foreignpolicy--2020-01-21--Vladimir Putin Wants to Rewrite the History of World War II

Vladimir Putin Wants to Rewrite the History of World War II Once again , Russian President Vladimir Putin has weighed in on the history of World War II .
Speaking on Dec. 20 at an informal summit of the Commonwealth of Independent States ( CIS ) , he appeared to blame Poland for the outbreak of the war while downplaying if not altogether denying Soviet responsibility .
“ It was them , ” he said , “ who , while pursuing their mercenary and exorbitantly overgrown ambitions , laid their people , the Polish people , open to attack from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , moreover , generally contributed to the beginning of the Second World War.
” Putin ’ s remarks have triggered angry rebuttals .
The Polish Foreign Ministry decried his claims as Stalinist “ propaganda ” and accused the Russian leader of undermining joint efforts “ to find the way of truth and reconciliation in Polish-Russian relations.
” “ Insane , ” former Belgian Prime Minister and prominent European Parliament member Guy Verhofstadt tweeted .
“ Denying that Stalin colluded with Hitler and destroyed Poland .
A monster still glorified in the Russia of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ published an emotional statement , accusing Putin of having deliberately “ lied about Poland on numerous occasions.
” Putin ’ s penchant for historical references is well known , but his remarks last month were unusual—even by his standards .
He spoke on the subject for nearly an hour to eight fellow leaders , who looked on stone-faced ( though President Aleksandr Lukashenko of Belarus appeared to be taking notes ) .
Putin ’ s long-winded foray into historical revisionism was a reaction to the European Parliament ’ s Sept. 19 , 2019 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of European Remembrance of the Future of Europe.
” That resolution , among other things , condemned Russia for “ whitewash [ ing ] crimes committed by the Soviet totalitarian regime , ” blamed the Soviets ( alongside the Nazis ) for starting World War II , and called for the removal of Soviet war memorials across Europe .
That last clause , in particular , visibly annoyed Putin .
“ The monuments in Europe , ” he told his fellow authoritarian leaders , “ were erected to our regular Red Army soldiers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workers , many of whom also suffered from the Stalin regime—some of them were repressed kulaks , some had family members sent to labor camps .
These people died as they were liberating the European countries from Nazism.
” But it wasn ’ t just Putin ’ s comments that were unusual ; it was how he delivered them .
In front of him , Putin had a thick pile of archival documents , from which he read at length in support of his version of history .
Putin the amateur historian would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reputable university .
Nor would he be able to get his views published in any peer-reviewed journal .
As a historian , I found the sight of Putin piecing together a version of events from a range of archival documents strangely familiar but also a tad bizarre—so I decided to fact-check him .
To this end , I located and verified every single document that he cited .
The verdict is that Putin the amateur historian would not get a passing grade at any reputable university .
Nor would he be able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ journal .
Although the factual side of his presentation checks out , he has twisted his evidence to support preconceived notions .
He is also guilty of gross omissions .
Putin ’ s claims can be grouped into three categories : First , he argues that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of August 1939 , an agreement that mainstream historians would agree , contributed handsomely to the outbreak of World War II by partitioning Poland , was not particularly unusual in the context of the times .
Putin draws attention to the 1938 Munich Agreement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up parts of Czechoslovakia with the full endorsement of Britain and France .
“ The partitioning of Czechoslovakia , ” Putin claimed at the CIS summit , “ was cruel and cynical , in essence , it was pillaging .
We have every reason to say that the Munich agreement was the turning point in history following which World War II became inevitable.
” There is nothing about this claim that would lead serious historians to object .
It is hardly unconventional to argue that Munich was an important turning point on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Putin goes on to argue that had the French stuck by their commitments to defend Czechoslovakia against a German invasion ( Paris and Prague signed a treaty of alliance in 1924 ) , the Soviet Union—which also had a treaty with Prague—was prepared to come to the latter ’ s aid .
The problem was that the Soviets had no common border with Czechoslovakia and so depended either on Romania ’ s or Poland ’ s willingness to allow the transit of Soviet troops .
The Polish , in particular , were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Poland ’ s hostility , Putin cited a May 25 , 1938 , dispatch by Yakov Surits , the Soviet ambassador in Paris to Soviet Commissar of Foreign Affairs Maksim Litvinov , a staunch supporter of collective security .
In the document , Surits relates his conversation with then-French Prime Minister Édouard Daladier .
The latter had been trying to find out whether the Polish government could be relied on to defend Czechoslovakia against Germany ’ s encroachment .
“ Not only can we not count on the Polish support , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no guarantee that Poland would not attack from behind.
” He had allegedly asked the Polish Ambassador in Paris Juliusz Lukasiewicz whether the Poles would allow Soviet troops to come to Czechoslovakia ’ s aid .
“ Lukasiewicz responded in the negative.
” He then supposedly asked whether they would allow Soviet airplanes to overfly Poland .
“ Lukasiewicz said that the Poles would open fire on them.
” One may reasonably doubt whether Daladier ’ s account of Polish intentions was accurate .
But the document itself is certainly not a fabrication @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years .
Having received such reports , Soviet leaders would have had reasons to doubt Poland ’ s goodwill should Czechoslovakia have required Soviet intervention .
Moreover , even a cursory look at the history of Moscow ’ s relations with Paris between the conclusion of the 1935 Sino-Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance and the 1938 Munich agreement would show that Stalin had every reason to doubt French dependability in repelling German aggression .
The French went out of their way to take the teeth out of their treaty with the Soviet Union @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the prospect of defending the murderous Communist regime against possible German aggression .
But—and this is where Putin ’ s interpretation falls flat—it is naive to argue that Stalin , for his part , would have jumped at the chance to join France in a war against Germany in 1938 .
Indeed , none of the evidence he cites shows that the Soviet Union was genuinely committed to Czechoslovakia ’ s defense .
Even as he accuses the British and the French of “ cynicism , ” he seems unwilling to see Stalin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been overjoyed to see Germany and the West at each other ’ s throats .
After all , Stalin , just like then-British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and Daladier , was playing for time , and the presumed Polish nonagreement to the transit of Soviet troops is better understood as a convenient excuse for inaction rather than a real obstacle to an early Soviet-led war against Germany .
Czech President Edvard Benes would later claim that he never believed Stalin : “ The truth is that the Soviets did not want to help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s revisionist narrative concerns Poland ’ s policies in the run-up to World War II .
In a nutshell , he argues that Poland was an architect of many of its misfortunes as it not just prevented the Soviets from helping Czechoslovakia but actively colluded with Germany to partition it .
( Poland did help itself to chunks of Teschen Silesia—a section of what today is the eastern tip of the Czech Republic—in October 1938 , after issuing an ultimatum to Czechoslovakia to hand over the region . )
Putin cites some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including obscure Polish documents that spell out plans for Poland ’ s military action against the Czechoslovaks should they fail to give up the territory willingly .
He also refers to documents long familiar to historians , including a cable from the German ambassador in Warsaw , Hans-Adolf von Moltke , concerning his meeting with Polish Foreign Minister Józef Beck .
In that meeting , Beck “ expressed real gratitude for the loyal treatment accorded Polish interests at the Munich conference , as well as the sincerity of relations during the Czech conflict @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chancellor was fully appreciated by the government and the public.
” The problem with Putin ’ s interpretation is that he fails to distinguish between Poland opportunistically seizing a part of a long-disputed territory deemed essential for national defense , not least against Germany , and active collusion with Nazi Germany to bring about this result .
Indeed , as the prominent Polish-American historian Anna Cienciala has long argued , the Polish cabinet kept its options open and was not averse to taking military action against Germany in defense of Czechoslovakia if France @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There is plenty of evidence to this end , including in the Russian archives , none of which made Putin ’ s selection of documents .
The third part of Putin ’ s history lesson zeroed in specifically on anti-Soviet and anti-Semitic statements made by various Polish leaders .
One piece of evidence here comes from a Sept. 20 , 1938 , conversation between Adolf Hitler and the Polish ambassador in Germany , Józef Lipski .
In that particular conversation , Hitler told Lipski that he had been thinking of exiling Jews to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if the Polish , Hungarians , and Romanians agreed to this solution .
According to Lipski ’ s report to Beck , he responded that “ if this were resolved , we would erect him [ Hitler ] a wonderful monument in Warsaw.
” This report has been in the public domain since at least 1948 , when it appeared in a two-volume Soviet collection of documents on the origins of World War II .
But it seemed to be news to Putin and outraged him .
The Russian president cited Lipski @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and then returned to it again several days later in his remarks at a meeting of the Defense Ministry Board .
“ That bastard !
” Putin raged .
“ That anti-Semitic pig—I have no other words .
He was in complete solidarity with Hitler in his anti-Jewish , anti-Semitic sentiment and , moreover , he proposed erecting a monument to Hitler in Warsaw for persecuting the Jewish people.
” Putin ’ s reference to anti-Semitism made it sound like Poland was responsible for World War II , a point that caused considerable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a revelation that anti-Semitism was pervasive in Eastern Europe both in the interwar period and after the war ; Poland was no exception .
Soviet leaders , too , shared anti-Semitic views , and Stalin himself waged an anti-Semitic campaign in the final years of his life .
Seen in that broader context , Putin ’ s attack on Lipski is nothing short of bizarre .
But even more bizarre was his rant to the effect that the Soviet army “ saved many lives ” in Poland after it occupied the country ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If it weren ’ t for the Soviets , Putin argued , the many Jews who lived in Soviet-occupied Poland would have been “ sent… to the furnaces.
” He forgot to mention that the Soviets lost these territories to the Germans in 1941 who then proceeded to massacre the Jewish residents .
