Thinking about...

I talked with Phillips O’Brien today about the Iran War, the Ukraine War, and other foreign affairs news. This is the second conversation Phillips and I have had recently, and I know you’ll learn as much from him as I do.Here is the link to donate to Come Back Alive: https://savelife.in.ua/en/Thinking about... is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

A quick video to remind you why we protest! I’ll be in Cincinnati tomorrow; there are thousands of protests to join across the country. Click here to see all of the locations and make your plans!Please share this post.My books that might be helpful.Thinking about... is a reader-supported publication. Please subscribe. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

Here is a recording of my conversation with historian Heather Cox Richardson from yesterday. As two historians, we discussed the importance of history to make sense of our current moment, understanding freedom to build a better future, how people can meaningfully respond and resist, and more. I hope you enjoy this conversation as much as I did. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

Joe Kent never should have been director of the National Counterterrorism Center. Given his complete lack of qualifications and his sympathies for those who wish harm to Americans, the scandal is his appointment, not his resignation. His resignation reveals a fault line in the Trump elite, but not one that does credit to anyone. In basic political terms, it might be suggestive that fighting a doomed war will make it harder rather than easier for Trump to steal the coming election. In the video I sketch this out. If you find it helpful, please share.Thinking about... is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

We have an unusually interesting Democratic ticket in Ohio in he gubernatorial elections — and they could very well win. I spoke back in November to the amazing Dr. Amy Acton, who is running for governor. Joining her on the ticket is David Pepper, whom I know mainly as the author of fine books of political analysis and strategy. If you want a break from war news, and want to consider something very good that good happen this fall, please tune in to this conversation, which was live a couple of weeks ago, but which is still very much on my mind today. Thank you Jason Stanley, Brian Page CFT™ AFC® Fair Play, Carol Johnston, Michael Scarmack, Kathleen Moss, and many others for tuning into my live video with David Pepper! Please subscribe and please share.Thinking about... is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

Professor Janice Stein is a leading authority on negotiation and war as well as a regional specialist on the Middle East. Our conversation covers the origins of the Iran war, its meaning for the region and the world, and its possible trajectories. Throughout Professor Stein offers her characteristic wit and sharpness. I recommend that you have a listen.Thank you Michael Barclay, Mona Mona, Another Essay, Mangrove Valley, Shulamit Elson, and many others for tuning into my live video with Janice Stein! Join me for my next live video in the app.Thinking about... is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

Earlier this week, I sat down with historian and author of “Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present” Ruth Ben-Ghiat for a conversation about the war in Iran, how history can inform us about our moment, and what we can all do. We also discussed how ritual humiliation functions as a political tool, why this war is unlikely to produce the rally-around-the-flag effect Trump may have hoped for, and what it will actually take — from elites, from citizens, from all of us — to turn this moment into a political turning point.As Ruth and I agreed on, disasters don’t become turning points on their own. They need people willing to name what’s happening, hold the line on institutions, and act — nonviolently, persistently — in the name of something better. The conversation is available in full above.Thinking about... is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

This post contains my conversation with military historian Phillips O’Brien about the U.S. strikes on Iran. Phillips walked us through what air power can and can’t do — it can devastate a regime, but it can’t replace one, and what we’ve likely unleashed is a chaotic internal struggle with no clear plan for what comes next.The deeper question is why this is really happening. The answer, we agreed, has less to do with Iran than with Trump’s domestic troubles, his financial entanglements with the Gulf states who stand to benefit most, and his eye on the 2026 midterms. Whatever happens on the ground in Iran, we shouldn’t let the fog of war stop us from asking those questions clearly.Thinking about... is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

I spoke with Paul Krugman about Ukraine, economics, and the political moment we are living through in the United States. We discussed the dangers to democracy that come from within, especially in an age of oligarchy and extreme inequality, and we talked about what the war in Ukraine reveals about civil society and reconstruction.We ended with a simple point: democracy depends on citizens who participate, not spectators who wait. I hope you’ll watch and enjoy our discussion.Thinking about... is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

This afternoon, I had the pleasure of a long and wide-ranging conversation with Ava DuVernay—a producer and director whose work has consistently helped Americans see themselves and their history more clearly.We spoke about many things: where we are as a country, what history can still teach us, and what democratic coalitions have looked like when they have succeeded—and when they have failed. But we also spoke about the present moment, which has a way of intruding on even the most reflective conversations.In particular, we discussed the arrest of journalists Don Lemon and Georgia Fort while they were doing their jobs—documenting events of public importance. These arrests are not isolated incidents. They are signals. And history teaches us that when journalists, especially African American journalists, are treated as criminals for observing power, democracy itself is being tested.Ava and I talked about responsibility. History does not move on its own. It moves when people decide to act within it. The First Amendment does not enforce itself. It survives because citizens insist that it matters—not only when their own speech is threatened, but when someone else’s is.Today is a good day to talk about the First Amendment. Not abstractly, and not nostalgically, but concretely. Who is being prevented from speaking? Who is being punished for witnessing? Who benefits when journalists are made afraid?It is also a good day to celebrate journalists. Not because they are perfect—they are not—but because their work makes self-government possible. Journalism is how power becomes visible. It is how facts enter public life. It is how a society argues with itself without tearing itself apart.Ava reminded me, in her own way, that storytelling is a form of civic care. Journalists practice that care every day, often at personal risk. When we defend them, we are not taking sides in a culture war. We are taking sides with democracy.So I encourage you to talk about the First Amendment today. Talk about it with friends, students, colleagues. Ask what it requires of us now—not in theory, but in practice. And take a moment to thank a journalist.Thinking about... is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

We talked about a wide range of topics today — from the happenings in Minnesota to what people can do to push back to Ukraine. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

Watch my conversation with Stacey Abrams. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

