The Ukrainian Dialogue

A new fragment by Thucydides, rediscovered.

Thucydides Mosaic from Jerash, Jordan, Roman, 3rd century CE at the Pergamon Museum in Berlin. Public domain via Wikimedia Commons.

---

On February 28, President Trump and Vice-President J.D. Vance met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office. A tense shouting match erupted about the Russian-Ukrainian War and America’s role in it. Surprisingly, their conversation appears to have been foreseen more than two millennia ago by the great Athenian historian Thucydides. The so-called “Melian Dialogue,” found in his History of the Peloponnesian War, has long been regarded as a foundational text in the study of international relations. It now appears that Thucydides also wrote a companion piece that was not included in the final text. Scholars have recently unearthed this previously unknown fragment, which they have labeled “The Ukrainian Dialogue.” In it, Thucydides records a conversation reputed to have occurred between two ambassadors identifed only as DT and VZ. From My Bookshelf has obtained exclusive access to this remarkable document, which you will not find available anywhere else. Following is an English translation of Thucydides’ long-lost manuscript; help spread the word about this incredible discovery by sharing or restacking this post.

The next summer the Russians marched once more against the Ukrainians. The Ukrainians were a colony of the Russians that would not submit to Russia like their other subject territories. They at first wanted to avoid open conflict, but afterwards, when the Russians used violence and plundered their territory, they assumed an attitude of hostility. Seeking assistance against the Russians, the Ukrainians sent their envoy VZ to a neighboring power, Verratia, where he met with the Verratian negotiator DT, who spoke as follows:

DT: This is how we’re going to handle things. I don’t want to hear any long speeches from you, is that clear? Let’s cut to the chase and make a deal. I’ll tell you how things are. If you disagree with something, you can say so; we’ll settle the point and move on. But don’t waste my time with long speeches.

VZ: I have no objection to straight talk. But you don’t sound very interested in hearing our side of things. It’s clear that you intend to be a judge in your own case, and that all we have to expect from this negotiation is a choice between continued war with Russia or submission to them and enslavement.

DT: Look, if you’ve come here to do anything other than consult for the safety of your state on the basis of the facts that I’ll lay before you, let’s just forget the whole thing. Otherwise, we can continue.

VZ: Naturally, someone in my position looks for every possible chance of safety. But as you say, the question is the survival of our country, so please proceed as you propose.

DT: I won’t trouble you with any arguments that neither one of us believes anyway—that either you or the Russians are in this for justice, thinking you have right on your side. Whether you provoked the Russians into attacking, as I believe, or whether the Russians are pursuing deluded claims of national unity, as you claim, is all beside the point. That kind of talk is for losers who won’t focus on realities. Justice is irrelevant here. You know as well as I do how the world works: people only argue about justice when their power is equal, but when it isn’t, then the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

VZ: If you insist that I ignore justice and speak only of what is in our and your interest, then I have little choice but to do so. The day may come, however, when your country too may wish to appeal to the international community for justice.

DT: You let us worry about that, and don’t talk to me about any international community. We’ll decide for ourselves what risks to take. Now, let me tell you what is really in the interest of your country. You should just quit this ridiculous war and surrender to Russia. That way your country will survive, instead of being destroyed, which is where you’re heading right now, and it will be a win-win for everyone.

VZ: How could it possibly turn out to be as good for us to serve as for Russia to rule?

DT: Because you’d get to survive. You like being dead? Try it and get back to me. And ask your countrymen if they like it.

VZ: But look, even if you don’t want to help us resist Russia, wouldn’t you be better off at least supporting our survival and independence as a neutral country? That way you wouldn’t be strengthening Russia, and you’d have us there as a buffer against Russian aggression.

DT: Neutrality is for pansies. I can’t waste my time with countries who are too weak to be of any help to us. And you’re too weak. Without us, you’re nothing.

VZ: But is that the Verratian idea of equity, to treat a potentially neutral country even worse than you treat your rivals, the Russians?

DT: Equity, shmequity. I already told you not to talk about that sort of nonsense. Only strong countries can maintain their independence; the others get pushed around. If we let you push us around and tell us what to do, we look weak. The Russians understand this as well as we do, and that’s why they’re gonna destroy you if you don’t quit this ridiculous war.

VZ: Again you forbid me to speak of justice and insist that I talk only of interest. Okay, let’s talk about your own interest. If you treat us this way, how can you avoid making enemies of all the other countries who see the way you treat “pansies” and who will worry that they’re the next to be sacrificed? You’ll do nothing but increase the number of your enemies, and even force countries to become your enemies who would otherwise never have dreamed of it.

