One problem I have had for a while since I started getting more seriously into understanding Ukraine is the charlatan experts. Those who claim some degree of expertise in the country without much in the way of either experience, research, or credentials. Now, first off, I am not saying we should only listen to academics. Far from it, it’s crucial we listen to everyday people from Ukraine or any country we want to understand. My issue is those who are typically western, and claim expertise, without much to go on. That is what irks me, and it’s downright dangerous I would say.
I am not intending to name names. I know as soon as I did I could be ruining myself, or drawing ire. I have enough on my plate metaphorically to worry about. However, we can generally identify some trends in these kinds of experts.
Often, they have perhaps written on Ukraine for a public audience, which is not a bad thing by any means, but without doing serious research, whether first hand via interviews or other qualitative methods, quantitative analysis of data, historical research, or anything else. Rather, they rely on presumptions, a few other secondary sources of a dubious nature or rely too hard on one or two sources. Pop historians, essentially.
Or they are hired by some think tank or newspaper, and speculate on what they think and predict, without any real nuance or consideration. The worst of these are those who were russia ‘watchers’ or ‘experts’ and now think they understand everything about Ukraine, or offer random predictions into the psychology of Putin.
There are those who have never ever set foot in any country they analyse. They do not speak the language. They have perhaps published something, yet really, they offer very little. Or, there are those who spent a year in Kyiv, or Moscow, or wherever, and believe they know everything about the country they were in.
These people get hired, they have followings on social media, and people buy their ideas. Especially if the audience is new to the field. This is not an insult, I myself fell for some of these so-called experts when I started to familiarise myself. But, when you begin to read a bit wider, have some more experience in these countries, and turn your critical mind on, you can notice them.
The worry is exactly that it takes an expert to spot an expert. Those with real experience, real knowledge, real credentials etc. need to make an effort to share to a wider audience and promote good sources. Too often, the genuinely credible experts feel they either don’t want to offer shorter and catchier soundbites, or more lightweight articles for think tanks and online magazines, due to the fact it gives them more space. This is understandable, but, the problem is they then leave a vacuum for charlatans who don’t actually have credibility to inform people, and shape debates.
None of this is to say that an expert cannot operate from afar. Or without serious academic credentials. They can, it is just that many who are revered and shared for their input are not always as informed as they may appear. Or they just repeat things people want to hear, not offering any insight or nuance into a debate. Or, and this is a big one, they imply, rather than analyse. What do I mean? Rather than giving their view, their interpretation of events, their assessment, they hint at something and hope you draw a conclusion, without spelling it out themselves. A real expert will want to avoid vagueness as much as possible.
Why did I say at the start it is dangerous? I believe there is a fundamentally anti-intellectual current to many ‘experts’ on Ukraine, and Russia and beyond. By reducing things to simplistic or empty rhetoric, without any substance, we further normalise poor quality expertise. This then shapes how we all perceive the world.
So rise, real experts, and share what you know. You probably don’t think you are an expert, but if you have done actual research, know local language(s), spent more than just a long holiday in a place, communicate regularly with people from Ukraine (or whatever country we are discussing), your credibility is far better than a lot of the current journalist and social media experts.
If you are looking for guidance via experts, journalists, academics, etc. when you find someone sharing input about a topic, find out who they are. What are their credentials? What experiences do they have? Why listen to them? Perhaps they can be listened to on one topic, but not another. For example, I know a reasonable degree about Ukraine, I can talk about life in Kyiv pre-war, and what it is like in Zakarpattia, but I’m still limited as a foreigner, I cannot tell you the ins and outs of military strategy, I cannot share with you my ideas of what Putin is thinking (he’s thousands and thousands of miles away in a bunker!).
Maybe “Katya from Kharkiv” can offer you great knowledge about what it’s like there, but she may not be an expert in geopolitics. “Professor X” of Eastern Europe from, say, Munich may be great about history of the region or political realities, but he won’t be great for learning about day to day life in Ukraine, or countries beyond his expertise. A Ukraine expert and a russia expert are also completely different things. We have to remember that.
So while it may sound like I’m shitting on those who aren’t “proper academics” I am rather trying to say, experts need to move beyond preaching to niche audiences, people without knowledge should shut up, and we all need to be a bit more critical when reading.
Leave a Reply