At the same time , Putin did not say a word about the victims of the Soviet occupation , in particular about the murder of some 22,000 Polish army officers in the forest of Katyn , a crime of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Poland ’ s historical memory .
These glaring omissions do not strengthen his case .
Nor does Putin improve his credibility by downplaying the significance of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with his offhand reference to “ partitioning of some territory.
” In making a comparison between the Munich Agreement and the 1939 Soviet-German Pact , he fails to acknowledge that the former did not see Britain and France help themselves to parts of a sovereign country .
Stalin , by contrast , did exactly that in Poland .
Moreover , Putin completely ignores long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including records of conversations between Hitler and Molotov , that underscore Soviet territorial appetites in Europe and reveal Stalin for the cynical , brutal tyrant that history remembers him as .
Given this twisting of facts and several glaring omissions , Putin ’ s revisionist history lessons are not convincing , even though some of the evidence he cites is valid on its own merits , and his broader point about shared responsibility for the outbreak of World War II is not unreasonable .
But “ shared ” does not mean that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ greater share of responsibility .
Putin is right to critique the notion—embraced in the resolution of the European Parliament—that Moscow and Berlin were equally responsible .
There is no doubt that Hitler shoulders the lion ’ s share of the blame for the war .
The European parliamentarians who ventured to argue otherwise are out of tune with mainstream historical narratives .
At the same time , denying any Soviet responsibility , as Putin has done , is equally unwise .
There is , however , a silver lining to Putin ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In recent years , thanks in large part to his attempts to debunk the “ falsifiers ” of history , the Russian archives have sped up declassification efforts , releasing thousands upon thousands of previously classified documents into the public domain .
Speaking to Soviet World War II veterans on Jan. 18 , Putin promised to declassify even more evidence .
“ I would like to stress once more , ” he declared , referring to the Poles and other detractors , “ that we will stuff their filthy mouths with documents , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Putin ’ s amateur antics aside , there has never been a better time for real historians to study Russia ’ s past .
Today , Russia ’ s archives are already more open than they have ever been in the past .
Today , Russia ’ s archives are already more open than they have ever been in the past .
The trickle of documents has turned into an enormous stream .
Many of these documents are available online , including a large collection of primary sources from intelligence , military , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy in the run-up to World War II .
Putin ’ s amateur antics aside , there has never been a better time for real historians to study Russia ’ s past .
Putin ’ s Dec. 20 performance highlights the continued importance of understanding World War II-era history in order to understand Russia ’ s present .
The Russian president lashed out against what he sees as a coordinated Western effort to belittle Russia ’ s contribution to Europe ’ s liberation from Nazism .
In the process , he twisted facts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ serious historians will find unconvincing .
But the Russian president knows that weaponized history does not require peer review .
The intended audience for his revisionist account is ordinary Russians , who will likely remember one important lesson from the would-be professor Putin—that the West is out to deny them the glory that their forefathers earned on the battlefield .

Once again, Russian President Vladimir Putin has weighed in on the history of World War II. Speaking on Dec. 20 at an informal summit of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), he appeared to blame Poland for the outbreak of the war while downplaying if not altogether denying Soviet responsibility.
Once again, Russian President Vladimir Putin has weighed in on the history of World War II. Speaking on Dec. 20 at an informal summit of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), he appeared to blame Poland for the outbreak of the war while downplaying if not altogether denying Soviet responsibility.
“It was them,” he said, “who, while pursuing their mercenary and exorbitantly overgrown ambitions, laid their people, the Polish people, open to attack from Germany’s military machine, and, moreover, generally contributed to the beginning of the Second World War.”
Putin’s remarks have triggered angry rebuttals. The Polish Foreign Ministry decried his claims as Stalinist “propaganda” and accused the Russian leader of undermining joint efforts “to find the way of truth and reconciliation in Polish-Russian relations.”
“Insane,” former Belgian Prime Minister and prominent European Parliament member Guy Verhofstadt tweeted. “Denying that Stalin colluded with Hitler and destroyed Poland. A monster still glorified in the Russia of Putin.” Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki published an emotional statement, accusing Putin of having deliberately “lied about Poland on numerous occasions.”
“The Russian people,” he added, “deserve the truth.”
Putin’s penchant for historical references is well known, but his remarks last month were unusual—even by his standards. He spoke on the subject for nearly an hour to eight fellow leaders, who looked on stone-faced (though President Aleksandr Lukashenko of Belarus appeared to be taking notes).
Putin’s long-winded foray into historical revisionism was a reaction to the European Parliament’s Sept. 19, 2019, resolution, “On the Importance of European Remembrance of the Future of Europe.”
That resolution, among other things, condemned Russia for “whitewash[ing] crimes committed by the Soviet totalitarian regime,” blamed the Soviets (alongside the Nazis) for starting World War II, and called for the removal of Soviet war memorials across Europe.
That last clause, in particular, visibly annoyed Putin. “The monuments in Europe,” he told his fellow authoritarian leaders, “were erected to our regular Red Army soldiers. … They were mainly farmers and workers, many of whom also suffered from the Stalin regime—some of them were repressed kulaks, some had family members sent to labor camps. These people died as they were liberating the European countries from Nazism.”
But it wasn’t just Putin’s comments that were unusual; it was how he delivered them. In front of him, Putin had a thick pile of archival documents, from which he read at length in support of his version of history.
Putin the amateur historian would not get a passing grade at any reputable university. Nor would he be able to get his views published in any peer-reviewed journal.
As a historian, I found the sight of Putin piecing together a version of events from a range of archival documents strangely familiar but also a tad bizarre—so I decided to fact-check him. To this end, I located and verified every single document that he cited.
The verdict is that Putin the amateur historian would not get a passing grade at any reputable university. Nor would he be able to get his views published in any peer-reviewed journal. Although the factual side of his presentation checks out, he has twisted his evidence to support preconceived notions. He is also guilty of gross omissions.
Putin’s claims can be grouped into three categories: First, he argues that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of August 1939, an agreement that mainstream historians would agree, contributed handsomely to the outbreak of World War II by partitioning Poland, was not particularly unusual in the context of the times. Putin draws attention to the 1938 Munich Agreement, which allowed Nazi Germany to gobble up parts of Czechoslovakia with the full endorsement of Britain and France.
“The partitioning of Czechoslovakia,” Putin claimed at the CIS summit, “was cruel and cynical, in essence, it was pillaging. We have every reason to say that the Munich agreement was the turning point in history following which World War II became inevitable.” There is nothing about this claim that would lead serious historians to object. It is hardly unconventional to argue that Munich was an important turning point on the road to World War II.
However, Putin goes on to argue that had the French stuck by their commitments to defend Czechoslovakia against a German invasion (Paris and Prague signed a treaty of alliance in 1924), the Soviet Union—which also had a treaty with Prague—was prepared to come to the latter’s aid. The problem was that the Soviets had no common border with Czechoslovakia and so depended either on Romania’s or Poland’s willingness to allow the transit of Soviet troops. The Polish, in particular, were not forthcoming.
To demonstrate the extent of Poland’s hostility, Putin cited a May 25, 1938, dispatch by Yakov Surits, the Soviet ambassador in Paris to Soviet Commissar of Foreign Affairs Maksim Litvinov, a staunch supporter of collective security. In the document, Surits relates his conversation with then-French Prime Minister Édouard Daladier. The latter had been trying to find out whether the Polish government could be relied on to defend Czechoslovakia against Germany’s encroachment.
“Not only can we not count on the Polish support,” Daladier lamented, “but there is no guarantee that Poland would not attack from behind.” He had allegedly asked the Polish Ambassador in Paris Juliusz Lukasiewicz whether the Poles would allow Soviet troops to come to Czechoslovakia’s aid. “Lukasiewicz responded in the negative.” He then supposedly asked whether they would allow Soviet airplanes to overfly Poland. “Lukasiewicz said that the Poles would open fire on them.”
One may reasonably doubt whether Daladier’s account of Polish intentions was accurate. But the document itself is certainly not a fabrication; it’s been known for years. Having received such reports, Soviet leaders would have had reasons to doubt Poland’s goodwill should Czechoslovakia have required Soviet intervention.
Moreover, even a cursory look at the history of Moscow’s relations with Paris between the conclusion of the 1935 Sino-Soviet Treaty of Mutual Assistance and the 1938 Munich agreement would show that Stalin had every reason to doubt French dependability in repelling German aggression. The French went out of their way to take the teeth out of their treaty with the Soviet Union: Few in Paris were thrilled by the prospect of defending the murderous Communist regime against possible German aggression.
But—and this is where Putin’s interpretation falls flat—it is naive to argue that Stalin, for his part, would have jumped at the chance to join France in a war against Germany in 1938. Indeed, none of the evidence he cites shows that the Soviet Union was genuinely committed to Czechoslovakia’s defense. Even as he accuses the British and the French of “cynicism,” he seems unwilling to see Stalin as a cynical operator who would have been overjoyed to see Germany and the West at each other’s throats.
After all, Stalin, just like then-British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and Daladier, was playing for time, and the presumed Polish nonagreement to the transit of Soviet troops is better understood as a convenient excuse for inaction rather than a real obstacle to an early Soviet-led war against Germany. Czech President Edvard Benes would later claim that he never believed Stalin: “The truth is that the Soviets did not want to help us.”
The second part of Putin’s revisionist narrative concerns Poland’s policies in the run-up to World War II. In a nutshell, he argues that Poland was an architect of many of its misfortunes as it not just prevented the Soviets from helping Czechoslovakia but actively colluded with Germany to partition it. (Poland did help itself to chunks of Teschen Silesia—a section of what today is the eastern tip of the Czech Republic—in October 1938, after issuing an ultimatum to Czechoslovakia to hand over the region.) Putin cites some interesting evidence to support his take, including obscure Polish documents that spell out plans for Poland’s military action against the Czechoslovaks should they fail to give up the territory willingly.