In this second part of the conversation, we turn to the current state of the Russo-Ukrainian war, and discuss American diplomatic antics as well as European shortcomings. We also juxtapose the current narratives around diplomacy, which are often very misleading, with the state of the battlefield.Please watch and share! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

I had a wide-ranging conversation with the distinguished historian of war Philipps O’Brien, who has been an important voice on the Russo-Ukrainian war. In part one, we discuss the structural reasons for victory and defeat in war, and assess the first critical year (2022) of Russia’s current full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Please watch and share! Part two coming tomorrow. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

Greetings all! These past few days were some of the weirdest in American diplomatic history, and I was lucky to have a special guest to help explain what happened and why it matters.This was a wonderful and timely conversation with the reporter Michael Weiss on the diplomatic imbroglio that followed when the United States allowed its position on Ukrainian to be dictated by a Russian leaker who happens to be a rather singular figure in Russian politics. There are facts, contexts and analysis here you will not find elsewhere. The conversation helps us to consider about all that would be lost if Ukraine were lost, and about just how American foreign policy is and should be made. Reading:Please support Michael Weiss and his colleagues at The Insider: Michael Weiss on the origins of the leak here; the home page of The Insider here. Here also is my post from yesterday where I analyse at some length the 28 points of the Russian wish list that suddenly became the official American position.If you enjoyed this please subscribe and share. Thinking about... is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

Among all the other things that are happening, we have a US administration trying to bully Ukrainians into accepting Russia’s proposal that their sovereignty be undone. Aside from the naked injustice of this, there are five basic practical reasons why it would make the world far more dangerous. I summarize them here; you will find more writing on this subject elsewhere on my Substack, “Thinking about…” This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

Cincinnati was where I wanted to be for No Kings, and I was so glad to be there. We have dozens of civic groups signing people up to work together, and tens of thousands of people down by the river for hours. I was proud to be there and proud to open the rally with this speech. Thanks to everyone who answered and went to work. And thanks above all to the local organizers from 50501 and the good people at Indivisible who made it possible for us to come together. Please listen and please find your way to work with others. And please share this video.Thinking about... is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

Five reasons to rally! Another one I didn’t mention — it’s fun and it makes you feel better. Thanks to everyone who is already out there. I’ll be at No Kings in Cincinnati. Thinking about... is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

The Trump administration is trying to seed a panic about «antifa,» one which, if it succeeds, brings the media and the result of us along as collaborators in authoritarian regime change. So let’s be thoughtful. It is not good practice to just repeat the words of those who are trying to manufacture a panic. Nor is it it good practice to juxtapose malicious fantasy with known reality and imagine or pretend that somehow the truth is in between. That just helps those who are seeding panic by providing an admixture that they cannot create themselves. The way forward is to recognize that it is a fact that people in power sometimes try to sow and that they do so by patterns of lies. That is the fact that can be known and reported on.The current « antifa » scare is an attempt at generating a panic, by people who do panic for a living and who have, unfortunately, succeeded before, at great cost to the rest of us. The price of an « antifa » panic is likely more than we can bear. We need the truth about panics: that they are a form of deliberate politics based upon scripted lies. And we need this truth now. My thought about all this are in the video—please share. Thinking about... is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

Today the president is taking credit for a cease-fire in Gaza. But who, in America, was first in calling for that exact thing? Students on campuses. And what happened to them? They were banned from their own public spaces, all over the country. So the president should be thanking them for their foresight. And he and all of his supporters should naturally be calling for campus bans on public assembly to be lifted. I would be very happy to hear such voices! But I fear we won’t. If we don’t, we will see that those bans were never about Gaza or Israel or any one issue. They are about silencing young people, in general, as a first step toward silencing the rest of us. I recognize that things were said and done on campuses (often by people from outside the schools) that should not have been said and done. Antisemitism is a very real and sadly a growing problem in the US and around the world. But the presence of individual actors and of undesirable acts was never a good reason for broad bans on freedom of speech and assembly on campuses. Freedom of speech has a point. It is there so people can speak truth to power. Often that truth is spoken first by young people. What student protestors said about a cease-fire early became the mainstream about eighteen months later. And what if they hadn’t been silenced? More freedom of speech on this issue would have been healthy for everyone — including Israel, whose image has suffered hugely. And it would have saved many, many lives in Gaza.When we as Americans are trained to think that suppression of speech is normal once, in a major area of life such as college campuses, we take a step towards agreeing with authoritarianism in general. So for those who support the president, a challenge: thank the students and give them back their freedom to express themselves.For the rest of us, another challenge: gather to speak about all of our freedoms. (This is not a transcript of the video— just me quickly putting together the thought in a different way. Please share this.)Thinking about... is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

A week from today, on October 18th, millions of Americans will gather in thousands of places to protest the countless ways our current administration is attacking our freedoms. Some elected officials — details in the video — cannot even bear to say the name of the protests out loud « No Kings ». Instead they are trying to message-discipline themselves into the propaganda line that protestors hate their country. Ha! It’s exactly the opposite. Protestors believe that action has meaning. Protestors are exercising the rights enshrined in the Constitution. For me, protest is about love of country, where love means wanting my country to survive and thrive and be the best version of itself. I will be there on October 18th, and I hope you wil be too. The video has the thoughts about why lying about protest is harmful and why getting out in public with others is helpful. Thanks for being with me. TS CT October 11thThinking about... is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

At Tuesday’s presidential “roundtable” on “antifa,” the villain du jour, one of the speakers said that its origins were to be found in Weimar Germany. The wrongdoers of history, we are instructed from the White House, were those who tried to prevent Hitler from coming to power. In a busy week, this is a statement worth noting — not just for its shocking character, but for what it reveals about the manufactured “antifa” panic: that the true target is American constitutionalism, American law, and American liberties.Thinking about... is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

