Showing posts with label TIMOTHY SNYDER. Show all posts
Showing posts with label TIMOTHY SNYDER. Show all posts

Sunday, October 4, 2026

Authoritarianism Expert Tim Snyder Warns America Is Committing “Superpower Suicide”

                          

 LOTS OF POSTS IGNORED BY BLOGGER.....

OR REMOVED ON THEIR WHIM!

ALL POSTS ARE AVAILABLE ON

MIDDLEBORO REVIEW AND SO ON

BLOGGER DOESN'T LIKE TRUTH OR FACTS!

BLOGGER DOESN'T LIKE FUND RAISERS AND DELETES

POSTS THAT INCLUDE FUNDRAISING THAT 'VIOLATES THEIR

UNDEFINED COMMUNITY STANDARDS SO ALL 'FUND RAISING'

IS DELETED - CONTRIBUTE AS YOU ARE INCLINED TO SUPPORT

IMPORTANT ISSUES! THESE ARE NOT SOLICITATIONS  



🚨All HELL BREAKS LOOSE as WAR ENTERS DARK PHASE….mp4
 
 

Authoritarianism Expert Tim Snyder Warns America Is Committing “Superpower Suicide”

Historian and On Tyranny author Timothy Snyder tells Ben Meiselas he has never seen a major country surrender so much power so quickly.


Historian Timothy Snyder has spent much of his career studying authoritarianism, tyranny and the collapse of democratic institutions. Now, he has a stark phrase for what he believes is happening to the United States under Donald Trump: “superpower suicide.”


Snyder, the author of On Tyranny, On Freedom, and Bloodlands, joined MeidasTouch co-founder Ben Meiselas for a wide-ranging conversation about the United States, Russia, China, Ukraine, Canada and the rapidly changing global order.

“The term that I came up with when I was trying to capture all this is ‘superpower suicide,’” Snyder told Meiselas. “I can’t see an example of a country, a major country, losing so much power so quickly as the United States under Trump.”

Snyder argued that the damage goes beyond strained alliances. In his assessment, the United States is voluntarily weakening several of the foundations that historically made it powerful, including its ability to attract immigrants, maintain technological leadership and sustain world-class education.

“We are choosing to be much weaker,” Snyder said.

He also argued that Trump’s approach has created an opening for China.

“What the Trump administration has done is spectacularly helped China,” Snyder said, contending that reduced American support for Ukraine has squandered an opportunity to demonstrate to Beijing the potential costs of military aggression.

Snyder offered a striking way of describing the shifting balance between Washington and Beijing.

“They’re not rising. It’s that we’re falling,” he said. “And we’re falling because we’ve chosen to fall.”

The historian also focused heavily on Russia and Ukraine. Snyder, who recently returned from Ukraine, said Russia is attempting to portray strength despite what he views as serious vulnerabilities. He expects Moscow to intensify attacks on Ukraine’s economy and civilian infrastructure through the winter while simultaneously attempting to intimidate European countries into reducing their support for Kyiv.

“The Russians are in a position of weakness, which they want to make look like strength,” Snyder said.

Snyder believes the coming months could prove especially consequential.

“This next six months, I think, will be pretty decisive,” he told Meiselas.

Despite the severity of his warnings, Snyder ended the conversation with a measure of hope. He argued that the United States still has an opportunity not simply to restore what existed before Trump, but to construct something better, noting that the conditions that preceded Trump were themselves flawed.

“I do think that we could have a better version of the country,” Snyder said.

But Snyder suggested rebuilding American power and international trust would not mean simply expecting old allies to fall back into line. The United States, he said, would have to earn that trust again and potentially learn from democracies in Canada, Europe and across the Pacific that continued cooperating while Washington pulled away.

“It’ll be a matter of us earning trust and taking examples from other people,” Snyder said.

Watch Ben’s full conversation with Timothy Snyder above as they discuss authoritarianism, Trump, Russia and China, the war in Ukraine, and Snyder’s warning about America’s place in the world.

Meidas+ is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support our work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.




Wednesday, June 21, 2023

FOCUS: Timothy Snyder | Dear Republicans

 

 

Reader Supported News
18 June 23

Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News

BE FAIR, HELP OUT, YES IT MATTERS — Barely 150 donations for the entire month of fundraising. That’s taking advantage. RSN is not a wealthy company, a grassroots community service based organization. We need help to do this. Do what you can, but do something.
Marc Ash • Founder, Reader Supported News

Sure, I'll make a donation!

 

Trump speaking in 2017. (photo: Brendan Smialowski/AFP)
FOCUS: Timothy Snyder | Dear Republicans
Timothy Snyder, Thinking about...
Snyder writes: "I wake up this morning to read a number of Republican elected representatives assigning themselves the role of judge and jury in the Trump espionage case. Why do I write 'judge and jury'? Because to declare the man not guilty is to take the place of the judicial branch."  