He also refers to documents long familiar to historians, including a cable from the German ambassador in Warsaw, Hans-Adolf von Moltke, concerning his meeting with Polish Foreign Minister Józef Beck. In that meeting, Beck “expressed real gratitude for the loyal treatment accorded Polish interests at the Munich conference, as well as the sincerity of relations during the Czech conflict. The attitude of the Führer and Chancellor was fully appreciated by the government and the public.”
The problem with Putin’s interpretation is that he fails to distinguish between Poland opportunistically seizing a part of a long-disputed territory deemed essential for national defense, not least against Germany, and active collusion with Nazi Germany to bring about this result.
Indeed, as the prominent Polish-American historian Anna Cienciala has long argued, the Polish cabinet kept its options open and was not averse to taking military action against Germany in defense of Czechoslovakia if France and Britain joined in the fight. There is plenty of evidence to this end, including in the Russian archives, none of which made Putin’s selection of documents.
The third part of Putin’s history lesson zeroed in specifically on anti-Soviet and anti-Semitic statements made by various Polish leaders. One piece of evidence here comes from a Sept. 20, 1938, conversation between Adolf Hitler and the Polish ambassador in Germany, Józef Lipski. In that particular conversation, Hitler told Lipski that he had been thinking of exiling Jews to the colonies (presumably to Africa), if the Polish, Hungarians, and Romanians agreed to this solution. According to Lipski’s report to Beck, he responded that “if this were resolved, we would erect him [Hitler] a wonderful monument in Warsaw.”
This report has been in the public domain since at least 1948, when it appeared in a two-volume Soviet collection of documents on the origins of World War II. But it seemed to be news to Putin and outraged him. The Russian president cited Lipski’s report at the CIS summit and then returned to it again several days later in his remarks at a meeting of the Defense Ministry Board.
“That bastard!” Putin raged. “That anti-Semitic pig—I have no other words. He was in complete solidarity with Hitler in his anti-Jewish, anti-Semitic sentiment and, moreover, he proposed erecting a monument to Hitler in Warsaw for persecuting the Jewish people.” Putin’s reference to anti-Semitism made it sound like Poland was responsible for World War II, a point that caused considerable consternation in Warsaw.
It is hardly a revelation that anti-Semitism was pervasive in Eastern Europe both in the interwar period and after the war; Poland was no exception. Soviet leaders, too, shared anti-Semitic views, and Stalin himself waged an anti-Semitic campaign in the final years of his life. Seen in that broader context, Putin’s attack on Lipski is nothing short of bizarre.
But even more bizarre was his rant to the effect that the Soviet army “saved many lives” in Poland after it occupied the country’s eastern half in September 1939. If it weren’t for the Soviets, Putin argued, the many Jews who lived in Soviet-occupied Poland would have been “sent… to the furnaces.” He forgot to mention that the Soviets lost these territories to the Germans in 1941 who then proceeded to massacre the Jewish residents.
At the same time, Putin did not say a word about the victims of the Soviet occupation, in particular about the murder of some 22,000 Polish army officers in the forest of Katyn, a crime of the Soviet regime that still looms large in Poland’s historical memory. These glaring omissions do not strengthen his case.
Nor does Putin improve his credibility by downplaying the significance of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with his offhand reference to “partitioning of some territory.” In making a comparison between the Munich Agreement and the 1939 Soviet-German Pact, he fails to acknowledge that the former did not see Britain and France help themselves to parts of a sovereign country. Stalin, by contrast, did exactly that in Poland.
Moreover, Putin completely ignores long available evidence of Soviet-German discussions from 1939-1940, including records of conversations between Hitler and Molotov, that underscore Soviet territorial appetites in Europe and reveal Stalin for the cynical, brutal tyrant that history remembers him as.
Given this twisting of facts and several glaring omissions, Putin’s revisionist history lessons are not convincing, even though some of the evidence he cites is valid on its own merits, and his broader point about shared responsibility for the outbreak of World War II is not unreasonable.
But “shared” does not mean that some countries do not have a much greater share of responsibility. Putin is right to critique the notion—embraced in the resolution of the European Parliament—that Moscow and Berlin were equally responsible. There is no doubt that Hitler shoulders the lion’s share of the blame for the war. The European parliamentarians who ventured to argue otherwise are out of tune with mainstream historical narratives. At the same time, denying any Soviet responsibility, as Putin has done, is equally unwise.
There is, however, a silver lining to Putin’s struggle against the ghosts of history. In recent years, thanks in large part to his attempts to debunk the “falsifiers” of history, the Russian archives have sped up declassification efforts, releasing thousands upon thousands of previously classified documents into the public domain. Speaking to Soviet World War II veterans on Jan. 18, Putin promised to declassify even more evidence. “I would like to stress once more,” he declared, referring to the Poles and other detractors, “that we will stuff their filthy mouths with documents, so that they learn their lesson.”
Putin’s amateur antics aside, there has never been a better time for real historians to study Russia’s past. Today, Russia’s archives are already more open than they have ever been in the past.
Today, Russia’s archives are already more open than they have ever been in the past. The trickle of documents has turned into an enormous stream. Many of these documents are available online, including a large collection of primary sources from intelligence, military, and foreign ministry archives on Soviet foreign policy in the run-up to World War II. Putin’s amateur antics aside, there has never been a better time for real historians to study Russia’s past.
Putin’s Dec. 20 performance highlights the continued importance of understanding World War II-era history in order to understand Russia’s present. The Russian president lashed out against what he sees as a coordinated Western effort to belittle Russia’s contribution to Europe’s liberation from Nazism. In the process, he twisted facts to present a version of events that serious historians will find unconvincing.
But the Russian president knows that weaponized history does not require peer review. The intended audience for his revisionist account is ordinary Russians, who will likely remember one important lesson from the would-be professor Putin—that the West is out to deny them the glory that their forefathers earned on the battlefield.


foreignpolicy--2020-01-20--How Scared Should You Be of the Wuhan Coronavirus?

How Scared Should You Be of the Wuhan Coronavirus ?
A previously unknown virus , first reported in the Chinese city of Wuhan on Dec. 31 , is seriously worrying global health experts .
The World Health Organization announced Monday that it was convening an emergency meeting on the virus , which is a coronavirus , a species common in animals that occasionally leaps to humans .
In China , past cases of viruses passing from animals to humans have been relatively common thanks to close contact with domestic animals like chickens , as well as the consumption of wild @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sometimes because population and resource pressures have pushed people deeper into previously untouched forests and jungles in the south .
The most notable of these in recent years was SARS , a coronavirus first reported in 2003 that eventually killed over 800 people and infected around 8,000 ; the government was widely blamed for covering up the spread of SARS—short for “ severe acute respiratory syndrome ” —until Jiang Yanyong , a retired surgeon , raised the alarm ( and was briefly imprisoned as a result before eventually being hailed as a hero @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
How fast is it spreading ?
It ’ s hard to tell , because the information being released by the Chinese government is questionable .
Wuhan itself is a city of 11 million people , and within China , the virus is confirmed to have reached major metropolises such as Beijing and Shanghai , while it ’ s also traveled as far south as Shenzhen , which borders Hong Kong .
Outside of China , Japan , Thailand , and South Korea have all recorded cases—all Chinese travelers .
While it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of animal-to-human transmission , doctors have just confirmed human-to-human transmission ; 14 health care workers have also been reported as infected .
The virus causes pneumonia , resulting in difficulty breathing .
As of Tuesday morning EST , the number of reported dead has risen to six .
The majority of victims , though , had only mild symptoms , and some have already been discharged .
It ’ s always an open question how bad a new virus could get .
Modern disease control methods have improved dramatically since the 1918-19 influenza @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I—and the global population is healthier and more resistant .
In the United States , the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says the odds of the virus reaching the country are low .
Right now , the main worries are in China itself—especially the government ’ s handling of the cases .
There are numerous unconfirmed posts and stories online claiming Wuhan hospitals are overflowing with victims or showing staff in full protective gear .
Those may just be rumors , but the government numbers are definitely suspicious , especially the sudden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authorities kept the figure of infected people at 41 ; then , it suddenly jumped up this weekend , eventually reaching 218 .
As of Tuesday morning , the number is now 291 .
Foreign doctors estimate the number may be as high as 1,700 cases , using models of other outbreaks .
Admitting the existence of more cases seems to have been prompted , in part , by public skepticism that the disease could have reached Thailand and Japan but inside China somehow have been confined to just Wuhan .
What measures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wuhan itself , there seem to be extensive steps , including door-to-door surveys , the recall of medical staff from holidays , and checks on all forms of transport for people showing symptoms of infection .
There have also been public announcements , including a statement by Chinese President Xi Jinping and by the trusted epidemiologist Zhong Nanshan .
Hong Kong , hard-hit by the SARS virus , has implemented a public health plan ; cities in China have been slower to act , though authorities have promised crackdowns on animal markets .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with the Lunar New Year .
Wait , what does Lunar New Year have to do with this ?
Every winter , China experiences one of the largest mass migrations in the world , known as “ spring journeying ” ( chunyun ) .
( It ’ s called that because of a confused rebranding of the Lunar New Year as the “ spring festival ” in 1912 . )
Hundreds of millions of people head home to see their families , often resulting in an emptying out of major cities as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ villages their parents still live in .
In theory , this is a 40-day period ; in practice it ’ s largely concentrated into the single week of vacation time most people get—this year that ’ s from Jan. 24 to Jan. 30 .
