Let's provide the first two reviews from Amazon on this misguided nonsense. This author is the type who would defend Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia on the basis that other countries provoked it and it used to be German territory according to the proclamations of German rulers. The author is simply trying to apply this type of logic to the Russian invasion of Ukraine by applying the same flawed logic aligned with Kremlin talking points. The very idea that the West should just roll-over and accept Russia's seizure of Ukraine is unacceptable. The world needs to collectively stand-up to bullies, otherwise Putin would not stop until he had seized every nation that was part of the Warsaw pact. Two Book Reviews If you only read one book on the Russian invasion, please don't let it be this one. If you want to read it as another view after you've read others (which is what I did), that makes more sense. This is a frustrating book when you know what's going on there. Abelow quotes very few people, and does so over and over again. These people are scholars who share his view, like Richard Sawka, others who are either aligned with Russia Today (RT), or work in Russian universities, or he completely misquotes others (most notably Fiona Hill, an absolutely laughable and misguided attempt to discredit one of the most knowledgeable scholars on the region. Yes, she's very pro-Ukraine and anti-Putin; at least she had the good sense to appropriately source her books). This is one of those books where the author starts out with a grain of truth, and then completely fails to successful argue his point. Is war bad? Yes. Has the United States done some terrible things throughout the world? Yes again. But just because the US has done terrible things in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc., doesn't automatically mean that it is responsible for the war in Ukraine. Instead, the author uses the past as a pretext to argue his point about what is currently happening in Ukraine. And he does it unconvincingly. Most notably, Abelow conveniently omits many facts that are inconvenient to his argument. He fails to mention the Budapest Memorandum and the two Minsk agreements when trying to argue that Putin is simply trying to protect Russia. Putin has told us why he's invading Ukraine: Because they aren't a country and he wants to wipe it off the face of the map. Why the author can't see this is perhaps his greatest weakness. He also fails to even mention Russia's occupation of Moldova (see: Transnistria) and their horrifying wars in Chechnya (one launched by Putin under possibly pretextual circumstances: read about the Moscow apartment bombings and decide for yourself). Chechnya is a perfect blueprint for what Putin is doing today in Ukraine. Abelow seems terribly concerned about the US involvement in wars and conflicts around the world, yet brushes past (only once) Russia's war crimes, crimes that include the rape of women and children, the mass murder of innocent citizens, and the indiscriminate bombing of civilian locations, including homes, schools, and shopping centers. When Abelow can't site a source, he falls back on the tactic of turning the statement in the form of a question, or starts the sentence with "maybe." For example, on page 8 he states that the US "helped lay the groundwork, and MAY HAVE DIRECTLY INSTIGATED, an armed, far-right coup in Ukraine." This is unsourced. On page 16, he writes, "Russia correctly perceived that America was directly involved---certainly in laying foundation for the coup, and POSSIBLY IN FOMENTING THE VIOLENCE." Again this is unsourced. This occurs over and over again throughout the text. Other times he is clearly trying to mislead. On p. 21 he quotes someone who stated that "Operation Sea Breeze almost provoked Russia to fire at a British naval destroyer that deliberately entered what Russia considers its territorial waters." What the author doesn't tell you is that those "territorial" waters are outside of Crimea, a region he basically stole from Ukraine in 2014. The author's analysis of the 2014 protests in Ukraine are, at best, delusional, and also is misleading. His most important omission has to do with how he describes then-president Yanukovych. On multiple occasions, he refers to the pro-Russian president as "democratically elected." While true, he fails to mention all of the unilateral changes he made while in office, changes that were intended to keep him in power and put Ukraine on a path toward authoritarianism. The author knows this -- it's common knowledge. He omitted it because it doesn't help his argument. He then mentions, again without sourcing, that the US helped install a pro-Western president without democratic election. While Oleksandr Turchynov was temporarily installed, a new election was held only four months later, where Petro Poroshenko won what is considered a fair election. And Zelenskyy won five years later in another fair election. I could go on -- I marked up the book on almost every page. I'm hoping to show that this isn't the best book for a primer of what is going on in Ukraine. There are better books on the subject that are far more accurate, books I'm sure Abelow wouldn't endorse. I've read about 15 books on the conflict, and after 4 or 5 you start to see patterns emerge where you