The war between Ukraine and Russia demonstrates a principle that the history of the 20th and 21st centuries teaches us: In the long run, the battle between democracy and autocracy is invariably won by the former despite an often-huge price paid by the winner and, of course, by the loser as well. The cost of liberty is high, but the prospect of losing is infinitely worse. But as Winston Churchill reminded the United States Congress in his memorable speech of May 19, 1943: “Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
When Russian President Vladimir Putin attacked Ukraine, the odds seemed heavily stacked against Ukraine, which had about 27.5% of the population of the aggressor at the beginning of the invasion and a gross domestic product 12% the size. Predictions in the media were that Russia would crush Ukraine in a matter of weeks. The New York Times was ominously forecasting that the “Ukrainian military would be incapacitated, its leadership unable to coordinate a defense and supply the front.” It is now a year and four months since the attack, and not only is Putin’s quarry still an independent and democratic nation, but it seems nowhere close to being vanquished, proving that Churchill’s adage is as applicable to the 21st century as it was to the 20th.
Those of a certain age might recall the sense of doom among many when the Allied forces faced the combined might of both Nazi Germany and the Japanese Empire. The German blitz of London seemed destined to destroy England’s capital. Yet both Churchill and The Queen Mother chose to remain in that war zone rather than seek refuge elsewhere, with the Queen stating that “the children won’t go without me. I won’t leave the King. And the King will never leave.” This decision won the respect of the Londoners who stayed during the blitz, solidifying a sense of unity and tenacity throughout the city and nation, unlike Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union where a rift existed between the leaders and their citizens.
The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact signed in 1939 was a treaty made between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, where each power agreed to partition parts of Eastern Europe between them. It was a secret pact, one that only a few Soviet and Nazi diplomats knew about. Joseph Stalin agreed to the pact as a way of remaining on good terms with Nazi Germany. Yet, Adolf Hitler never intended on keeping his end of the deal and, in 1941, Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union, an invasion known as Operation Barbarossa. It is plausible that if the two powers had had a democratic regime rather than an authoritarian one, the Second World War may have been prevented. The totalitarian reigns in each country prevented citizens from having a say in the political and military decisions being made, and the people had no choice but to entrust their lives to the hands of their doomed leaders.
A more recent example looks to Israel and the Middle East as further proof of Churchill’s adage. In a region plagued by dictatorship and instability, Israel remains a shining beacon of liberty, despite attempts from surrounding neighbors to diminish, disrupt, and dismantle it. The success of Israel and Ukraine highlight that democracies can survive through war and tough times, while countries controlled by strongmen prove too weak to carry the burden necessary to survive.
Indeed, Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s government is still standing firmly on both feet, while Putin’s government has just survived – barely, by some reports – an armed insurrection by the Wagner mercenary fighting force led by Yevgeny Prigozhin. This marked the largest threat to his presidency since he took over in 1999. Ukraine has been fortunate to have received massive quantities of armaments from the West, but it is unable to obtain more direct military support because of the West’s fear that a desperate Putin will resort to his nuclear arsenal. Yet, the democratic institutions in Ukraine have remained resilient regardless of the onslaught of the Russian autocracy and seem to have contributed to the impenetrable unity among Ukrainians that the Russians seem to lack under their own undemocratic leadership.
When the war first broke out, I had several discussions with three prominent journalists whom I’ve known for decades. I took the position — a gentleman’s bet, so to speak – that Ukraine would win the war within three months. My prediction at the time seemed like a pipe dream. Well, it’s taking far more than three months, but there’s a very good chance that Putin will fail, or even be deposed by his oligarchs, his own government, or his humiliated military. Although a majority of Russians reportedly support the ongoing war in Ukraine, the results illustrate a sense of reluctance on the part of the Russian citizens to stand up against the decisions made by the Kremlin – no small wonder considering the vicious dictatorship led by Putin. Considering the thousands of protestors that gather periodically throughout Russia, it seems that, sooner or later, democracy might well seep into the nation and replace Putin and his oppressive administration.
Harvey Silverglate is a criminal defense and civil liberties lawyer with offices in Cambridge and Boston