How the West Brought War to Ukraine: Understanding How U.S. and NATO Policies Led to Crisis, War, and the Risk of Nuclear Catastrophe
- Downloads：7895
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2022-10-10 08:52:32
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：Benjamin Abelow
- ISBN：0991076702
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
According to the Western narrative， Vladimir Putin is an insatiable， Hitler-like expansionist who invaded Ukraine in an unprovoked land grab。 That story is incorrect。 In reality， the United States and NATO bear significant responsibility for the Ukraine crisis。 Through a series of misguided policies， Washington and its European allies placed Russia in an untenable situation for which war seemed， to Mr。 Putin and his military staff， the only workable solution。 This brief book lays out the relevant history and explains how the West needlessly created conflict and now labors under an existential threat of its own making。
EXPERT ENDORSEMENTS
"Very well-done。。。。 Reviews material that should be much better known。"
— Noam Chomsky
"A brilliant， remarkably concise explanation。。。。 Needs to be read and pondered by every citizen capable of thinking rationally and responsibly about American and European security。"
— Jack F。 Matlock， Jr。， U。S。 Ambassador to the Soviet Union， 1987-1991
"This is a splendid little book， taughtly written， logically organized， easy to read and persuasive but appropriately caveated。 It is an invaluable primer on the trends and events that produced the escalating warfare in Ukraine。"
— Chas Freeman， previously Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs
"For anyone interested in understanding the true causes of the disaster in Ukraine， How the West Brought War to Ukraine is required reading。"
— John J。 Mearsheimer， the R。 Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago
"For those concerned about U。S。 national security and the peace of Europe， this book is essential reading。"
— Douglas Macgregor， Colonel （Retired）， U。S。 Army， served as Director of NATO's Joint Operations Center at SHAPE （Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe）
"In the Ukraine proxy war between the United States/NATO and Russia， we face a threat of nuclear escalation that could end human civilization。 Abelow's book is essential reading for all who wish to understand this threat and why， 30 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union， it has re-emerged。"
— Gilbert Doctorow， is an historian and independent Russia specialist based in Brussels
"A concise yet comprehensive and accessible overview。 Invaluable for understanding how war once again came to Europe。 Benjamin Abelow demonstrates that the crisis in Ukraine was predictable， predicted—and avoidable。"
— Richard Sakwa， Professor of Russian and European Politics， University of Kent
"Ben Abelow takes us beyond the false narratives and into the truth of the Ukraine crisis。"
— Krishen Mehta， Senior Global Justice Fellow， Yale University， and Director， American Committee for US-Russia Accord
PUBLISHED REVIEWS
Midwest Book Review
"Any thinking reader who would better understand the myriad of influences on the Ukraine situation needs to read this book。"
-- Reviewed by D。 Donovan， Senior Reviewer， Midwest Book Review （In Press， Oct。 2022）
Foreword Clarion Reviews
"Abelow builds a solid argument that the US， Europe， and NATO are complicit in the current violence affecting Ukraine。。。。 How the West Brought War to Ukraine is a succinct， accessible introduction to an often overlooked aspect of the 2022 war in Ukraine。"
-- Reviewed by Eileen Gonzalez， September 8， 2022
Acura Viewpoint
"How the West Brought War to Ukraine will serve as an invaluable primer。"
-- Reviewed by David Speedie， former chair of the program on cooperative security， Carnegie Corporation of New York， September 1， 2022
Mises Wire
"It would be a serious mistake to discount Abelow as unduly pro-Russian in his sympathies。 The efforts he supports to secure a peaceful settlement by making concessions to Russia are in the best interests of the Ukrainians themselves， even those hostile to Russia。"
-- Reviewed by David Gordon， Ph。D。， August 26， 2022
EXPERT ENDORSEMENTS
"Very well-done。。。。 Reviews material that should be much better known。"
— Noam Chomsky
"A brilliant， remarkably concise explanation。。。。 Needs to be read and pondered by every citizen capable of thinking rationally and responsibly about American and European security。"
— Jack F。 Matlock， Jr。， U。S。 Ambassador to the Soviet Union， 1987-1991
"This is a splendid little book， taughtly written， logically organized， easy to read and persuasive but appropriately caveated。 It is an invaluable primer on the trends and events that produced the escalating warfare in Ukraine。"
— Chas Freeman， previously Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs
"For anyone interested in understanding the true causes of the disaster in Ukraine， How the West Brought War to Ukraine is required reading。"
— John J。 Mearsheimer， the R。 Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago
"For those concerned about U。S。 national security and the peace of Europe， this book is essential reading。"
— Douglas Macgregor， Colonel （Retired）， U。S。 Army， served as Director of NATO's Joint Operations Center at SHAPE （Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe）
