstand tegen de regering. De corrupte en autocratische Janoekovitsj raakte uiteindelijk de controle over de macht kwijt en vluchtte halsoverkop naar Rusland, samen met andere pro-Russische elementen. De democratische, pro-Europese krachten in Oekraïne hadden het pleit gewonnen. Over the last twenty-one months I have developed a deep love, admiration and respect for all things Ukrainian: her culture, her people, a beautiful rich land now ravaged by attempted domination and conquest.The world's foremost historian of Ukraine. . . the chronicler of a country on the front lines of a seismic European war' Financial Times Based on decades of research and his unique insight into the region, he argues that Ukraine's defiance of Russia, and the West's demonstration of unity and strength, has presented a profound challenge to Putin's Great Power ambition, and further polarized the world along a new axis. A riveting, enlightening account, this is present-minded history at its best. Tegen deze achtergrond bestond er vanaf het einde van de Koude Oorlog eigenlijk voortdurend onzekerheid over de vraag of Rusland de territoriale integriteit van Oekraïne zou blijven respecteren. Al in 1992 nam het Russische parlement een resolutie aan die de Krim als onderdeel van Rusland beschouwde. Duidelijk is dat Oekraïense soevereiniteit slechts was gegarandeerd zolang het land zich schikte naar de belangen van Rusland, of zoals Plokhy schrijft: “Russia’s recognition of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the post-Soviet states would be conditional on alliance with Moscow.” (66) Onder deze omstandigheden, zo bepleitte John Mearsheimer in 1993 in Foreign Affairs, zouden de VS er goed aan doen Oekraïne toe te staan te blijven beschikken over kernwapens; volgens de Amerikaanse strateeg was dit “the most effective way to prevent a Russo-Ukrainian war [which could] ‘injure the prospects for peace throughout Europe.’” (71-2)