Thinking about... is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

Dear Friends, One of the many wrongs of this last week has been an attempt by the Trump administration to destroy American higher education: by way of “compacts” in which universities and other institutions would sacrifice their independence and the freedoms of the students, staff and faculty in exchange for essentially nothing — a meaningless assurance though not a binding obligation that the government might perhaps then follow its legal and contractual obligations to fund research. This amounts to an attempt to make American institutions of higher education resemble those in, for example, Russia: where the government is always present to enforce its daily ideological preferences and the universities and other schools must go along. The result of these “compacts” would be the pointless sacrifice of one area where the United States is still universally recognized as leading the world, which is our universities. These “compacts” would also mean huge economic losses as these institutions cease to operate according to the merit of ideas and following instead the whims of distant bureaucrats bound to a stale ideology. In this video post I am reading aloud the petition (text below) formulated by the American Federation of Teachers and the American Association of University Professors (my union), which you can read and sign by following the links or the buttons below. I urge you to please do so and to share this post with others who care about economic prosperity, social mobility, and freedom of expression.Here is where you can sign the petition.Here is the link to the AFT/AAUP petition.Here is the text of the AFT/AAUP petition:“We call on university leaders, faculty, staff and students to unite in rejecting the Trump compact and to defend the principle that no president has the right to buy obedience or sell off freedom.Colleges and universities are places of possibility, where big ideas get tested, diseases are cured, new technologies are invented, and students have an opportunity to learn and develop new skills. They are engines of opportunity, sites of free expression and economic hubs for whole communities, often serving as a major employer and healthcare provider in a region. As such, they are anchors of our democracy.The Trump administration has put unprecedented and highly politicized regulations on institutions of higher education, pressured them with coercive funding threats, extorted promises to fall in line with a right-wing ideology, and upended long-held principles of civil rights, academic freedom, freedom of speech and equality of opportunity.The actions are wrong. They are largely illegal, and they are losing in court.Now the administration is planning to go even further—targeting not only the universities that President Donald Trump personally dislikes but the entire system of federally funded research across the country.Currently, the federal government funds research based on peer review and scientific merit. Under the proposed Trump compact, it would make awards based on ideological fealty, taking taxpayer money and weaponizing it to undermine research and speech the current administration doesn’t like and punish people it disagrees with.The Trump compact is not just wrong—it’s unconstitutional. It violates the First Amendment by forcing universities to surrender their right of free speech and academic freedom in exchange for federal funds. The Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected this kind of coercion under the “unconstitutional conditions” doctrine, which says the government cannot use its spending power to force a person to give up a constitutional right—e.g., by dictating ideology or controlling thought.Under the Trump compact, a successful childhood cancer research project could be cut off because the university allows trans athletes to play on a team. A lab focused on ensuring a clean water supply could be shut down because the university’s mission includes promoting diversity in the student body. A nursing school could lose critical funding because professors are teaching about women’s history.This policy is a clumsy attempt at thought-policing that will have repercussions for all of society. It risks America’s world leadership in science, technology, innovation and healthcare, creating opportunities for our competitors and our enemies to take the lead. It sets us backward toward an era of less innovation, fewer cures for diseases and a shrinking economy.”Thinking about... is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

Basic points on the rule of law, phantom conspiracies, big lies, and civic action. Thinking about... is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

I spent the first few days of the month on or near the front in Ukraine and then in Kyiv, and now find upon my return an American reality that needs analysis and action. A few ideas here. Feel free to share. Thanks for being with me. Thinking about... is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

How do Ukrainians endure?When will the war end?What kind of war is it?Fresh from travels in southeastern Ukraine and meetings with soldiers, officers and other Ukrainians, I try to give some answers to these questions in this nine-minute video, filmed at sunrise a couple of days ago in Dnipro. We, beyond Ukraine, are not merely observers who can ask questions, but responsible parties whose actions (and inaction) make the difference.Ukrainians are paying the price for our indecision and now, in our own way, we are too. It can all be repaired, but we must be clear about where we are and what remains to be done.Thinking about... is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

It took me a while, but I can now see a purpose in speaking to the discussion of my departure from Yale University for the University of Toronto. Hence this video.I moved with the family last year, largely for family reasons, attracted personally by the prospect of a change to Toronto and to its Munk School in particular; both Yale and the University of Toronto dealt with the transition very gracefully. I loved being at Yale, and at the same time I am looking forward to some new possibilities in Toronto.Because I regarded the departure as relevant to students and colleagues at the institution where I taught for almost a quarter century, I laid out my reasons for the move in my departure note to Yale. Without speaking too directly in the video about private matters, I address four public framings of last year’s move which arose in recent weeks: (1) that I fled the present administration; (2) that I am a coward; (3) that leaving Yale is politically regressive; and (4) that I have disengaged. None of these framings touches the circumstances of my decision. I address them because they tell us something about the moment that we are in.I can see why personal attacks are tempting, and also where they lead. If we tear down others, we can tell ourselves that we are doing something ourselves — when in fact the opposite is true. No one has to take me as their guiding light. We all though have to recognize that our allies are imperfect, and seek out what is best in those with whom we choose to work. Freedom is solidarity. The path to unfreedom passes through dismissal and disdain.I am not a very on line person, so I wasn’t really aware that there was some sort of imbroglio until friends sent me nice messages (always a bad sign) and this wise essay by Rebecca Solnit (there are sentences in it that are worth reading twice; she is a perceptive person.)Like I always do, I made this video in one take, improvising. There is one thing that I wish I had said to Americans but didn’t: I am still with you. This past academic year, after the family move to Canada, and before and after the inauguration, I made appearances in Connecticut (twice), Illinois (three times), Michigan (twice), Ohio (seven times), Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, New York (four times), Rhode Island (twice), Tennessee, Texas, and Washington DC (twice). That’s in addition to a series of wonderful public events in Toronto and Vancouver and the two trips to Ukraine and the visits to eight European countries that I mention in the video. I’m out there. I’m trying. In various places. And what I have to offer in one place has to do with things I learn from people in others. The photos below give a taste of where I was this last academic year, and what I was doing.Other than these paragraphs, those photos, and the Yale letter, the video is what I have to say. There won’t be more. Let’s do the things that we can do.TS, recorded 26 May, photo added 30 May, to be published 2 June 2025Thinking about... is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

