What do you think?
Rate this book
Putin's Master Plan: To Destroy Europe, Divide NATO, and Restore Russian Power and Global Influence
Vladimir Putin has a master plan to destroy Europe, divide NATO, reclaim Russian influence in the world, and most of all to marginalize the United States and the West in order to achieve regional hegemony and global power. Putin’s unified strategy and vision for Europe has not been thoroughly discussed or articulated in any meaningful way until now. Putin’s Master Plan is the first comprehensive attempt to systematically explain Putin’s global strategy, which could inevitably and inexorably lead to the breakup of the NATO alliance, and potentially to war with the West. Currently, the West has no strategy, no plan, and no tactics to confront Putin’s master plan other than imposing limited economic sanctions, which have done little to deter Putin's aggression—and may well have encouraged and facilitated it. The viewpoint taken here is not just alarmism, but an accurate and, for the first time, clear and sober portrayal of a frightening situation that, more and more, serious observers of European and Russian politics are openly recognizing and acknowledging.
Putin’s Master Plan makes the case that it is essential to wake up to Putin’s strategy to destroy Europe, divide NATO, and build a new empire in the former Soviet Union. Russia has demonstrated an extraordinary level of aggression, most boldly in its outright invasions of Georgia and Ukraine. American weakness and a divided Europe have left Russia’s terrified neighbors without an alternative to Russian domination, and even once-stalwart American allies such as the Republic of Georgia are on the brink of becoming part of Putin’s new empire in Europe. Putin has made it clear that he sees NATO expansion as a fundamental threat to Russian nationhood, and he is systematically challenging the NATO Alliance as well as the United States. So far, he is winning.
Putin’s Master Plan makes the case that it is essential to wake up to Putin’s strategy to destroy Europe, divide NATO, and build a new empire in the former Soviet Union. Russia has demonstrated an extraordinary level of aggression, most boldly in its outright invasions of Georgia and Ukraine. American weakness and a divided Europe have left Russia’s terrified neighbors without an alternative to Russian domination, and even once-stalwart American allies such as the Republic of Georgia are on the brink of becoming part of Putin’s new empire in Europe. Putin has made it clear that he sees NATO expansion as a fundamental threat to Russian nationhood, and he is systematically challenging the NATO Alliance as well as the United States. So far, he is winning.
- GenresNonfictionRussiaPolitics
200 pages, Hardcover
Published September 27, 2016
13 people are currently reading
136 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
March 10, 2022
This book was published in 2016. It told of Putin's military and global domination plans. Didn't anyone read this book then? Why is his current attack on Ukraine such a surprise? Mr. Schoen saw it coming. Why didn't anyone else?
December 6, 2017
The book would have to be rewritten with Trump as President. Some of the ideas have changed with a new Presidency.
February 22, 2017
The area of national security and defense continues to gain more relevance and urgency with the passing of time, especially in our world today teeming with authoritarian personalities, ultra nationalists and right-wing populists amid a liberal democratic retreat. Much doubt, along with social discontent, political disillusionment abound and uncertainty assumes the order of the day. This book, written by two political strategists Douglas E. Schoen and his partner Evan Roth Smith though not a panacea; nonetheless, offers a timely clarion call for the West, particularly the United States to shake themselves from their Post-Cold War slumbers and to both renew and to reassert their commitment to liberal democracy, collective security, and nuclear deterrence in the face of Russia's new hybrid warfare, which has assumed global dimensions designed to displace US superpower status as well as to divide Europe and sow discord within the transatlantic alliance. The book's purpose: to provide a vivid explication of Russia's belligerent twenty-first century military strategy and military doctrine explicitly aimed at unraveling the politico-economic gains obtained after World War II at the hands of the US and the ensuing Pax Americana. Under the autocratic leadership of Vladimir Putin, a former officer of the KGB, Russia resolutely seeks to regain global hegemony and to re-establish the Soviet empire by employing coercion, subterfuge, strong-arm military tactics, nuclear saber rattling, disinformation, propaganda and oil as a geostrategic weapons. In short, Putin masterfully utilizes an array of conventional and non-conventional war methods to engage America along with its allies in the European Union and NATO. Douglas Schoen and Evan Smith see these aggressive engagements as proof positive that Vladimir Putin poses a formidable, existential threat not only to its neighbors, but to Europe, NATO, the United States and ultimately the globe as a whole, even more so than the over-inflated threat of so-called "Islamic terrorism" or a rising China.