All those shuffling , coughing bodies packed into trains and airports are a petri dish for disease .
So are public gatherings to see fireworks or attend temple fairs .
Eating together family-style—picking from shared dishes—is also a big part of the celebrations , and another possible means of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a bad case of the winter sniffles .
This year , it could be much worse—but the upcoming holiday also provides a powerful motivation for officials to underplay the disease .
Why would they downplay a health crisis ?
One immediate reason is that the Lunar New Year , like holidays everywhere , is a big consumption period that helps local officials keep their GDP numbers up .
GDP is one of the chief metrics used for judging an official ’ s performance , leading to regular statistical distortions—especially in a slowing economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before the Lunar New Year , and fears of economic strain were a powerful motivation in keeping it secret—which in turn helped it spread .
Opinions differ sharply on how much the Chinese government has learned from the experience of SARS .
Epidemic expert Laurie Garrett argues that the signs are there for the crisis to repeat itself , while other medical specialists say the handling has been a lot better this time around .
But even if there ’ s more will to handle the crisis properly at the central level , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can still fail .
One principal problem in any disaster scenario , from earthquakes to epidemics , is that the Chinese party-state is incredibly opaque , even to itself .
Information within a very competitive and back-stabbing political environment becomes a commodity to be traded , rather than a good to be shared ; supposed colleagues regularly conceal their schedules from each other , for instance , while at every level people distort numbers in order to make themselves look better .
Juking the stats isn ’ t unknown in democratic institutions , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the press , and a ground-down civil society , China lacks any institutions other than intraparty ones to keep things honest .
Getting over that instinctive paranoia about sharing information is hard and , in particular , holds back effective cooperation between different institutions or levels of government .
There ’ s also a deeply held belief among officials that the public is a fickle beast and that exposing frightening information will cause panic buying , mob assaults , looting , and the spread of uncontrolled rumors .
There ’ s some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s a self-fulfilling prophecy ; because the public knows the government regularly covers things up , they often assume things are worse than they are .
After the Fukushima disaster in Japan , for instance , people in China rushed to buy salt , which they believed protected them against radioactivity .
But Chinese disaster experts have emphasized the need for better and more-trustworthy information , and state media—before the crackdown on all dissent under Xi—often called for officials to be more honest .
In disaster preparation exercises with other countries , however @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tight information control from the start .
Even now , officials are threatening individuals who post or share information about the virus online .
Underpinning this may be a long-standing belief that natural disasters indicate heavenly disfavor with the ruling government .
How is the public taking it ?
There ’ s lots of concern being expressed online , but that doesn ’ t seem to have spread to the ground level so far—and there ’ s no sign of the kind of steps people took during SARS , such as buying private @ @ @ @ @ @ @ off university campuses .
That could all change very fast in the next week or two , especially if the government steps up the level of public awareness further .
Reporters say face masks have become far more commonly worn on public transport , and shops and online stores are already selling out of masks .
If it does , and especially if travel restrictions are imposed , the economic consequences could be serious .
That might well be a price worth paying .
Update , Jan. 21 , 2020 : This article @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the spread of the virus .

The Chinese city of Wuhan, the seventh largest in the country with approximately 11 million people, has been under quarantine from 10 a.m. Chinese time Thursday. Flights, long-haul buses, and trains from the city, which is a critical transport hub for central China, have been canceled, roads are blockaded, and residents have been told not to travel without special reason. The quarantine has now been extended to other cities neighboring Wuhan, including Huanggang, with 6 million people, and Ezhou, with 1 million. The coronavirus that emerged in Wuhan has been spreading with frightening speed, with the number of cases shooting up over the weekend and at least 17 people now dead.
The Chinese city of Wuhan, the seventh largest in the country with approximately 11 million people, has been under quarantine from 10 a.m. Chinese time Thursday. Flights, long-haul buses, and trains from the city, which is a critical transport hub for central China, have been canceled, roads are blockaded, and residents have been told not to travel without special reason. The quarantine has now been extended to other cities neighboring Wuhan, including Huanggang, with 6 million people, and Ezhou, with 1 million. The coronavirus that emerged in Wuhan has been spreading with frightening speed, with the number of cases shooting up over the weekend and at least 17 people now dead.
The previously unknown virus, first reported on Dec. 31, has global health experts seriously worried. The World Health Organization announced Monday that it was convening an emergency meeting on the virus, which is a coronavirus, a species common in animals that occasionally leaps to humans. In China, past cases of viruses passing from animals to humans have been relatively common thanks to close contact with domestic animals like chickens, as well as the consumption of wild animals such as civet cats, and sometimes because population and resource pressures have pushed people deeper into previously untouched forests and jungles in the south.
The most notable of these in recent years was SARS, a coronavirus first reported in 2003 that eventually killed over 800 people and infected around 8,000; the government was widely blamed for covering up the spread of SARS—short for “severe acute respiratory syndrome”—until Jiang Yanyong, a retired surgeon, raised the alarm (and was briefly imprisoned as a result before eventually being hailed as a hero).
Is this a deadly disease? How fast is it spreading?
It’s hard to tell, because the information being released by the Chinese government is questionable. Within China, the virus is confirmed to have reached major metropolises such as Beijing and Shanghai, while it’s also traveled as far south as Shenzhen, which borders Hong Kong. Outside of China, Japan, Thailand, and South Korea have all recorded cases—all Chinese travelers. While it was initially claimed to be only the result of animal-to-human transmission, doctors have just confirmed human-to-human transmission; 14 health care workers have also been reported as infected.
The virus causes pneumonia, resulting in difficulty breathing. As of Wednesday afternoon EST, the number of reported dead has risen to 17, mostly older men with pre-existing conditions. The majority of victims, though, had only mild symptoms, and some have already been discharged. Many others, however, remain in serious or critical condition.
It’s always an open question how bad a new virus could get. Modern disease control methods have improved dramatically since the 1918-19 influenza outbreak killed more people than World War I—and the global population is healthier and more resistant. In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says the odds of the virus reaching the country are low. Right now, the main worries are in China itself—especially the government’s handling of the cases.
Even before the quarantine, there were numerous unconfirmed posts and stories online claiming Wuhan hospitals are overflowing with victims or showing staff in full protective gear. Those may just be rumors, but the government numbers are definitely suspicious, especially the sudden jump over the weekend. For days authorities kept the figure of infected people at 41; then, it suddenly jumped up this weekend, eventually reaching 218. As of Wednesday afternoon, the number is now over 500. Foreign doctors estimated last week the number might already be as high as 1,700 cases, using models of other outbreaks. Admitting the existence of more cases seems to have been prompted, in part, by public skepticism that the virus could have reached Thailand and Japan but inside China somehow have been confined to just Wuhan.
What measures did the Chinese authorities initially take?
Inside Wuhan itself, even before the quarantine, there have been extensive steps, including door-to-door surveys, the recall of medical staff from holidays, and checks on all forms of transport for people showing symptoms of infection. There have also been public announcements, including a statement by Chinese President Xi Jinping and by the trusted epidemiologist Zhong Nanshan. Hong Kong, hard-hit by the SARS virus, implemented a public health plan; cities in China were initially slower to act, though authorities promised crackdowns on animal markets. Some villages are reportedly banning people who have been working in Wuhan from returning.
But the real challenge comes on Friday, when the Lunar New Year vacation starts.
Wait, what does Lunar New Year have to do with this?
Every winter, China experiences one of the largest mass migrations in the world, known as “spring journeying” (chunyun). (It’s called that because of a confused rebranding of the Lunar New Year as the “spring festival” in 1912.) Hundreds of millions of people head home to see their families, often resulting in an emptying out of major cities as people return to the smaller towns and villages their parents still live in. In theory, this is a 40-day period; in practice it’s largely concentrated into the single week of vacation time most people get—this year that’s from Jan. 24 to Jan. 30.
All those shuffling, coughing bodies packed into trains and airports are a petri dish for disease. So are public gatherings to see fireworks or attend temple fairs. Eating together family-style—picking from shared dishes—is also a big part of the celebrations, and another possible means of transmission. Usually, that just means a bad case of the winter sniffles. This year, it could be much worse—but the upcoming holiday also initially provided a powerful motivation for officials to underplay the virus. As of Thursday, public concern is greatly heightened, and public events in most Chinese cities have been cancelled.
Why did they downplay the crisis?
One immediate reason is that the Lunar New Year, like holidays everywhere, is a big consumption period that helps local officials keep their GDP numbers up. GDP is one of the chief metrics used for judging an official’s performance, leading to regular statistical distortions—especially in a slowing economy. SARS also initially broke out just before the Lunar New Year, and fears of economic strain were a powerful motivation in keeping it secret—which in turn helped it spread.
Opinions differ sharply on how much the Chinese government has learned from the experience of SARS. Epidemic expert Laurie Garrett argues that the signs are there for the crisis to repeat itself, while other medical specialists say the handling has been a lot better this time around. Right now, the government seems to have an all-hands-on-deck policy, even as Chinese media still downplays the story in favor of propaganda around Xi and New Year’s good wishes. But even if there’s more will to handle the crisis properly at the central level, there are lots of ways the system can still fail.
One principal problem in any disaster scenario, from earthquakes to epidemics, is that the Chinese party-state is incredibly opaque, even to itself. Information within a very competitive and back-stabbing political environment becomes a commodity to be traded, rather than a good to be shared; supposed colleagues regularly conceal their schedules from each other, for instance, while at every level people distort numbers in order to make themselves look better. Juking the stats isn’t unknown in democratic institutions, of course, but with no freedom of the press, and a ground-down civil society, China lacks any institutions other than intraparty ones to keep things honest. Getting over that instinctive paranoia about sharing information is hard and, in particular, holds back effective cooperation between different institutions or levels of government.
