For Ukraine, for their Freedom and Ours ! - CSO

Testimony on Russophobia, UN Security Council

Tim Snyder, professor of history at Yale University

​

"Playing the victim"

Ladies and gentlemen, I come before you as a historian of the region, a historian of Eastern Europe, and more specifically, a historian of mass killings and political atrocities. I am happy to be asked to brief you on the use of the term "Russophobia" by Russian state actors. I believe that a discussion like this can clarify something about the nature of Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine and Russia's illegal occupation of Ukrainian territory. I will be brief and will limit myself to two aspects.

​

The first will be that the harm done to Russians and the harm to Russian culture is first and foremost a result of the policies of the Russian Federation. If we care about harm to Russians and Russian culture, then we have to care about the policies of the Russian state.

​

The second point will be that the word "Russophobia" that we are discussing today was exploited during this war as a form of imperialist propaganda in which the aggressor claims to be the victim. In the past year, it has been used to justify Russian war crimes in Ukraine.

​

So I start with the first aspect. The assumption when we discuss 'Russophobia' is that we are concerned about harming Russians. It is a postulate that I share. I share the concern for the Russians. I share the concern for Russian culture. So let's take a look back at the actions this year that have done the greatest harm to Russians and their culture. I will briefly list ten of them.

1. Force the most creative and productive Russians to emigrate. The Russian invasion of Ukraine caused the departure of some 750,000 Russians from their country, among them some of the most creative and productive people. This is irreparable damage to Russian culture, and it is the result of Russian policy.

2. The destruction of independent Russian journalism so that Russians cannot know the world around them. This too is due to Russian policies and is causing irreparable harm to Russian culture.

3. Widespread censorship and repression of freedom of expression in Russia. In Ukraine, you can say whatever you want, either in Russian or in Ukrainian. It is impossible in Russia. If you hold a sign that says "no to war" in Russia, you will be arrested and most likely imprisoned. If, in Ukraine, you hold a poster that says “no to war,” in any language, nothing will happen to you. Russia is a country with a majority language in which very little can be said. Ukraine is a country with two languages in which you can say what you want. When I visit Ukraine, people talk to me about Russian war crimes using both languages, Ukrainian or Russian as they see fit.

4. The attack on Russian culture through the censorship of textbooks weakens Russian cultural institutions at home, as does the destruction of museums and non-governmental organizations devoted to Russian history. All these actions are Russian policy.

5. The perversion of the memory of the Great Patriotic War by this wave of aggression in 2014 and 2022, depriving all future generations of Russians of this heritage. This is a Russian policy. She has done enormous harm to Russian culture.

6. The loss of influence of Russian culture around the world, and the end of what was once called the “russkiy mir”, the Russian world abroad. It was common for many people to feel friendship for Russia and for Russian culture in Ukraine. The two Russian invasions put an end to this. These invasions were driven by Russian state policy.

7. Mass murders of Russian speakers in Ukraine. Russia's war of aggression in Ukraine has killed more Russian speakers than any other action, by far.

8. The Russian invasion of Ukraine caused the death of a mass of Russian citizens, fighters in this war of aggression. Some 200,000 Russians died or were crippled. This, of course, only because of Russian politics. It is Russian policy to send young Russians to Ukraine to die.

9. War crimes, trauma and guilt. This war means that a surviving generation of young Russians will have been involved in crimes of crimes, and will carry trauma and guilt for the rest of their lives. This is a huge harm to Russian culture. All of this harm to Russians and their culture has been produced by the Russian government itself, especially during this most recent war. So, if we are sincerely concerned about the harm done to the Russians, we should think about a few things. But perhaps the worst Russian policy as far as Russians themselves are concerned is the latter.