In many respects, Putin's Master Plan is a polemic. It boldly decries the ineptitude, ineffectiveness, and unassertive leadership characteristic of many Western politicians, policymakers and security personnel in coordinating forceful countermeasures to stop Russia in its track, much less to mount a meaningful deterrent. The authors hold no punches in painting former president Barack Obama as politically naive, even a weakling with respect to his foreign policy record in the Middle East and Europe. Against the likes of Putin in a Iran-Syria-China nexus, Obama stands a novice unwilling on many occasions to pay heed to his military commanders, tepid in his response to crises in Syria and Ukraine where Russia has gained the upper-hand and too concerned about his presidential legacy as a winner of the Nobel peace prize. One must bear in mind President Obama's background is that of an academic, not a battled-hardened general like President Dwight Eisenhower. Thus, his shortcomings in foreign policy ought not to take anyone by surprise. Schoen's criticisms extends further to the overt lack of a working military strategy, military doctrine or foreign policy primed to engage Russia's asymmetric warfare and provocations. Such a lack of strategic thinking and planning come to bear elsewhere as in the fatal miscalculations and misadventures in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya. America and NATO's unpreparedness to confront Russia head-on is a real consequence of their Post-Cold War complacency; an ongoing global recession; government sequestration that has led to a shrunken military presence of ground forces throughout Europe; a heavily dispersed military footprint across vast regions in the world, mainly outside Europe and a preponderant commitment to counter-terrorist and counter-insurgency missions, preoccupations which put them in a non-conventional mode of warfare bogged down pursuing decentralized, shadowy extremist groups and non-state actors. Russia in contrast has concentrated its political, military and diplomatic tools specifically in Europe, while gaining influence and allies in the Middle East and East Asia with rogue regimes. Russia's newfound geopolitical sway comes on the heels of a discernible lack of commitment from leaders in the West to the principles of human rights and liberal democracy, something Vladimir Putin is astutely aware of and ready to exploit at will. Western sanctions imposed on Russian political figures and corporate entities in response to Russia's annexation of Crimea seem moot. Many countries in Europe, including the leading economies like Germany and France are beholden to Russia for their critical gas imports that power industries, ports, and provide much needed heating during the frigid, winter months. Consequently, countries, politicians and political parties that are trading partners with Russia or pro-Kremlin in political orientation are either unable or unwilling to openly defy Russia and advocate for further sanctions. Russia unfortunately in a worst case scenario can resort to "black gold bullying," essentially using dependency on hydrocarbons as a weapon to cower adversaries or critics into submission. Since the European Union constitutes an enormous share of the global economy, the very threat of gas shutoffs can send the global economy in a tailspin. An act like this, if it should ever be enacted upon would amount to economic terrorism.
Far from being confined to Europe, Putin's political maneuvers and geopolitical intrigues extend well beyond Russia's borders and encompasses America's own backyard: Latin America and the Caribbean. In recent years, Russia has made public its intentions to open "military facilities in Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua" (Schoen, 90). This is to say that Russia is not merely a problem over there on the continent, but has become an urgent matter of national security for the Inter-American community, and the Caribbean as well. Should the current cold war standoff between Russia and the West morph into a regional conflict, or perhaps a European conflict, what law is there to prevent the conflict from assuming form in the western hemisphere via political proxies? Cuba is more than willing enough to play host to Russian military and spy ships that routinely go on reconnaissance missions in America's exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Last week saw such military provocations near Groton, Connecticut, home to America's submarine base. Additionally, Russian-Caribbean relations bear some relevance, though it hardly gets prime-time news coverage. For instance, Russia accounts for a considerable share of imports in Trinidad and Tobago, coming in fourth worth $348 million, after the US ($2 billion), Brazil ($534 million) and China ($427 million), according to the Observatory of Economic Complexity operated by MIT. Source: http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile...
Surprisingly, Russia accounts for 6.1 % of Trinidad and Tobago's imports! Of the Crude petroleum that imported into the country, a staggering 62% originates from Russia, followed by Columbia (18%) and Brazil (16%). Source: http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/visuali...
