On Freedom
by Timothy Snyder
Timothy Snyder’s On Freedom is an ambitious attempt to redefine one of the most fundamental concepts in political philosophy. As one of the most respected contemporary historians, Snyder has made a career out of explaining the complexities of power, violence, and freedom in works like Bloodlands and The Road to Unfreedom. With On Freedom, he shifts from the historical to the philosophical, seeking to explore the very nature of freedom, not just as an absence of oppression but as a collective project rooted in responsibility, solidarity, and the construction of enabling structures.
While Snyder offers a refreshing and engaging take on freedom, this review will argue that his book stumbles when applied to real-world conflicts, particularly the war in Ukraine. In Snyder’s attempt to present Ukraine’s fight against Russia as a quintessential struggle for freedom, he oversimplifies the conflict, rendering it a moralistic battle between good and evil, while ignoring the deeper geopolitical and strategic dimensions.
The Scope of On Freedom
Snyder’s central argument in On Freedom is that true freedom is not merely the absence of oppression but something far more positive and proactive. He distinguishes between what is often referred to as “negative freedom” (freedom from external constraints or oppression) and “positive freedom” (the ability to act on one’s own behalf, with the support of a well-functioning society and the necessary structures to live a dignified life). Snyder writes, “Freedom is not something we have when we do nothing. Freedom is something we build with others.”
This idea of positive freedom echoes the philosophical traditions of thinkers like Isaiah Berlin and Hannah Arendt, but Snyder pushes the concept further. For him, freedom cannot exist in isolation or simply as an individual condition. Rather, it is inherently a collective endeavor, one that requires cooperation, responsibility, and the creation of supportive systems. Snyder frames this in the context of modern democracies, arguing that “freedom requires both personal responsibility and public engagement. To be free, we need to build institutions that allow for collective self-determination.”
On a theoretical level, this vision is compelling. Snyder emphasizes that freedom is not static but dynamic and evolving, something that needs constant nurturing and renewal. However, his application of this theory to contemporary events, particularly the war in Ukraine, is where the limitations of his argument become evident.
The Ukraine Conflict: A Simplified Narrative
Snyder’s portrayal of the war in Ukraine represents one of the central critiques of On Freedom. Throughout the book, he refers to Ukraine’s struggle against Russian aggression as a clear example of a fight for freedom. He argues that Ukraine is a symbol of democratic resistance, and its battle against Russia is, at its core, a confrontation between liberty and tyranny. “Ukraine’s resistance,” Snyder writes, “is the frontline in the global defense of democracy. The fate of freedom in the 21st century will be determined on the battlefields of Ukraine.”
While Snyder’s passion for Ukraine’s cause is evident, this framing is overly simplistic and problematic. He reduces a complex geopolitical conflict to a moral dichotomy: Ukraine as the bastion of freedom, Russia as the oppressor. This narrative disregards the larger historical, political, and strategic factors that have contributed to the war.
First, Snyder’s portrayal neglects Russia’s longstanding concerns about NATO’s eastward expansion. For decades, Russia has viewed NATO’s growth as a direct threat to its security. As NATO incorporated former Soviet states, the Kremlin perceived this as an encroachment on its sphere of influence. This fear of encirclement has been a consistent theme in Russian foreign policy, influencing its actions in Ukraine. Snyder, however, glosses over these concerns, presenting Russia’s aggression as unprovoked and devoid of historical context.
Snyder paints NATO’s involvement as purely defensive, aimed at protecting democratic values. “The expansion of NATO,” he claims, “was a necessary response to the rise of authoritarian regimes in the East. It is a protective shield for the freedoms we cherish.”. Yet, this perspective ignores how NATO’s actions have been interpreted by Russia and others as a form of Western imperialism. It also overlooks the fact that the West’s involvement in Ukraine is not entirely altruistic; Western powers have their own strategic interests in maintaining influence in Eastern Europe.
Second, Snyder’s idealization of Ukraine as a bastion of democracy ignores the internal challenges the country faces. Ukraine has long struggled with issues of corruption, oligarchic control, and economic instability—factors that complicate the simplistic narrative of a democratic David against an authoritarian Goliath. By focusing solely on Ukraine’s resistance to Russian aggression, Snyder overlooks these structural problems, which are critical to understanding the country’s political reality.
