On Freedom

by Timothy Snyder

Freedom is not just an absence of evil but a presence of good.

Freedom is not just an absence of evil but a presence of good.

Russians kill children with missiles, and kidnap them for assimilation. But the absence of these crimes is not enough; de-occupation is not enough. Children need places to play, run, and swim, to practice being themselves. A child cannot create a park or a swimming pool. The joy of youth is to discover such things in the world. It takes collective work to build structures of freedom, for the young as for the old.

Russians kill children with missiles, and kidnap them for assimilation. But the absence of these crimes is not enough; de-occupation is not enough. Children need places to play, run, and swim, to practice being themselves. A child cannot create a park or a swimming pool. The joy of youth is to discover such things in the world. It takes collective work to build structures of freedom, for the young as for the old.

When asked what they meant by freedom, not a single person with whom I spoke specified freedom from the Russians. One Ukrainian told me, “When we say freedom, we do not mean ‘freedom from something.’ ” Another defined victory as being “for something, not against something.” The occupiers had gotten in the way of a sense that the world was opening up, that the next generation would have a better life, that decisions made now would matter in years to come. It was essential to remove repression, to gain what philosophers call “negative freedom.” But de-occupation, the removal of harm, was just a necessary condition for freedom, not the thing itself. A soldier in a rehabilitation center told me that freedom was about everyone having a chance to fulfill their own purposes after the war. A veteran awaiting a prosthesis said that freedom would be a smile on his son’s face. A young soldier on leave said that freedom was about the children he would like to have. Their commander in his hidden staff room, Valeriy Zaluzhnyi, told me that freedom meant a normal life with prospects. Freedom was a future when some things were the same and others were better. It was life expanding and growing.

When asked what they meant by freedom, not a single person with whom I spoke specified freedom from the Russians. One Ukrainian told me, “When we say freedom, we do not mean ‘freedom from something.’ ” Another defined victory as being “for something, not against something.” The occupiers had gotten in the way of a sense that the world was opening up, that the next generation would have a better life, that decisions made now would matter in years to come. It was essential to remove repression, to gain what philosophers call “negative freedom.” But de-occupation, the removal of harm, was just a necessary condition for freedom, not the thing itself. A soldier in a rehabilitation center told me that freedom was about everyone having a chance to fulfill their own purposes after the war. A veteran awaiting a prosthesis said that freedom would be a smile on his son’s face. A young soldier on leave said that freedom was about the children he would like to have. Their commander in his hidden staff room, Valeriy Zaluzhnyi, told me that freedom meant a normal life with prospects. Freedom was a future when some things were the same and others were better. It was life expanding and growing.

If we want to be free, we will have to affirm, not just deny. Sometimes we will have to destroy, but more often we will need to create. Most often we will need to adapt both the world and ourselves, on the basis of what we know and value. We need structures, just the right ones, moral as well as political. Virtue is an inseparable part of freedom.

If we want to be free, we will have to affirm, not just deny. Sometimes we will have to destroy, but more often we will need to create. Most often we will need to adapt both the world and ourselves, on the basis of what we know and value. We need structures, just the right ones, moral as well as political. Virtue is an inseparable part of freedom.

No larger force makes us free, nor does the absence of such a larger force. Nature gives us a chance to be free, nothing less, nothing more. We are told that we are “born free”: untrue. We are born squalling, attached to an umbilical cord, covered in a woman’s blood. Whether we become free depends upon the actions of others, upon the structures that enable those actions, upon the values that enliven those structures—and only then upon a flicker of spontaneity and the courage of our own choices.

No larger force makes us free, nor does the absence of such a larger force. Nature gives us a chance to be free, nothing less, nothing more. We are told that we are “born free”: untrue. We are born squalling, attached to an umbilical cord, covered in a woman’s blood. Whether we become free depends upon the actions of others, upon the structures that enable those actions, upon the values that enliven those structures—and only then upon a flicker of spontaneity and the courage of our own choices.

The structures that hinder or enable are physical and moral. It matters how we speak and think about freedom. Liberty begins with de-occupying our minds from the wrong ideas. And there are right and wrong ideas. In a world of relativism and cowardice, freedom is the absolute among absolutes, the value of values. This is not because freedom is the one good thing to which all others must bow. It is because freedom is the condition in which all the good things can flow within us and among us. Nor is it because freedom is a vacuum left by a dead God or an empty world. Freedom is not an absence but a presence, a life in which we choose multiple commitments and realize combinations of them in the world. Virtues are real, as real as the starry heavens; when we are free, we learn them, exhibit them, bring them to life. Over time, our choices among virtues define us as people of will and individuality.

