[MUSIC FADES IN]
Shumita Basu, Narrating: This is "In Conversation" from "Apple News Today." I'm Shumita Basu. Every weekend, we're taking you deeper into the best journalism on Apple News.
[MUSIC FADES OUT]
[DRAMATIC MUSIC]
This past week, what so many people feared became reality.
[SOUNDS OF WAR]
Russia attacked Ukraine from the air and from the ground.
[START MONTAGE OF ARCHIVAL NEWS CLIPS]
[TODAY ARCHIVAL CLIP]
Reporter 1: Russia, overnight, launched its long-anticipated attack on Ukraine, striking military posts across the country. An unprovoked war in Europe is now underway.
[BBC NEWS ARCHIVAL CLIP]
Reporter 2: Within hours, Russian tanks were reported to be on the streets of Ukraine's second largest city, Kharkiv.
[NBC NEWS ARCHIVAL CLIP]
Reporter 3: Ukrainians' worst nightmare now realized. Thousands trying to flee the capital Kyiv, either stuck in gridlock or unable to fill their cars with the gas needed to get out.
[END MONTAGE OF ARCHIVAL NEWS CLIPS]
[SOUNDS OF WAR FADE OUT]
Basu, Narrating: It's been decades since we've seen war in Europe on this scale. Just in the last few days, we went from serious talks about de-escalation and summits to Russian rockets dropping on Kyiv. It might seem like things suddenly escalated, but there are decades of history worth understanding here. That's why I wanted to talk to David Remnick. He's the editor of "The New Yorker" and he's covered Russia for a long time. His book about the fall of the Soviet Union won a Pulitzer Prize. He is very familiar with Vladimir Putin's mentality. I asked Remnick if he expected Putin to go after Ukraine with so much force.
[MUSIC FADES OUT]
David Remnick: Well, if you had asked me a year ago, no, of course not. But the pattern for Vladimir Putin is, when he sets things like this into motion - obviously this is of a larger scale - he carries them out. He did in Georgia, he did an Eastern Ukraine, and now he's doing it full scale in Ukraine. At the same time, I think it's madness. Madness! What is the purpose here? To subdue a country that's of no threat to him whatsoever? To capture the Chernobyl nuclear plant? To set off rockets into the streets of the capital, Kyiv? To further terrorize the people of Eastern Ukraine and Ukraine in general? If the goal was to attract Ukraine away from the West, what thing could he have done better to unite Ukraine against Russia? What could he have done that will further consolidate NATO? So, I know on a show like this or some sort of column that I might write, the goal is to soberly tell you what the geopolitical, even moral strategy of a world leader is. I can't, for the life of me, see the sense in this, even the dark sense of it.
Basu: I was not expecting that answer from you. I really thought you might be able to be uniquely positioned, in fact, to opine about where Putin's mind is in a moment like this.
Remnick: I can try, Shumita, but the problem is, I think journalists make a big mistake in saying things that they don't really know or predicting things that they have no way of knowing the outcome for. And I think a certain amount of intellectual and journalistic modesty, if we've not learned that after all these years, then we've learned nothing, myself included. That said, is there an origin story to this? Of course there is, and we can discuss it. Is there a character behind this? Is there a political biography behind it? Of course there is, and we can discuss that.
Basu: Well, let's talk about the origins, because I think, particularly for younger people in America, people who didn't live through the Cold War are probably missing a very important puzzle piece of lived experience and understanding this. So, can you talk about what is key to understand about Cold War tensions in order to understand this moment?
Remnick: Well, sure. Following the Second World War, almost immediately following the Second World War, the Soviet Union and the West found themselves at loggerheads over any number of issues, whether it had to do with ideology, there were all kinds of tensions over which countries were friendly with which, and matters of imperialism. Following the Second World War, the Soviet Union, under the force of tanks and other means of force, suddenly was the punitive boss of, to name a few: Hungary, Poland, to some extent Yugoslavia, Romania, et cetera. It created a gigantic sphere of influence. One could call it an empire, an outer empire, but also an inner empire.
