History As It Happens

This is the first episode in a two-part series marking the anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which began on February 24, 2022. One year ago, Russian president Vladimir Putin may have believed he was on the precipice of a legacy-defining victory. His superior troops and tanks would roll into neighboring Ukraine – in a “special military operation” – beyond the areas of the eastern Donbas region, where Russian forces had been backing separatist groups in a stalemated conflict since 2014. Mr. Putin’s armies would reach Kyiv in days, decapitate the Ukrainian government, and be greeted as liberators. Within weeks, Mr. Putin’s war aims were exposed as a fantasy. In this episode, The Washington Times national security team leader Guy Taylor and Catholic University historian Michael Kimmage discuss what to expect in the coming year as well as the origins of the war, still a hotly debated topic on both sides of the Atlantic. Also, Mr. Kimmage, who worked on the Russia-Ukraine portfolio for the U.S. State Department in 2014-16, discusses the ways in which U.S. leaders talk about national interests, as Congress has approved billions in military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine.

No publication in recent memory has provoked more debate and political hand-wringing than the New York Times’ 1619 Project. Much of the attention has focused on its specious claims that "some colonists" broke with the crown to defend slavery and its slighting of Abraham Lincoln. The 1619 Project is now a major Hulu docuseries, but it continues to present a distorted view of slavery and capitalism in an effort to showcase the importance of Black people in fighting for American democracy. In this episode, one of the project's most vocal critics, economic historian Phil Magness of the conservative American Institute for Economic Research, discusses what the New York Times' award-winning project still gets wrong.

Most Americans hadn’t seen or heard the name of former Pakistani military ruler Pervez Musharraf for many years before news broke of his death earlier this month. Musharraf had been ill, living a quiet existence in self-imposed exile in Dubai, a long way in space and time from his once esteemed position as an important U.S. ally in the war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Musharraf’s reluctant embrace of the U.S. war helped lead to his downfall, as it riled segments of Pakistan’s population of fundamentalist Islamists who opposed helping the U.S. oust the Taliban from Kabul. As the backlash to his policies escalated, Musharraf became increasingly despotic, ultimately suspending the Pakistani constitution and imposing emergency rule in 2007. In this episode, New America national security expert Peter Bergen discusses the legacy of a ruler who, after coming to power in a bloodless coup in 1999, relented to U.S. "with us or against us" ultimatums. In the end, American interests could never align with Pakistan's strategy of backing a Pashtun force in Afghanistan for strategic depth against India.

Seventy-three years ago today, Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy delivered a watershed speech in his young political career in Wheeling, West Virginia. He told the Republican Women's Club that he knew of more than 200 known Communists who had infiltrated the U.S. government. "Today we are engaged in a final, all-out battle between communistic atheism and Christianity. The modern champions of communism have selected this as the time. And, ladies and gentlemen, the chips are down—they are truly down," the Republican demagogue warned his audience. In this episode, historian and McCarthy biographer Rick Fried discusses his new book, "A Genius for Confusion," which illuminates the destructive power of lying in an atmosphere of heightened national angst and anti-communist paranoia. In our age of disinformation, McCarthyism has enduring relevance.

China's decision to fly a surveillance balloon over the United States led Secretary of State Antony Blinken to postpone his trip to Beijing at a time when U.S.-China relations are at a historic low point. But neither the balloon incident nor other recent controversies, such as Covid or the trade war, are solely responsible for wrecking once promising ties. The seeds of this burgeoning Great Power rivalry were planted decades ago, when U.S. policymakers believed helping China along its path to prosperity would lead to a more stable and peaceful world. It hasn't exactly turned out that way. In this episode, The Washington Times' Guy Taylor and Andrew Scobell of the U.S. Institute of Peace discuss the increasingly antagonistic relationship between two powers contending for primacy in the Pacific and beyond.

