Midnight in Moscow: A Memoir from the Front Lines of Russia's War Against the West

by John Sullivan

A memoir of service by the American ambassador who was on the diplomatic front lines when Putin invaded Ukraine, Midnight in Moscow is the first behind-the-scenes account of how U.S.-Russia relations hit their nadir—and a playbook for our unfolding confrontation.

For weeks before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, John J. Sullivan, the U.S. ambassador in Moscow, was warning that it would happen. When troops finally crossed the border, he was woken in the middle of the night with a prearranged code. The signal was even more bracing than the February it meant that Sullivan needed to collect his bodyguards and get to the embassy as soon as possible. The war had begun, and the world would never be the same.

In Midnight in Moscow, Sullivan leads readers into the offices of the U.S. embassy and the halls of the Kremlin during this climactic period—among the most dangerous since World War II. He shows how the Putin regime repeatedly lied about its intentions to invade Ukraine in the weeks leading up to the attack, while also devoting huge numbers of personnel and vast resources to undermining the U.S. diplomatic mission in Russia. And he explains how, when Putin ultimately gave the order to launch a full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, he proved that Russia was not just at war with its it was also at war, in a very real sense, with the United States, and with everything that it represents. But while Putin decided how this conflict started, its ending will be shaped by us.
 
With his unique perspective on a pivotal moment in world history, Sullivan shows how our relationship with Russia has deteriorated, where it’s headed, and how far we should be prepared to go in standing up to the menace in Moscow.
 

Genres: Russia, Nonfiction, Politics, History, Memoir, Biography, Audiobook

389 pages, Kindle Edition

Published August 6, 2024

About the author

Librarian Note:
There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
This profile may contain books from multiple authors of this name.

Reviews

[Judy Kugle · Rating 2 out of 5]

I completely lost any respect for Mr Sullivan when I heard an interview with him. He spoke of his time in service under Mr Trump. He spoke of how much distress he felt under Trumps lack of leadership, disorder and confusion. Now after that I really was stunned in the man said he would vote again for him. He is so strongly convicted in his party that he will give his vote to someone he KNOWS is not fit to serve. Party above politics.
I guess because I read and think for myself regardless to what club, store, person, etc. I must be “WOKE”.

[Dawn Michelle]

*I WILL NOT BE RATING THIS BOOK*

While I found quite a bit of this book interesting [the author's time in Russia was very enlightening ], there were moments of REAL boredom [the getting to Russia and the author's propensity for repetition. Lots and LOTS of repetition; I personally think this could have been about 50-100 pages shorter ] and that really bogged this book down for me.

And then...

My biggest issue with this book [and author ] is this:
After talking about all the problems with AND within Russia, with Putin, AND with DJT [with whom the author had previously worked for in the White House, and talks at length about the chaos that he experienced daily while there ] and his [DJT] willingness to destroy Democracy [the last chapter was FULL of this ], imagine my shock and surprise to find out that the author WILLINGLY chose party over people, over warnings from almost everyone who had previously worked for him [including the author's mentor, who just happened to also write the foreward to this book - I wonder if he regrets that now ] and voted AGAINST Democracy and voted for DJT. He willingly is enabling everything he spent a WHOLE book warning the readers about and I was left deeply disappointed, upset, and just not believing anything this man had just spent hours telling me.

I cannot therefore, in good faith, rate this book NOR can I recommend it to anyone, and I wish I had known his REAL views before reading this as I would have given this a very hard pass.

Thank you to NetGalley and to Little, Brown, and Company for this ARC in exchange for an honest review.

[Joe · Rating 4 out of 5]

Most, if not all, of the memoirs of prominent politicians and statesmen I've read are shallow, uninformative and self-congratulatory. Not this one. Ambassador Sullivan has given us a fascinating and insightful eye-witness account of the profound duplicity and malevolence of the Kremlin, Putin, and his henchmen, aka the FSB. In essence, Sullivan has given us an updated version of George Keenan's 1946 "Long Telegram" suited to our times and the dangers presented by the same implacable adversary the U.S. has been dealing with since the Cold War. If you want to get a clearer idea of the challenges the U.S. faces in 21st century Europe, this is a memoir worth reading

[Sam Bogrov · Rating 1 out of 5]

The book isn’t terrible itself, but it reveals how badly recent presidential administrations, on both sides of the aisle, have misunderstood Putin. It highlights one of the biggest casualties stemming from Donald Trump’s attempted blackmail of Ukraine and subsequent trial: Fiona Hill seemingly being ostracized from Trump’s orbit and not being picked up by Biden’s

If you actually want to understand Putin, and Russian foreign policy better, read Mr Putin: Operative In The Kremlin by Fiona Hill. Despite being written in 2012, it correctly revealed who Putin was and what his aims were. Seriously, give it a read and tell me it doesn’t predict a clash with the West like the one we are witnessing today. Despite its availability, our earnest and well-intentioned ambassador to Russia clearly didn’t read it before moving to Moscow.