"In the Ukraine proxy war between the United States/NATO and Russia， we face a threat of nuclear escalation that could end human civilization。 Abelow's book is essential reading for all who wish to understand this threat and why， 30 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union， it has re-emerged。"
— Gilbert Doctorow， is an historian and independent Russia specialist based in Brussels
"A concise yet comprehensive and accessible overview。 Invaluable for understanding how war once again came to Europe。 Benjamin Abelow demonstrates that the crisis in Ukraine was predictable， predicted—and avoidable。"
— Richard Sakwa， Professor of Russian and European Politics， University of Kent
"Ben Abelow takes us beyond the false narratives and into the truth of the Ukraine crisis。"
— Krishen Mehta， Senior Global Justice Fellow， Yale University， and Director， American Committee for US-Russia Accord
PUBLISHED REVIEWS
Midwest Book Review
"Any thinking reader who would better understand the myriad of influences on the Ukraine situation needs to read this book。"
-- Reviewed by D。 Donovan， Senior Reviewer， Midwest Book Review （In Press， Oct。 2022）
Foreword Clarion Reviews
"Abelow builds a solid argument that the US， Europe， and NATO are complicit in the current violence affecting Ukraine。。。。 How the West Brought War to Ukraine is a succinct， accessible introduction to an often overlooked aspect of the 2022 war in Ukraine。"
-- Reviewed by Eileen Gonzalez， September 8， 2022
Acura Viewpoint
"How the West Brought War to Ukraine will serve as an invaluable primer。"
-- Reviewed by David Speedie， former chair of the program on cooperative security， Carnegie Corporation of New York， September 1， 2022
Mises Wire
"It would be a serious mistake to discount Abelow as unduly pro-Russian in his sympathies。 The efforts he supports to secure a peaceful settlement by making concessions to Russia are in the best interests of the Ukrainians themselves， even those hostile to Russia。"
-- Reviewed by David Gordon， Ph。D。， August 26， 2022
Reviews
Lghiggins
，
A short book， How the West Brought War to Ukraine， presents an important but controversial view of which countries are behind the current conflict between Russia and Ukraine。 To understand Benjamin Abelow’s thesis， you have to revisit history going back almost 200 years to the Monroe Doctrine。 In 1823， the United States made it clear that foreign forces placed near U。S。 territory are in violation of that policy and provide a reason for war。 If you follow that to its logical conclusion， countries A short book， How the West Brought War to Ukraine， presents an important but controversial view of which countries are behind the current conflict between Russia and Ukraine。 To understand Benjamin Abelow’s thesis， you have to revisit history going back almost 200 years to the Monroe Doctrine。 In 1823， the United States made it clear that foreign forces placed near U。S。 territory are in violation of that policy and provide a reason for war。 If you follow that to its logical conclusion， countries massing troops on Russia’s border， especially with weapons whose capability allows reaching within Russia’s borders， is clearly an offensive act。For years， the U。S。 and NATO have been setting up countries that border Russia with military aid to be able to fight a proxy war。 Abelow explains “How the Narrative Drives the War” in his introduction in which he lists the Western provocations。 The rest of the book is an amplification and explanation of each one of these。 One of his most compelling arguments is asking his reader to put the U。S。 in Russia’s position。 What would the U。S。 do？ How would it react if foreign forces massed on the Mexican or Canadian border with the ability to send destructive weapon fire into the U。S。？The author is not a Putin lover， but he does try to present the other side， the side the Western media is not showing。 The author is sympathetic to both Russian and Ukrainian soldiers。 Among the many leaders he quotes， he includes Chas Freeman， former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs。 He speaks of the U。S。’s two contradictory aims which will result in many deaths。 Dripping with irony， Freeman says “We will fight to the last Ukrainian for Ukrainian independence。” The author also spreads the blame around to many Western leaders （including George W。 Bush， Trump， and Biden） who have reneged on promises to secure borders and have propped up regimes whose goals were to break down those borders。 You may or may not agree with the author， but if you read the book， you will be able to have an informed opinion about this conflict which could potentially evolve into a nuclear war。I received a complimentary copy of this book in exchange for an honest review。 Opinions expressed in this review are completely my own。 。。。more
Tom Schulte
，
