A Conversation with Sergei Medvedev - Russian Historian and Political Scientist

Рет қаралды 5,076

Жыл бұрын

Can Russia's history explain the context for understanding the invasion of Ukraine,
or does the current war represent a new phenomenon?
Numerous academic and non-academic analyses have been exploring Russian history (and literature) to provide explanation/guidelines for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We have invited Sergei Medvedev to explain the historical context that could help understand the ongoing war and political developments in Russia.
Sergei Medvedev (www.fjum-wien.at/menschen/ser..., an Affiliate Professor at Charles University in Prague and a Professor at the Free University in Riga, specializes in political history, international affairs, and Russian studies.
He has held research positions and professorships in Russia, Germany, Italy, and Finland. In March 2022, he left Russia. He is presently a Fellow at the Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies, as well as a program host at Radio Liberty, Riga.
His most recent book on Russia, The Return of the Russian Leviathan (Cambridge, Polity Press, 2020) has won the 2020 Pushkin House Book Prize as the best English-language non-fiction book on Russia and has been translated into 12 languages. His new book, A War Made in Russia, is forthcoming with Polity Press in Spring 2023.
In May 2023, Sergei Medvedev will be a Fellow at the Institute for Human Sciences (IWM) in Vienna: www.iwm.at/node/228
COOPERATION PARTNERS
Presseclub Concordia
concordia.at
fjum
www.fjum-wien.at
IWM
www.iwm.at

Пікірлер: 25

@medeology4660 3 ай бұрын

So happy I found this. I read "The Return of the Russian Leviathan" and it was marvelous, beautifully written but quite terrifying..

@PresseclubConcordia Жыл бұрын

ADDITIONAL RESPONSES BY SERGEI MEDVEDEV TO CHAT QUESTIONS THAT COULD NOT BE ANSWERED DURING THE LIVE EVENT: ▪Elisabeth Sorantin: How can Russia be defeated without all out war? ▪SERGEI MEDVEDEV: Russia can be defeated in a conventional war, like it was defeated in Afghanistan, Chechnya etc, or like the US was defeated in Vietnam. The use of nuclear weapons is not automatic and carries unbearable risk for Russia itself. ▪Carola Schneider: Dear Sergej, why do you think, that the 3rd scenario (reconstitution of Russia) is the most likely? To me, it seems to be the most unlikely. Or did I get you wrong? ▪SERGEI MEDVEDEV: Correct, Scenario 3 is the least likely - but the most desirable. ▪Isabelle de Pommereau (Independent Journalist, Germany): I am interested in the importance of Russian speaking communities in other countries - Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania - do you think they are changing, that there is rising awareness of the nature of the Putin regime. and if not, how dangerous is that for the stability of Europe? Thanks! ▪SERGEI MEDVEDEV: Russian-speakers in Europe, especially in the Baltics, are a real threat. By my assessment, they are predominantly Putinist (especially the older generation) and exposed to the Russian propaganda. Yes, it is dangerous for the internal stability of the EU countries, as shown by recent clashes in Berlin on 9 May. ▪Clemens Zavarsky (Kronenzeitung): I have a question on 3rd Scenario as well: How much time will be needed to complete it. Because I see a huge potential on revanchism there, if done to quickly. ▪SERGEI MEDVEDEV: Scenario 3 may take the entire 21 century to realize. ▪Margarita Khartanovich (Tampere University): Regarding the positive post-war scenario, what do you see as enablers of it? Will current Russian opposition play any role in it (Navalny, Yashin, True Russia forum, etc)? What about those that immigrated? Can it be influenced by the West? Or where will the change for all things de- come from? ▪SERGEI MEDVEDEV: The main enablers of Scenario 3 are the Ukrainian Army - who will hopefully defeat the Russians - and the West who should continue supporting Ukraine. As much as I respect the Russian opposition, especially those who are now in jail, I do not believe they will play a role in the future remaking of Russia. The émigré opposition will play a very limited role as well. Change should come from with the country. ▪Stefan Schocher (freelance journalist): You have mentioned Russia should de-imperialize. Ukraine is in a process of decommunisation and derussification. New laws are in place that imply the renaming of places named after Russian personalities. What is your take on that process? Is is a possible model for Russia? ▪SERGEI MEDVEDEV: Ukraine is de-communizing and de-Russifying itself, and this is the right way to go for it. Russia should be de-colonized internally -- the country, first of all its territories, should liberate itself from the colonial imperial state. As I mentioned in the talk, one possible avenue is the de-Muscovization of Russia. ▪Stefan Schocher: Another one. You mentioned the braking point in relations to the west was the Munich speech 2007. What caused this break? One could argue the imperial idea has always been there and the speech was nothing more then a visible sign of a change of methods rather then a real shift in aims. ▪SERGEI MEDVEDEV: The Munich speech was not a break, but the first visible declaration of it. The break occurred around 2004, and was Putin’s hysterical reaction to Beslan, to the first Maidan and to the Color Revolutions. His judgement, like that of Nicholas I in 1830s-1840s, was that the West threatens Russia with revolutionary ferment ▪Pedro Sousa Pereira (Portuguese News Agency): In a framework where dozens of international armies lost a 20-year war in Afghanistan overnight two years ago and if we are facing the Third World War, how is NATO and specifically the European Union facing Putin? As a regional danger or as a world threat? ▪SERGEI MEDVEDEV: Putin is definitely not a regional threat but a global danger, and NATO and the EU are not yet completely aware of that, in my opinion. ▪Pedro Sousa Pereira (Portuguese News Agency): You said that Russia was militarily defeated in other places - but then you also said that the Ukraine is of special importance to Russia. So will Russia likely accept military defeat in the Ukraine? ▪SERGEI MEDVEDEV: Russia will have to accept a military defeat in Ukraine - it is already a fait accompli, and it takes time for Russia to take it in. ▪Simone Brunner (DIE ZEIT): As you talked about appeasement and that many Westerners still do not perceive the situation with the war properly. How do you assess this discussion in Austria? ▪SERGEI MEDVEDEV: Austria, like the entire West, is still not fully aware of Putin’s threat, pacified by years of beneficial cooperation with Putin’s regime (and, sadly, corruption by it). Sitting between East and West may be a good position in the times of détente, but it carries a double threat in the times of war.