An interesting exercise I’d recommend: read Hill’s book then read this book to see how badly we performed given the knowledge that was available

[DeWayne Neel · Rating 3 out of 5]

I must admit, I am not a big fan of political books, especially those that deal with the "evil empire of Russia". There are too many acronyms for agencies, titles of conflicts, and all those secret enforcement police. Mr. Sullivan is to be commended for his long service with an impossible task dealing with a country "that never makes a mistake", at least in their evaluation. The war in Ukraine made his last few months totally impossible as he attempted to have an intelligent discussion.
The author does give a detailed account of the ambassador's diplomatic role and the challenges one faces in the conversations with any foreign county, but with the added attitude of Russia, willing to listen, but will not respond. One can spend years and have a few productive dialogues while the nations are shooting at each other.
A difficult read for me.

[Kim N' · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book details John Sullivan’s experiences as the US Russian ambassador during the pandemic, and the months leading up to and directly after the war in Ukraine. It is a little dry at times, as the amount of acronyms, dates, and Russian diplomacy winds on, but it is an eye opening read on the Russian (Putin) mindset and determination to expand it’s territory and influence by any means - lawful or otherwise. If you want a better grasp at what is at stake for the US in Ukraine, this is an accessible place to start.

[William Fortune · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not the most well written or deep thinking memoir. Most of it is filled with some uninteresting niceties of and tangents. However, about a third of the book recounts his encounters with Russian leadership and his insight into Putin’s motivations. I found this third extremely worthwhile to read.

[William Lloyd · Rating 1 out of 5]

Book was fine, but not sure how to respect anyone who went through that and then totally undermines their own narrative by voting for trump

[Rachel · Rating 5 out of 5]

A remarkable book by a remarkable American. Ambassador Sullivan was one of the few to serve under both Trump and Biden. He gives readers a thorough, fast-paced look at diplomatic relations between the United States and Russia through both elections, COVID-19, and the war against Ukraine. He reminds readers that to combat Russian aggression and misinformation, Americans must resist the temptation of partisan division. 5 stars!

[Kenneth · Rating 5 out of 5]

Probably my favorite book for 2024.

[Dmitry · Rating 1 out of 5]

(The English review is placed beneath the Russian one)

Она сидела за столиком у окна
И он как бы случайно смотрел туда
Она была ничего, она была одна
В её глазах как бы читалось «Да»
Время суток позволяло сыграть игру
Время года велело стрелять в упор
И он как бы случайно подсел к столу
И как бы небрежно повёл разговор
Имитация

Я не очень люблю читать мемуары, но в данном случаи я решил сделать исключение т.к. автор описывает свой опыт пребывания в России в качестве посла США. К сожалению, получилось скучно и недостаточно информативно. Плюс, очень много в тексте бюрократии. К примеру, первая четверть книги посвящена тому, как автор попал на эту должность, включая очень скучное описание всех тех бюрократических процедур, через которые прошёл автор. Читателю никак не связанному с США и тем более с чиновничьим аппаратом США, читать будет не очень интересно. Однако и дальше текст книги не становится радикально другим, т.е. более интересным. Пожалуй, лишь однажды мне стало интересно, что пишет автор. Это был момент, когда автор попытался купить iPad, а ему заявили, что он сможет получить iPad только на следующий день.

I walked into the store unannounced on a Saturday morning and went to a counter that had a tall stack of iPad boxes on display. I saw the one that I wanted in the stack, but it was difficult to reach, so I pointed it out to a young store clerk. He took the box and went into a backroom off the sales floor. When he returned, he said that my iPad would be ready the following day.
I replied that I would much prefer to pay for the device now and take it with me. But the young man said that would not be possible, because the iPad was not ready. Incredulous, but beginning to get the picture, I pointed to other customers who were getting similar boxes from the same stack, proceeding to the checkout counter, and walking out of the store with them. The clerk said sheepishly that I could pay for the device today, but he could not let me take delivery until tomorrow.

Конечно, в реальности такого не может быть и автор правильно указывает на то, что, скорее всего, это была прямая директива ФСБ, чтобы успеть за это время поставить шпионские программы в iPad посла:

Someone needed to prepare the iPad specially for me before I could use it.

Тем не менее, мне показалось странным, что автор просто не купил iPad, через третьих лиц заказав его в Интернете.

