Liberalism is in peril – writes Francis Fukuyama in his column on Foreign Affairs. While political rights and civil liberties have been falling around the world, the autocracies have been growing powered by the forces of nationalism. According to Fukuyama, the agnostic nature of liberalism – not being limited by particular religion or doctrine – creates a spiritual vacuum, as shared values of tolerance, compromise or deliberation are not creating as strong spirit as a religion or ehtnic identity. Moreover, as liberalism encourages pluralism, at some point, when the critical mass of people reject liberal principles and seek restriction of rights of some groups – liberalism can’t handle it on it’s own. Fukuyama offers a solution – engage national identity and shape it to reflect liberal aspirations and to instill a sense of community and purpose among a broad public. And while liberal societies have been struggling to present a positive image of national identity to their citizens, Ukraine is an example where this approach is not only working, but is crucial in preserving the country’s sovereignty. The Russo-Ukrainian war puts the world on the crossroad: if Putin is successful, the world will return to an era of aggressive nationalism like in the early twentieth century. If Ukraine wins, there will be opportunities to revive the ideals of a free and democratic world.
An article on The New York Times features Fiona Hill’s and other former advisersʼ testimonies on how US presidents have been handling Putin over the past two decades. Fiona Hill, an unofficial advisor to President Biden and an expert on putin, recalls the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest, with then-president Bush jr. insisted that Ukraine and Georgia are to join NATO. The summit resulted with a declaration unsatisfying for everyone – stating the alliance will expand to include Ukraine and Georgia without specifying how and when they would do so — and still in defiance of Putin’s wishes. Four months after, Russian troops launched an attack on the South Ossetia region of Georgia. According to Ms. Hill, President’s Obama handling Putin has also not always been judicious, as he has publicly teased Putin despite Putin’s fierceful reaction to insults. At the same time, according to Hill, her years working for Bush jr and Obama were nothing like the years working during Trump’s presidency, whose only goal was to stay in power (and more than two terms) no matter what. For Trump Putin, Erdogan, Orban and other autocrats were admired models. During his presidency, Trump repeatedly treated Ukraine as a political enemy, starting from his very first meeting with then-President Poroshenko, when Trump told him Crimea was rightfully annexed by Russia as the population there was Russian-speaking. By 2019 Trump was completely convinced Ukraine is plotting against him, then he blocked aid to Ukraine after Zelensky allegedly refusing to investigate against Joe Biden’s son. All these events led to a missed opportunity of hardening Ukraine against Russian aggression.
An article on The Independent explores the personality of Alexandr Dvornikov, the newly appointed Russian commander now in charge of the invasion of Ukraine. Dvornikov is known
as a “butcher of Syria” with about 10,000 bombings flattened Syrian towns, including Aleppo, under his command. He is believed to be responsible for the Kramatorsk railway station bombing, and multiple experts fear that he might “liberate” cities [in the East of Ukraine] by reducing them to rubble.
The New Lines write about Ukraine’s successes in countering Russian propaganda and disinformation. The magazine claims Ukraine has huge in-house expertise in debunking disinfo narratives as the informational warfare has been yearslong. A crucial part of this expertise comes from the numerous civil society organizations that monitor, analyze and debunk Russian disinformation and propaganda, including Detector Media, Stop Fake and Texty. According to these groups,here are the two key narratives Russia is deploying in parallel to on-field warfare: firstly, equalization of atrocities – “Ukrainians are also monsters” and secondly the narrative of “good Russians” – common population not responsible for the invasion, and therefore not deserving sanctions.