The structures that hinder or enable are physical and moral. It matters how we speak and think about freedom. Liberty begins with de-occupying our minds from the wrong ideas. And there are right and wrong ideas. In a world of relativism and cowardice, freedom is the absolute among absolutes, the value of values. This is not because freedom is the one good thing to which all others must bow. It is because freedom is the condition in which all the good things can flow within us and among us. Nor is it because freedom is a vacuum left by a dead God or an empty world. Freedom is not an absence but a presence, a life in which we choose multiple commitments and realize combinations of them in the world. Virtues are real, as real as the starry heavens; when we are free, we learn them, exhibit them, bring them to life. Over time, our choices among virtues define us as people of will and individuality.

When we assume that freedom is negative, the absence of this or that, we presume that removing a barrier is all that we have to do to be free. To this way of thinking, freedom is the default condition of the universe, brought to us by some larger force when we clear the way. This is naïve.

When we assume that freedom is negative, the absence of this or that, we presume that removing a barrier is all that we have to do to be free. To this way of thinking, freedom is the default condition of the universe, brought to us by some larger force when we clear the way. This is naïve.

Americans are told that we were given freedom by our Founding Fathers, our national character, or our capitalist economy. None of this is true. Freedom cannot be given. It is not an inheritance. We call America a “free country,” but no country is free. Noting a difference between the rhetoric of the oppressors and the oppressed, the dissident Eritrean poet Y. F. Mebrahtu reports that “they talk about the country, we talk about the people.” Only people can be free. If we believe something else makes us free, we never learn what we must do. The moment you believe that freedom is given, it is gone.

Americans are told that we were given freedom by our Founding Fathers, our national character, or our capitalist economy. None of this is true. Freedom cannot be given. It is not an inheritance. We call America a “free country,” but no country is free. Noting a difference between the rhetoric of the oppressors and the oppressed, the dissident Eritrean poet Y. F. Mebrahtu reports that “they talk about the country, we talk about the people.” Only people can be free. If we believe something else makes us free, we never learn what we must do. The moment you believe that freedom is given, it is gone.

Freedom and security work together. The preamble of the Constitution instructs that “the blessings of liberty” are to be pursued alongside “the general welfare” and “the common defense.” We must have liberty and safety. For people to be free, they must feel secure, especially as children. They must have a chance to know one another and the world. Then, as they become free people, they decide what risks to take, and for what reasons.

Freedom and security work together. The preamble of the Constitution instructs that “the blessings of liberty” are to be pursued alongside “the general welfare” and “the common defense.” We must have liberty and safety. For people to be free, they must feel secure, especially as children. They must have a chance to know one another and the world. Then, as they become free people, they decide what risks to take, and for what reasons.

Freedom is about knowing what we value and bringing it to life.

Freedom is about knowing what we value and bringing it to life.

We enable freedom not by rejecting government, but by affirming freedom as the guide to good government. Reasoning forward from the right definition of freedom, I believe, will get us to the right sort of government.

We enable freedom not by rejecting government, but by affirming freedom as the guide to good government. Reasoning forward from the right definition of freedom, I believe, will get us to the right sort of government.

freedom is felt in one lifetime, but it must be the work of generations. The five forms are: sovereignty, or the learned capacity to make choices; unpredictability, the power to adapt physical regularities to personal purposes; mobility, the capacity to move through space and time following values; factuality, the grip on the world that allows us to change it; and solidarity, the recognition that freedom is for everyone.

freedom is felt in one lifetime, but it must be the work of generations. The five forms are: sovereignty, or the learned capacity to make choices; unpredictability, the power to adapt physical regularities to personal purposes; mobility, the capacity to move through space and time following values; factuality, the grip on the world that allows us to change it; and solidarity, the recognition that freedom is for everyone.

Freedom is positive; getting words around it, like living it, is an act of creation.

Freedom is positive; getting words around it, like living it, is an act of creation.

