Btw, you can ask Snyder himself.

Could you give a hint why Snyder seems biased to you, and which of his statements look suspicious?

@Alex Less than two years later, the Holocaust began in precisely the part of Europe that was dealt with in the secret protocol of the pact. By 1945 almost all of the millions of Jews who lived in these regions would be dead gives the impression that the Holocaust happened only in the East and that Stalin had part of planning it. There are other "tidbits" here and there to make the history even darker than actually is, trying to increase the paralelisms between Putin and Stalin, that the text could pass without and which would not change the essential idea and facts exposed.

@SJuan: are you saying that the highlighted statement is incorrect? He does not say that Holocaust happened ONLY in the East, does he? Does he say that Stalin planned it? It is true that Holocaust STARTED there. I read Snyder; and I challenge you to find his statement which is INCORRECT. That is misstates the FACTS.

@SJUan: concerning analogies between Putin and Hitler, they are quite striking, don't you think so? I mean with Hitler in 1939, of course. Before the Holocaust. And these are not only analogies between the leaders. These are two cases when a majority of population of a big country just went out of their mind, collectively.

@Alex Which facts? There are some loosely related facts about 1939-1941 (which I do not dispute), and then some exagerated analogies (Would Nigel Farage be Hitler or Ribbentrop? that is not clear) to jump to the necessary conclussion that Putin is like Stalin. I mean, I know everytime we have a conflict with someone we need some "intellectuals" to claim that the target is Stalin or Hitler reincarnated, but without an in-depth analysis of the current situation it gets so evident it becomes ridiculous. Note that I do not defend Putin's politics; what I do is criticizing a shallow text.

@SJuan: I do not know "which facts". I asked to give an example of Snyder's statement which contradicts the facts. Not just "gives an impression" of something but a statement which is incorrect. I am also not sure which book of Snaider exactly we are discussing.

@Alex, for instance: In March the Russian parliament proposed to the Polish foreign ministry that the two countries divide the territory of Ukraine. That makes it sound like an official position of national legislature. In fact, it was a letter written by Zhirinovskij, loudmouth who promised to “wet Russian boots in the Indian Ocean” in the 90s, and nobody in Russia ever takes him seriously anywhere.

@Alex, it is the same type of non-story like Polish parliamentary speaker Radoslaw Sikorski who alleged Putin offered then-PM Tusk to divide Ukraine in 2008. He then retracted, insisting he mis-remembered a converation that he was not a part of and that had never took place.

@Alex, another one: Putin, on the other hand, had no European enemy. Obviously, this is a matter of debate, but in the words of Richard Sakwa (University of Kent, U.K.), as quoted by J. Steele in the Guardian, what we have now is a “fateful geographical paradox: that Nato exists to manage the risks created by its existence”.

@theUg: The highlighted statement seems absolutely correct. Putin had no enemies in Europe when he came to power. Concerning NATO, your statement is a pure 100% Russian propaganda. I see no point in continuing this discussion.

@Alex, since when the review of a book by renowned British Russianist by a British columnist in a major British newspaper is “a pure 100% Russian propaganda”? Did we just unequivocally exposed your undeniable and unscholarly partisanship? I tend to concur with your last statement, then.

@theUg: the author credentials do not matter here. Most people in the West, do not understand the extent of Russian propaganda. To every unbiased person who knows the facts, it must be evident that NATO was created to stop Russian expansion to Europe. Just count, how many times Russia attacked its neighbors since WW2. If this is not enough, ask the opinion of Poles, Finns and Baltic people about Russia and NATO. (Yes, myself, I was born in Ukraine. You may consider all Poles, Ukrainians, Baltic people and Finns biased. Add Georgians).

@Alex and Russians can claim than Poland/Lithuania and the West has invaded them many times. This is not a place for political statements. Some people (like, seems, Snyder) think that they can just selectively cherry-pick some facts, cook/embellish them as they like, and extract the conlussions they like. Ok, they can do that, but they should be honest and not call "that" history, any more than 9/11 conspiracy theories are history.

@SJuan: When it was last time that Poland/Lithuania invaded Russians? In 17 century? Is that what you mean? This does not look like a serious discussion, indeed.

@Alex I think the comment was meant to be about NATO at present. Kissinger predicted that a NATO expansion eastwards to the former Communist bloc would cause Russia to become paranoid again, making her behave irrationally and aggressively, thus necessitating NATO.