As the assault on American higher education continues, I’ve been asked to explain why I believe this policy is antisemitic. A new video is above.The Trump people claim to be fighting antisemitism, and the media often accept that framing. I believe, on the contrary, that these actions are antisemitic in intention and in execution. The use of the word “antisemitism” as a covering pretext for defunding education empties the concept of meaning. I have talked about this in various public gatherings in the US and written about it here, but thought that a video explainer might be helpful. My background: I have written two books on the Holocaust as well as an introduction to Borowski’s Here in Our Auschwitz and a good deal else on the topic; have taught Holocaust history for two decades; have helped to supervise the use of Holocaust testimonies for the better part of my career and spend time with these sources. I sit on the International Auschwitz Council and have been awarded the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising Medal. I note that Professor Christopher Browning, the very distinguished American scholar of the Holocaust, is making a similar case. Please read his essay.I have given these matters some thought, and I hope you will consider. Please feel free as always to share this video.Thinking about... is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

The president has issued an executive order entitled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.” Like most of these executive orders, it seems illegal on its face: the president can only execute the laws; he cannot just himself decide how our museums and parks will work or look. But perhaps the deeper problem is the implicit claim: that the president himself has a monopoly on truth and sanity, that we and a few others can serve as a ministry of truth, that all the experience and knowledge and research that the rest of us have is nothing more than “ideology.” It maintains that the United States has always been a paragon of freedom and that anyone who denies its automatic progress is disloyal. But freedom always means liberation from the people who tell you that whatever you are experiencing now is liberty, and that really you must do nothing but admire your leaders. And progress, never automatic, comes from self-knowledge and from struggle. I spent the morning today at the National Museum of Civil Rights in Memphis, which provides a firm reminder of the need for memory and for discussion of events that make us uncomfortable — as good history always will. We need history not to confirm that how we feel now is right, but rather to teach us more about where we come from than we can know ourselves. This involves recognition that our pasts can be different, which enables the empathy that we will need for democracy. I recorded a few thoughts along these lines in this video; please watch and share.Thinking about... is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

Here is my best guidance for action, rendered beautifully by the great John Lithgow. I first published these lessons more than eight years ago, in late 2016. They open the twenty chapters of On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century. Millions of you, around the world, have put these lessons to good use; it has been humbling to learn how from courageous and creative dissenters, protestors, and oppositionists. I am delighted to have this special chance now to share the lessons again. I was honored when John, a wise advocate for civil discourse and civic engagement, volunteered to read them aloud. Above is his film. Below is the text, excerpted from the book. Do share this.1. Do not obey in advance. Most of the power of authoritarianism is freely given. In times like these, individuals think ahead about what a more repressive government will want, and then offer themselves without being asked. A citizen who adapts in this way is teaching power what it can do.2. Defend institutions. It is institutions that help us to preserve decency. They need our help as well. Do not speak of "our institutions" unless you make them yours by acting on their behalf. Institutions do not protect themselves. They fall one after the other unless each is defended from the beginning. So choose an institution you care about -- a court, a newspaper, a law, a labor union -- and take its side.3. Beware the one-party state. The parties that remade states and suppressed rivals were not omnipotent from the start. They exploited a historic moment to make political life impossible for their opponents. So support the multiple-party system and defend the rules of democratic elections. Vote in local and state elections while you can. Consider running for office.4. Take responsibility for the face of the world. The symbols of today enable the reality of tomorrow. Notice the swastikas and the other signs of hate. Do not look away, and do not get used to them. Remove them yourself and set an example for others to do so.5. Remember professional ethics. When political leaders set a negative example, professional commitments to just practice become more important. It is hard to subvert a rule-of-law state without lawyers, or to hold show trials without judges. Authoritarians need obedient civil servants, and concentration camp directors seek businessmen interested in cheap labor.6. Be wary of paramilitaries. When the men with guns who have always claimed to be against the system start wearing uniforms and marching with torches and pictures of a leader, the end is nigh. When the pro-leader paramilitary and the official police and military intermingle, the end has come.7. Be reflective if you must be armed. If you carry a weapon in public service, may God bless you and keep you. But know that evils of the past involved policemen and soldiers finding themselves, one day, doing irregular things. Be ready to say no.8. Stand out. Someone has to. It is easy to follow along. It can feel strange to do or say something different. But without that unease, there is no freedom. Remember Rosa Parks. The moment you set an example, the spell of the status quo is broken, and others will follow.9. Be kind to our language. Avoid pronouncing the phrases everyone else does. Think up your own way of speaking, even if only to convey that thing you think everyone is saying. Make an effort to separate yourself from the internet. Read books.10. Believe in truth. To abandon facts is to abandon freedom. If nothing is true, then no one can criticize power, because there is no basis upon which to do so. If nothing is true, then all is spectacle. The biggest wallet pays for the most blinding lights.11. Investigate. Figure things out for yourself. Spend more time with long articles. Subsidize investigative journalism by subscribing to print media. Realize that some of what is on the internet is there to harm you. Learn about sites that investigate propaganda campaigns (some of which come from abroad). Take responsibility for what you communicate with others.12. Make eye contact and small talk. This is not just polite. It is part of being a citizen and a responsible member of society. It is also a way to stay in touch with your surroundings, break down social barriers, and understand whom you should and should not trust. If we enter a culture of denunciation, you will want to know the psychological landscape of your daily life.13. Practice corporeal politics. Power wants your body softening in your chair and your emotions dissipating on the screen. Get outside. Put your body in unfamiliar places with unfamiliar people. Make new friends and march with them. (Nota bene, jumping away from the text for a moment: there will be chances to practice corporeal politics all over the USA on April 5th).14. Establish a private life. Nastier rulers will use what they know about you to push you around. Scrub your computer of malware on a regular basis. Remember that email is skywriting.