This is the second book I read proffering the idea that an expansionist NATO triggered Putin into going full Hitler。 The other is Not One Inch: America， Russia， and the Making of Post-Cold War Stalemate。 This one is much briefer， but more focused on placing the blame on NATO， the West and the U。S。 Considering the arguments a second time， I am still not convinced。 I mean， the West was opposed to a nuclear Soviet Union， communist China， even North Korea yet ultimately accepted these realities with This is the second book I read proffering the idea that an expansionist NATO triggered Putin into going full Hitler。 The other is Not One Inch: America， Russia， and the Making of Post-Cold War Stalemate。 This one is much briefer， but more focused on placing the blame on NATO， the West and the U。S。 Considering the arguments a second time， I am still not convinced。 I mean， the West was opposed to a nuclear Soviet Union， communist China， even North Korea yet ultimately accepted these realities without resorting to invasion， rape and pillage， and annexation。 Some particular arguments and points I responded to: 2。 Western Provocations: 2014–2022In 2017， the administration of President Donald J。 Trump began to sell lethal weapons to Ukraine。 This was a change from the policy of 2014– 2017， in which only non-lethal items were sold （for example， body armor and various types of technical gear）。 The Trump administration described the new sales as “defensive。” However， when applied to lethal weapons， the categories “offensive” and “defensive” exist primarily in the mind of the beholder: defensive for those possessing the weapons， offensive for those in the crosshairs。 As John Mearsheimer has noted， “these weapons certainly looked offensive to Moscow。” This is one of the few policies of Trump I actually applaud， though I feel he was not defending democracy but owning Obama over the issue。 The U。S。 armed a sovereign nation under attack。 Russia spurred a separatist movement， armed it， and inserted "little green men" combatants。 3。 Putting the Shoe on the Other Foot。。。how would Washington respond if Russia established a military alliance with Canada and then set up rocket installations 70 miles from the U。S。 border？ What would happen if Russia then used those rocket installations to conduct live-fire training exercises to practice destroying military targets inside America？ After the illegal annexation of Crimea， this seems weak tea as a comparison hypothetical。 4。 Russian Concerns About a U。S。 First StrikeAlthough it is impossible to know the specific motivations that led Mr。 Putin to invade Ukraine。。。 OK， but Russia didn't attack ABM installations in Romania it supposedly abhorred。 No， it instead it attacked a less defended non-NATO neighbor。 Russia's militaristic foreign policy validated NATO expansion right up to it's border。 Culturally， linguistically， historically Ukraine is closer to Russia。 How did Russia lose its little brother to Europe？ 5。 Policy Experts Warned Against NATO Expansion。。。2007 when he [Putin] put the world， and certainly Europe， on notice that Moscow would not accept the further expansion of NATO。 And then within a year in 2008 NATO gave an open door to Georgia and Ukraine。 It absolutely goes back to that juncture。 Hill continued， Back then I was a national intelligence officer， and the National Intelligence Council was analyzing what Russia was likely to do in response to the NATO Open Door declaration。 One of our assessments was that there was a real， genuine risk of some kind of preemptive Russian military action， not just confined to the annexation of Crimea， but some much larger action taken against Ukraine along with Georgia。 And of course， four months after NATO's Bucharest Summit [when the NATO policy about Ukraine and Georgia was announced]， there was the invasion of Georgia。 There wasn't an invasion of Ukraine then because the Ukrainian government pulled back from seeking NATO membership。 But we should have seriously addressed how we were going to deal with this potential outcome and our relations with Russia。 One's own ultimatum are limiting and unimaginitive without justifying invasion。 8。 A Counterfactual History—and ConclusionRichard Sakwa suggested that Mr。 Zelensky could have made peace with Russia by speaking just five words: “Ukraine will not join NATO。” Sakwa continued: “If Putin was bluffing [about the decisive importance of NATO expansion]， call his bluff。 Instead… we had this catastrophic war。… It was a frivolous approach to the fate of a nation and， above all， the fate of his own people。” How did an advocate of peace， who had a strong electoral mandate for negotiating an end to the Donbas conflict。。。 Mid-March， 2022 Zelensky said Ukraine should accept it will not become a member of NATO， hinting at a potential key concession to Russia 。。。 It didn't work。As Michael McFaul said in a tweet:Let's be clear， the guy trying to annex territory the size of Portugal， mobilizing 300，000 more soldiers， and threatening to use nuclear weapons is the one escalating， not Biden or NATO。 。。。more
David
，