10. The sustained training or education leading Russians to view genocide as normal. We see it in the repeated declarations of the President of Russia who claims that Ukraine does not exist. We see it in the genocidal fantasies in the Russian state media. We see it in a year of state television reaching millions or tens of millions of Russian citizens every day. We see it when Russian state television calls Ukrainians pigs. We see it when Russian state television describes Ukrainians as parasites. We see it when Russian state television describes Ukrainians as worms. We see it when Russian state television describes Ukrainians as Satanists or vampires. We see it when Russian state television proclaims that Ukrainian children must be drowned. We see it when Russian state television proclaims that Ukrainian houses should be burned down with the people inside. You see it when people appear on Russian state television and say, “They shouldn't exist at all. We should put them all to death. You see it when someone appears on Russian state television and says, "We'll kill 1 million, we'll kill 5 million, we can exterminate you all," referring to Ukrainians.   

                                                                                                

Now, if we genuinely care about the harm done to Russians, we would be concerned about what Russian politics is doing to Russians themselves. Claiming that Ukrainians are “russophobic” is one element of Russian hate speech on Russian state television. In the Russian media, these other claims about Ukrainians are intertwined with the claim that Ukrainians are Russophobic. For example, in the statement on Russian state television, where the person proposed that all Ukrainians be exterminated, his reasoning was that they should all be exterminated because they showed "Russophobia." »

​

The claim that Ukrainians should be killed because they suffer from a mental illness known as "Russophobia" is bad for Russians because it teaches them about genocide. But, obviously, such a statement is much worse for Ukrainians.

​

Which brings me to my second point. The term "Russophobia" is a well-known rhetorical strategy in the history of imperialism.

​

When an empire attacks, the empire pretends to be the victim. The rhetoric that Ukrainians are somehow “russophobic” is used by the Russian state to justify a war of aggression. Language is very important. But it is the context in which it is used that matters most. Here is the background: the Russian invasion of Ukraine itself, the destruction of entire Ukrainian towns, the executions of local Ukrainian leaders, the forced deportation of Ukrainian children, the displacement of almost half of the Ukrainian population, the destruction of hundreds of hospitals and thousands of schools, the intentional targeting of water and energy supplies producing heat during the winter. This is the context. This is what is actually happening now.

​

The term "Russophobia" is used in this context to support the claim that the imperial power is the victim, even when the imperial power, Russia, is waging a war of atrocities. This is typical behavior, historically speaking. Imperial power de-humanizes the true victim and pretends to be the victim. When the victim (in this case, Ukraine) opposes the attack, opposes the assassinations, opposes the colonization, the empire asserts that wanting them to be left alone is unreasonable, a disease . It is a "phobia." »

​

This assertion that the victims are irrational, that they suffer from a "phobia" serves to distract from the real experience of the victims in the real world - the experience, of course, of aggression, war and 'atrocity. The term "Russophobia" is an imperial strategy whose purpose is to shift the focus from the real war of aggression to the feelings of the aggressors, thereby suppressing the existence and experience of those who suffer the most. The imperialist says, “We are the only people here. We are the real victims. And our hurt feelings are more important than the lives of those other people. »

​

Now Russia's war crimes in Ukraine are and will be assessed by Ukrainian law, because they occur on Ukrainian territory and by international law. With the naked eye, we can clearly see that this is a war of aggression, crimes against humanity and genocide.

​

The use of the word "Russophobia" in this context, the assertion that Ukrainians are mentally ill rather than acknowledging that they are suffering an atrocity, is nothing but colonial rhetoric. This is part of a larger exercise in hate language. That's why this session is important: it helps us see Russia's genocidal hate speech. The idea that Ukrainians suffer from a disease called 'Russophobia' is used as an argument to destroy them, using the arguments that they are vermin, parasites, Satanists, and so on.

​

Pretending to be the victim when you are the aggressor, in fact, is not a defence. It's part of the crime. Hateful language directed at Ukrainians is not part of the defense of the Russian Federation or its citizens. This is an element in the crimes that Russian citizens are committing on Ukrainian territory. In this, by requesting the holding of this session, the Russian State has found a new way of confessing the commission of war crimes.

Thank you for your attention.