I was asked to make a shorter video summarizing the logic of negotiation. Here it is: five basic tests to establish whether what is proposed by Americans can be regarded as a Ukrainian-Russian peace process. I hope you find it useful, for example in evaluating claims made by the American president in his speech this evening. At the moment, American policy seems to meet none of these tests; it seems, in fact, designed to create the conditions for a broader and a longer war by excluding, exploiting and harming Ukraine, strengthening Russia, misconstruing the basic reality of the war, ignoring international law, and denying the need for any structure at all beyond the verbal assurances. But I wanted to lay these out these five tests in a neutral way to help people consider or themselves. Thanks for being with me. Please share this post.Thinking about... is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

Wars are hard to end. Peace is easy to say but difficult to achieve. In this video, about ten minutes long, I spell out five logics that a successful mediator seeking peace would take into account: the state of law; the beginning of the war; calculations of the future; paper vs. reality; and ceasefire vs. peace. I have in mind the present Russo-Ukrainian war. But sometimes it helps to recall the fundamental principles. Please feel free to share this video.Thinking about... is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.If you are thinking today about helping Ukrainians, consider Come Back Alive, a Ukrainian NGO that supports soldiers; United 24, the Ukrainian state platform for donations); RAZOM, an American NGO, tax-deductible for US citizens, which supports civilians; and BlueCheck Ukraine, which aims for efficient cooperation with Ukrainian groups and is also tax-deductible. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

In this, my first substack video, I react to the shameful encounter between American leaders and media and the Ukrainian president. No doubt there were more, but I saw five failures on our side: of hospitality, decency, democracy, strategy, and independence. Please watch and share. If you are thinking today about how to help Ukrainians, here are some possibilities: Come Back Alive (Ukrainian NGO that supports soldiers on the battlefield and veterans), United 24 (the Ukrainian state platform for donations, with many excellent projects), RAZOM (an American NGO, tax-deductible for US citizens, which cooperates with Ukrainian NGOS to support civilians), and Documenting Ukraine (a project that helps to give Ukrainians a voice, also tax-deductible for Americans).Thinking about... is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

This is the podcast version of an essay I published on 16 February at the end of the Munich Security Conference. Since then, its thesis has been confirmed by the Russian-American talks in Saudi Arabia, American slanders of Ukrainians, and the Russian-American concord at the United Nations. The original text begins below.As a television show, American foreign policy is about strength. In reality, it is about draining power from the United States and its allies, thereby creating atmospherics in which Donald Trump feels good and Elon Musk converts lost state capacity into personal profit. The weakness, in other words, is the point.In the alliances that held through January 2025, the United States was an unrivaled power. By whatever measure one chose, no other country was of the same status. Without the alliances, however, the equation is different. It is not just that the United States loses the economic, military, and political strength of its allies. It is that the U.S. must now compete with them and try to subordinate them.At the Munich Security Conference, which is just coming to an end, the American vice president instructed Europeans to open themselves as colonial vessels. They should remove any constraints on social media platforms, allowing Musk and other oligarchs to shape their elections. And those elections should then lead to the victory of far right parties that would remove any other barriers to Musk’s power. In this scenario, no conceivable American interest is served. Only Musk’s. It is unlikely to play out as JD Vance expects. What is certain, though, is the palpable alienation of the Europeans.By taking the side of Ukraine in its war against Russia through January 2025, the United States had generated tremendous power against the aggressor Russia and its patron China. At insignificant financial cost, and with no risk to American troops, American policy helped the Ukrainian armed forces to deliver a broader security that the United States could not have achieved on its own. The Ukrainians fulfilled the entire NATO mission, absorbing a Russian invasion and destroying the greater part of the Russian army of 2022. They deterred a Chinese invasion of Taiwan by showing how difficult offensive operations are. And they upheld, as great sacrifice, the legal principle that borders are real and states are sovereign.It is precisely that order that Musk-Trump dismantles.It is difficult to be certain of U.S. policy to Ukraine, since the Americans contradict one another and themselves faster than any chyron or twitter feed can follow. But two underlying principles did emerge during the Munich Security Conference. The first was that Ukraine, like the rest of Europe, was to be seen not as an American ally but as an American colony. Humiliating discussions of the disposition of Ukraine’s resources made this clear. The second was that the war could be ended by direct discussions between Americans and the Russian aggressor. There was no sign of any serious substantive preparations, on the American side, for such negotiations.I could perhaps be wrong, and we shall see, but I believe the purpose of the Putin-Trump phone call that took place and the coming Russian-American negotiations in Saudi Arabia over Ukraine is to get a bad deal, at least as seen in the conventional terms of Ukrainian lives, American power, and world peace. If a bad agreement does emerge, it will be hard to say whether it is incompetence, design, or incompetence by design. I think the last is most likely. The structure of the situation does not favor substance or deliberation. The Americans are in a hurry, as Trump’s special envoy to Ukraine kept saying; and the design of the negotiations is unfavorable.With Ukrainians and Europeans not present at these talks (at least as I understand this at this moment), Putin will likely get his way on the essential issues. One American official or another has already conceded most of them in public (although, admittedly, they then often walked themselves back or were contradicted by others). Trump and Musk have been repeating Russian talking points for years. Putin will (it appears) be treated as a legitimate partner, he will go unpunished for his war crimes, he will make de facto territorial gains from his war of aggression, and he will get to dictate the terms Ukrainian domestic politics. He will celebrate a victory, and he will prepare the next war, in the total confidence that no resistance from the United States is possible.Russia, in other words, will gain power from American diplomacy that it could not conceivably have gained on the battlefield.One point of consensus among informed observers here in Munich is that the war is not going well for Russia. Sanctions are working, and the Russian economic crash that was predicted for 2026 and now seen as more likely this year. On the battlefield, Russia’s losses far exceed Ukraine’s, and the Ukrainians are getting better and better at inflicting losses wi