This is a pro Russian propaganda rag。 I knew that when I ordered it， but was interested to hear what the author had to say。 Basically， he says that Russia is justified in invading the Ukraine because the US has been mean to Russia for years。 We have treated Russia like a dangerous bully， which justifies its invasion of a neighboring country。 Putin rails against NATO aggression， even though the only invasions in Eastern Europe have come from Russia: Hungary in 1954， Czechoslovakia in 1969， and Uk This is a pro Russian propaganda rag。 I knew that when I ordered it， but was interested to hear what the author had to say。 Basically， he says that Russia is justified in invading the Ukraine because the US has been mean to Russia for years。 We have treated Russia like a dangerous bully， which justifies its invasion of a neighboring country。 Putin rails against NATO aggression， even though the only invasions in Eastern Europe have come from Russia: Hungary in 1954， Czechoslovakia in 1969， and Ukraine in 2014 and 2022。 One of the truisms of life is that a liar always thinks that everyone else is lying， and an aggressor always assumes that his enemies will start an unprovoked fight。 NATO has treated Russia as it has deserved to be treated。 The blame falls squarely on Putin's shoulders。Thanks to the publisher and NetGalley for providing an advance reader copy of tis book in exchange for an honest review。 。。。more
Julesreads
，
An easy read （basically an essay） that poses a counter narrative to anyone willing to jump right into the old US Cold War propaganda where suddenly being anti-war， reasonable， and critical of the world geopolitical powers is out of fashion and good old patriotic war hawking is the cause de jour。 never ceases to amaze me how simplistically people consider these issues when real life confronts them。 Give it a read if you’re interested in understanding the war instead of drooling in front of CNN。
Laura Skladzinski
，
I have long maintained that you have no business having an opinion on one side of an argument if you can’t articulate the other side and know why they feel differently。 With the war in Ukraine， I have found myself often thinking， “What is Putin / Russia thinking？！” - and this short book provides that other side of the story。 It was really interesting and eye-opening to see what the American media isn't telling us about how we got to this state of war， with a lot of history I had been unaware of。 I have long maintained that you have no business having an opinion on one side of an argument if you can’t articulate the other side and know why they feel differently。 With the war in Ukraine， I have found myself often thinking， “What is Putin / Russia thinking？！” - and this short book provides that other side of the story。 It was really interesting and eye-opening to see what the American media isn't telling us about how we got to this state of war， with a lot of history I had been unaware of。 In sum， the author emphasizes that Russia was backed into a corner by the West， and if the shoe were on the other foot， we probably would have fought back even harder than Russia is doing now。 While I recognize that this treatise seems biased against the US rather than being a truly balanced view， it’s made me look at world news with a new lens， and I feel like I can now better balance out the American coverage with what’s actually happening （like， the recent application filed by Ukraine to join NATO and all the backstory for why that's controversial）。 My only nitpick is that even at just 76 pages， this book is still very repetitive in making a limited set of arguments but expounding on them repeatedly。 If you are in a rush， you could probably read just the intro chapter and still be much better informed than 99% of Americans。 。。。more
Diane
，
I honestly do not know what to think about this book。 As a resident in the Midwest of the US， I have had little to no contact with persons from another country， let alone a country with a Communist background， which is horridly different to what I know and appreciate。 However， the author does make some valid points， though overall， I feel like he is incredibly biases towards the former Soviet bloc's point of view。 I am glad I have read it， just because I can have an inkling of what others DO fee I honestly do not know what to think about this book。 As a resident in the Midwest of the US， I have had little to no contact with persons from another country， let alone a country with a Communist background， which is horridly different to what I know and appreciate。 However， the author does make some valid points， though overall， I feel like he is incredibly biases towards the former Soviet bloc's point of view。 I am glad I have read it， just because I can have an inkling of what others DO feel about US policies around the world。 。。。more
Marsha
，
This is not a book so much as an 88 page propaganda pamphlet published by a press that has no website and has only ever published this one title。 The author's only credential is that he has a BA in European History and his sources include Youtube videos， RT and Fox News commentators。 The argument and premise is straight out of Putin's mouth， that NATO started the war by encroaching on countries that Russia considers within their sphere of influence。 There's no understanding that countries， inclu This is not a book so much as an 88 page propaganda pamphlet published by a press that has no website and has only ever published this one title。 The author's only credential is that he has a BA in European History and his sources include Youtube videos， RT and Fox News commentators。 The argument and premise is straight out of Putin's mouth， that NATO started the war by encroaching on countries that Russia considers within their sphere of influence。 There's no understanding that countries， including formerly captured nations of the USSR， have the right to self-determination。 There's also no acknowledgement of broken Russian promises， aka， the Budapest Agreement， or that Russia's actions are that of a gangster state。 If Russia stopped fighting， the war would end; if Ukraine stopped fighting， Ukraine would end。 Putin counts on his useful western fools。 Don't be one of them。 。。。more