DT: I told you, let us worry about ourselves. Other countries can think what they like, but they won’t mess with us as long as we stay strong. The Russians and us, we understand each other. The Chinese too. The countries that cause us trouble are the weaklings who go about begging for help and trying to drag us into their problems. Countries like yours. You guys are the crazy ones, trying to start World War III or something.

VZ: Well, if you are so bold in defense of your own country, and so determined to remain strong, it would surely be cowardly of us to do any less than fight for our own defense.

DT: That’s ridiculous. It’s not the same thing. Your fight with Russia isn’t a struggle among equals, for the sake of honor or glory or whatever nonsense you believe in. It’s about self-preservation and not fighting against those who are strong enough to wipe you off the face of the earth.

VZ: But wars are full of surprises, as we’ve already seen in this one. It’s not always the side that appears strongest that wins in the end. If we give in now, we’re finished, but if we fight on, at least we have a chance.

DT: You really are a crazy, romantic idealist. Why do I need to keep repeating myself? Get realistic. People appeal to hope when they’ve got nothing else to rely on. If they’re rich enough, they might get away with it. But hope leads people astray, and those who risk everything on its basis usually see their folly only after they’ve been ruined. Next thing you know, you’ll be telling me that God himself will come to your assistance.

VZ: I trust God will give us aid at least equal to what he gives the Russians, since we are a just nation fighting against an unjust one. And what we lack in strength will be made up for by our allies the Europeans, who will help us out of shame, if for no better reason. So our confidence is not as crazy as you think.

DT: The Russians can hope for help from God just as well as you. And let’s face it: God helps those who help themselves. You know it, we know it, the Russians know it. Nobody will blame the Russians for helping themselves, God least of all. As for the Europeans, get real. They talk a good game, especially when “international justice” coincides with their own interests. But when it doesn’t, they’ll sell you out in a heartbeat. No other people in the world see so clearly that justice never requires them to risk their own safety. What a coincidence. If you’re counting on them, you’re done for.

VZ: But that is why we are so confident they will help us. They understand that doing so is in their own interest.

DT: Yah, yah. The Europeans are pansies too. They never stick their necks out.

VZ: But they will take risks for us that they would not for others because of our common European heritage and values.

DT: Heritage, shmeritage. Look, when countries go looking for allies, and you come along asking for their help, do you think they ask whether you share common values? Not a chance. They want to know how strong you are. Especially the Europeans. And I’ve already told you—you know, you really need to listen better—you’re weak. You don’t hold the cards. In fact, I think I’ve wasted enough time with this conversation. Here I am sharing with you some very intelligent advice about how to save your beautiful country, and you haven’t even said “thank you.” Not once in this entire conversation. And you haven’t said a single word that has anything to do with how the world works, either. You talk about justice, and fortune, and hope, and common values—but you never face facts. Power is what matters. And you are going to learn this to your misfortune.

The conference was at an end, and VZ returned home. After consulting with his government, he sent word back to DT and the Verratian ministry as follows: “Our resolution remains the same. We will not abandon our freedom. We put our confidence in God, our allies, and the courage and determination of our people. We invite Verratia to accept our friendship and to cooperate with us in ways that serve both of our interests.”

DT sent back a terse reply: “You are a fool.”

The war continued. Russia made minor advances into Ukrainian territory. The Europeans denounced the Russian aggresion but otherwise avoided further involvement in the conflict. Ukraine made a bold incursion into Russia itself, killing a number of troops. As winter approached, they launched another attack. This time, the Russians responded with previously unseen ferocity. They leveled Ukraine’s capital city Kyiv, marched in with their troops, put to death all the grown men whom they found, sold the women and children for slaves, and subsequently sent out colonists and inhabited the area themselves.

Other countries were watching closely. They held Verratia responsible for the fall of Ukraine, understood that it was not a reliable ally, and drew the appropriate conclusions. Resentment toward Verratian arrogance grew....

The Thucydidean document breaks off at this point. Fragmentary evidence suggests that the historian’s plan, before abandoning this part of his project, was to describe the consequences of the Ukrainian campaign, in order to explain the sudden decline of Verratia’s glorious empire, which everyone had thought was destined for a long and equally glorious future. Scholars speculate that he may have chosen to suppress this part of his manuscript out of fear of Verratian reprisals.

I hope you enjoyed this exclusive access to such an astounding new discovery, available to you only at this site. You can support groundbreaking work like this with a one-time donation or the pledge of a future paid subscription. And don’t forget those low-cost options: likes, shares, and restacks.

Thanks for reading, and I’ll see you next time for another installment From My Bookshelf.

A. Y. Jackson, A Copse, Evening, 1918. Public domain via Wikimedia Commons.