This is the podcast version of an essay I wrote a week ago, before the Munich Security Conference brought some of the explanation points. Since then, the thesis has only been confirmed by the disastrous Russian-American talks and American slanders of and threats to Ukrainians. Please share this with those who might want or need to hear this. If you are thinking about how to help Ukrainians, consider Come Back Alive (Ukrainian NGO that supports soldiers on the battlefield and veterans), United 24 (the Ukrainian state platform for donations, with many excellent projects), RAZOM (an American NGO, tax-deductible for US citizens, which cooperates with Ukrainian NGOS to support civilians), and Documenting Ukraine (a project I help run that helps to give Ukrainians a voice, also tax-deductible for Americans). The text of the original essay begins below.Americans have a certain idea of freedom. We are fine just the way we are and the only problem are the barriers in the outside world. In this mental world, Musk’s hollowing out of the government can seem justified. Trump’s betrayal of friends and destruction of alliances can seem convenient. We will be great again by being all alone, with no one to trouble us.This fantasy leads right to tragedy. It sets the stage for the weak strongman.Trump is a strongman in the sense that he makes others weak. He is strong in a relative sense; as Musk destroys institutions, what remains is Trump’s presence. But other sorts of power meaning vanish, as Musk takes apart the departments of the American government that deal with money, weapons, and intelligence. And then the United States has no actual tools to deal with the rest of the world.The strongman is weak because no one beyond the United States has anything to want (or fear) from the self-immolation. And weak because Trump submits to foreign aggression, putting waning American power behind Russia.The weak strongman undermines the rules, but cannot replace them with anything else. He creates the image of power by his rhetorical imperialism: America will control Greenland, Panama, Mexico, Canada, Gaza, etc. From there, it is hard to say that others are wrong when they invade other countries. The weak strongman is left endorsing other people’s invasions, as with Russia and Ukraine. He lacks the power to resist them. And he lacks the power to coerce them. And, ironically, he lacks the power to carry out wars himself. He lacks the patience, and he lacks the instruments.Many Americans fear Trump, and so imagine that others must. No one beyond America fears Trump as such. He can generate fear only in his capacity as neighborhood arsonist, as someone who destroys what others have created. America’s friends are afraid not of him but of what we all have to lose. America’s enemies are not frightened when Trump kicks over the lantern and sets things on fire. Quite the contrary: he is doing exactly what they want.Trump plays a strongman on television, and he is a talented performer. But the strength consists solely of the submissiveness of his audience. His performance arouses a dream of passivity: Trump will fix it, Trump will get rid of our problems, and then we will be free. And of course that kind of Nosferatu charisma is a kind of strength, but not one that can be brought to bear to solve any problems, and not one that matters in the world at large. Or rather: it matters only negatively. As soon as Trump meets someone with a better dictator act, like Putin, he submits. But he can only enable Putin. He can’t really even imitate him.Trump’s supporters might think that we don’t need friendships because the United States can, if necessary, intimidate its enemies without help. This has already been proven wrong. Trump can make things worse for Canada and Mexico, in the sense that a sobbing boy taking his ball home makes things worse. But he cannot make them back down. Trump has not intimidated Russia. He has been intimidated by Russia.The cruelty that makes Trump a strongman at home arose from the destruction of norms of civil behavior and democratic practice. Unlike any other American politician before him, Trump has scorned the law and used hate speech to deter political opponents here. For years he has used his tweets to inspire stochastic violence. This intimidates some Americans. It has, for example, led to a kind of self-purge of the Republican Party, opening the way for Trump, or in fact for Musk, to rule with the help of tamed and therefore predictable cadres. The effect of this is that people who have submitted to Trump see him as a strongman. But what they are experiencing is in fact their own weakness. And their own weakness cannot magically become strength in the wider world. Quite the contrary.Stochastic violence cannot be applied to foreign leaders. Trump has said that he can stop the war in Ukraine. He wrote a tweet directed at Vladimir Putin; but the capital letters and exclamation points did not change the emotional state