Astrid Galactic
，
An extremely important and relevant book for today's world and its events。 Abelow cuts through the media propaganda and narrative to explain what the true causes were that led to the current conflict in the Ukraine with an eye on how NATO and the West influenced the current path。 Going back as far as the removal of the Berlin Wall and NATO's encroachment eastward with its influence from the Pentagon in the US。 This is not a book that leans toward any particular party affiliation。 It's never even An extremely important and relevant book for today's world and its events。 Abelow cuts through the media propaganda and narrative to explain what the true causes were that led to the current conflict in the Ukraine with an eye on how NATO and the West influenced the current path。 Going back as far as the removal of the Berlin Wall and NATO's encroachment eastward with its influence from the Pentagon in the US。 This is not a book that leans toward any particular party affiliation。 It's never even suggested as it equally points fingers at both sides without actually bothering with noting one party or the other。 Instead， the fingers point more at various military officials and the military industrial complex。 In other words， these are Deep State actions。 There is also a look at Putin and the basic psychology of how one would react to such a move eastward。 This is an important book to read by anyone wanting to have a better understanding of how we got to where we are today in the Ukraine and Russian war with its Western influence。 It's an easy and short read， yet packed with the basics of what one needs to know regarding today's standing with NATO and how it has led to the potential outbreak of WWIII。 Read for yourself and you be the judge。 。。。more
Susan Smith
，
Urgent read ， understand in only 62 fast paced pages +citations ， how NATO propaganda is leading us into a nuclear war
Jim Razinha
，
Short book that is more a white paper。 As Jack Matlock， former Ambassador to the Soviet Union， said in the Praise section: concise。 I received a review copy of this through NetGalley。 Well composed， easily read， with links to the source material to check for yourself， the analysis and arguments are sound。 If you are receptive。 I suspect the hawks will disagree。Anyone who knows anything about US history knows our culpability in fomenting international discord （that's a understated way of putting Short book that is more a white paper。 As Jack Matlock， former Ambassador to the Soviet Union， said in the Praise section: concise。 I received a review copy of this through NetGalley。 Well composed， easily read， with links to the source material to check for yourself， the analysis and arguments are sound。 If you are receptive。 I suspect the hawks will disagree。Anyone who knows anything about US history knows our culpability in fomenting international discord （that's a understated way of putting it， I know。） And Mr。 Abelow rightly addresses "how the United States would react if 'the shoe were on the other foot' — that is， if Russia acted toward the United States as the West has acted toward Russia。" We're not clean in this。 Yes， Putin made the decision， but we've irrupted for lesser reasons。 We didn't want missiles in our back yard in 1962， why would they want live fire exercises immediately adjacent to Russia？ We have a history of we-can-do-it but you-can't。 Wilson was all about a world "safe for democracy"， but that world didn't include Central and South America。 What about a manufactured war on Spain to acquire their acquisitions。 Or。。。 Anyway， NATO expansion is untenable to Russia， and Abelow concludes the push is what got us to this point in Ukraine history。A few selected takeaways; even though this was short， I made a lot of notes， not all are here:[on that dichotomy again] Paul Nitze， previously Secretary of the Navy and Secretary of Defense， who had opposed Kennan's policy of static containment， favoring more aggressive attempts to compel the Russians to vacate territories。{Iraq was statically contained。 Until it wasn't。 Or we were told it wasn't。}[Fiona Hill] In fact， late in the interview， Hill describes those who point to Western responsibility for the Ukraine crisis as dupes of Russian disinformation: “I mean he [Putin] has got…masses of the U。S。 public saying， ‘Good on you， Vladimir Putin，' or blaming NATO， or blaming the U。S。 for this outcome。 This is exactly what a Russian information war and psychological operation is geared towards。”{Masses？ Only the gullible， and the R party。。。}[George Kennan's observation] Far from protecting the West， he explained， expansion would lead the U。S。 toward war with Russia。 And once this outcome occurred， Kennan predicted， proponents of the expansion would say this proved that inherent Russian militarism was the cause。 Kennan stated: “Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia， and then [the proponents of expansion] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are—but this is just wrong。”