Remnick: You had the Soviet Union itself, which is 15 republics. One of them was Ukraine, a not so much because of the Cold War. Ronald Reagan said he won the Cold War. Well, that was because the West was more prosperous and free and successful, despite all its problems and errors and idiocies and all the rest. The Soviet Union found itself, as it came into the '80s, poor and lagging behind the rest of the world. And many of its wounds were self-inflicted. For example, there's no intellectual freedom. If you have no intellectual freedom, how do you develop intellectually or technologically? So, a man named Mikhail Gorbachev, who grew up in the Communist Party apparat in the Soviet Union, became the general secretary. He became the boss. And he knew that, in his own phrase, we could no longer live this way. That the Soviet Union could not only not be an adequate rival to the United States and the West, but it was spending all its money, all its time and all its obsession on the military and not developing. And if you were to go to the Soviet Union, I'm afraid even now to a large extent, but then, it was poor. It was a disaster. And the only way to develop was to open up. And so, Gorbachev began to open up the Soviet Union, and with it came all kinds of unexpected consequences.
Remnick: And one of them was in the various regions, in the various republics, an efflorescence of nationalism, of national feeling. So, the Baltic states, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, wanted to be free again as they had been before the Second World War. And independent. And unexpectedly, and most consequentially, Ukraine, now a country of 40 million people with a rich culture, a language that's related to Russian but is not Russian, began to feel itself a distinct entity. And in 1991, it voted in a referendum for independence of over 90%. And that was the straw that broke the camel's back. And within weeks of Ukraine voting for its own independence, the Soviet Union dissolved. Like that! Like a sugar cube into hot tea. Ukraine has been an independent, sovereign nation with all kinds of troubles, all kinds of problems, but sovereign and independent for 30 years! Vladimir Putin doesn't think it's a nation, and he doesn't think it's a people. There's the rub.
Basu: What should we understand about the people in Ukraine? How Ukrainian people are feeling in this moment in relation to how people in Russia are feeling in this moment. How do people in these two countries regard each other?
Remnick: Well, traditionally Russians and Ukrainians are deeply tied together in a way that's maybe hard to describe to an American. Lots of Russians in Russia have relatives in Ukraine, and vice versa. They're deeply tied together. They're not inextricable, but the ties are profound. And that's a complication. But they are different countries just like, at this point, Canada and the United States are sovereign, different countries. Now, how do Russians feel about this? Well, Russians live in an information universe where they are told 24 hours a day by official media, which is most of what they get, that Ukrainians are carrying out a genocide, that Ukrainians are not a real country, that the Ukrainian government is just a puppet regime of the United States. That's the propaganda. Nevertheless, certainly Russians are asking the question, "Why are we doing this? Why are we doing this?" Now, will that develop into an opposition or an anti-war movement? Well, it's hard to say, and you live … Russia's not a country that has politics as you and I understand it.
Basu: I have seen Russians who are daring to hold signs like, "why are we doing this?" out in protests being dragged away by police violently. We're seeing those scenes playing out right now in Moscow and other places in Russia. You recently wrote in "The New Yorker," you described Putin as being immune to the pressures of normal politics because he doesn't have an opposition he feels accountable to. He's shown that he's willing to pay a high price for what he wants. What does that mean for the rest of the world and how do you contain a ruler like that?
Remnick: Hmm. That's not only an excellent question, it's the question, because it's not that he doesn't have an opposition. He's repressed his opposition. His most vivid political opponent, Alexei Navalny, is sitting in a prison camp. And should another Navalny pop up, well, that person will end up in the same paddy wagon and prison cell as Navalny did. There are glimmers of independent media. On Thursday, for example, Dmitry Muratov, the editor of an independent newspaper, he won the Nobel Prize. You might remember a newspaper called "Novaya Gazeta," "The New Newspaper." He came out with a statement saying essentially that we are, we who don't believe this war is proper, are powerless and ashamed and that the only thing that will end such a war is a true anti-war movement in Russia.
Remnick: But those are very faint glimmers. And remember, it's early days. It's early days. So, who knows what kind of information can leak through in the modern world. In 1968, when the Soviet Union invaded Czechoslovakia to put an end to what was called the Prague Spring, a kind of liberalizing what was called "socialism with a human face." And Moscow had quite enough of that, thank you, and sent in tanks. Do you know how many people protested in the Soviet Union who felt that they could? Seven or eight people came out to Red Square, unfurled banners saying, "We are with you Czechoslovakia," et cetera, et cetera. And within seconds, not even minutes, seconds, KGB was on these people. They beat the hell out of them, and they suffered the obvious consequences. Now, media has changed. The internet [CHUCKLES] developed and is a presence. So, maybe more leaks through. Maybe public opinion will operate in a slightly different way. But state control is pretty firm at this point.