This is the podcast version of an essay I wrote on the night train from Kyiv to Zaporizhzhia a week ago. Please feel free to share this with those who might want or need to hear this. If you are thinking as I am about how to help Ukrainians just now, consider Come Back Alive (Ukrainian NGO that supports soldiers on the battlefield and veterans), United 24 (the Ukrainian state platform for donations, with many excellent projects), RAZOM (an American NGO, tax-deductible for US citizens, which cooperates with Ukrainian NGOS to support civilians), and Documenting Ukraine (a project I help run that helps to give Ukrainians a voice, also tax-deductible for Americans). The text of the original essay begins below.I am on a night train from Kyiv, bound for Zaporizhzhia, a city in the southeast of Ukraine which is about twenty miles from the front. Russian missiles take about thirty-five seconds to hit the city, and the take civilian lives. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, Russia has occupied part of the Zaporizhzhia region. In September of 2022 the Russian parliament proclaimed the annexation of the region as a whole.That front is a line that runs through Zaporizhzhia region, and indeed across the east and south of Ukraine. My train rushes southeast, towards that line. Its passengers, civilians and soldiers alike, know what lies on the other side.Given the nature of Russian occupation, Ukrainians are fighting not only for their lives, but for a certain idea of life in freedom. In the parts of Ukraine controlled by Russia, anyone who showed any initiative or was elected to any position is killed or subjected to torture. Any expression of a political opinion or any gathering or anything that seems like opposition to Russian authorities will lead to a long prison sentence in awful conditions. Just having Ukrainian material on your phone is enough to be sent to prison. Ukrainian citizens in the occupied zones have to accept Russian citizenship in order to have access to basic services, such as schools. Children are kidnapped and sent to Russian families for adoption. They will be raised to hate the land of their birth. Perhaps still worse, they will be raised in a country where the government lies about everything all the time, where the media lies about everything all the time, and this is thought to be normal.These basic facts create a different kind of existence, on that side of the line.Ukraine is not a perfect country, and of course war itself makes people less free. The number of killed and wounded, though far lower than on the Russian side, grows every day. Ukrainian men have to serve in the armed forces, whether they want to or not. Even in the unoccupied majority of Ukrainian territory, Russian missile and drone attacks are not only lethal but exhausting. It is worse close to the front, as in Zaporizhzhia, where I arrive tomorrow morning, or Kharkiv, which I visited last September, because there is no time to take shelter from the missiles. But everywhere in the country nights are interrupted and people are at risk. I spent part of last night in a bomb shelter in Kyiv, awakened by the siren right after I went to sleep. For me this is an irritation. But for Ukrainians, three years of sleep deprivation takes a toll. The train tonight departed right at the time of the curfew, when people have to go home. This, too, is a certain deprivation of freedom.And, yet, on this, the Ukrainian side of the line, people lead completely different lives than under Russian occupation or in Russia. Ukrainians say what they want, including about the war and about politics. Journalists cover the war and write about politics. There is fear, although less than you might think; but it is fear of bombs and missiles and violence from Russia, not of denunciations or oppression or of one’s own government. I have the strange feeling, this week in Kyiv, that Ukrainians are living freer lives now than Americans. At a book store where I was talking to a Ukrainian philosopher about freedom, a young woman put her hand on my arm and said “sorry about the U.S.”There are lines that matter. If I made some sort of mistake, and somehow found myself on the Russian side of the line in the Zaporizhzhia region, I would probably disappear for good. Russian authorities have made clear what they think of me, sanctioning me not once but twice. (And, to be clear, it is a terrible idea for any American to go to Russia now; you will just be kidnapped, and held for some possible exchange for a Russian criminal.) If I crossed that line, it is unlikely that I would come back.Ukrainian trains are punctual, and they are pleasant. It is not that I am in any way uncomfortable, or afraid. Heading in the direction of a line just makes me thoughtful, as an American. As I get ready to go to sleep, I find myself thinking that Americans are also speeding towards a lineAmericans back home are not entering a geographic Russia, of course, or a zon

This is the podcast version of my written post “Of course it’s a coup” of 5 February. Please listen or share with those who prefer to listen. Coming posts will be about the weak strong man, lessons from Germany, and the lines we cross from one form of regime to another. Excellent journalist work on the coup is meantime being done by Mother Jones, Wired, and Notes on the Crisis. Thinking about... is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

This is the podcast version of my post on the logic of destruction behind the ongoing digital coup inside the US government. Please listen and share. Forthcoming posts will be about German lessons (just left Berlin) about fascism, and about Trump as a weak strong man. Thinking about... is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

I brought a coat for the trip through Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Oklahoma, and Texas, but never wore it once. The drought in Ohio was painfully visible in the cornfields. A relative was able to come a talk in Ohio because she had fled a hurricane in North Carolina. In Ohio the days started out in the high 30s but then cleared 70. I ran a 5k in Ohio with people who were struggling in the sun and heat — in late October. In Ohio and Michigan the trees were a couple weeks late in turning, at least compared to what I remember. In Oklahoma and Texas it was balmy deep into the night. The drive from OKC to Dallas was scorching. There is so much to remember about the trip, most of it encouraging and happy. But the changes in the weather were all around, affecting everything. In a short presidential campaign like this, climate has not been a major topic. In this video, I try to explain how important it should be. We have the knowledge and the tools and to deal with climate change. But we have to do it now. Four years of encouraging carbon emissions and spreading misinformation, which is what Trump and Vance promise, could very well make the problem insoluble and the crisis irreversible. And this is a problem that will make all the other problems worse. It really is a matter of survival. So this is one more way that we have power — a lot of power. Voting on this issue will make a dramatic difference, in the US and everywhere else. Let’s change the climate for the better. Vote.Thinking about... is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

(Trying to fulfill my promise of translating all of my text posts into audio or video. This seemed like an important one to do before the election. Please think about it and share it. And vote!)We have seen this show before. We know what Trump losing looks like.Three Trumpian actions are predictable. We know them from the last election. Last time around, when Trump lost, when Trump knew that he lost, he:1. Claimed that he won (November)2. Filed lawsuits (November-December)3. Encouraged violence (January)He did these three things because he lost. They comprise the loser triad.Judging from past behavior, though, a repetition of the loser triad would signal that Trump believes that he has lost. In 2024, though, the sequence will be different. Allies of Trump have already filed dozens of lawsuits. Pro-Trump violence is likely to begin around election day rather than in January. But the timing of Trump's claiming victory will likely be the same, shortly after the election but before the outcome has been confirmed. To be clear, anything can happen. Either candidate can win. That is why we vote and count the votes. And that is exactly why we should not engage in behaviors like the loser triad. The loser triad indicates that a loser is trying to break the system.This time around, the three actions will likely come in the following sequence. Trump, in the 2024 loser triad:1. Files lawsuits (already happening, even before the election!)2. Encourages violence (around election day, most likely)3. Claims that he won (shortly after election day).If Trump again claims too early that he won, this is not just a statement like any other. It is part of a plan to take power by a candidate who believes that he has lost an election -- a repeat of a behavior that we know very well.If Trump claims victory, that is a good sign that Harris has won the election.Thanks for reading Thinking about... Please share this post.Thinking about... is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