​

(I then took the floor a second time, in response to a question from the Russian representative…)

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It was a pleasure to be among you and with diplomats. The Russian representative considered it appropriate to ask me to cite my sources, and I am, of course, happy to do so.

​

If one is concerned about the sources for the statements of the top leaders of the Russian Federation, I refer the Russian representative to the website of the President of the Russian Federation. There he will find the speeches made by the President of the Russian Federation denying the existence of Ukraine, claiming that Ukraine was invented by the Nazis, denying its existence because it was invented by the Communists, and denying the existence of Ukraine because a Viking was baptized there a thousand years ago. I do not comment here on the historical value or the logic behind these arguments. I simply emphasize that these are public sources, in that they are assertions of the President of the Russian Federation. Similarly, Dmitry Medvedev, a member of the Russian Security Council, on histelegram channel, regularly lends itself to the kind of genocidal language we discussed today.

​

Regarding the sources of Russian state television. It is very simple. I was quoting Russian state television. Russian State Television is an organ of the Russian state. As stated by the President of the Russian Federationhimself, the Russian state television represents the national interests of Russia. THEaffirmationsmade on theRussian state televisionand other state media, are therefore significant not only as expressions of Russian politics for the Russian population, but also as an indicator of genocidal motivation. This is so true that even Russian television presenters have worried aloud about the risk of being prosecuted for war crimes. So I refer the representative of the Russian Federation to the video archive of the channels of the state television of Russia. For those of you who do not know Russian, I point outthe excellent workby Julia Davis.Julia Davisproceeded to the archiving of the Russian video materials in question.

​

The sourcesconcern theatrocities committed by the Russiansin Ukraine are fineknownand these atrocities were the subject of adocumentationabundant. The simplest thing for the Russian state would be to allow Russian journalists to broadcast freely from Ukraine. For others, the easiest thing is to visit Ukraine, a country with a bilingual, democratically elected president and representative of a national minority, and ask the people of Ukraine to tell you about the war, Ukrainian or Russian. Ukrainians speak both languages and can answer you in both.

​

The representative of the Russian Federation saw fit to attack my qualifications. I take this reproach from the Russian state as a badge of pride, since it is a very minor element in a larger attack on Russian history and culture. I have devoted my work to, among other things, chronicling the mass murders suffered by Russians, including during the Siege of Leningrad. I have had the pride during my career to learn from historians from Ukraine, Poland, Europe in general, and also from historians in Russia. It is unfortunate that Russia's best historians and Russia's best scholars are not allowed to practice freely within their own disciplines in their own country. It is unfortunate that organizations such asMemorialwho has done so much heroic work on Russian history is now criminalized in Russia.

 

It is also unfortunate that thememory lawsin Russiapreventthe open discussion on Russian history. It is unfortunate that the word Ukraine is banned fromtextbooksRussians. As a historian of Russia, I look forward to the day when there will be free discussion of Russia's fascinating history.

​

Speaking of history, the Russian representative denied that there was a history of Ukraine. I would invite the Russian representative to consult the excellentjournalsby historians who know and Ukrainian and Russian, for example, the recent work of my collegeSerhii Plikhilfrom Harvard. I would also direct people tomy free courseon Ukrainian history at Yale, which I hope conveys the meaning of Ukrainian history more eloquently than I can here.

​

More fundamentally, I would like to thank the Russian representative for helping me to assert what I have tried to express in my presentation. What I tried to say is that it is not for the representative of the larger country to say that the smaller country has no history. What the Russian representative has just told us is that when Ukrainians, past or present, claim that they exist as a society, this is “ideology” or “Russophobia”. The Russian representative helped us by illustrating with his behavior what I was trying to describe. As I have tried to say, denying another's story, or calling it a disease, is acolonial attitudewith genocidal implications. The empire has no right to say that a neighboring country has no history. The claim that a country has no past is genocidal hate language. By helping us make the connection between Russian words and actions, this session was helpful. THANKS.