@militaryandemergencyservic3286 Жыл бұрын

36:39 - he talks of Moscow being moved to Kazan. I would agree - in fact I would specify that the kremlin takes up its new residence in 'Syty Papa' restaurant on Bauman street.

@deaftears 10 ай бұрын

He knows more about Russia than I do but the question isn’t really would this have happened without Putin and rather is would it have happened if we had been honest about NATO expansion it’s an unacceptable sin of omission

@BlutoandCo 9 ай бұрын

NATO has never expanded. Countries (normally the ones that have been attacked and occupied by ruSSia) ask to join, wanting peace and safety from the agressive neighbour, ruSSia. Finland after all didnt join NATO because NATO forced it to, Finland joined NATO because putin invaded Ukraine. So your ruSSian propoganda is just basic lies.

@medeology4660 3 ай бұрын

This war has nothing to do with NATO, it is about a corrupt, authoritarian Russia with a ruling class with no ideas about the future and no tools of state craft except violence, myths and domination, no other way to increase the wealth of their oligarchs than to rob and steal and occupy. It's about a Russian culture that has had an unhealthy obsession about Ukraine for decades, about their politicians ("stupid, corrupt") their language ("peasant russian dialect"), their strife for democracy ("n***st, ungrateful"), the ukrainian women ("cheap ****"), and Crimea ("ours, we took it, ukrainians are so weak" ) All horrible. Much like obsessing about an ex-wife, constantly going "who does she think she is, what is she doing, why is she seeing that guy, she is so stupid, she thinks she can manage on her own, she is nothing without me, she has no money, who are those new friends, she belongs to me, she should respect and obey me, I'm gonna show her" They are not stupid, they know NATO is not attacking them. But they know what lies will work to make some westerners doubt and hesitate to push back at them.

@onetrickpony4179 18 күн бұрын

Had Medvedev been drinking, as usual?

@jimcroft3633 7 күн бұрын

A Russian educated in western thought so this is how the west thinks about Russia. Which got us into this war.

@yp77738yp77739 10 ай бұрын

Bizarre to me the way in which he dismisses the wishes of the Russian populous, with a throw away comment that they don’t matter. The arrogance.

@BlutoandCo 9 ай бұрын

Thats they way the ruSSians have always been treated.

@medeology4660 3 ай бұрын

But they don't. They have never mattered to any of the men who have owned Russia the last 500 years, and Kremlin has made sure the people will comply, some even enthusiastically, and at the very least cause as little trouble as possible.

@yp77738yp77739 3 ай бұрын

@@medeology4660 I sit here in the UK. I see the only two political parties that have any opportunity of forming a government. I look at them and can’t tell the difference between the two, which means my vote has zero value or meaning. We aren’t so different from Russia in terms of monopolies of power.

@medeology4660 3 ай бұрын

@yp77738yp77739 Yes, we are. Now, Western democracies have problems, for sure. Inequality, broken education systems, lack of community. Corruption is a problem. The outsized influence on politics from wealthy people and corporations is destroying public trust. Polarization and social media culture wars are a problem because they prevent us from envisioning a common future, building stable and free societies based on the reality: that we sink or swim together. Any society will have its 25% people who are very traditional, hierarchical, and dutiful, and about 25% who are much more unconventional, comfortable with change and creative - and a spectrum between. We value different things the highest - a conservative might value family and duty, while a progressive might value justice or equality. We can't get rid of each other. We can't defeat each other. If only equality is allowed to matter, the we lose the value of duty. If only traditions and faith are allowed to matter, we lose things like justice and autonomy. Any successful society, that thrives, invents, works hard, builds beautiful things, learns, evolves, cares for its children and its environment - it needs to be free and stable enough to accommodate the pursuit of all those values. We still are, for the most part. Some countries more than others. We need to do better, but we still are. If you dont see the difference between the west and Russia (Iran, North Korea, all the rest of the autocracies), where you get sent to a penal colony if you say what you think, if you question what you see? Where you get beaten and tortured for displeasing the powerful, or just because beating you pleases the powerful? Where you can go to jail for liking the wrong thing?

@yp77738yp77739 3 ай бұрын

@@medeology4660 States are indeed mixtures of diverse ethnicities, diverse value systems and abilities. As the state becomes larger, in terms of both population size and land mass it becomes increasingly difficult to incorporate all these competing ideologies into a coherent state. Therefore I have some sympathy with, for example, China, Russia or India to have decided that the well being of the collective is more important than the freedom of the individual. The history of these regions validates that to do otherwise, has and will, jeopardise the coherence of the state. Therefore, in these circumstances, it is not our business to impose our value systems on these states. Indeed, it is easy to point to many such interventions in smaller states, where our intervention has only resulted in chaos, disorder and death. Let’s leave these people to live how they choose to live, if they want a new way of life let them revolt and overthrow the power structures themselves. But we should not intervene in their affairs, that has proven to be unsuccessful. Let’s not forget that the country with the highest incarceration rate and inequality rate is the US, proving that freedom is not a universal output from democracy.