Basu: Let's talk about the dynamics in the region and, really, in the world at large. How do you think what we've seen unfold in the past few days will factor into the growing destabilization that we've seen in Europe? The rise of autocrats, the return of populism, isolationist policies that we've seen really take popular hold.
Remnick: Well, let's put the question of Europe to the side for a moment. The previous president of the United States, which had long been the strongest and most continuous democracy in the history of the world, our previous president, Donald J. Trump, his description of what Putin did, I can barely say it, what Putin did in Ukraine this week is the word "genius." He called Putin a genius.
Basu: That's right.
Remnick: Tucker Carlson, the foremost voice on our foremost conservative media outlet, "Fox News," gave a soliloquy of unquestioned support and admiration of Putin. And just basically excusing this. It's extraordinary what's happened in the world. You asked about the end of the Cold War. The end of the Cold War, democracy was on the rise. And now, of course, in recent years, certainly in the last decade, we've seen something else. We've seen autocracy on the rise. And I think the kind of symbolic leader of this, in ideological terms as well as political terms and as a military, is, or at least one of them, one of two, is Vladimir Putin. He's widely admired by right-wing parties throughout Europe. And that should be deeply disturbing.
Basu: Some people have described this, and not jokingly, as maybe the early patters of a World War III. Does that feel like an exaggeration to you?
Remnick: [SIGHS DEEPLY] Well, I hope so because we live in a nuclear age. Russia is not a particularly wealthy country considering its scale. Its economy is about the size of the state of Texas. But Putin, as he's reminded us a number of times in recent days, is the commander of a vast nuclear arsenal. And he's, [CHUCKLES] he's swung it around, as they say.
Basu: You have written about how Putin is waging … we're watching him wage a pretty sophisticated attack. It's not just troops on the ground in a very literal sense. It's also cyberattacks on Ukrainian government. Meanwhile, we're hearing Biden putting a lot of stock in what some might call a kind of old-school foreign policy tactic, which is sanctions, right? Is Biden making the right bet here?
Remnick: Well, but it's coupled with … You're right, and I think maybe I'd put a little pressure on that point in this way, Shumita. I'd say this. On the one hand, he's using sanctions and not military defense because who the hell knows what madness and bloodshed that would lead to. Particularly with an irrational opponent. But also, Ukraine is not a NATO country. Article 5 is not enacted on the behalf of Ukraine.
Basu: Right.
Remnick: And so, what leverage do you have? I think Biden is not deluded into thinking that sanctions, which have been levied before, by the way, are going to bring Russia to its knees in five minutes. And any sanctions that are gonna have any effect take time to have effect because the Russians have built up an enormous reserve. And believe me, it's not a reserve that's there to take care of the needs of kindergarteners and pensioners and the rest. It's a reserve to float the boat for the loyal oligarchs and security chiefs and industrialists that surround Putin who are loyal.
Remnick: I think it's fair to say, Shumita, that in the short run, that if Russia is determined to do this, if Putin is determined to do this, which is to say take Ukraine, it will do so. It will do so. If it's determined to march into Kyiv and even do violence to the Ukrainian leadership, arrest them, replace them with pro-Russian lackeys, puppet government, it will do so. And then comes Wednesday and Thursday. And we have learned, as have many other nations learned to their pain, that it is relatively easy with a strong military to quote-unquote "take" a country. It is a great deal more difficult when you try to prolong that occupation.
Basu: Do you think Putin understands American leaders generally and how to play them better than American world leaders seem to understand and play him?
Remnick: Well, it's also what he's willing to do. It's what his politics and his moral universe allow him to do. I don't think it's because he's Bismarck or the greatest grand strategist of all time. In fact, I really am always wary of, and I will always say that prediction is the lowest form of journalism, but this is not gonna end well. What's the lovely outcome of invading Ukraine and trying to occupy it and rule it? What have you done, and how long will it last, and what impact will it have?