get a good idea of what's true and what's not. Here are some better reads for those interested: For info on the 2014 protests: "Ukraine Diaries" by Andrey Kurkov, Christopher Smith's excellent "Ukraine's Revolt, Russia's Revenge" (Smith worked for the US Dept of State at the time, so Abelow would hate this account), and "The Ukrainian Night" by Marci Shore. Also watch Netflix's "Winter on Fire." For info on the Ukraine-Russia conflict: "Ukraine and Russia" by Paul D'Anieri is stellar, as is "Ukraine: What Everyone Needs to Know" by Serhy Yekelchyk. Also "Putin's War Against Ukraine" by Taras Kuzio. And for an insider's account, Iuliia Mendel has written an excellent account of the rise of Zelenskyy in "The Fight of Our Lives." She worked in the president's administration. =================================================================== The author's main point seems to be that the Russia's invasion of Ukraine must be understood as a response to the perception that Ukraine would be (somehow) used as a base for NATO aggression against it. Well, maybe so. But the question the author fails to come to grips with is what likely alternatives did the West have. The author suggests that had the West clearly stated that Ukraine would not become a part of NATO that would have caused Russia not to invade. But the alternative possibility is that a clear statement of Western non-commitment to Ukrainian sovereignty might have in fact caused it to invade. After all, Putin is squarely on record as viewing the break up of the Soviet Union as a catastrophe, and certainly the Ukraine would be the obvious place to start in its reconstitution. Further, the author falls to consider that the West has already gone a long way towards appeasing Mr. Putin, failing to offer any significant response to his invasion of Georgia or annexation of Crimea. Unfortunately, the facts on the ground seem to strongly support the lessons of World War II - appeasement invites further aggression. Certainly the author is right to condemn the demonization of Putin as an unstable Hitlerite. To the contrary, Putin's actions seems to reflect the cold calculated and utterly ruthless chessmanship of Joseph Stalin. I believe he made a calculated gamble to invade Ukraine because a) he thought the Ukraine would not or could not effectively defend itself and b) the West would take no more than token steps to aid its defense, as it did previously for Georgia for example. In short, it appears he attacked the Ukraine because he thought he could get away it. Unfortunately for him, like Stalin in his assessment of German intentions in 1941, Putin guessed wrong. The question of what to do about it now is not so easily answered by just letting him keep a part of his ill got gains and hope that satisfies him. As Volodymyr Zelenskyy, whom as the author repeatedly reminds us, ran for President as a peace candidate, has stated, this would only encourage him to try again on a later date. Unfortunately, much as I am sure most of us would like an easy way out of this ugly war, he is probably right. Just as the surrender of the Sudetenland in 1939 only encourage Hitler to later seize all of Czechoslovakia, and then Poland, so it is difficult to escape the feeling that rewarding Putin for his aggression would only set an unfortunate precedent. Sometimes you just need to stand and fight, no matter what the cost, as the Russians themselves in fact showed us in 1941-43. The West was willing then to support the Russian sacrifice of huge numbers of human lives with virtually limitless economic and military aid, and the Ukrainians deserve no less support today, so long as they are willing to die for their country. The author could have expanded about his very short, almost pamphlet like "book" (76 pages) by at least exploring these counters to his thesis. Instead has provided a partisan tract, aimed at persuading rather than discussing. Such tracts are however frequently more effective than an even handed consideration of all the facts and argument, so one can hardly blame him.
Some of em, willingly, go there to die, because of their ideologies. Good riddance. Removing outdated post soviet products.
It's good you bring this up, while busy smearing the author, because it does remind us that a nuanced and commonly accepted understanding of the causes of WWII includes, among other things, acknowledging the box Germany was put in after WWI, with a beaten economy, yet with austerity and reparations demands, and the psychological aspect of humiliation. That last one could argue "that's on them", but that doesn't change the fact it existed. I suppose you'll have to say, "that was 100% on Germany no matter what any fascist historians, military and otherwise, have to say about it," to save your argument.
Assuming I’m a paid troll out of St Petersburg bunker (lol), this dude here, posts for free and all about Russians. Whose life is more sad?
True story from Russia: a guy went to a Tarot card reader who predicted that he would not have to go to serve in Ukraine. He was sent a mobilization notice, so he went and beat up the Tarot reader. He has been arrested and is in jail. Thus not mobilized. The power of Tarot.
,,Call your mom & tell that you're an idiot" Ukrainian blonde's suggestion for russians. https://m.technologijos.lt/cat/129/article/S-109388