A thought about our former president, our laws, and our future


Dear Republicans,

I wake up this morning to read a number of Republican elected representatives assigning themselves the role of judge and jury in the Trump espionage case. Why do I write "judge and jury"? Because to declare the man not guilty is to take the place of the judicial branch.

It's one thing when an average citizen does this. We can all have our opinions. But it's quite another when a senator or a representative makes such a claim. The basis of our Constitution is the separation of powers. When elected representatives take the place of judges and juries, they violate that spirit. They tell citizens that the laws they make are in fact meaningless.

I read also of Republicans who suddenly talk about unequal treatment of Americans in our judicial system. Yes, that is a problem, one recognized by the millions of people who don't have the money to fund your campaigns or your lobbyists, or to fund teams of lawyers like Trump's. It's a problem for all of the typical Americans who see that people like Trump get off over and over again. Trump says that he is a wealthy man. To say that a wealthy man is above the law is making the real problem worse.

I read Republican politicians claim that a former president cannot be tried. If that were true, then every wealthy criminal would run for office, seeking their lifelong get-out-of-jail card. If that were true, then presidents in office and out of office would be incentivized to commit crimes. If that were true, Americans would quickly lose all confidence in the office of the presidency.

The job of the executive is to enforce the law. Putting the executive above the law makes nonsense of the Constitution. Does trying a former president make us a banana republic? No, not doing so makes us a banana republic, or really something worse. The moment we say that one person is above the law, we no longer have the rule of law. The moment we no longer have the rule of law, we cease to exist as any kind of republic.

In other republics with the rule of law (recent examples are France and Italy) former heads of state or government are in fact tried, and are sometimes, after due process, found guilty and sentenced. It happens and it has to happen. Citizens lose their trust otherwise. To say that it does not happen is simply wrong.

In our country, citizens play some interesting roles in the judicial branch. For example, they serve on grand juries, such as the one that issued the indictment of Trump on espionage and other charges. This is a process, one to be respected, especially by elected representatives.

None of this is political advice. These are just the words of a citizen who cares about the country. The political advice, however, would be this: if you commit yourself now to an anti-constitutional position, you will have a hard time extracting yourself later. Leaders come and go. A republic endures.

Respectfully

Timothy Snyder


READ MORE

 

Contribute to RSN

Follow us on facebook and twitter!

Update My Monthly Donation

PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611






Sunday, May 14, 2023

FOCUS: Timothy Snyder | Putin Is Fighting, and Losing, His Last War

 

 

Reader Supported News
14 May 23

Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News

RSN IS A "LOUSY BUSINESS MODEL" — We hear it all the time: RSN is a "Lousy Business Model". It's true and what's more, we are proud of it! What we do is not, "a business model" it is a community service model, and an organizing model. That's the key: We need money, but we're not in it for the money. We did not start this as a business, we started this because we are angry about what is happening to our country, and other countries as well, and we want to do something about it. Believe this: RSN is a thorn in the side of the corporate media, not in spite of our Reader Supported non-business model, but precisely because of it. Think about that. Again our thanks.
Marc Ash • Founder, Reader Supported News

Sure, I'll make a donation!

 

Russian President Vladimir Putin. (photo: Mikhail Metzel/Sputnik/AP)
FOCUS: Timothy Snyder | Putin Is Fighting, and Losing, His Last War
Timothy Snyder, The New York Times
Snyder writes: "In the Brezhnev era of Vladimir Putin’s youth, May 9 was an occasion for Soviet militarism, a celebration of weapons and might."   

In the Brezhnev era of Vladimir Putin’s youth, May 9 was an occasion for Soviet militarism, a celebration of weapons and might. It could be forgotten, at least for a moment, that Leonid Brezhnev’s war of choice would be fought and lost in Afghanistan less than two decades after he began the May 9 celebrations, much as what is likely Mr. Putin’s last war is today being fought and lost in Ukraine.

During both conflicts, people in the West worried, understandably, about nuclear war.

Today’s Russia issues an unending stream of nuclear threats. In the West today, unlike during the Cold War, these are discussed in psychological rather than strategic terms. How does Mr. Putin feel? How do we feel?

Americans’ fear of escalation delayed the supply of weapons that could have allowed Ukraine to win last year. One after the other, the weapons systems deemed escalatory have now been delivered, with no negative consequences. But the cost of delay can be observed in the Ukrainian territories that Russia still controls: the death pits, the torture chambers and the empty homes of kidnapped children. Tens of thousands of soldiers on both sides have unnecessarily died.