{My note was "Post hoc ergo propter hoc。 More though， self fulfilling prophesy。" And the next chapter was titled "How Overly Pessimistic Narratives Become Self-Fulfilling Prophecies"}[more dichotomy] 。。。 the United States and its European allies have implied that a rational actor would be assuaged by the West's statements of benign intention: that the weapons， training， and interoperability exercises， no matter how provocative， powerful， or close to Russia's borders， are purely defensive and not to be feared。{We conduct massive military exercises in conjunction with South Korea， and get outraged when KJU rattles his sabre？}[objectives portrayed， and objectives hidden] Even from a blinkered American perspective， the whole Western plan was a dangerous game of bluff， enacted for reasons that are hard to fathom。 Ukraine is not， by any stretch of the imagination， a vital security interest of the United States。 In fact， Ukraine hardly matters at all。{How many of our incursions are for actual strategic importance？ Into countries that are not really a vital security interest？ Well， they may be now。。。} 。。。more
Matt Erwin
，
Well， it was mercifully short anyhow。 This appears to be a slight expansion of a Medium essay the author wrote a few months ago and for a mere 99 cents on Amazon， you are still being ripped off by a few bucks。Thank you （？） to Netgalley for the review copy of this one。Where to even begin？ Like most Russian apologists， there is an every once in a while nod to the idea "well， I'm not saying that I support anything Putin does， I'm just saying it isn't really his fault。"The book （really more of a pam Well， it was mercifully short anyhow。 This appears to be a slight expansion of a Medium essay the author wrote a few months ago and for a mere 99 cents on Amazon， you are still being ripped off by a few bucks。Thank you （？） to Netgalley for the review copy of this one。Where to even begin？ Like most Russian apologists， there is an every once in a while nod to the idea "well， I'm not saying that I support anything Putin does， I'm just saying it isn't really his fault。"The book （really more of a pamphlet， this is the type of thing before the internet that would be handed to you by a wild eyed college kid wearing Lyndon LaRouche buttons）， intensely talks about the supposed foreign policy missteps of the West （and by West， we mostly mean the US here） while almost glibly ignoring any Russian policy choices。For example， not once is the Budapest Memorandum mentioned。 This memorandum signed by the US， UK and Russia （along with three former Soviet states， including Ukraine） was a non-proliferation treaty。 The memorandum stated that the three powers would respect the sovereignty of former Soviet states， not use or threaten military force， nor use or threaten economic coercion to advance their own interests。 Ukraine transferred their nuclear weapons to Russia as a result of this treaty and has not pursued their own program。 This was considered a great success until Russia violated this agreement repeatedly。 This seems like an important piece of history， but it isn't mentioned once in the book。The citations in the book are comical。 The same people are cited repeatedly， and to say they have some issues is a bit of an understatement。 Some are RT commentators， some are antisemitic， most are exiled from everywhere except RT and Tucker， and for good reason。 These things aren't mentioned of course。 It would be like a book pushing right wing conspiracies that referred to Michael Flynn as a "retired general" or Dan Bongino as "Former Secret Service agent。" Technically true of course， but really missing some important context。 Most stories about John Wayne Gacy don't have quotes from him that refer to him as "midwestern children's entertainer"The primary thrust of the book is that states near Russia should not have the power of self determination。 They have a responsibility to their citizens to avoid conflict with Russia at all cost and essentially they should kowtow to any demands。 These demands include banning former Soviet states from joining NATO。 Whether or not Russia likes their former states becoming part of NATO， they have no right to make those demands。 Sovereign nations are responsible for their own defense strategies and treaties。The argument is essentially "if border nations do things that aren't approved by Russia， they are perfectly justified in taking offensive military action because they have legitimate worries。" It's truly an insane argument。Even more insane is the argument that when there is concern militarily that authoritarianism within a nation necessarily follows。 Yes， when a journalist is murdered for questioning Putin's war， or an oligarch falls out the window of a windowless building？ Well， that's the west's fault as well。In the end， the entire book weak attempt at justification for the invasion of a sovereign nation。 Frankly it is an embarrassing exercise in absolving Russia of any autonomy。 。。。more
Andrew
，
Thought-provoking thesis。 Would like to find something other than mainstream media material that could explain how exactly we， the “West，” justify our current actions and policies that this book claims are， at the very least， illogical。
Bonnye Reed
，