Вторая проблема книги в том, что ничего нового автор не пишет. Более того, автор предлагает официальный взгляд, который транслируется в мировых СМИ. К примеру, он на полном серьёзе воспринимает слова Путина за истинные его мысли и намерения.

What struck me most about my conversation with Putin was how important the historical memory of World War II was to him—politically and emotionally—even as the world was entering the third decade of the twenty-first century.

Мне это напоминает разговор Путина с Джорджем Бушем, которому он тоже вешал лапшу на уши. Вот тут похожая история. И ведь автор на полном серьёзе воспринял всё сказанное Путиным. Трудно потом всерьёз воспринимать эту книгу. Однако далее, когда автор доходит до темы нынешнего военного противостояния России и Украины, меня вообще начала раздражать книга и только по одной причине - лицемерие.

After those atrocities, particularly the mass grave in Bucha, were revealed with greater clarity in April, and the rapacious Russian invasion ground on unabated in eastern and southern Ukraine, the concepts of “mutual trust” and “cease-fire” were simply not viable.
<...>
Sitting in my office in Moscow, hundreds of miles removed from the scenes of savage destruction in Ukraine, Russian brutality was becoming almost routinized. That was, until a deadly missile strike on a train station in Kramatorsk, a small city on the Ukrainian military’s side of the line of contact in northern Donetsk in eastern Ukraine, finally crystallized for me the unspeakable horror of Putin’s aggressive war. My views on his war would never be the same.

Жаль, что автор не написал, что он три дня пил водку с горя и никак не мог выбросить из головы мёртвых украинских детей. К чему я тут язвлю, спросите вы меня? Потому, что именно в 2022 году у Украины был шанс победить Россию на поля боя, если бы... если бы американцы не заблокировали помощь. Помните ту историю с блокированием военной помощи в американском сенате? Этот момент был критический и то же самое касается и Европы, которая могла дать в тот момент все, что у неё было и тем самым закончить войну. Но был выбран другой вариант развития событий, который можно условно назвать "не дать России победить, а Украине проиграть". В итоге, когда я сегодня читаю эти слёзные истории, как американский посол переживал за украинцев, я вижу не переживания, а простой и понятный россиянам цинизм. Как писал Пелевин, «цинизм, бескрайний, как вид с Останкинской телебашни». То, что случилось в Краматорске было действительно тяжело воспринимать и смотреть на те кадры, но автору не следовало описывать ситуацию, так как он это сделал. Можно было написать совсем другое, а именно что США и ЕС полностью понимают и принимают часть ответственности за того что случилось и в Краматорске и в Буче. И это я не говорю про Ирак и Афганистан, где тоже погибло огромное количество гражданских и тоже не понятно ради чего (это не оправдывает Россию, но это говорит, что не стоит американскому чиновнику строить из себя политическую девственницу). Так что, как говорится, Москва слезам не верит.

Последний момент из этой очень странной книги.

There were technical means to access uncensored news via the internet, such as with a VPN, but that was risky and required both a dedicated effort to seek independent sources of news and technical competence that was often beyond the means of most, particularly elderly, Russians.

Такое чувство, что автор вообще не знает и не понимает, как устроена жизнь не только в России, но и в мире. Возможно, в США мало кто использует VPN, но в менее свободных странах этот инструмент стал рутиной, по крайне мере среди молодых людей. Поэтому писать такую чушь может лишь человек, который вообще ничего не знает о современных технологиях (P.S. в России не запрещено использовать VPN).


I am not very fond of reading memoirs, but, in this case, I decided to make an exception because the author describes his experience of being in Russia as a U.S. ambassador. Unfortunately, it turned out to be boring and not informative enough. Plus, there is a lot of bureaucracy in the text. For example, the first quarter of the book is devoted to how the author got to this position, including a very boring description of all the bureaucratic procedures the author went through. The reader who is not in any way connected with the USA and even less with the bureaucratic apparatus of the USA will not be very interested in reading it. However, even beyond that, the text of the book does not become radically different, i.e., more interesting. Perhaps, only once did I become interested in what the author was writing. It was when the author tried to buy an iPad and was told that he could get the iPad only the next day.

I walked into the store unannounced on a Saturday morning and went to a counter that had a tall stack of iPad boxes on display. I saw the one that I wanted in the stack, but it was difficult to reach, so I pointed it out to a young store clerk. He took the box and went into a backroom off the sales floor. When he returned, he said that my iPad would be ready the following day.
I replied that I would much prefer to pay for the device now and take it with me. But the young man said that would not be possible, because the iPad was not ready. Incredulous, but beginning to get the picture, I pointed to other customers who were getting similar boxes from the same stack, proceeding to the checkout counter, and walking out of the store with them. The clerk said sheepishly that I could pay for the device today, but he could not let me take delivery until tomorrow.

