I was asked a few months ago by a blog reader about Plokhy. I have not read any of his books but below is an in-depth conversation with him where one can get an idea of his background and views. He is a professor at Harvard University. He tends toward a more Ukrainian nationalist take on history and tacks with the pro-western view of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the 2004 Orange Revolution and 2014 Maidan overthrow and glosses over or omits very important contextual information for understanding these events, especially the 2014 Maidan. He also states an outright falsehood when he claims that the Russian language is not persecuted right now in Ukraine. See here, here, here and here.
While there is plenty to disagree with (such as his gross whitewashing of Stepan Bandera and the Galician SS – Fridman’s mental gymnastics here were frankly embarrassing – as well as the disingenuousness of the nature of the influence of Neo-Nazis in contemporary Ukraine), he makes some interesting points at various places. I noticed that when he uses the term “It’s my understanding…”, it’s usually an indication that he doesn’t necessarily know much of what he’s talking about but is engaging in guesswork.
It’s useful to hear people with a different position even if it only ends up largely crystalizing what, how and why we disagree with them. It’s not intellectually healthy to keep ourselves in an echo chamber.
Fridman has said that he will interview anyone and is interested in talking to people with a wide range of views. So far, the only people I’m aware of that he has interviewed that may provide a counterpoint to the US establishment narrative on Russia and Ukraine is Oliver Stone and John Mearsheimer. There are a number of people with a specialized academic background who would be great for Fridman to interveiw, such as Ivan Katchanovksi, Olga Baysha, Geoffrey Roberts, Nicolai Petro and Richard Sakwa. – Natylie
YouTube link here.
Note: If you’re following the subtitles on the screen, there are some errors such as Cossacks coming up as Kazakhs and later Brezhnev as Beria.
Sometimes I’ll listen to Lex Fridman conduct an interview, and this will be one of them, probably (I’m already way behind on my reading). I see Fridman as a less silly, possibly less racist (here he is an enigma) Tucker Carlson, with similar family background baggage (MIC/Permanent State) if different Oedipus outcomes — Of the two, Carlson is at least both financially and egotistically more likely to buck the permanent state and his circle of friends/associates, but ultimately nether are independent media; this needs to be kept in mind with both the guest selection and the degree of pushback/agenda setting in the interview. They can both be useful to those capable of sieving floss from dross, the others may just get angry or satisfied by them, depending on their own bias.
Excellent intro, Natylie. Thx.
“I noticed that when he uses the term “It’s my understanding…”, it’s usually an indication that he doesn’t necessarily know much of what he’s talking about but is engaging in guesswork. ”
This is something that has become standard reporting method even on issues of such importance as the alleged threat of RU possibly using WMDs in the fall of 2022, as was widely spread via 3 articles from NYT and CNN past March – 2 articles of which I went through and dissected in letters to some indie outlets.
Because there too, said reporters of the TIMES and CNN, constantly did that very same thing you point out.
And the most amazing thing about this: Other writers, people of words after all, just went with it without noticing. What you have in the end in the public mind: Putin wanted to use nukes!
Even though there was zero evidence. So you would normally say, well the NYT and CNN were lying about WMDs. (But we are through with THAT aren´t we, dear legacy media…)