Roman Sheremeta explain how Putin lies about the Russian people in Donbas

Roman Sheremeta explain how Putin lies about the Russian people in Donbas.

It is a lie that “russian-speaking” Ukrainians want to be a part of russia.

The Kremlin has pushed a narrative that Ukraine is somehow split into a Ukrainian-speaking West and a russian-speaking East, and that people in those eastern parts should “decide for themselves” whether they want to remain part of Ukraine.

Let’s unpack why this is false on multiple levels.

1) There is no clear “russian-speaking region” with a separate identity.

The idea that Ukraine is clearly divided into Ukrainian-speaking and russian-speaking regions — and that these correspond to distinct peoples with distinct political identities — is a fabrication.

Language use in Ukraine was shaped over decades by Soviet-era policies of russification, not by some natural cultural division. Over time, russian became widely used in cities and industry due to political pressure and institutional incentives, not because people in the East suddenly became russians. Language in Ukraine has always been a gradient, not a hard border.

There is no abrupt linguistic line where one “people” ends and another begins — it’s a smooth transition from west to east that correlates with historical schooling, urbanization, and economic structures, not with an underlying “ethnic or political russian identity.”

Most importantly: speaking russian has never been equivalent to wanting to be part of russia.

2) When Ukraine became independent in 1991, people across the country overwhelmingly chose to be Ukrainian.

On December 1, 1991, Ukrainians voted in a nationwide referendum on independence. The question asked was: “Do you support the Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine?”

Over 90 % of those who voted said yes, affirming independence from the Soviet Union. Turnout was high — about 84 % of eligible voters participated.  

This was not just in western Ukraine — even in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, regions often cited by russian propaganda as “pro-russia,” the vote for independence was clear and substantial: 84% of people in Donetsk and Luhansk voted for Ukraine to be independent from russia.

Not a single region with significant populations said “no” to independence — even Crimea, the most contested region historically, voted majority for independence.  

3) There is no constitutional path for a region of Ukraine to secede by referendum.

Since independence, Ukraine’s Constitution has explicitly protected the country’s territorial integrity. It does not allow parts of Ukraine to unilaterally decide to secede, even by popular vote.

This is not unique to Ukraine — constitutions around the world generally prohibit unilateral secession to protect stable governance and rule of law. So the idea that a “referendum” in some region could legally detach that region from Ukraine is unconstitutional.

4) The so-called “95% voted to join russia” numbers are complete fabrications.

Russian propaganda often claims that “95% of people in Donetsk and Luhansk voted to join russia.” That is just a made up number.

The only votes showing such numbers were so-called referendums organized by russia in 2014 and again after 2022, conducted under occupation, without international observers, without rule of law, and often at gunpoint. These votes have no credibility or legitimacy and are fraudulent, coercive exercises used to justify territorial grabs, not genuine expressions of free will.  

So what does all this mean?

There is no natural cultural or linguistic fault line splitting Ukraine into two political nations.

The Soviet policy of russification explains why russian was widely spoken — not some inherent political division.

When given a free, fair choice in 1991, people across Ukraine — including in Donetsk and Luhansk — overwhelmingly chose to be part of an independent Ukrainian state.

Neither international law nor Ukraine’s Constitution allows parts of the country to secede just because someone calls a referendum.

The high “pro-russia” numbers peddled by Kremlin propaganda have no basis in free, unbiased democratic will.

P.S. The photo shows a Ukrainian woman voting in the russian-organized referendum on whether her Ukrainian region should join russia.

Como extinguir uma democracia - Roman Sheremeta

A sobering message from a history teacher

Roman Sheremeta

I’ve spent years teaching both American and international government. We study the full spectrum of systems: from well-established democracies like the UK, to hybrid regimes like Mexico and Nigeria, to authoritarian states like russia, Iran, and China. Each case study offers a lesson — but lately, the most unsettling one comes from within our own borders.

One key lesson I teach my students: there’s never a single, defining moment when a democracy falls. No leader ever declares, “I am now a dictator.” The erosion is subtle. Gradual. Legal on the surface. And often supported — or at least tolerated — by the public.

Look at russia. When Putin took power in 2000, it had the trappings of democracy: elections, a constitution, federalism, and a separation of powers. Today, those structures remain on paper, but functionally, they mean nothing. Putin holds absolute power — and is, perhaps not coincidentally, admired by Donald Trump.

So, how do we recognize when a democracy is backsliding? There are clear warning signs — every first-year political science student learns them. Here are a few I share with my students:

1. When the Legislative Branch yields to the Executive.

Congress was designed to check presidential power. If Congress becomes subservient — whether through inaction or complicity — the balance envisioned by the Constitution collapses. Putin faced early pushback from the Duma. He eventually sidelined, intimidated, and replaced dissenters with loyalists. Sound familiar?

2. When corporatism becomes normalized.

In an authoritarian slide, industries and oligarchs cozy up to power in exchange for favors. In russia, compliant billionaires got rich. Critics were jailed or exiled. We’ve seen similar patterns here: tax breaks, deregulation, and media consolidation benefiting those aligned with Trump.

3. When adherence to the Constitution becomes optional.

Rule of law is foundational to democracy. Yet we’ve seen moments when Constitution was ignored under Trump’s leadership. In healthy democracies, that shouldn't even be a question.

4. When enemies — internal and external — are manufactured.

Authoritarians thrive by uniting people against scapegoats. Vulnerable communities become targets. Historic allies become threats. The purpose? To consolidate power under the guise of protecting the nation.

5. When personal loyalty to the leader outweighs loyalty to the nation.

Public servants swear oaths to the Constitution, not individuals. But when loyalty shifts toward one man — especially among military, law enforcement, and intelligence — democracy is in grave danger.

Here’s the hardest truth: if America continues down this path, it won’t be because we were blind. It won’t happen in darkness. It will happen in plain sight — and with our permission.

Democracy is not self-sustaining. It survives only when we choose it — over and over again.