I wrote this in March, with the text as below, and am posting this recording now, in the hopes that it can be useful. Please share it. TS 1/11/2024Quite a few Americans like the idea of strongman rule. Why not a dictator who will get things done? I lived in eastern Europe when memories of communism were fresh. I have visited regions in Ukraine where Russia imposed its occupation regime. I have spent decades reading testimonies of people who lived under Nazi or Stalinist rule. I have seen death pits, some old, some freshly dug. And I have friends who have lived under authoritarian regimes, including political prisoners and survivors of torture. Some of the people I trusted most have been assassinated.So I think that there is an answer to this question. Strongman rule is a fantasy. Essential to it is the idea that a strongman will be your strongman. He won't. In a democracy, elected representatives listen to constituents. We take this for granted, and imagine that a dictator would owe us something. But the vote you cast for him affirms your irrelevance. The whole point is that the strongman owes us nothing. We get abused and we get used to it. Another pleasant illusion is that the strongman will unite the nation. But an aspiring dictator will always claim that some belong and others don't. He will define one group after another as the enemy. This might feel good, so long as you feel that you are on the right side of the line. But now fear is the essence of life. The politics of us-and-them, once begun, never ends. We dream that a strongman will let us focus on America. But dictatorship opens our country to the worst the world has to offer. An American strongman will measure himself by the wealth and power of other dictators. He will befriend them and compete with them. From them he will learn new ways to oppress and to exploit his own people.At least, the fantasy goes, the strongman will get things done. But dictatorial power today is not about achieving anything positive. It is about preventing anyone else from achieving anything. The strongman is really the weak man: his secret is that he makes everyone else weaker. Unaccountable to the law and to voters, the dictator has no reason to consider anything beyond his own personal interests. In the twenty-first century, those are simple: dying in bed as a billionaire. To enrich himself and to stay out of prison, the strongman dismantles the justice system and replaces civil servants with loyalists. The new bureaucrats will have no sense of accountability. Basic government functions will break down. Citizens who want access will learn to pay bribes. Bureaucrats in office thanks to patronage will be corrupt, and citizens will be desperate. Quickly the corruption becomes normal, even unquestioned. As the fantasy of strongman rule fades into everyday dictatorship, people realize that they need things like water or schools or Social Security checks. Insofar as such goods are available under a dictatorship, they come with a moral as well as a financial price. When you go to a government office, you will be expected to declare your personal loyalty to the strongman. If you have a complaint about these practices, too bad. Americans are litigious people, and many of us assume that we can go to the police or sue. But when you vote a strong man in, you vote out the rule of law. In court, only loyalism and wealth will matter. Americans who do not fear the police will learn to do so. Those who wear the uniform must either resign or become the enforcers of the whims of one man.Everybody (except the dictator and his family and friends) gets poorer. The market system depends upon competition. Under a strongman, there will be no such thing. The strongman's clan will be favored by government. Our wealth inequality, bad enough already, will get worse. Anyone hoping for prosperity will have to seek the patronage of the official oligarchs. Running a small business will become impossible. As soon as you achieve any sort of success, someone who wants your business denounces you. In the fantasy of the strongman, politics vanishes and all is clear and bright. In fact, a dreary politics penetrates everything. You can't run a business without the threat of denunciation. You can't get basic services without humiliation. You feel bad about yourself. You think about what you say, since it can be used against you later. What you do on the internet is recorded forever, and can land you in prison.Public space closes down around you. You cannot escape to the bar or the bowling alley, since everything you say is monitored. The person on the next stool or in the next lane might not turn you in, but you have to assume they will. If you have a t-shirt or a bumper sticker with a message, someone will report you. Even if you just repeat the dictator's words, someone can lie about you and denounce you. And then, if you voted for the strongman, you will be confused. But you should not be. This is what y

Some people talk about Trump’s economic plans; others about his intention to undo the rule of law. In this five-minute video, I try to explain how the two relate: how lawlessness will wreck the economy. Please consider and please share. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

Given where we are just now, there have been quite a few questions about my book On Tyranny, and in particular about the first lesson, which is “Do Not Obey in Advance.” The violations of that lesson of the twentieth century have been so flagrant that they are, at least, serving as an education in how not to behave. In this setting I thought I would review some of the lessons in a little talk (half an hour or so) for subscribers, taking into account events of the past few weeks. Please share this lecture with anyone who will find it interesting or who needs to hear it!PS Sorry that these images are so large — the editing tool is not working, so I am going to post this as it as. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe

Greetings from Oklahoma. Here are a few thoughts from here on video about the decisions of the owners of the Washington Post and the LA Times to suppress their editorial boards’ decisions to endorse Kamala Harris. A problem with the very wealthy is that, alas, the least vulnerable have a tendency to think of themselves as the most vulnerable. And from that position they harm everyone else, while proclaiming that they are simply being neutral or following business interests. But doing what Trump wants in advance only makes it more likely that Trump will have power, and only teaches him that you are easy to intimidate. You are giving the authoritarian power he would not otherwise have. The irony is that the rest of us will have to save the billionaires from their own cowardice. But that of course is not what this is moment is about. It is about all of us doing the little things we can, the truthful things we can, to get through this moment and come out on the bright side. In the video I explain why “do not obey in advance” is the main lesson of the twentieth century. In my book On Tyranny “Do not obey in advance” is the first lesson. Please share this video. And please act. Vote, register people to vote, phone bank, keyboard, write letters, work a poll. Do something, and think of all the others who are doing what they can. You feel feel better, and you will make a difference.Thinking about... is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit snyder.substack.com/subscribe