It might at first seem logical that freedom is an absence and seem fair that the government should leave each of us equally alone. This intuition draws its plausibility from a history of exploitation. Traditionally, some people have regarded themselves as free because they exploit the labor of slaves and women. Those who believe themselves free because they dominate others define freedom negatively, as the absence of government, because only a government could emancipate the slaves or enfranchise the women. The conflation of a Liberty Bell with the American Revolution dodges the issue of what freedom is, and for whom that bell tolls.

It might at first seem logical that freedom is an absence and seem fair that the government should leave each of us equally alone. This intuition draws its plausibility from a history of exploitation. Traditionally, some people have regarded themselves as free because they exploit the labor of slaves and women. Those who believe themselves free because they dominate others define freedom negatively, as the absence of government, because only a government could emancipate the slaves or enfranchise the women. The conflation of a Liberty Bell with the American Revolution dodges the issue of what freedom is, and for whom that bell tolls.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and left the United States poorer, less secure, and less trusted. That war was an adventure in negative freedom, waged to create an absence. Destroying the Iraqi state and dissolving the ruling party and army, it was assumed, would automatically bring capitalism and democracy. It did not. The war strengthened Iran and created a series of security problems that extended deep into the new century.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and left the United States poorer, less secure, and less trusted. That war was an adventure in negative freedom, waged to create an absence. Destroying the Iraqi state and dissolving the ruling party and army, it was assumed, would automatically bring capitalism and democracy. It did not. The war strengthened Iran and created a series of security problems that extended deep into the new century.

During my first spring at Yale, I was invited to a meeting where a major international hydrocarbon firm was being advised about Russia. A colleague with experience at high levels of government said that U.S. policy was grounded in the assumption that capitalism would bring democracy to both Russia and China. I said that this was absurd. I was not invited to such meetings for a while.

During my first spring at Yale, I was invited to a meeting where a major international hydrocarbon firm was being advised about Russia. A colleague with experience at high levels of government said that U.S. policy was grounded in the assumption that capitalism would bring democracy to both Russia and China. I said that this was absurd. I was not invited to such meetings for a while.

Before and during the invasion, Moscow’s propaganda slandered Ukraine and Ukrainians. The basis of the attack was not evidence or even ideology, but rather estimations of what would arouse negative emotions in consumers of social media. Knowing something about what people believed about the world, Russia could target specific vulnerabilities. Considered in their totality, Russia’s claims about Ukraine were contradictory: there was no Ukrainian language, but the Ukrainian state was making everyone speak it; the Ukrainian state did not exist but was repressive; Ukrainians were all Nazis, but they were also gays and Jews. I was living in Vienna at the time and was in contact with Ukrainian friends and colleagues. The simple fact that Russia had invaded a neighboring country got lost in social media. Americans and others wasted outrage on phantoms even as a real war of aggression began.

Before and during the invasion, Moscow’s propaganda slandered Ukraine and Ukrainians. The basis of the attack was not evidence or even ideology, but rather estimations of what would arouse negative emotions in consumers of social media. Knowing something about what people believed about the world, Russia could target specific vulnerabilities. Considered in their totality, Russia’s claims about Ukraine were contradictory: there was no Ukrainian language, but the Ukrainian state was making everyone speak it; the Ukrainian state did not exist but was repressive; Ukrainians were all Nazis, but they were also gays and Jews. I was living in Vienna at the time and was in contact with Ukrainian friends and colleagues. The simple fact that Russia had invaded a neighboring country got lost in social media. Americans and others wasted outrage on phantoms even as a real war of aggression began.

The invasion of Ukraine demonstrated the fallacy of economic determinism: oligarchic Russia was an aggressive empire, not an emerging democracy. For people who believed that freedom was negative, Russian nihilism did not seem hazardous. It was, of course. Any vacuum of facts and values will be filled with spectacle and war. The fascist nature of the Russian regime ought to have been clear well before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

The invasion of Ukraine demonstrated the fallacy of economic determinism: oligarchic Russia was an aggressive empire, not an emerging democracy. For people who believed that freedom was negative, Russian nihilism did not seem hazardous. It was, of course. Any vacuum of facts and values will be filled with spectacle and war. The fascist nature of the Russian regime ought to have been clear well before Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Donald Trump, Putin’s submissive client, is a hero of negative freedom, wealthy through undertaxed inheritance and comfortable denying everything. In 2018 he traveled to Helsinki and told the world that he trusted a Russian dictator more than his American advisers. In 2019 he tried to bully an elected Ukrainian president to get dirt on his rival in the coming presidential election. When Trump lost the election of 2020, he lied about the outcome and tried to stage a coup d’état to stay in power. Despite a constitutional ban on insurrectionists holding office, he purports to be running for president in 2024, keeping alive Putin’s hopes that he can win his war in Ukraine.