Remnick: Putin failed - and he's been in power for 22 years - failed to, if he ever intended to, to create a prosperous and freer society. There was never any intention of the latter, certainly. This is easy by comparison. You press a button, and your military does what you tell it to do. But then what? Building a society, building civil society, operating in politics, facing opposition instead of crushing it, these are immensely difficult things to do. Building a middle class takes decades. That's not what he was about. That's not what he was ever about. He was about restoring some order to post-Soviet Russia, but now it's about the imposition of power, and this is a crucial point, preserving his personal power. 'Cause there's nothing that Vladimir Putin fears more than what he saw take place in Cairo, in Kiev, in so many other places, these so-called "colour revolutions." And when saw it come to Moscow in 2011, the demonstrations on what's called Bolotnaya Ploshchad, "swampy square" it's called, he saw that as not only a potential threat to his power, but he saw it as a plot from the West. He cannot fathom sincere, contrary popular opinion. Cannot fathom that. He's so cynical that these people must be getting paid.
Basu: We're supposed to study history in order to learn from it. Is there any other moment in history, of this region or elsewhere, that you're thinking about right now that you think is worth reflecting on and learning from in this moment?
Remnick: You know what I'm thinking about? It struck me, Shumita, that in 1987, the Soviet Union had really, for the first time, a true reformer came up through the Communist Party ranks and rose to power: Mikhail Gorbachev. And in 1987, Gorbachev, who realized the country had to open up if it were ever to be successful, if it were ever to compete, if it were ever to feed its kids and educate and develop technologically and culturally and all the rest, that the study of history had to open up. That in order for the Soviet Union to develop, it needed to understand its Soviet and Russian past, and see it clearly.
Remnick: And look at us Americans. To this day, we're fighting really serious battles over history. The argument over the "1619 Project," over textbooks, over what's in our libraries or not, what we're teaching our kids about the legacy of slavery or Jim Crow. But there's no dictator in place to be the official historian. And Gorbachev came along and opened up the study of the past. And it was painful. It was painful for ordinary Russians to learn about the Gulag, for them to learn about Stalin, who was the great leader during World War II, but he also obliterated the officer class and signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop protocols, and scooped up Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, crushed the Poles. So many, many, many, many things. It's very painful to learn about the darkest episodes of your national past. But it was necessary.
Remnick: And along comes Putin. And eventually, he begins winnowing that aperture. He begins to close that window. And now, you're seeing him spin out historical narratives on television about Ukraine and how there is no Ukrainian nation and it was just an unfortunate piece of business by Lenin. It's just nonsensical history-making.
Basu: Total disinformation.
Remnick: Absolutely. As if it's his right to not only dictate history, but to then impose it on the people of Ukraine themselves. I admire Barack Obama in many ways, but when he debated Mitt Romney and dismissed, rather sarcastically, the idea that Russia was a very serious adversary and contemporary in foreign policy, it was a mistake. It was a mistake. We desperately wanna pay attention to Asia and, in particular, how to deal with a rising China and to have some sort of peaceful, workable rivalry with China instead of something far more calamitous, which is a complex development in the world. But Putin, in the most violent and bloody way, is insisting that we keep our eyes on him.
Basu: Last question for you. How worried should Americans be at this moment?
Remnick: Well, I think it would be the height of foolishness to think this is a minor incident that's gonna go away very soon. Is it possible that he realizes at a certain point in coming days that he's gone too far and the price is too large and before many thousands of people are killed, he pulls back? Well, that would be better, but still look at what he's done! Still look at what he's done. And that effect, a line has been crossed. An enormous line has been crossed that hasn't been crossed to this degree in Europe since the end of the Second World War. So, the repercussions of this are going to be very long lasting.
Remnick: And it is not unimaginable that it goes much deeper, goes on far longer, and Ukraine is not merely destabilized, but it's the scene of a killing field. I hope, desperately hope, to be wrong.
[MUSIC FADES IN]
Basu: David Remnick, thank you so much for your time.
Remnick: Thank you.
Basu, Narrating: You can find updates and analysis on Russia's invasion of Ukraine in the Apple News app. And for the latest from "The New Yorker," check out our show notes page.
[MUSIC FADES OUT]