Gleaning perspectives from history regarding the war in Ukraine

When Russia launched its assault on Ukraine three years ago, President Vladimir Putin often referenced the past, erroneously asserting that his intention was to “denazify” Ukraine, drawing parallels to the Soviet triumph over Nazi Germany during World War II to unite the populace behind him.

The distortion of history has been a pivotal element of the conflict in Ukraine since it began, as highlighted by scholars specializing in Ukraine and Russia during an online forum on Monday. They contended that examining the actual historical narrative can yield crucial understandings regarding the ongoing dispute and its potential trajectories.

Serhii Plokhii, Mykhailo S. Hrushevs’kyi Professor of Ukrainian History, remarked that the war initiated on Feb. 24, 2022, shortly after the Kremlin published an article wherein Putin falsely asserted Ukraine had annexed Russian land and that Ukrainians possess no independent culture or history apart from Russia.

Although Putin may seem to be gaining an advantage at present, the confrontation could ultimately prove detrimental to Russia in the long haul.

Conflicts typically have a “profound” impact on a nation’s sense of identity and influence state and nation-building processes, stated Christopher Miller, ’09, a scholar of international relations at the Fletcher School at Tufts University.

The most critical and enduring effects of the Russia-Ukraine war will resonate in Ukraine and influence its “further catalyzing” and strengthening of a nation-building endeavor that Ukraine commenced prior to 2022.

“Ukrainians are more convinced than ever of the necessity to possess two entirely distinct political entities.”

Christopher Miller, Tufts University

“That highlights the challenges faced by Russia,” Miller noted. “Starting a conflict based on the premise that Russia and Ukraine were, if not identical nations, at least intertwined in the same historical narrative, as Putin articulated in his [essay] during the summer of 2021, and now finding themselves in a scenario where Ukrainians are increasingly certain of the need for two totally independent states.”

Miller indicated that a war-damaged economy is unlikely to force Russia into submission soon. The Russian authorities were well-equipped for the conflict, ensuring minimal debt levels, significant savings, and ample military reserves. Average Russians have not experienced a drop in living standards — some feel even improved compared to before the conflict, attributable to the government maintaining robust social welfare policies and significant employment growth in defense industries.

Through “creative bookkeeping,” Russia has been able to “conceal much of the expense of the war” by heavily borrowing from national banks and governmental entities, allowing its economy to be somewhat shielded from the war’s full consequences — for the time being. Nevertheless, its financial issues remain on the horizon as “the probability of repaying those loans is minimal,” he added.

A contentious plan involving Ukraine and the U.S. to partition Ukraine’s mineral resources symbolizes a rising trend among major global economies that have shifted from viewing trade as a “positive-sum dynamic” to perceiving it with “very clear zero-sum dynamics,” necessitating “a new politicization of the global economy in ways not witnessed for some time,” remarked Miller.

For some observers, the attempts to negotiate peace in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, which former President Trump aims to mediate, have drawn parallels to the Yalta Conference, the significant “Great Powers” summit of 1945 convened in Crimea, at that time under Soviet control, Plokhii noted, who is also the director of the Ukrainian Research Institute at Harvard University.

It was at this meeting that President Franklin D. Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Soviet leader Josef Stalin unilaterally delineated the post-World War II global landscape, dividing Germany and granting the Soviets a “sphere of influence” in Eastern Europe.

In contrast to the current negotiations, the West at Yalta prioritized ensuring some level of security for Poland and other regions under Soviet oversight, Plokhii stated.

“What we are witnessing today is that the interests of Ukraine … have been compromised” by decisions imposed by external entities, he remarked. “The lessons from Yalta endure: There can be no enduring peace without the participation of those most affected.”