 A year ago, Ukraine's democracy began fighting for its life when Russia invaded its borders. We have gotten used to the idea that democracy is something that just somehow automatically comes with history or larger forces or capitalism, and that's all nonsense. That's never, ever been true. Democracy is the choice of the people to rule, so it depends upon values, ultimately. And a value is nothing other than something for which you're willing to take a human risk. The war has led to the worst food crisis in modern history, an energy crisis, and a shock to the global economy. With all these additional pressures being felt around the world, peace in Ukraine might benefit us all. So one year after the Russian invasion, why does Ukraine keep fighting? Timothy Snyder, professor of history at Yale University and author of six books about Ukraine, explains. The reason we don't know very much about Ukraine is that it's been so much in the middle of things. The depth of the tragedies of Ukrainian history is so great that we haven't really been able to perceive the country itself. It's a country which comes out of empire. It's a country which has lost its political classes and its political chances over and over again, but which now, after 1991, after the end of the Soviet Union, really has had its first free generation and its first chance to build a democracy with that generation. So the first thing to know about Ukraine is that the 21st century has given Ukraine a chance, and now Ukraine is facing a war whose aggressor seeks to take that chance away. Many people recognize that Ukraine's history has been marked by a repeating cycle of tragedy, which is why there is a strong belief that this time, things must be different. History repeats itself. At first, the world either feels to know this or underestimates a threat. Then it unites to resist it, and then the world wins. So as a historian, I will never say that history repeats itself because if it repeated itself, that would mean we didn't have any power over it. If it really, in the literal sense, repeated, that would mean that we are just marionettes and that history is some larger force, and that's not true. That said, I understand what people mean. I mean, there are basic themes, basic patterns in the history of Ukraine and the region which appear over and over again. So what are these basic patterns? Why do they matter? And most importantly, how would a Ukrainian victory break the cycle? One of them is the Black Earth of Ukraine and the attempt by people to control it or to use it. It's a central theme of the 20th century when both Stalin and Hitler are trying to exploit the Black Earth of Ukraine for their various projects. Look, I mean, since classical times, Ukraine has helped to feed the world. And this has been, since 1991, this has been Ukraine's role as the third or fourth biggest exporter of agricultural goods in the world. Ukraine exports about 70% of what it used to before the full-scale invasion. That means less maize, grain and sunflower products for countries in the African continent like Ethiopia, Somalia and Djibouti and those in the Middle East like Afghanistan and Yemen. Ukraine's government estimates that 40% of its territory is mined, making it the most mined country on Earth. There's an attempt not only to starve Ukrainians again but an attempt to make the world break. It's an attempt to starve millions of people. Another way that one can think of history as having a pattern would have to do with the recognition of a state. And the idea that Ukraine is not really a nation is, of course, a colonial idea which recalls all of European colonial history but it specifically recalls the Second World War and the German or the Nazi attitude towards Ukraine. That Ukrainians are just a colonial people. All you have to do is overthrow their existing government and they'll be happy to serve you. That's very similar to Putin's idea in 2022 that there's just some kind of artificial elite which is ruling Ukraine but there isn't really a Ukrainian nation. So if you can destroy that elite, the masses will be happy to be colonized and do what you say. It's very easy for other countries to say, well, why shouldn't Ukrainians give away this or give away that? If you start to make concessions about your own territory because there's been aggression, where exactly do you stop? How do you avoid inviting further aggression? I think that's an idea which other countries would do well to think about. But we look at European history, for example, Czechoslovakia in 1938 or the Malta-Virbentrop Act of 1939. Giving away other people's territory tended to lead to worse things rather than to better things. And European countries are not talking about giving away their own territory, they're talking about giving away Ukrainian territory. Even the European Union, although it's a form of cooperation among states, it's a form of cooperation among states which recognizes them and their existing boundaries. It may allow people and goods to move across boundaries but it doesn't make those boundaries go away. So if Ukraine is struggling to keep its borders, statehood and agricultural trade, will it have a chance as a stable democracy? When people in the West look at Ukraine, we're often confused because we say, well, look, there are all these people and they're speaking these different languages and their history is very complicated and that's kind of a mess. But if democracy is going to work at all in the 21st century, it's going to have to work with complicated multicultural situations. And in that way, I see Ukraine as actually being a kind of model for the 21st century. That is, if Ukraine, with the help of its allies, manages to defend its independence from Russia amid daily attacks and attempts to capture more of its territory. But Professor Snyder remains optimistic, not just for the future of the country but for what the victory would represent. It's been very important for me to try to argue that Ukraine can win, believe that it can, but also that it has to win. That the stakes are very high. That the stakes include things like can an armed tyranny destroy a democracy. That hasn't happened for a very long time and it shouldn't happen. The stakes are things like, do hydrocarbon oligarchs like Putin get to run the world forever? Because if they do, there's going to be climate disaster and none of us are going to survive. Things like are all the people around the world who are on extreme right and oppose democracy, are they going to be cheered and buoyed up by Russian victory? Or are the people who are in favor of democracy and counting votes and things like that, are they going to be cheered and buoyed up and supported by a Ukrainian victory? Although Ukraine is fighting for the survival of its own democracy, its victory could mean a much needed win for democracies everywhere. I mean like everybody else, I'd like to have a good future. But I'm convinced and I've been convinced for a long time that a good future is a democratic future and not a technocratic future and not a future where we imagine that somehow everything's going to come to us automatically. And I've been convinced for a long time that that democratic future depends upon choices that people make, including risks that people take. I wanted to get this idea of a cross of a Ukrainian victory. Like that's, you know, we can't guarantee it, we can't be sure of it, but that's what we should be aiming for, not just being on the right side, but that victory is possible and that so long as it's possible we in the West should be doing whatever we can do to make it as possible as we can.