There’s also a deeply held belief among officials that the public is a fickle beast and that exposing frightening information will cause panic buying, mob assaults, looting, and the spread of uncontrolled rumors. There’s some truth to this, though it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy; because the public knows the government regularly covers things up, they often assume things are worse than they are. After the Fukushima disaster in Japan, for instance, people in China rushed to buy salt, which they believed protected them against radioactivity.
But Chinese disaster experts have emphasized the need for better and more-trustworthy information, and state media—before the crackdown on all dissent under Xi—often called for officials to be more honest. In disaster preparation exercises with other countries, however, the Chinese side still emphasizes extremely tight information control from the start. Even now, officials are threatening individuals who post or share information about the virus online. Underpinning this may be a long-standing belief that natural disasters indicate heavenly disfavor with the ruling government.
How is the public taking it?
Initially, there was lots of concern being expressed online, but it didn’t spread to the ground level. That has been changing fast as the government admits more details and news of the virus spreads. Face masks have become the norm in Chinese cities, and shops and online stores have sold out of them as far afield as Malaysia. The quarantine in Hubei is only spreading further worry. If further travel restrictions are imposed or people voluntarily stay home during the Lunar New Year, the economic consequences have been estimated to be as much as 1 percent of GDP growth. That might well be a price worth paying.
Update, Jan. 23, 2020: This article has been updated to reflect new developments in the spread of the virus.


foreignpolicy--2020-01-22--WHO Could Declare Wuhan Coronavirus a Global Emergency

Here is today ’ s Foreign Policy brief : A WHO expert committee meets over the Wuhan coronavirus , the Trump administration has plans to expand its travel ban , and what ’ s ahead at day two of Davos .
We welcome your feedback at morningbrief @ foreignpolicy.com .
An expert committee convened by the World Health Organization ( WHO ) will decide today whether to declare an international emergency over the new respiratory coronavirus that first emerged in Wuhan , China .
Chinese officials will attend .
The meeting comes just days ahead of the Lunar New Year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people travel to visit their families—raising fears of a bigger contagion .
Six people have died and nearly 300 cases have been confirmed within China .
The first case of the Wuhan coronavirus in the United States was confirmed on Tuesday : A traveler who had flown to Seattle from China and was reported to be in good condition .
Similar imported cases have been confirmed in Thailand , Japan , South Korea , and Taiwan , leading countries to increase screening of travelers from China and use precautionary quarantines .
Stocks fell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Taking precautions .
The Wuhan coronavirus outbreak has raised fears because it belongs to the same family as the SARS virus , which killed nearly 800 people in 2002-03 .
Some countries in the region have taken further precautionary measures .
A South Korean airline has postponed the launch of a flight route to Wuhan , and North Korea temporarily suspended foreign tourism today , according to a tour company .
Hong Kong has implemented a public health plan .
What will China do ?
The biggest risk remains how the Chinese @ @ @ @ @ @ @ around the Lunar New Year , as FP ’ s James Palmer explains .
“ Opinions differ sharply on how much the Chinese government has learned from SARS , ” he writes .
China ’ s leadership has said it won ’ t tolerate anyone hiding cases of the Wuhan coronavirus , and it will participate in today ’ s meeting with the WHO .
Trump could expand travel ban .
The Trump administration soon plans to add seven countries—Belarus , Eritrea , Kyrgyzstan , Myanmar , Nigeria , Sudan , and Tanzania—to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
While the list isn ’ t final and it isn ’ t clear whether the restrictions would apply to all citizens of those countries , the announcement will likely strain relations between the United States and the affected countries .
Trump signed the original travel ban , which included seven Muslim-majority countries , shortly after taking office in Jan. 2017 .
It has been modified after court challenges .
Davos , day two .
The annual World Economic Forum meeting continues in Davos , Switzerland , today , after U.S. President Donald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. economic successes , dismiss climate activists , and threaten Europe with tariffs .
Today Trump is expected to meet with Iraqi President Barham Salih and , separately , Kurdistan Regional Government leader Nechirvan Barzani on the sidelines .
U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin , European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen , and Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam will speak today .
Lebanon forms new government .
On Tuesday , Lebanon broke its political deadlock to form a new government under Prime Minister Hassan Diab , with the backing of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an interim government since October , when Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri resigned amid mass protests against the political elite .
The government is charged with rectifying the country ’ s immediate economic crisis , which has again driven people into the streets .
With Hezbollah ’ s backing , Diab could struggle to win foreign support .
Black boxes in Tehran .
Iran and Canada are at odds over the flight recorders from the Ukrainian plane mistakenly shot down near Tehran , killing 176 people—including 57 Canadians .
On Tuesday , Iranian officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to download information from the black boxes rather than send them to Ukraine , as they had previously stated .
The delay is likely to increase international pressure on Iran .
Guaidó ’ s trip to Europe .
Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó met British Prime Minister Boris Johnson on Tuesday as part of a show of support from the U.K. government .
Back in Caracas , secret service agents raided his offices and blocked opposition lawmakers from entering .
Guaidó , who is also expected at Davos , is seeking extra EU @ @ @ @ @ @ @ India ’ s citizenship law .
India ’ s Supreme Court is considering challenges to the country ’ s controversial Citizenship Amendment Act , which fast tracks citizenship for non-Muslim immigrants from Pakistan , Bangladesh , and Afghanistan .
Those challenging the law , backed by thousands of protesters , say it violates the country ’ s secular constitution .
Officials in Suzhou , China , used facial recognition software to publicly shame seven people wearing pajamas in public on Monday , sparking rare public outrage over widespread surveillance techniques .
( The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ monitor “ uncivilized behavior.
” ) Wearing pajamas in public is common in China , though local authorities have tried to ban the practice before .
Two art thieves in Italy have confessed to stealing a painting by Gustav Klimt from a gallery in Piacenza—and then returning it .
The artwork , worth around $ 66.5 million , was stolen in 1997 but the thieves said they hid it four years ago in a wall in the gallery , where it was found in December .
The pair , believed to be involved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ previously confessed but authorities did not believe them .
For more from FP , visit foreignpolicy.com , subscribe here , or sign up for our other newsletters .
Send your tips , comments , questions , or corrections to morningbrief @ foreignpolicy.com .

Here is today’s Foreign Policy brief: A WHO expert committee meets over the Wuhan coronavirus , the Trump administration has plans to expand its travel ban , and what’s ahead at day two of Davos .
Here is today’s Foreign Policy brief: A WHO expert committee meets over the Wuhan coronavirus, the Trump administration has plans to expand its travel ban, and what’s ahead at day two of Davos.
If you would like to receive Morning Brief in your inbox every weekday, please sign up here.
WHO Panel Meets Over Wuhan Coronavirus
An expert committee convened by the World Health Organization (WHO) will decide today whether to declare an international emergency over the new respiratory coronavirus that first emerged in Wuhan, China. Chinese officials will attend. The meeting comes just days ahead of the Lunar New Year, when hundreds of millions of Chinese people travel to visit their families—raising fears of a bigger contagion. Six people have died and nearly 300 cases have been confirmed within China.
The first case of the Wuhan coronavirus in the United States was confirmed on Tuesday: A traveler who had flown to Seattle from China and was reported to be in good condition. Similar imported cases have been confirmed in Thailand, Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, leading countries to increase screening of travelers from China and use precautionary quarantines. Stocks fell after the announcement of the U.S. case.
Taking precautions. The Wuhan coronavirus outbreak has raised fears because it belongs to the same family as the SARS virus, which killed nearly 800 people in 2002-03. Some countries in the region have taken further precautionary measures. A South Korean airline has postponed the launch of a flight route to Wuhan, and North Korea temporarily suspended foreign tourism today, according to a tour company. Hong Kong has implemented a public health plan.
What will China do? The biggest risk remains how the Chinese government will handle the outbreak, particularly around the Lunar New Year, as FP’s James Palmer explains. “Opinions differ sharply on how much the Chinese government has learned from SARS,” he writes. China’s leadership has said it won’t tolerate anyone hiding cases of the Wuhan coronavirus, and it will participate in today’s meeting with the WHO.
What We’re Following Today
Trump could expand travel ban. The Trump administration soon plans to add seven countries—Belarus, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Myanmar, Nigeria, Sudan, and Tanzania—to its travel ban list, Politico reports. While the list isn’t final and it isn’t clear whether the restrictions would apply to all citizens of those countries, the announcement will likely strain relations between the United States and the affected countries. Trump signed the original travel ban, which included seven Muslim-majority countries, shortly after taking office in Jan. 2017. It has been modified after court challenges.
Davos, day two. The annual World Economic Forum meeting continues in Davos, Switzerland, today, after U.S. President Donald Trump used his keynote address to tout U.S. economic successes, dismiss climate activists, and threaten Europe with tariffs. Today Trump is expected to meet with Iraqi President Barham Salih and, separately, Kurdistan Regional Government leader Nechirvan Barzani on the sidelines. U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, and Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam will speak today.
Lebanon forms new government. On Tuesday, Lebanon broke its political deadlock to form a new government under Prime Minister Hassan Diab, with the backing of the Shiite group Hezbollah. Lebanon has had an interim government since October, when Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri resigned amid mass protests against the political elite. The government is charged with rectifying the country’s immediate economic crisis, which has again driven people into the streets. With Hezbollah’s backing, Diab could struggle to win foreign support.
Keep an Eye On
Black boxes in Tehran. Iran and Canada are at odds over the flight recorders from the Ukrainian plane mistakenly shot down near Tehran, killing 176 people—including 57 Canadians. On Tuesday, Iranian officials said they had asked for the technology to download information from the black boxes rather than send them to Ukraine, as they had previously stated. The delay is likely to increase international pressure on Iran.