Of course, in reality, this can't happen, and the author correctly points out that it was probably a directive from the FSB to have time to put spyware in the Ambassador's iPad in the meantime:

Someone needed to prepare the iPad specially for me before I could use it.

However, I found it odd that the author didn't just buy an iPad by ordering it online through a third party.

The second problem with the book is that the author does not write anything new. Moreover, the author offers an official view that is broadcast in the world media. For example, he takes Putin's words seriously as his true thoughts and intentions.

What struck me most about my conversation with Putin was how important the historical memory of World War II was to him—politically and emotionally—even as the world was entering the third decade of the twenty-first century.

It reminds me of Putin's conversation with George W. Bush, who was also being bullshitted by Putin. It's a similar story here. And the author took everything Putin said seriously. It's hard to take this book seriously afterward. However, when the author got to the topic of the current military confrontation between Russia and Ukraine, I started to get annoyed with the book in general and for one reason only - hypocrisy.

After those atrocities, particularly the mass grave in Bucha, were revealed with greater clarity in April, and the rapacious Russian invasion ground on unabated in eastern and southern Ukraine, the concepts of “mutual trust” and “cease-fire” were simply not viable.
<...>
Sitting in my office in Moscow, hundreds of miles removed from the scenes of savage destruction in Ukraine, Russian brutality was becoming almost routinized. That was, until a deadly missile strike on a train station in Kramatorsk, a small city on the Ukrainian military’s side of the line of contact in northern Donetsk in eastern Ukraine, finally crystallized for me the unspeakable horror of Putin’s aggressive war. My views on his war would never be the same.

It is a pity that the author did not write that he drank vodka for three days and could not get the dead Ukrainian children out of his mind. Why am I being snarky, you ask me? Because it was in 2022 that Ukraine had a chance to defeat Russia on the battlefield, if... if the Americans hadn't blocked the aid. Remember that story about blocking military aid in the U.S. Senate? That moment was critical, and the same goes for Europe, which could have given everything it had at that moment and thus ended the war. But another version of the development of events was chosen, which can be tentatively called “to prevent Russia from winning and Ukraine from losing”. As a result, when I read these tearful stories today, how the American ambassador was worried about the Ukrainians, I see not worry but cynicism, simple and understandable to Russians. As Pelevin wrote, “cynicism as boundless as the view from the Ostankino TV Tower.” What happened in Kramatorsk was really hard to perceive and look at those images but the author should not have described the situation as he did. He could have written something completely different, namely that the US and the EU fully understand and accept part of the responsibility for what happened in Kramatorsk and Bucha. Not to mention Iraq and Afghanistan, where a huge number of civilians have also died, and also for no clear reason (this doesn't justify Russia, but it does say that it's not worth it for an American official to pretend to be a political virgin). So, as they say, Moscow does not believe in tears.

One last moment from this very strange book.

There were technical means to access uncensored news via the internet, such as with a VPN, but that was risky and required both a dedicated effort to seek independent sources of news and technical competence that was often beyond the means of most, particularly elderly, Russians.

It feels like the author doesn't know or understand how life works not only in Russia but also in the world. Perhaps few people in the USA use VPNs, but in less free countries this tool has become routine, at least among young people. Therefore, only a person who knows nothing about modern technologies can write such nonsense (P.S. It is not forbidden to use VPN in Russia).

[Connor Dickey · Rating 4 out of 5]

The true story of the lead up to the war in Ukraine from the perspective of the US Ambassador to Russia. Interesting nuggets from behind the scenes negotiations across multiple administrations and a compelling case for the war's illegality.

[doomedsardines · Rating 2 out of 5]

The problem with so many people in America is that they take things at face value. At the beginning of the book, Sullivan refers to a video Schwarzenegger made to address the Russian people after the start of the Special Military Operation in Ukraine. Sullivan referred to it as the best effort any American can make at that time in an attempt not to stop the war, but to show the Russians what was really happening. Tell them the truth.

And there he was explaining that it was Russian Government who started this bloody war, and it was no possible to have Nazis in Ukraine since president is a Jew. In reality, what he does is a direct influence in other country internal policy. Actually motivating people to start a coupe. Typical American way of interference in other countries’ domestic affairs.

What many westerners don’t understand is Russian or Chinese or any other people who live under governments, that developed world refer to as Autocracies or Dictatorships knows exactly that they shall not trust their governments. They take any official message with a big grain of salt and never trust blindly of what’s shown on TV or written in newspapers.

Here is one of my favorite quotes from Amanda Ripley’s “High Conflict”: “Want to convince other people that you are right and they are wrong? Stop trying to do it on social media. Or through shame on any media. It will backfire. Persuasion require understanding, and understanding requires listening.” And understanding is impossible without curiosity, which Sullivan in my opinion totally lack.

