Less than a year before Vladimir Putin launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24, 2022, he published an essay using history to argue that Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians are one people and should be united under one nation. His interpretation of the history spanned back to a contentious point in the tenth century with another Vladimir: Vladimir the Great. 

Putin “spoke about the necessity of reforming the Slavic heartland of Russia, Belarus (White Russia) and Ukraine…He said it’s the necessity of history that they be brought back together again,” said Rose Gottemoeller, a William J. Perry lecturer at the Freeman Spogli Institute (FSI).

For policy makers looking at the Russia-Ukraine War, an understanding of the history is important, said Norman Naimark ’66 M.A. ’68 Ph.D ’72, a McDonnell professor emeritus of history and distinguished visiting fellow at Hoover.

“I think you should think historically about this war, and if you don’t think historically about the war, then you’ll never understand it, right?” Naimark said. “It’s not just a policy problem. It’s not just a problem of the last 10 years or 20 years.”

Naimark goes back to the 10th century — with the Principality of Kyiv — to understand the complicated history between Russia and Ukraine. Both countries claim the medieval principality as an integral part of each countries’ respective histories and culture.

“Putin is saying, ‘No, it was a center of Russian culture.’ Ukrainians say it’s a center of Ukrainian culture,” Naimark said.

This narrative of history that Putin created, said Kathryn Stoner, professor of political science, was why he decided to invade Ukraine. 

The misuse of history is also relevant to policy makers, political scientists and historians, said Amir Weiner, a professor of history. He said cherry-picking history to create analogies that perfectly explain what you believe in, while ignoring contradictory evidence, is dangerous.

Since Putin initiated his invasion, scholars and policymakers have been analyzing all aspects of the war. Analogies have emerged to put the war into perspective, one of which compares the Russia-Ukraine War to World War I (WWI). 

Naimark said he agreed and disagreed with the WWI analogy. He said there were some similarities between the two wars with the trench warfare and war of attrition, but the similarities of the First World War only align with one phase of the war. 

“Remember the [Russia-Ukraine War] in the beginning was much more fluid,” Naimark said.

He also said the Russia-Ukraine War is very different from the First World War in its use of technology, drones and really advanced weaponry. “People call it a hybrid war,” he said.

While Weiner said WWI is a very popular analogy to use, he doesn’t believe it properly fits the Russia-Ukraine War. Instead, as a historian, he said looking at how the First World War ended with the Treaty of Versailles, “a peace treaty that left many things open,” is extremely important to him. 

Weiner is concerned that something like the Treaty of Versailles will happen again. He is worried about the consequences of an imposed treaty or truce on Ukraine.

”It will be an open reminder, [an] open wound, that will fester and ferment instability. That is my concern at this point,” Weiner said. 

Policy makers risk misunderstanding the lessons of the historical case or apply it in ways that don’t actually fit with what’s being observed, Stoner said. However, most policy makers cannot become experts and still have enough time to make policy, said former U.S. ambassador Michael McFaul ’86 M.A. ’86. 

When McFaul worked at the National Security Council (NSC), he had to write a case study looking at the transition from apartheid to democracy in South America. In instances like this, McFaul said, the president doesn’t have time to read a “500-page detailed case study of the transition.” 

However, Naimark noted history can’t be avoided. Gottemoeller said in her role as chief negotiator for the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) with Russia, history was important. 

“Knowledge of history is also knowledge of precedence,” Gottemoeller said. 

In Gottemoeller’s class, she asks her students to prepare briefings where they stand and deliver their points of view and their recommendations to the government. She said she found some student analysis to be lacking in a knowledge of history.  

“I often have to remind them of precedent, of what has gone before, of what the already historical baseline is for a certain policy,” Gottemoeller said.  

For policy makers, it is important to balance the historical context and policy recommendations, said Gottemoeller. 

“The message that being curious about history, to me, is part of being a good professional,” Gottemoeller said. “It’s part of being a good human being, because maybe then you will put yourself in the circumstance of not repeating the mistakes of the past.”