In nearly 15 months of war, despite Russian nuclear propaganda and Western anxiety, there has been no use of nuclear weapons. This is an absence worthy of an explanation. Those who predicted escalation if Ukrainians resisted, if the West supplied weapons or if Russia suffered defeat have thus far been wrong. Strategic thinkers point to deterrence and note that nuclear use would not in fact bring a Russian victory. It would ensure a dramatic Western response and make Russian leaders pariahs. But there is a deeper explanation: Russia’s nuclear talk is itself the weapon.

It rests on false assumptions. Russian nuclear propaganda assumes that the bully always wins. But the bully does not always win. Russian propagandists want us to think that nuclear powers can never lose wars, on the logic that they could always deploy nuclear weapons to win. This is an ahistoric fantasy. Nuclear weapons did not bring the French victory in Algeria, nor did they preserve the British Empire. The Soviet Union lost its war in Afghanistan. America lost in Vietnam and in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Israel failed to win in Lebanon. Nuclear powers lose wars with some regularity.

Some Americans have proposed a nuclear scenario in which Russians will have to use nuclear weapons to head off defeat. But Russia has been defeated in Ukraine, on its own terms, again and again. What it has proved is its ability to change those terms after each defeat. Russia failed to achieve the explicit aim of the “special military operation” to overthrow Ukraine’s democratic government. There will be no greater humiliation than that. The defeat at Kyiv was followed by further defeats at Kharkiv and Kherson. Each loss led to cover stories from Russia’s state propagandists and their believers, to talk of good-will gestures, strategic withdrawals and so on. The escalation has been in the propagandists’ workload.

Russia can lose without being cornered. It has 11 time zones of space for retreating soldiers and plenty of practice in propaganda refashionings. Indeed, Russian leaders have already indicated what they will do if they believe that they are losing: change the terms of reference and change the subject in Russian media. Mr. Putin’s kleptocratic state as a whole and its dependencies such as the Wagner mercenary army are public relations projects with a military arm. The assumption in Russian politics is that rhetoric overcomes reality. And the rhetorical preparations for defeat have been made.

Beneath Mr. Putin’s vague bellicosity is the idea that Russia wins if it avoids (in his words) “strategic defeat” imposed by NATO. Almost no matter what happens, it will be easy for him to define the war in Ukraine as a strategic victory. Since the Kremlin claims that it is fighting NATO, all Mr. Putin has to say is that Russia stopped NATO from crossing into Russia. The commander of Wagner wrote recently, in this spirit, that Russia can end the “special military operation” at any time and just claim that its goals have been achieved, so long as Russia does not retreat from any more occupied Ukrainian territory.

By taking nuclear blackmail seriously, we have actually increased the overall chances of nuclear war. If nuclear blackmail enables a Russian victory, the consequences will be incalculably awful. If any country with nuclear weapons can do whatever it likes, then law means nothing, no international order is possible and catastrophe beckons at every turn. Countries without nuclear weapons will have to build them, on the logic that they will need nuclear deterrence in the future. Nuclear proliferation would make nuclear war much more likely in the future.

When we understand that nuclear talk is itself the weapon, we can act to make the situation less risky. The way forward to strategic thinking is to free ourselves from our own anxieties and consider the Russian ones. The Russians talk about nuclear weapons not because they mean to use them but because they believe a large nuclear arsenal makes them a superpower. Nuclear talk makes them feel powerful. They see nuclear bullying as their prerogative and believe that others should automatically yield at the first mention of their weapons. The Ukrainians have not allowed this to affect their tactics.

If Russia detonated a weapon, it would lose that jealously guarded treasure of superpower status. Such an act would constitute an admission that its army has been beaten — a tremendous loss of face. Worse still, neighbors would build (or build up) their own nuclear arsenals. That would deprive Russia of superpower status in the minds of the Russians themselves. That is, for the Russian leadership, the one intolerable outcome of this war. In my view, the greatest risk of a Russian nuclear action would therefore be one that Moscow would lay the blame for on Ukraine, such as the deliberate destruction of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant.

War is unpredictable. Military history is full of surprises. Mr. Putin has undertaken a war of atrocity, and further atrocities are certain as long as the war continues. Russia created not only needless suffering but also needless risk when it invaded Ukraine. We have to work within that world of risk and horror and evaluate it calmly. No option is without hazards; our responsibility is to reduce them. When Russians talk about nuclear war, the safest response is to ensure their very conventional defeat.




READ MORE

 

Contribute to RSN

Follow us on facebook and twitter!

Update My Monthly Donation

PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611







Top News | 'He’s Not Going to Run Unopposed': Sanders Rejects Schumer for Majority Leader

                                                               LOTS OF POSTS IGNORED BY BLOGGER..... OR REMOVED ON THEIR WHIM! ALL POSTS ARE...