Guaidó’s trip to Europe. Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó met British Prime Minister Boris Johnson on Tuesday as part of a show of support from the U.K. government. Back in Caracas, secret service agents raided his offices and blocked opposition lawmakers from entering. Guaidó, who is also expected at Davos, is seeking extra EU pressure against Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
India’s citizenship law. India’s Supreme Court is considering challenges to the country’s controversial Citizenship Amendment Act, which fast tracks citizenship for non-Muslim immigrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan. Those challenging the law, backed by thousands of protesters, say it violates the country’s secular constitution.
Odds and Ends
Officials in Suzhou, China, used facial recognition software to publicly shame seven people wearing pajamas in public on Monday, sparking rare public outrage over widespread surveillance techniques. (The authorities were given facial recognition tools to monitor “uncivilized behavior.”) Wearing pajamas in public is common in China, though local authorities have tried to ban the practice before.
Two art thieves in Italy have confessed to stealing a painting by Gustav Klimt from a gallery in Piacenza—and then returning it. The artwork, worth around $66.5 million, was stolen in 1997 but the thieves said they hid it four years ago in a wall in the gallery, where it was found in December. The pair, believed to be involved in dozens of similar crimes, had previously confessed but authorities did not believe them.
That’s it for today.
For more from FP, visit foreignpolicy.com, subscribe here, or sign up for our other newsletters. Send your tips, comments, questions, or corrections to morningbrief@foreignpolicy.com.


foreignpolicy--2020-01-21--Satellite Surveillance Can Trace Atrocities but Not Stop Them

Satellite Surveillance Can Trace Atrocities but Not Stop Them When I took an NGO job in Darfur in 2006 , the ongoing atrocities there were well known enough that even my least internationally minded relatives asked me whether I was sure I wanted to go .
Darfur had become a cause célèbre for figures like George Clooney , who helped bring obscure Sudanese terms like janjaweed into the mainstream U.S. consciousness .
But for all the effort and publicity , the United States , Europe , and the international community did little to stop the mass killings in Darfur .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it seemed reasonable that the disconnect might have to do with lack of evidence .
The government was denying wrongdoing and even involvement .
The International Criminal Court ( ICC ) was investigating the situation , very slowly .
NGOs were debating the value of contributing to advocacy at the risk of being kicked out of the country and not being able to provide humanitarian aid .
At the time , the relatively new idea of using satellite surveillance to not only document the attacks but also identify the perpetrators would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the horror stop .
But now it ’ s 2020 , and skepticism about surveillance and technology is the norm—especially in the intersection of military intelligence and humanitarian aid .
So when I saw a tweet making the rounds—to the tune of 30,000 retweets—about Clooney spending his hard-earned Nespresso dollars on a satellite to track Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir ( now very deservedly deposed and an indicted war criminal ) , I was curious to get a version of the story a little less starry-eyed than the gushy 2013 Huffington Post article screenshotted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this kind of outside surveillance had actually played .
In an age of ubiquitous cameras and big data , it turns out , documentation might be easy , but political action often remains as out of reach as ever .
I reached out to Nathaniel Raymond , the director of operations of the initiative mentioned in those articles , the Satellite Sentinel Project ( SSP ) .
A collaboration among a number of organizations and housed at the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative , SSP was largely funded by Not on Our Watch , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his Ocean ’ s Eleven co-stars .
SSP has now closed , and the Clooneys have shifted focus to the Sentry project , which follows money rather than armed movement in satellite photos , but Raymond believes that in today ’ s data-intensive world , the work of SSP is more relevant than ever .
SSP went a step further than previous efforts to document mass killings , seeking to identify the indicators needed to predict them so that information could be shared before they happened .
As Raymond told me by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ believing we could standardize the observable patterns that would happen in certain kinds of atrocities and create a new forensics.
” This is possible because , as Raymond explained , “ there ’ s a logistical ground pattern required to kill a lot of people.
” It was a chilling reminder of just how systematic such atrocities are .
And in today ’ s world , the prepositioning of troops and equipment necessary for a massacre is not only predictable ; it ’ s also “ entirely visible from space.
” SSP was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Harvard Humanitarian Initiative ’ s report on the pilot phase of the project makes for grim but impressive reading about large-scale violence that was predicted before it happened , recorded in almost real time as it occurred , and further documented as the perpetrators , to varying degrees , attempted to conceal it .
The analysis was accurate and prescient enough that the report quotes Rebecca Hamilton , a former special correspondent for the Washington Post in Sudan and a fellow at the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting , as calling the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clearly forecast crisis in history.
” But if the complex alignment of targeted tasking of satellites and expertise-based human analysis of data was successful , the impact of the project was not what its founders had hoped for .
Raymond said one of the learnings from SSP was that “ documentation is no substitute for political will.
” In one case—the attack on Kadugli in 2011—the documentation did force the U.S. government to admit there were grounds for investigation , but the groundbreaking work of SSP led to very little change in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ documented , and even predicted , horrors .
In retrospect , it seems almost naive to imagine it would .
But in 2010 Bashir had just been indicted by the ICC , and Responsibility to Protect ( R2P ) , a doctrine urging accountability for the violence of states against their own citizens , had just garnered a U.N. secretary-general report .
Governments and the international community claimed that they needed evidence to act ; it made sense to provide that evidence .
There was another factor in that optimism as well , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tech buzzwords thrown around in the promise of transformative initiatives .
In a 2017 paper in Genocide Studies and Prevention , Raymond and co-author Kristin Bergtora Sandvik call this “ technology optimism , ” an often implicit belief that the use of information and communication technologies has “ an inherently Ambient Protective Effect ( APE ) ; i.e .
casually transforming the threat matrix of a particular atrocity producing environment in a way that improves the human security status of targeted populations.
” As with surveillance cameras in public areas , there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ population that they will make the situation better by their mere existence , that the act of surveilling itself will prevent bad things from happening .
In fact , the reverse can happen .
In a 2016 dissertation paper studying Amnesty International ’ s Eyes on Darfur project , Grant Gordon found that “ Amnesty ’ s advocacy effort was associated with between a 15 and 20 percentage point increase in violence in monitored areas.
” Faced with lack of political will to act on the data it provided , SSP adjusted its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it publicly was a key lesson , ” Raymond said .
“ It was a decision support tool , not an advocacy tool.
” The analysis worked—so successfully that SSP has since taught its predictive techniques to groups such as the World Food Program—but it didn ’ t galvanize either government or public action the way the project had hoped .
The success of the program also led to another insight , one that Raymond believes is even more crucial .
As the team realized that they could accomplish what they set out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was predictive—they also started to understand that they were working without an ethical net .
The idea of primum non nocere , or first , do no harm , is commonly associated with medicine , but it is also the basis for an important humanitarian principle , do no harm .
However , as Raymond said , “ First you must know the harm before you can not do the harm.
” The kind of work SSP was doing was so far outside of the existing strands of information ethics—primarily focused on individual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ limits established by the Nuremberg tribunals on violation of agency on the other—that it had no framework yet for figuring out where the limits were .
“ It was seen as beneficent , but we had no standard for nonmaleficence , ” Raymond said .
“ There was no tort standard by which they could conceivably sue us .
What we did there for good , anyone else could do for any reason.
” This is a quintessential modern quandary .
As data technology is racing ahead of regulation and common awareness , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ethical tools needed to decide where the lines are , much less how to hold transgressors accountable .
Individuals have enough trouble figuring out what Facebook or Google or Apple has done with its data ; deciding whether those actions are merely irresponsible or negligent or actively wrong is a problem that we don ’ t have any framework for solving .
Many of SSP ’ s former staff have turned their attention to these ethical questions .
The article Raymond wrote with Sandvik , for example , proposes a theory of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ technologies in mass atrocity response .
But , like the urgent data that SSP collected , it is likely to take these ethical innovations some time to have an impact on the organizations and people for whom they are most important .
The Harvard Humanitarian Initiative report cites Clooney himself asking , at the beginning of the project , “ why any person could use Google Earth to see his house in Los Angeles but could not see images of the deteriorating situation in the Sudan border region.
” In a 2013 Guardian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keeping an eye on ” Bashir : “ Then he puts out a statement saying that I ’ m spying on him and how would I like it if a camera was following me everywhere I went and I go , ‘ Well , welcome to my life , Mr. War Criminal.
’ I want the war criminal to have the same amount of attention that I get .
I think that ’ s fair.
” As a movie star , Clooney was intimately aware of the potential of surveillance .
The problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The problem was , and continues to be , where the West decides to put its attention .

When I took an NGO job in Darfur in 2006, the ongoing atrocities there were well known enough that even my least internationally minded relatives asked me whether I was sure I wanted to go. Darfur had become a cause célèbre for figures like George Clooney, who helped bring obscure Sudanese terms like janjaweed into the mainstream U.S. consciousness.
When I took an NGO job in Darfur in 2006, the ongoing atrocities there were well known enough that even my least internationally minded relatives asked me whether I was sure I wanted to go. Darfur had become a cause célèbre for figures like George Clooney, who helped bring obscure Sudanese terms like janjaweed into the mainstream U.S. consciousness.
But for all the effort and publicity, the United States, Europe, and the international community did little to stop the mass killings in Darfur. From my new position inside the country, it seemed reasonable that the disconnect might have to do with lack of evidence. The government was denying wrongdoing and even involvement. The International Criminal Court (ICC) was investigating the situation, very slowly. NGOs were debating the value of contributing to advocacy at the risk of being kicked out of the country and not being able to provide humanitarian aid. At the time, the relatively new idea of using satellite surveillance to not only document the attacks but also identify the perpetrators would have seemed like the perfect solution to make the horror stop.
