"As we contemplate a Russian invasion of Ukraine, let us begin from the people who are most concerned, the Ukrainians, and with what they have to lose." snyder.substack.com/p/king-of-ukra…
Part 3 of "King of Ukraine" – "In the early twentieth century, both Poland and Ukraine were realms of the imagination, neighbors divided not so much by lines on maps as by class resentments." snyder.substack.com/p/king-of-ukra…
Part 4: By 1918 Kyiv had long been a colony of other powers. Mongol riders watered their horses in the Dnipro; Polish kings notched the city's golden gates with their swords. Cossacks rallied to take the city but an alliance w/ Moscow proved their undoing snyder.substack.com/p/king-of-ukra…
Part 5 of "King of Ukraine": Wilhelm lived "a life in which he was either undercover or on magazine covers, of alternating secrecy and celebrity." snyder.substack.com/p/king-of-ukra…
Part 6: This "history is particular, but the lesson is general. To be born in a time and place is not to join a national destiny. Independence must be declared again and again, generation after generation, individual by individual." snyder.substack.com/p/king-of-ukra…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/4. Important work here: Trump is violent rather than strong, and using US troops on protesters would break America. nytimes.com/2024/08/17/us/…
2/4. Crucial point in the reporting: the most radical plans, such as the use of US troops against Americans, actually go beyond Project 2025. nytimes.com/2024/08/17/us/…
3/4. A point not raised here is the effect that orders to suppress American protesters would have on the military itself. Either it resists or it becomes a tool of fascist power.
1/7. Right-wing justices postulate Trump's "immunity." The objection is that this makes him a king. Not so. It's much worse.
2/7. A king can be subject to law. Even George III was subject to law. The American Revolution was justified by the notion that he had overstepped the law.
3/7. This discussion of immunity is something else. The justices are not discussing any constitutional system at all, including a constitutional monarchy.