Sullivan’s only connection to Russian before posting was his obsession with the soviet hockey team which played in the super series against Canada. So he hardly understands the culture and society of the country he was about to work in. His time as deputy Secretary of State was such a hell of work, as he describes, that he was begging to leave to some other posting, so the Moscow assignment came as a savior.

Obviously, if you are a public servant, you want to make sure that your work brings benefits to the country you serve. It’s clear that Sullivan is one of those people who will do outmost to serve his country and when he came to Russia at the lowest point of Russian-American relationship he wanted to change them for the better. It was not an idealistic, but rather rational and pragmatic view that he had. Of course, with all the biases behind him and the typical American superpower arrogance. It didn’t turn out well at the end, he's actually left leaving Russo-American relationship almost in ruins. Obviously, if you do outmost to sabotage almost every positive intention your President is proposing, it's going to be quite an obvious outcome.

He was complaining that Russian was always doing symmetrical answers when US was sending out the Russian diplomats or when US were rejecting 10 visas for the embassy stuff, Russia mirrored it. Surprising, right? Is it much easier to work with your vassals, isn’t it?
He was occasionally asking some senior Russian officials about Russia’s interference in 2016 US elections, and no one ever confirmed the allegation. Surprise? Hardly. Has America ever confirmed any of the extensive lists of its election interferences in other countries, which, btw, include the Russian election in 1996? Nope! So what was he expecting?
Along to all that complaining about Russians and whining how they always make life for him and other embassy personnel difficult, he keeps on calling everyone a “chekist” and only see spies and KGB agents around. He is perfect child of the Cold War propaganda, I admit he might act and think from his country best interests, but in order to create a dialogue you need to have a humility to do so and start listening to other side.

As anyone in the west nowadays, he blames all things on Putin, whether it make sense or not. So even his inability to be with his wife longer before her death due to cancer he claimed was Putin’s fault. As we say in Russian, “if it is a rain or a hail, Putin is for it to blame.”
During one of the last chapter, he is trying to draw the parallel lines of an Ukrainian conflict to German invasion of Poland in 1939. Making a lot of quotes and references to the Nuremberg Trials. Of course, it never crosses his mind to maybe make a comparison to wars US (Vietnam, Panama 1989, Iraq 2003) or NATO (Yugoslavia 1999, Afganistan 2001, Lybia 2011) have unlawfully started.
George Kennan, former ambassador to USSR in the 30s and 50s, who is so much adored by Sullivan in the first half of the book for his “the long telegram” with main message how Russia can’t be trusted in their international affairs. However, when Sullivan cites the Kennan again, this time his 1998 NYT interview where he heavily opposes NATO eastern expansion, predicting the rise of anti-western, militaristic and nationalistic opinions in Russia and literally saying "there was no reason for this whatsoever". In this instance, Sullivan disagrees, bringing poor Eastern European nations begging for security against “evil Russians” as an excuse for a move.

No need to look much under the surface to find the great difference between those two diplomats. All his life Kennan was studying Russian affairs, trying to understand what ticks the people in USSR and then Russia. Sullivan on the hand was fixated on the Democratic Party BS and indoctrinated in his Cold War propaganda as he was raised. If the only good thing about the country you can ever mention is the hockey game, how are you supposed to build bridges and cooperate.

At the end, Sullivan mentions that it’s cheaper long term for America to support Ukraine then to give in since, not support will mean the crumble of the post WWII security system that US have built. Basically admitting that this was never about Ukraine or Democracy, but American interest is the only thing that matter at the end of the day.

To sum up, while book might certainly be interesting to someone who’s keen on international affairs and specifically in the US and Russia relationship. The greatest flaw of it, instead of bringing both sides closer to understanding, it will rather create even more gap just feeding in the existing conflict. Those on the other side of the “New Iron Curtain” who will read that book, will only reinforce their biases. If the main target of the book was to bring the two great nations of Russia and USA further apart, the author has succeeded. But would you rather live in a world where understanding and curiosity prevails over confrontation and blind hate?

[Chris · Rating 5 out of 5]

A well-written look inside the Russian government and at the life of a high level diplomat behind the front lines of the deadliest war in Europe since 1945.

Thank goodness America has people like John Sullivan - talented, highly competent, patriotic, and willing to make the sacrifices necessary to serve in precarious, often thankless positions.

Read it for a better understanding of how Russia operates, its illegal invasion of Ukraine, and how an American ambassador doggedly tried to keep things together.

[John Miller · Rating 2 out of 5]

I expected to a book with new insights into Russia, Russians and events leading up to the invasion of Ukraine.