It is not far-fetched to think Russia in the future can use its influence and economic footprint in the region to coerce support or to exert pressure on countries that call for sanctions against Russia. Even if that were not the case, political leaders in Trinidad and Tobago must earnestly inquire amongst themselves why is it they are so dependent on Russian imports and readily doing business with a country that shows no deference much less dedication to the Westminster model, to which we are heirs? Russia, insofar as its leadership is concerned, is assertively anti-liberal and anti-democratic. What does that say about our own commitments to western liberal democracy?
Admirably, Douglas E. Schoen and Evan Smith do not stop short of simply writing a polemical disquisition. To the contrary, they do toward the end of their book offer some reasonable, logical prescriptions all of which I am not totally in agreement with. I am of this conviction because the ideas that are laid out spell out an imminent Third World War. Schoen makes a firm case that the United States should "[deploy] additional bomber-borne nuclear weapons in NATO countries that agree to host them. Since the Russians have already violated the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, we should scrap it and deploy land-based nuclear missiles" (129). Not only would that incentivize Russia to deploy its nuclear arsenal along the Russian borders as it is currently doing, such an act is openly a provocation of war itself! Did it ever occur to the authors that nuclear war based on contemporary technological capabilities will certainly lead to absolute annihilation and the end of not only western civilization, but human civilization itself? There is warmongering on both sides and it certainly does not help when the West makes a publicized declaration of nuclear counter-strikes official military strategy. It is a no-win situation, hands down. Another measure left unexplored in the text to counter Russia's global hybrid warfare is to include other countries in the nexus of a coordinated response, namely those in the former British West Indies that are practitioners of parliamentary democratic governance and aligned to western values of a free, open society nurturing open markets and upholding the rights of minorities. Incidentally, the Caribbean has an important role to play in being within a transit corridor and a bridge to the South American continent. It goes without say that much is at stake when Russia is brazenly taking steps to upset the balance of power in the hemisphere. With that said, a highly recommended read. Putin's Master Plan is readable, cogent and prescient with respect to current affairs and international relations especially now that President Donald Trump is a new reality and members of his cabinet in some instances have either relations with Russia or courting the Kremlin's affections.
In many respects, Putin's Master Plan is a polemic. It boldly decries the ineptitude, ineffectiveness, and unassertive leadership characteristic of many Western politicians, policymakers and security personnel in coordinating forceful countermeasures to stop Russia in its track, much less to mount a meaningful deterrent. The authors hold no punches in painting former president Barack Obama as politically naive, even a weakling with respect to his foreign policy record in the Middle East and Europe. Against the likes of Putin in a Iran-Syria-China nexus, Obama stands a novice unwilling on many occasions to pay heed to his military commanders, tepid in his response to crises in Syria and Ukraine where Russia has gained the upper-hand and too concerned about his presidential legacy as a winner of the Nobel peace prize. One must bear in mind President Obama's background is that of an academic, not a battled-hardened general like President Dwight Eisenhower. Thus, his shortcomings in foreign policy ought not to take anyone by surprise. Schoen's criticisms extends further to the overt lack of a working military strategy, military doctrine or foreign policy primed to engage Russia's asymmetric warfare and provocations. Such a lack of strategic thinking and planning come to bear elsewhere as in the fatal miscalculations and misadventures in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya. America and NATO's unpreparedness to confront Russia head-on is a real consequence of their Post-Cold War complacency; an ongoing global recession; government sequestration that has led to a shrunken military presence of ground forces throughout Europe; a heavily dispersed military footprint across vast regions in the world, mainly outside Europe and a preponderant commitment to counter-terrorist and counter-insurgency missions, preoccupations which put them in a non-conventional mode of warfare bogged down pursuing decentralized, shadowy extremist groups and non-state actors. Russia in contrast has concentrated its political, military and diplomatic tools specifically in Europe, while gaining influence and allies in the Middle East and East Asia with rogue regimes. Russia's newfound geopolitical sway comes on the heels of a discernible lack of commitment from leaders in the West to the principles of human rights and liberal democracy, something Vladimir Putin is astutely aware of and ready to exploit at will. Western sanctions imposed on Russian political figures and corporate entities in response to Russia's annexation of Crimea seem moot. Many countries in Europe, including the leading economies like Germany and France are beholden to Russia for their critical gas imports that power industries, ports, and provide much needed heating during the frigid, winter months. Consequently, countries, politicians and political parties that are trading partners with Russia or pro-Kremlin in political orientation are either unable or unwilling to openly defy Russia and advocate for further sanctions. Russia unfortunately in a worst case scenario can resort to "black gold bullying," essentially using dependency on hydrocarbons as a weapon to cower adversaries or critics into submission. Since the European Union constitutes an enormous share of the global economy, the very threat of gas shutoffs can send the global economy in a tailspin. An act like this, if it should ever be enacted upon would amount to economic terrorism.