Positive Freedom in a War-Torn Ukraine
One of Snyder’s key contributions in On Freedom is his discussion of positive freedom—the idea that true freedom requires the construction of institutions and structures that enable individuals to thrive. However, applying this concept to Ukraine’s current situation reveals the limitations of Snyder’s argument. While positive freedom may be a laudable goal, it is difficult to achieve in a country ravaged by war.
Ukraine’s resources are currently stretched thin as it fights for survival against a more powerful adversary. The country is economically devastated, and millions of Ukrainians have been displaced. In this context, Snyder’s call for Ukraine to build democratic institutions and ensure positive freedom for its citizens seems utopian, if not outright unrealistic. As Snyder himself acknowledges, “Freedom requires not only an absence of oppression but the presence of enabling structures.”. But how can Ukraine focus on building these structures when it is under siege and struggling to maintain basic order?
Furthermore, Snyder’s assumption that freedom naturally emerges from resistance to oppression is overly optimistic. While Ukraine’s fight against Russian aggression may be framed as a struggle for freedom, it is far from certain that the outcome of the war will result in a flourishing democracy. As history has shown, wars often lead to further instability, authoritarianism, or even the collapse of state institutions. Snyder’s failure to address this potential outcome is a significant oversight in his argument.
The Absence of Diplomatic Compromise
Perhaps one of the most glaring weaknesses in Snyder’s argument is his failure to consider the importance of diplomatic compromise in resolving conflicts like the one in Ukraine. Throughout On Freedom, Snyder seems to suggest that freedom is a value worth fighting for at all costs, even to the point of total military victory. He writes, “Freedom must be defended with every means available. Compromise is not an option when the stakes are this high.”
This absolutist stance is troubling, especially when applied to a war as dangerous and volatile as the one in Ukraine. In reality, very few conflicts end in total victory for one side. Most wars, particularly those involving major powers like Russia, are resolved through negotiation and compromise. Snyder’s dismissal of this possibility reflects a dangerous idealism that could prolong the conflict and lead to even greater destruction.
Moreover, Snyder underestimates the risks of escalation, particularly the possibility of a nuclear confrontation. Russia is a nuclear power, and any prolonged conflict with the West increases the likelihood of miscalculations or unintended escalation. By framing the Ukraine conflict as an existential struggle for freedom, Snyder ignores the potential consequences of continuing the war without seeking diplomatic solutions. As scholars of international relations like John Mearsheimer have argued, “the West’s refusal to engage in serious diplomatic efforts with Russia could lead to catastrophic outcomes, including the risk of nuclear war” (Mearsheimer, The Great Delusion).
Snyder’s failure to acknowledge this reality is a critical flaw in his argument. While freedom is undoubtedly an important value, it must be balanced with the need for security and stability. Diplomatic compromise may not be an ideal solution, but it is often the only way to prevent further bloodshed and ensure a lasting peace.
Idealism Versus Realism
On Freedom is an intellectually stimulating book that offers valuable insights into the nature of freedom in the modern world. Snyder’s call for a more nuanced and proactive understanding of freedom is both timely and important, particularly in an era where democracy is under threat in many parts of the world. However, when applied to the real-world context of the Ukraine conflict, Snyder’s arguments falter.
His portrayal of Ukraine’s fight against Russia as a clear-cut struggle between freedom and oppression is overly simplistic, ignoring the geopolitical complexities that have contributed to the war. His vision of positive freedom, while compelling in theory, is unrealistic in the context of a war-torn Ukraine. Most troubling of all, Snyder’s failure to consider the importance of diplomatic compromise and the risks of nuclear escalation reflects a dangerous idealism that could have catastrophic consequences.
On Freedom succeeds as a philosophical exploration of freedom, but its application to contemporary conflicts like Ukraine reveals the limits of Snyder’s idealism. Freedom is an important value, but it must be balanced with the realities of power, security, and the need for pragmatic solutions to avoid greater devastation.