After weeks of criticism for refusing to send its tanks to Ukraine, Germany relented. Chancellor Olaf Schultz had hesitated in approving shipments of the Leopard 2 battle tank, although Germans citizens have steadfastly supported Ukraine in its war against Russia, and despite the fact that Schultz’s government already delivered more than $1 billion in aid and arms to Ukraine the prior year. But the tank issue caused a rift in German politics over whether the country was going too far in its support for Ukraine in a war with no end in sight against a nuclear-armed foe. Germany, while not a pacifist nation, still has prominent pacifist or anti-interventionist voices in its politics who point to the country’s history as the reason for avoiding deep involvement in foreign wars: Hitler, genocide, and catastrophic defeat in 1945. In this episode, historian Chris Browning brings his expertise on Nazi Germany and the Holocaust to a discussion about the burden of the German past on current politics.

When Ukraine acceded to Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1994, the country’s leaders fulfilled a vow they had made as soon as Ukraine became an independent state in 1991. Ukraine would relinquish the thousands of nuclear warheads and intercontinental ballistic missiles on its territory – it’s “nuclear inheritance” after the collapse of the USSR. Looking back at that decision through the lens of Russia’s invasion one year ago, some observers now contend that Ukraine made a mistake by voluntarily ceding its potential nuclear deterrence, although Ukraine never had independent operational command and control over the weapons. Moreover, as political scientist and nuclear historian Mariana Budjeryn demonstrates in her new book, “Inheriting the Bomb,” the majority of Ukrainian political and military leaders in the early 1990s viewed holding onto the nukes as more dangerous than it might be worth. In this episode, Budjeryn discusses the momentous events and decisions that resulted in Ukraine transferring all its nuclear weapons to Russia to be dismantled. She illuminates an important chapter in international relations that left Ukraine in a diplomatic and political no man’s land from which it could not completely extract itself over the next 30 years.

In these politically polarized times, Americans have a partisan media that suits the circumstances. Or do biased news and information sources drive the polarization? Whatever the case, public trust in the mass media to accurately report the news is about as low as pollsters have ever found it. The marked ebbing of trust comes as people consume information, credible or not, from more sources than ever before: social media, blogs, podcasts, web sites, YouTube channels, etc., etc. But before you pine for the good ol' days of a neutral press, the notion that journalism should be professional and independent rather than partisan, is relatively new in U.S. history. In fact, from the start of the republic, newspapers and pamphlets were openly partisan and often supported by political patronage. In this episode, historian Jeff Pasley talks about the ways in which the early partisan newspapers bolstered democracy, and how today's media landscape is corroding it.

One of the first moves House Republicans made upon assuming the chamber’s majority was to create, in a party-line vote of 221-211, the “Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government.” But rather than use that unwieldy moniker, GOP leaders appropriated the name of an iconic investigative committee from a bygone era. In 1975, in an 82-4 vote, the Senate created the Church committee, which was chaired by Idaho Democratic Sen. Frank Church, to investigate the FBI, CIA, and NSA. (Its official title was the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities). Church’s panel examined decades of egregious abuses, which were brought to light as Americans recovered from the traumas of Vietnam and Watergate. In this episode, historian Sam Martin, the Frank and Bethine Church Endowed Chair of Public Affairs at Boise State University in Idaho, compares and contrasts the historically important work of the original Church committee with the aims of today's House GOP.

What if the U.S. had taken a more active and constructive role in international affairs after the First World War, rather than reject the Treaty of Versailles and refuse to join the League of Nations? In the view of historian Robert Kagan, another global conflict would have been avoided, and Adolph Hitler might never have been appointed German chancellor as he was in January 1933. This is the subject of Kagan's latest book, "The Ghost at the Feast," and in this episode, he defends his thesis concerning the importance of U.S. leadership, or its absence, after the seismic shifts in global power caused by the war of 1914-18. As Kagan, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, put it in a recent essay in Foreign Affairs about U.S. support for Ukraine, "Only American power can keep the natural forces of history at bay." Is that true today? Was it true between 1919 and 1939?