But now it’s 2020, and skepticism about surveillance and technology is the norm—especially in the intersection of military intelligence and humanitarian aid. So when I saw a tweet making the rounds—to the tune of 30,000 retweets—about Clooney spending his hard-earned Nespresso dollars on a satellite to track Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir (now very deservedly deposed and an indicted war criminal), I was curious to get a version of the story a little less starry-eyed than the gushy 2013 Huffington Post article screenshotted in the tweet—and to see what role this kind of outside surveillance had actually played. In an age of ubiquitous cameras and big data, it turns out, documentation might be easy, but political action often remains as out of reach as ever.
I reached out to Nathaniel Raymond, the director of operations of the initiative mentioned in those articles, the Satellite Sentinel Project (SSP). A collaboration among a number of organizations and housed at the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative, SSP was largely funded by Not on Our Watch, the organization started by Clooney along with some of his Ocean’s Eleven co-stars. SSP has now closed, and the Clooneys have shifted focus to the Sentry project, which follows money rather than armed movement in satellite photos, but Raymond believes that in today’s data-intensive world, the work of SSP is more relevant than ever.
SSP went a step further than previous efforts to document mass killings, seeking to identify the indicators needed to predict them so that information could be shared before they happened. As Raymond told me by phone, “We went into SSP believing we could standardize the observable patterns that would happen in certain kinds of atrocities and create a new forensics.” This is possible because, as Raymond explained, “there’s a logistical ground pattern required to kill a lot of people.” It was a chilling reminder of just how systematic such atrocities are. And in today’s world, the prepositioning of troops and equipment necessary for a massacre is not only predictable; it’s also “entirely visible from space.”
SSP was largely successful in its predictive goals. The Harvard Humanitarian Initiative’s report on the pilot phase of the project makes for grim but impressive reading about large-scale violence that was predicted before it happened, recorded in almost real time as it occurred, and further documented as the perpetrators, to varying degrees, attempted to conceal it. The analysis was accurate and prescient enough that the report quotes Rebecca Hamilton, a former special correspondent for the Washington Post in Sudan and a fellow at the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting, as calling the attack on Abyei “perhaps the most clearly forecast crisis in history.”
But if the complex alignment of targeted tasking of satellites and expertise-based human analysis of data was successful, the impact of the project was not what its founders had hoped for. Raymond said one of the learnings from SSP was that “documentation is no substitute for political will.” In one case—the attack on Kadugli in 2011—the documentation did force the U.S. government to admit there were grounds for investigation, but the groundbreaking work of SSP led to very little change in the humanitarian community’s response to the documented, and even predicted, horrors.
In retrospect, it seems almost naive to imagine it would. But in 2010 Bashir had just been indicted by the ICC, and Responsibility to Protect (R2P), a doctrine urging accountability for the violence of states against their own citizens, had just garnered a U.N. secretary-general report. Governments and the international community claimed that they needed evidence to act; it made sense to provide that evidence.
There was another factor in that optimism as well, one that sounds very familiar today amid tech buzzwords thrown around in the promise of transformative initiatives. In a 2017 paper in Genocide Studies and Prevention, Raymond and co-author Kristin Bergtora Sandvik call this “technology optimism,” an often implicit belief that the use of information and communication technologies has “an inherently Ambient Protective Effect (APE); i.e. casually transforming the threat matrix of a particular atrocity producing environment in a way that improves the human security status of targeted populations.” As with surveillance cameras in public areas, there is an assumption among some sectors of the population that they will make the situation better by their mere existence, that the act of surveilling itself will prevent bad things from happening. In fact, the reverse can happen. In a 2016 dissertation paper studying Amnesty International’s Eyes on Darfur project, Grant Gordon found that “Amnesty’s advocacy effort was associated with between a 15 and 20 percentage point increase in violence in monitored areas.”
Faced with lack of political will to act on the data it provided, SSP adjusted its theory of change. “Not doing it publicly was a key lesson,” Raymond said. “It was a decision support tool, not an advocacy tool.” The analysis worked—so successfully that SSP has since taught its predictive techniques to groups such as the World Food Program—but it didn’t galvanize either government or public action the way the project had hoped.
The success of the program also led to another insight, one that Raymond believes is even more crucial. As the team realized that they could accomplish what they set out to accomplish—a new form of data that was predictive—they also started to understand that they were working without an ethical net. The idea of primum non nocere, or first, do no harm, is commonly associated with medicine, but it is also the basis for an important humanitarian principle, do no harm. However, as Raymond said, “First you must know the harm before you cannot do the harm.” The kind of work SSP was doing was so far outside of the existing strands of information ethics—primarily focused on individual privacy on the one hand and the limits established by the Nuremberg tribunals on violation of agency on the other—that it had no framework yet for figuring out where the limits were.
“It was seen as beneficent, but we had no standard for nonmaleficence,” Raymond said. “There was no tort standard by which they could conceivably sue us. What we did there for good, anyone else could do for any reason.”
This is a quintessential modern quandary. As data technology is racing ahead of regulation and common awareness, governments, companies, and individuals lack the ethical tools needed to decide where the lines are, much less how to hold transgressors accountable. Individuals have enough trouble figuring out what Facebook or Google or Apple has done with its data; deciding whether those actions are merely irresponsible or negligent or actively wrong is a problem that we don’t have any framework for solving.
Many of SSP’s former staff have turned their attention to these ethical questions. The article Raymond wrote with Sandvik, for example, proposes a theory of harm for the use of information communication technologies in mass atrocity response. But, like the urgent data that SSP collected, it is likely to take these ethical innovations some time to have an impact on the organizations and people for whom they are most important.
The Harvard Humanitarian Initiative report cites Clooney himself asking, at the beginning of the project, “why any person could use Google Earth to see his house in Los Angeles but could not see images of the deteriorating situation in the Sudan border region.” In a 2013 Guardian article, Clooney commented on his “keeping an eye on” Bashir: “Then he puts out a statement saying that I’m spying on him and how would I like it if a camera was following me everywhere I went and I go, ‘Well, welcome to my life, Mr. War Criminal.’ I want the war criminal to have the same amount of attention that I get. I think that’s fair.” As a movie star, Clooney was intimately aware of the potential of surveillance. The problem was not the lack of technology. The problem was, and continues to be, where the West decides to put its attention.


foreignpolicy--2020-01-23--World Leaders Mark Auschwitz Liberation Without Poland

Here is today ’ s Foreign Policy brief : World leaders are in Jerusalem to mark the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz , China locks down the city of Wuhan amid fears of coronavirus as millions of Chinese prepare to travel for Lunar New Year , and opening arguments continue in Trump ’ s impeachment trial .
If you would like to receive Morning Brief in your inbox every weekday , please sign up here .
World leaders have gathered in Jerusalem today to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz , with U.S. Vice President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Britain ’ s Prince Charles , and French President Emmanuel Macron speaking at the Holocaust memorial , Yad Vashem .
There is one notable absence : Polish President Andrzej Duda , who declined to attend because Putin was given a speaking slot as a leader of a main Allied power .
Russia and Poland are embroiled in a disagreement over how World War II began , and particularly over the Soviet Union ’ s 1939 nonaggression pact with Germany .
On Monday , Duda will lead another ceremony at the site of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not invited .
The feud has cast a shadow over the commemoration , where Israel hoped to present a united front against anti-Semitism .
What is the feud about ?
In recent months , Putin ’ s government has downplayed parts of the Soviet Union ’ s World War II legacy—such as attacking Poland from the east as Germany attacked it from the west in 1939—and highlighted its role in the liberation of Poland from the Nazis .
That ’ s led Poland to accuse Russia of rewriting history .
Putin last month @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of war—remarks that were unusual even by his standards .
While Putin has clearly done some archival research , his historical revisionism wouldn ’ t earn him a passing grade at any reputable university , Sergey Radchenko argues in FP .
What about Polish revisionism ?
Poland , meanwhile , has faced criticism that it is ignoring the role of some Poles who aided the Nazis .
Indeed , the Polish government ’ s own questioning of Poles ’ role in the Holocaust—and its effort to criminalize any mention of Polish responsibility—led to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and prompted Israel ’ s foreign minister to declare that Poles “ suckle anti-Semitism with their mother ’ s milk.
” Historical memory .
At a state dinner in Jerusalem on Wednesday , speakers urged those in attendance to unite in the fight against modern anti-Semitism .
There has been speculation that the event in Israel is biased because it was organized by a Russian-Jewish billionaire with ties to Putin .
Avner Shalev , the chairman of Yad Vashem , denied those rumors .
“ We ’ re in the business of historical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York Times .
“ We don ’ t want to play any political game.
” Lunar New Year kicks off amid virus crisis .
Wuhan , China ’ s seventh largest city—with approximately 11 million people—faces a partial quarantine from 10 a.m. Chinese time today , according to a newly issued government notice .
Flights , long-haul buses , and trains from the city , have been canceled .
The closure of a major transport hub comes as hundreds of millions of Chinese begin traveling for the Lunar New Year .
Already some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ avoid public spaces .
On Wednesday , Chinese officials confirmed more 544 cases of the virus and 17 deaths within China , with the virus now spreading beyond the country ’ s borders .
Five other countries have also reported cases , and airports around the world have stepped up screening of travelers from China .
The World Health Organization will decide today whether to declare a global emergency in response to the virus .
Chinese pressure has kept Taiwan out of that meeting—despite the fact that Taiwan has been affected by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For more news and analysis on stories like this , sign up for China Brief , delivered on Wednesdays .
Opening arguments continue in the U.S. Senate .
