This will be seen as a hybrid war, in which a key weapon is the deliberate misreading of history

In February, following months of escalating tensions, Russia invaded Ukraine. Are parallels with the past useful in making sense of the war, or is history being used for more sinister ends? Four experts have their say

- MATT ELTON

Liudmyla Sharipova My opinion is very much divided as to how far back our analysis of today's war in Ukraine should go. I am obviously always very happy to talk about the medieval or early modern history of Ukraine and Muscovy. However, I also think we need to avoid falling into Vladimir Putin's trap when we look for the roots of the present war. [The Russian president has in recent months written and spoken about his view of history, arguing that Ukraine has never been a legitimate state but instead a natural part of Russia and that its existence is a historical mistake dating back to at least the 1920s.] I think those roots aren't in some distant event, such as the annexation of part of Ukraine by Muscovy in the 17th century, nor in the foundation of Kyiv (in the fifth century, according to legend], but in the 20th century - and probably as recently as the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Serhy Yekelchyk I agree. I would perhaps push it even further forward, into the 21st century, by arguing that the separation of Russian and Ukrainian attitudes to the past and to democracy really happened only after the Orange Revolution of 2004-05 (a series of popular mass protests against electoral fraud that erupted in Ukraine after pro-Russia candidate Viktor Yanukovych claimed the presidential election]. When we talk about the past in this situation, we're more talking about our contemporary images of the past. For instance, one of the defining differences between Russia and Ukraine today is in their attitude to Stalin. When polls are conducted in Russia, he still gets very high marks as the most prominent historical leader, whereas in Ukraine he is now widely seen as a bloodthirsty tyrant.