Donald Trump, Putin’s submissive client, is a hero of negative freedom, wealthy through undertaxed inheritance and comfortable denying everything. In 2018 he traveled to Helsinki and told the world that he trusted a Russian dictator more than his American advisers. In 2019 he tried to bully an elected Ukrainian president to get dirt on his rival in the coming presidential election. When Trump lost the election of 2020, he lied about the outcome and tried to stage a coup d’état to stay in power. Despite a constitutional ban on insurrectionists holding office, he purports to be running for president in 2024, keeping alive Putin’s hopes that he can win his war in Ukraine.

Without ideals, it is impossible to be a realist. If you forget about freedom, you misunderstand the world and change it for the worse.

Without ideals, it is impossible to be a realist. If you forget about freedom, you misunderstand the world and change it for the worse.

Like freedom in general, freedom of speech is not negative but positive, not about the barriers but the person, not about an absence but a presence. We protect free speakers because truth threatens the power of tyrants. Zelens’kyi was speaking truth amid the lies of Russian propagandists who claimed that he had abandoned the city. He was speaking his truth to power, because Russia was invading with terrifying force. Zelens’kyi was putting his body at risk for what he knew to be true. Indeed, it was what he was doing with his body—staying—that was the truth.

Like freedom in general, freedom of speech is not negative but positive, not about the barriers but the person, not about an absence but a presence. We protect free speakers because truth threatens the power of tyrants. Zelens’kyi was speaking truth amid the lies of Russian propagandists who claimed that he had abandoned the city. He was speaking his truth to power, because Russia was invading with terrifying force. Zelens’kyi was putting his body at risk for what he knew to be true. Indeed, it was what he was doing with his body—staying—that was the truth.

over time, beginning in youth, an accumulation of decisions makes us who we are. Then a moment comes when we do what we must because of what we have chosen to become. An unfree person can always try to run. But sometimes a free person has to stay. Free will is character.

over time, beginning in youth, an accumulation of decisions makes us who we are. Then a moment comes when we do what we must because of what we have chosen to become. An unfree person can always try to run. But sometimes a free person has to stay. Free will is character.

Empathy is not just some vague urging to be kind. Empathy is a precondition for certain knowledge of the world. The isolated individual, trying to contemplate the world alone, has no chance of understanding it.

Empathy is not just some vague urging to be kind. Empathy is a precondition for certain knowledge of the world. The isolated individual, trying to contemplate the world alone, has no chance of understanding it.

Does the American flag wave today? Most assuredly it does. This is the easy part. But does it fly over “the land of the free”? It is easy to imagine that freedom will be brought to us by a song, by jets over a stadium, by the land, by the ancestors, by the Founders, by capitalism. But is the notion that we are granted freedom right for a “home of the brave”? Is it not more courageous to ask what Americans have done, could have done, should do?

Does the American flag wave today? Most assuredly it does. This is the easy part. But does it fly over “the land of the free”? It is easy to imagine that freedom will be brought to us by a song, by jets over a stadium, by the land, by the ancestors, by the Founders, by capitalism. But is the notion that we are granted freedom right for a “home of the brave”? Is it not more courageous to ask what Americans have done, could have done, should do?

We say that a symbol stands for something, but all too often a symbol merely stands in for something. The American flag is supposed to stand for freedom, but it can very easily stand in for freedom. In singing the anthem, we treat its values as permanent, or as if they were enacted by song. But praise is not practice. By no meaningful index are Americans today among the freest peoples of the world. An American organization, Freedom House, measures freedom by the criteria Americans prefer: civil and political liberties. Year after year about fifty countries do better than us on these measures.

We say that a symbol stands for something, but all too often a symbol merely stands in for something. The American flag is supposed to stand for freedom, but it can very easily stand in for freedom. In singing the anthem, we treat its values as permanent, or as if they were enacted by song. But praise is not practice. By no meaningful index are Americans today among the freest peoples of the world. An American organization, Freedom House, measures freedom by the criteria Americans prefer: civil and political liberties. Year after year about fifty countries do better than us on these measures.