It was, for the most part, a book about John Sullivan. Nice enough guy, I'm sure a good ambassador, but not why I bought the book.

To the extent there is insight in the book it comes from George Kennan's "long telegram" of 1947. Which is referenced in the book. Do yourself a favor and read the "long telegram" itself. It is as on the money today as it was then when it set US thinking on the USSR.

[Ted Haussman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very well written book by our ambassador to Moscow starting in the waning days of the first Trump administration until about 6 months after the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. It pulls no punches about the Russian regime’s motivations and subtle or so subtle ways in which it is at war with us. Sadly, I fear that his closing argument at the end of the book will not persuade the current administration and those who are slavishly devoted to DJT. And we will be all the less safe for that.

[George D · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was a great book. I learned a lot about Russia, but also about how difficult the job of ambassador in a hostile country can be. Ambassador Sullivan’s insights into diplomacy are very informative.
But to me, the obvious love affair between the ambassador and his wife, Grace, was so moving and heartfelt.

[Tyler B · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a good book for having so limited a circulation (so far). Ambassador Sullivan provided an excellent summary of Russian history and it and Putin's ideologies and how his time as ambassador tenure played into it during our turbulent recent past.

[Erin Joyce · Rating 5 out of 5]

Loved every minute of this audiobook. Never would have made it through the book because the subject is dense and full of dates, Russian name, government acronyms, historic policies, and legal documents/treated/agreements. I enjoyed deep diving into relevant topics. Highly topical. Highly recommend.

[Charles · Rating 3 out of 5]

First-hand Account of Putin Threat by America’s Ambassador to Moscow

John J. Sullivan was U.S. ambassador to Russia in 2021 and 2022 under both presidents Trump and Biden. Previously he served almost three years as the U.S. deputy Secretary of State and during a four-decade career held a number of senior public and private sector positions.

This is a personal memoir of what it was like to be ambassador during a critical period under which, under Vladimir Putin, U.S. - Russian relations declined precipitously. Sullivan of warned of Russia’s imminent invasion of Ukraine for weeks before it took place in February, 2022.

The strength of the book is Sullivan’s assessment of Putin. Among his observations:

1) The more Putin wanted something, the less willing he was to show it, because that would reveal a potential vulnerability which he feared adversaries would exploit.


2) Putin was not distressed by the demise of Soviet Communism. But he lamented the loss of a Russian empire built over the centuries, consolidated and controlled by Moscow. For this reason he has a deep hatred of Mikhail Gorbachev. Putin embraces Russkiy mir, a historically inaccurate myth that forms the basis for Russia’s claims of territorial empire. 


3) With Putin, as with Stalin, power is legitimized based on a need to stoke fear of a menacing foreign enemy. This sense of threat to Mother Russia has antecedents throughout Russian history and taps deeply into the Russian psyche.


4) Prior to the invasion, Putin was willing to have Russia endure Western opprobrium and sanctions to achieve his imperial goals. He had no interest in compromise with Zelensky or any other independent Ukrainian government which he views as a usurper.


5) Putin, in Sullivan’s estimation, will never surrender the goal of subjugating Ukraine. This is relevant as Trump, as this review is written in August, 2025, is trying to negotiate an end to the fighting with an ultimate goal of a peace agreement. Sullivan in his book declares that any “rest stop” agreed by Putin will only be for the purpose of refitting the Russian military in order to continue the war.



In sum, Sullivan is very pessimistic, in the absence of a turn in the war that affects his continued dictatorship, that Putin will agree to any settlement short of total subjugation of Ukraine. 
Any longer-term withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukraine without territorial gains would put Putin's regime at risk as Russian citizens realize the waste in lives and treasure of this adventure.

Sullivan is critical of President Trump and his approach to negotiating with Putin. “What was good for Trump, he seemed to think, was good for the United States but not necessarily ice versa. He approached other leaders, including Xi, Mode, and Erdogan as well as Putin, with highly personalized diplomacy that did not consider the larger strategic interests and values of the United States.” 



Sullivan declares that he sought to lead a mission in Moscow that “would have pride in the U.S. Constitution in our system of government, in the American people and our history, but would have the courage and strength to admit our flaws.” Indeed Ambassador Sullivan recognized the difficult living conditions and emotional strain on American embassy staff in Moscow and comes across as a leader who cared about the people serving our country.



In recent interviews, Sullivan continues to be very critical of Trump’s negotiating posture with Putin, calling out Trump’s unwillingness to do his homework, his inflated view of his own negotiating skills, and his lack of persistence in setting critical foreign policy goals and then pushing hard for them without compromise. Thus it is disappointing that he said he voted for Trump in 2024 and still supports him. How he can reconcile this with his criticism of Trump’s approach to negotiating with Putin and to the importance he attaches to Ukraine’s independence and the containment of Putin’s Russia is difficult for this reviewer to reconcile. But that is not the purpose of a review of this book which argues for standing up to Putin and maintaining Ukraine’s independence.