Look, @Alex. This whole discussion is counter-productive. You have a political axe to grind, and this is not the right forum for that. I mentioned in passing how Snyder was tendentious in his rhetoric, and you had created the flame war in comments that has little to do with the actual subject of the question. By the way, to show how not serious this discussion is, let me juxtapose two of your quotes: “Putin had no enemies in Europe when he came to power” and “To every unbiased person who knows the facts, it must be evident that NATO was created to stop Russian expansion to Europe.”

@theUg: you say it is counterproductive, but you continue it:-) As you probably know, NATO was created in 1949. Putin came to power in 1999. So where is the contradiction in my stataments? Why did not they abolish NATO in the 1990-th? Well, this was discussed then. Are you SERIOUSLY claiming that NATO threatened Russia in any way?

@theUg: When Russia attacked Ukraine last spring, Ukraine was not NATO member, did not apply for it, and had in her constitution a non-allied status. And your respected authority says that NATO somehow caused this?!

Let me also explain why I started this. T. Snyder is a serious historian, and I read all his books. He is the only Western historian who comments on the current war in Ukraine. When I saw statements that he "is biased", I wanted to know what exactly people mean. So far nobody explained me. I still challenge everyone to find a statement in Snyder which is incorrect.

@Alex, he is not “the only Western historian who comments on the current war in Ukraine”. Did you not see the title of the book in the review I linked? “Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the Borderlands” by Sakwa, professor in the U of Kent. Also read Stephen F Cohen (NYU, Princeton, Columbia), and Ivan Katchanovski (U of Ottawa, formerly Harvard, SU of NY, George Mason U, Central European U (Budapest), Kiev National Economics U). Yes, they do not follow the line of US State Dept. and American MSM, but they have plenty bona fides.

@theUg, thanks. I will try to find your references. But judging by the cite you quote, either Steel or Sakawa, whoever said this, just spreads Russian propaganda. Unfortunately there are some "historians" of this kind in the West.

@AlexandreEremenko, do you understand the implications of what you are saying? You question the integrity of western academic system, people who graduated, defended doctorates, and taught in prestigious universities, including Ivy League in the States. People who wrote many books, and dozens of peer-reviewed journal articles. The same system that made Snyder a “serious historian”.

You disregard all this, before you even take a critical look at an opposing view, nevermind your own, only because the conclusions those people come to are unacceptable to you politically.

Besides, does this really sound like Russian propaganda: “Richard Sakwa makes repeated criticisms of Russian tactics and strategy, but he avoids lazy Putin-bashing and locates the origins of the Ukrainian conflict in a quarter-century of mistakes since the cold war ended.”?

@theUg: I do not question the integrity of any system. I question the correctness of ONE statement of ONE person. Sorry, I have not read the rest yet. I even do not know who made this statement, the book author or reviewer. When I read it, I will tell you my opinion on the whole, if you are interested.

@theUG: Now I read the review, and I conclude that the whole review, and probably the book as well, is a piece of Russian propaganda. The author simply misstates the facts, and there is no doubt that he does it knowingly. That is he deceives the readers. For example, he says that

Even today at this late stage, a declaration of Ukrainian non-alignment as part of an internationally negotiated settlement, and UN Security Council guarantees of that status, would bring instant de-escalation and make a lasting ceasefire possible in eastern Ukraine.

He does not mention that the non-alligned status was removed from the constitution of Ukraine last fall. As a response of Russia's military aggression which started a year ago. The paper does not mention the crucial fact that it is already 1 year since Russia makes a MILITARY AGGRESSION in Ukraine, and annexated a large piece of territory. Crimea is even not mentioned once in the paper!!

The author does not know these facts??? I am sure he does. Thus he simply decieves the reader. This is called propaganda.

And it does not matter for me in this case, the credentials of the authors or where they were educated. In this case I have a good knowledge of what's going on myself, and I am able to decide myself who lies and who tells the truth. Snyder tells the truth. The authors you cite lie.

@theUG: I can even conjecture what makes the author lie. (This has nothing to do with the Western "system"). He works as a correspondent in Moscow. If he will defend "improper opinions" from the Moscow point of view, he will be probably made "persona non grata" and will loose his job. (THis is only my conjecture, of course. There are many historical precedents. There are many reasons for people to lie.