Opening arguments by House prosecutors in U.S. President Donald Trump ’ s impeachment trial continue today in the Senate .
They have been granted 24 hours over three days to lay out their case , which hinges on the allegation that the president withheld military aid to Ukraine to pressure it to investigate a political rival .
Trump ’ s lawyers pushed for a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not likely to dismiss the case before hearing arguments .
Votes will be held next week over whether to admit new evidence .
Newly released documents show that some senior Republican senators—who are now sitting as jurors—were already questioning the Trump administration ’ s decision to withhold the military aid , FP ’ s Robbie Gramer reports .
ICJ issues a decision in Myanmar case .
The International Court of Justice decides today whether to grant a request for emergency measures in a case that alleges Myanmar is committing genocide against the Rohingya @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s ruling on “ provisional measures ” to stop further atrocities would be the first step in a legal case expected to take years .
The lawsuit was brought to the ICJ by Gambia in November with the backing of the Organization for Islamic Cooperation .
The plot to hack Jeff Bezos .
U.N. experts say they have evidence indicating the “ possible involvement ” of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in an alleged hack against a phone belonging to Amazon chief and Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos in 2018 .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to investigate the allegations , based on a report that suggests a malicious file was sent to Bezos from a WhatsApp account used by Mohammed bin Salman .
Italy ’ s ruling coalition .
The leader of Italy ’ s Five Star Movement , Luigi Di Maio , resigned on Wednesday amid internal disagreements .
The move increased the chances of another political crisis in Italy , where far-right leader Matteo Salvini is pushing for early elections .
Salvini ’ s League party faces a major electoral test on Sunday in the region @ @ @ @ @ @ @ veterans ’ criticism of Trump .
On Wednesday , Trump seemed to brush off injuries sustained by U.S. troops during Iran ’ s strike on a military base in Iraq earlier this month .
The service members are being evaluated for possible traumatic brain injuries , and Trump ’ s remarks immediately drew criticism from veterans ’ advocates , FP ’ s Lara Seligman reports .
FP Analytics Report—Introducing Power Maps by FP Analytics , a whole new way to explore and understand complex geopolitical issues like 5G .
5G Explained : Technology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ key players and relative influence in 5G , the competitive global landscape , risks and opportunities , and much more .
Dive into this first installment of a three-part series .
Available exclusively to FP Insider subscribers .
Across Bolivia , the interim government is removing references to former President Evo Morales , who held office for 14 years and stepped down in November under pressure .
Murals have been painted over , soccer stadiums renamed , and statues toppled in attempt to undo what interim President Jeanine Áñez has called a “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world ’ s Doomsday Clock is up for its annual adjustment today , when the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists decides whether the world is moving closer to its end , considering threats from nuclear war and climate change .
The metaphorical clock is already set at two minutes to midnight—the closest it ’ s ever been .
The group did not move the minute hand last year .
For more from FP , visit foreignpolicy.com , subscribe here , or sign up for our other newsletters .
Send your tips , comments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foreignpolicy.com .

Here is today’s Foreign Policy brief: World leaders are in Jerusalem to mark the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz , China locks down the city of Wuhan amid fears of coronavirus as millions of Chinese prepare to travel for Lunar New Year , and opening arguments continue in Trump’s impeachment trial .
Here is today’s Foreign Policy brief: World leaders are in Jerusalem to mark the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, China locks down the city of Wuhan amid fears of coronavirus as millions of Chinese prepare to travel for Lunar New Year, and opening arguments continue in Trump’s impeachment trial.
If you would like to receive Morning Brief in your inbox every weekday, please sign up here.
World Leaders Gather in Jerusalem Amid Poland-Russia Feud
World leaders have gathered in Jerusalem today to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, with U.S. Vice President Mike Pence, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Britain’s Prince Charles, and French President Emmanuel Macron speaking at the Holocaust memorial, Yad Vashem. There is one notable absence: Polish President Andrzej Duda, who declined to attend because Putin was given a speaking slot as a leader of a main Allied power.
Russia and Poland are embroiled in a disagreement over how World War II began, and particularly over the Soviet Union’s 1939 nonaggression pact with Germany. On Monday, Duda will lead another ceremony at the site of the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp—to which Putin was not invited. The feud has cast a shadow over the commemoration, where Israel hoped to present a united front against anti-Semitism.
What is the feud about? In recent months, Putin’s government has downplayed parts of the Soviet Union’s World War II legacy—such as attacking Poland from the east as Germany attacked it from the west in 1939—and highlighted its role in the liberation of Poland from the Nazis. That’s led Poland to accuse Russia of rewriting history.
Putin last month appeared to blame Poland for the outbreak of war—remarks that were unusual even by his standards. While Putin has clearly done some archival research, his historical revisionism wouldn’t earn him a passing grade at any reputable university, Sergey Radchenko argues in FP.
What about Polish revisionism? Poland, meanwhile, has faced criticism that it is ignoring the role of some Poles who aided the Nazis. Indeed, the Polish government’s own questioning of Poles’ role in the Holocaust—and its effort to criminalize any mention of Polish responsibility—led to a diplomatic standoff with Israel last year and prompted Israel’s foreign minister to declare that Poles “suckle anti-Semitism with their mother’s milk.”
Historical memory. At a state dinner in Jerusalem on Wednesday, speakers urged those in attendance to unite in the fight against modern anti-Semitism. There has been speculation that the event in Israel is biased because it was organized by a Russian-Jewish billionaire with ties to Putin. Avner Shalev, the chairman of Yad Vashem, denied those rumors. “We’re in the business of historical truth,” he told the New York Times. “We don’t want to play any political game.”
What We’re Following Today
Lunar New Year kicks off amid virus crisis. Wuhan, China’s seventh largest city—with approximately 11 million people—faces a partial quarantine from 10 a.m. Chinese time today, according to a newly issued government notice. Flights, long-haul buses, and trains from the city, have been canceled. The closure of a major transport hub comes as hundreds of millions of Chinese begin traveling for the Lunar New Year. Already some people have canceled trips or planned to avoid public spaces.
On Wednesday, Chinese officials confirmed more 544 cases of the virus and 17 deaths within China, with the virus now spreading beyond the country’s borders. Five other countries have also reported cases, and airports around the world have stepped up screening of travelers from China.
The World Health Organization will decide today whether to declare a global emergency in response to the virus. Chinese pressure has kept Taiwan out of that meeting—despite the fact that Taiwan has been affected by the virus, Natasha Kassam writes for FP.
For more news and analysis on stories like this, sign up for China Brief, delivered on Wednesdays.
Opening arguments continue in the U.S. Senate. Opening arguments by House prosecutors in U.S. President Donald Trump’s impeachment trial continue today in the Senate. They have been granted 24 hours over three days to lay out their case, which hinges on the allegation that the president withheld military aid to Ukraine to pressure it to investigate a political rival. Trump’s lawyers pushed for a speedy trial, but Republican senators are not likely to dismiss the case before hearing arguments. Votes will be held next week over whether to admit new evidence.
Newly released documents show that some senior Republican senators—who are now sitting as jurors—were already questioning the Trump administration’s decision to withhold the military aid, FP’s Robbie Gramer reports.
ICJ issues a decision in Myanmar case. The International Court of Justice decides today whether to grant a request for emergency measures in a case that alleges Myanmar is committing genocide against the Rohingya Muslim minority. The U.N. court’s ruling on “provisional measures” to stop further atrocities would be the first step in a legal case expected to take years. The lawsuit was brought to the ICJ by Gambia in November with the backing of the Organization for Islamic Cooperation.
Keep an Eye On
The plot to hack Jeff Bezos. U.N. experts say they have evidence indicating the “possible involvement” of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in an alleged hack against a phone belonging to Amazon chief and Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos in 2018. The experts are now urging the United States to investigate the allegations, based on a report that suggests a malicious file was sent to Bezos from a WhatsApp account used by Mohammed bin Salman.
Italy’s ruling coalition. The leader of Italy’s Five Star Movement, Luigi Di Maio, resigned on Wednesday amid internal disagreements. The move increased the chances of another political crisis in Italy, where far-right leader Matteo Salvini is pushing for early elections. Salvini’s League party faces a major electoral test on Sunday in the region of Emilia-Romagna—traditionally a leftist stronghold.
U.S. veterans’ criticism of Trump. On Wednesday, Trump seemed to brush off injuries sustained by U.S. troops during Iran’s strike on a military base in Iraq earlier this month. The service members are being evaluated for possible traumatic brain injuries, and Trump’s remarks immediately drew criticism from veterans’ advocates, FP’s Lara Seligman reports.
FP Analytics Report—Introducing Power Maps by FP Analytics, a whole new way to explore and understand complex geopolitical issues like 5G. 5G Explained: Technology and Infrastructure delivers an in-depth mapping of key players and relative influence in 5G, the competitive global landscape, risks and opportunities, and much more. Dive into this first installment of a three-part series. Available exclusively to FP Insider subscribers.
Odds and Ends
Across Bolivia, the interim government is removing references to former President Evo Morales, who held office for 14 years and stepped down in November under pressure. Murals have been painted over, soccer stadiums renamed, and statues toppled in attempt to undo what interim President Jeanine Áñez has called a “personality cult” around Morales.
The world’s Doomsday Clock is up for its annual adjustment today, when the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists decides whether the world is moving closer to its end, considering threats from nuclear war and climate change. The metaphorical clock is already set at two minutes to midnight—the closest it’s ever been. The group did not move the minute hand last year.
That’s it for today.
For more from FP, visit foreignpolicy.com, subscribe here, or sign up for our other newsletters. Send your tips, comments, questions, or corrections to morningbrief@foreignpolicy.com.