[Cynthia · Rating 4 out of 5]

While I could easily offer a criticism of the writing in this book or how I disagree with the author's support to a certain U.S. politician, on the eve of the beginning of the 5th year of Russia's war against Ukraine, what I will take away the most is the reminder of the horrors from the early months of the invasion and the first-person insight into diplomatic efforts to prevent the conflict. It saddens me that in the world's haste to move on, so many choose to forget that this is an unjust aggressive war on Russia's part which has no defensible basis. As the author himself states on page 361, "Whatever the merits of Russia's complaints about the European status quo as of 2022, nothing justified the aggressive war it launched against Ukraine. Nothing justified killing, wounding, or driving from their homes millions of Ukrainians." Nothing.

[Shana Butler · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow. One of the most fantastic, timely foreign policy books I’ve read. I enjoyed hearing about his professional journey, and how he ended up as the Ambassador to Russia. I particularly liked the fact that he has worked for both Dem & Rep. administrations (back to Bush), and had both negatives and positives to say about each - not just opinions but his actual experiences.

Particularly liked his recalling of history, as it is crucial to understand Putin’s POV not just for Ukraine, but for Russia’s place in the world order. His comparison to the Nuremberg trials was well done. I also loved his last chapter and the explanation of why NATO and the US’ network of alliances and partners is critical for maintaining the post wwii world order. In the case of Russia, history seems to not only be one of many motivating factors, but also a large portion of Putin’s playbook. It further proves the point that those who do not know/understand history are doomed to repeat it.

[Анатолій Бабинський · Rating 5 out of 5]

Nothing new for Ukrainians, but the book provides strong additional evidence that neo-imperial ambitions, rather than any rational reasons, were behind Russia's aggression in 2022.

[Melissa Abelev · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting memior of the most recent US ambassador to Russia (and many other roles across several administrations)

[Denise · Rating 5 out of 5]

Pros :: Tough subject to read about — current machinations, inhumanity and greed. And this is current history, mind you. Great inside look at the chaotic, challenging and hassled life of an US Ambassador to Russia under Trump and President Biden. So scary the outlook Russia has (ie Putin and his inner police state circle) on the world. Thought John Sullivan gave an interesting and informative look behind the curtain (no pun intended) of the viewpoints and shenanigans of world policy. Nice inclusion of personal photos.

‘… for example, on trade, investment, or energy—that would benefit Trump politically, and therefore, in his mind, the United States: what was good for Trump, he seemed to think, was also good for the United States, although not necessarily vice versa.”

Cons :: Nothing

Cover art :: 5 out of 5

[Robert Hyland · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great insight into Russia/ USA relationship

Mr. Sullivan is a dedicated and experienced Public servant and diplomat. He leans upon his experiences in the State department under President Trump and as ambassador to Russia under Trump and President Biden to present a picture of the 21st century USA/ Russia relationship. He provides great insight into Russian actions, communications, and motivations; with special attention to Vladimir Putin's stranglehold over Russia.

The epilogue provides the author's theory of how the USA/ Russia relationship should be managed, ...suffice it to say Mr. Sullivan would not be a fan of 2025 Trump administration management of Russia/ Ukraine peace negotiations.

Very good book to improve your understanding of Russia's motivations.

[James Hallmark · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating account of Sullivan’s term as Ambassador to Russia through COVID and the first year of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Given our president and vice president’s affection for Putin, seems like a good time to post this book, although I read it a month ago. Sullivan, a life long public servant, was appointed Ambassador by Trump in 2019 and was reappointed by Biden in 2021. As such, Sullivan has a unique experience with both. And, he is critical of both when it comes to their understanding and strategy in working with Putin and for that matter their approach to Ukraine. Approximately 2/3 of the book focuses on Putin—a very interesting and insightful view of the despot—and Ukraine, the facts leading up to Russia’s invasion and their inability to overwhelm the Ukrainian people. The final chapter is essentially “so what should we do.” The bulk of the book is descriptive but in the final chapter he suggests what should be done. I think the best summary is “it’s complicated.” The book is pretty nerdy (a compliment) and was wonderful for a guy like me who finds Russia and Ukraine interesting. There was a very poignant moment when, while serving as Ambassador in Moscow, Sullivan’s wife became gravely ill. She had been fighting cancer for a while, but took a rapid turn while he was away and he had to scramble to return. Sadly, he only made it back to the states 1 day before her passing. I found his obvious affection for his late wife touching. Back to Russia, this is a good book for understanding how evil this despot is that our president seems to trust and wish to ally with, and for understanding the corruption and lack of ethic that leads to a massive army’s inability to subdue a proud people who have nothing to lose. The Ukrainians know what the Russians do to them when they control the country as they have lived it for almost a thousand years. Fighting to the death is not such a bad outcome when you have lived their history. We (the U.S.) don’t understand that cuz we’ve never been in that situation.

[Irl · Rating 2 out of 5]

John Sullivan’s Midnight in Moscow offers a unique, first-hand account of diplomatic life on the fault lines between Russia and the West. Drawing from his experience as U.S. ambassador to Russia, Sullivan brings a deep understanding of the Kremlin’s mindset and tactics. He has plenty of important insights to share—but the book can, at times, feel bogged down by repetitive diplomatic blow-by-blow: meetings that lead to ultimatums, consultations with Washington, and carefully worded responses, only for the cycle to repeat. These sections occasionally lack momentum, making parts of the memoir feel like they’re circling rather than moving forward.

That said, the final section of the book is where it truly shines. Sullivan draws a chilling and persuasive legal comparison between Russia’s behaviour in the lead-up to its 2022 invasion of Ukraine and Nazi Germany’s actions before its invasion of Poland in 1939. The parallels he lays out are striking: both regimes issued ultimatums with unreasonably short deadlines; both cloaked aggression under the guise of protecting minority populations or responding to manufactured threats; both distorted history to justify their claims and refused to recognise the sovereignty of their target nations.

Sullivan’s comparison goes beyond surface analogies, highlighting the strategic use of intimidation, military build-up, and demands for sweeping concessions—all accompanied by a narrative of “legitimate interests” that crumble under scrutiny. This final analysis ties the memoir together with a sharp sense of historical awareness and urgency, making it a thought-provoking and timely read despite some structural drawbacks.

Recommended for readers with an interest in contemporary diplomacy, Russian foreign policy, or the long echoes of authoritarian ambition.

[Andrew · Rating 3 out of 5]

Former deputy Secretary of State and former Ambassador to Russia John Sullivan has written "Midnight in Moscow" detailing his time in the above-mentioned positions and his thoughts on the US-Russia relationship. I read this book because it was selected by my book club, as I would likely not have read it otherwise. Sullivan certainly writes about Russia from a unique vantage point and has interesting things to say about the long arc of US-Russia relations, and for that, the book is worth reading.

Sullivan has a long and distinguished career with the US Government, capping off his service with six years focused on foreign relations, and in particular, Russia. The US relationship with Russia has been difficult and complex for many decades, and the role of Ambassador to Russia, which sits at that challenging intersection, is doubly so. Indeed, this role has been called the most difficult role in all of American Foreign Service, and based on Sullivan's accounts, I don't doubt it. Russia intentionally makes life at the American Embassy in Moscow very hard - so much so that the average ambassadorial tenure is just three years. Sullivan likely would have been there longer, although his service was cut short by the unexpected death of his wife.

Throughout the book, Sullivan expounds on the many aspects of the American relationship with Russia, diving at times into great detail. While at times, I believe he goes into too much detail, overall, Sullivan's expertise on Russia is almost unmatched. The breadth and depth of his experience provides the reader with a rich narrative of how, as a country, we engage with such a difficult negotiating partner. The book definitely piques my interest in the subject, and I definitely plan to read more on the topic.

[Caleb Elledge · Rating 4 out of 5]

I consider myself to be somewhat well informed on current events, especially that relating to Russia’s relationship with the West and the conflict in Ukraine. Ambassador Sullivan’s memoir did a great job at showing his perspective on these recent events, and I learned a lot from this book.

I also think he did a good job at giving a fair evaluation of what it was like serving under both Trump and Biden, and thought the portions of the book where they were involved were especially interesting.

Sullivan’s knowledge of history provided a lot of really good insights, such as his comparison of today’s Russia to 1939 Nazi Germany, the takeaways from the Nuremberg Trials that can apply to Putin’s war, and his description of Putin as a Chekist and the dive into Putin’s worldview.

Finally, Sullivan’s experience balancing his important role as ambassador to Russia with his marriage was important to hear. My dad was KIA in Iraqi Freedom in 2008, so i often hear how we need to honor the sacrifices of those who have given their lives for the USA. What i dont hear as often is honoring those who have made other huge sacrifices, such as that of their families, friends, careers, and health. It must have been so hard for Sullivan to be separated from his wife and his family for as long as he was, then to lose her at the end. For that, I thank him for his sacrifice and the sacrifice of his wife for giving him up to the service of his country.