Far from being confined to Europe, Putin's political maneuvers and geopolitical intrigues extend well beyond Russia's borders and encompasses America's own backyard: Latin America and the Caribbean. In recent years, Russia has made public its intentions to open "military facilities in Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua" (Schoen, 90). This is to say that Russia is not merely a problem over there on the continent, but has become an urgent matter of national security for the Inter-American community, and the Caribbean as well. Should the current cold war standoff between Russia and the West morph into a regional conflict, or perhaps a European conflict, what law is there to prevent the conflict from assuming form in the western hemisphere via political proxies? Cuba is more than willing enough to play host to Russian military and spy ships that routinely go on reconnaissance missions in America's exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Last week saw such military provocations near Groton, Connecticut, home to America's submarine base. Additionally, Russian-Caribbean relations bear some relevance, though it hardly gets prime-time news coverage. For instance, Russia accounts for a considerable share of imports in Trinidad and Tobago, coming in fourth worth $348 million, after the US ($2 billion), Brazil ($534 million) and China ($427 million), according to the Observatory of Economic Complexity operated by MIT. Source: http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile...
Surprisingly, Russia accounts for 6.1 % of Trinidad and Tobago's imports! Of the Crude petroleum that imported into the country, a staggering 62% originates from Russia, followed by Columbia (18%) and Brazil (16%). Source: http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/visuali...
It is not far-fetched to think Russia in the future can use its influence and economic footprint in the region to coerce support or to exert pressure on countries that call for sanctions against Russia. Even if that were not the case, political leaders in Trinidad and Tobago must earnestly inquire amongst themselves why is it they are so dependent on Russian imports and readily doing business with a country that shows no deference much less dedication to the Westminster model, to which we are heirs? Russia, insofar as its leadership is concerned, is assertively anti-liberal and anti-democratic. What does that say about our own commitments to western liberal democracy?
Admirably, Douglas E. Schoen and Evan Smith do not stop short of simply writing a polemical disquisition. To the contrary, they do toward the end of their book offer some reasonable, logical prescriptions all of which I am not totally in agreement with. I am of this conviction because the ideas that are laid out spell out an imminent Third World War. Schoen makes a firm case that the United States should "[deploy] additional bomber-borne nuclear weapons in NATO countries that agree to host them. Since the Russians have already violated the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, we should scrap it and deploy land-based nuclear missiles" (129). Not only would that incentivize Russia to deploy its nuclear arsenal along the Russian borders as it is currently doing, such an act is openly a provocation of war itself! Did it ever occur to the authors that nuclear war based on contemporary technological capabilities will certainly lead to absolute annihilation and the end of not only western civilization, but human civilization itself? There is warmongering on both sides and it certainly does not help when the West makes a publicized declaration of nuclear counter-strikes official military strategy. It is a no-win situation, hands down. Another measure left unexplored in the text to counter Russia's global hybrid warfare is to include other countries in the nexus of a coordinated response, namely those in the former British West Indies that are practitioners of parliamentary democratic governance and aligned to western values of a free, open society nurturing open markets and upholding the rights of minorities. Incidentally, the Caribbean has an important role to play in being within a transit corridor and a bridge to the South American continent. It goes without say that much is at stake when Russia is brazenly taking steps to upset the balance of power in the hemisphere. With that said, a highly recommended read. Putin's Master Plan is readable, cogent and prescient with respect to current affairs and international relations especially now that President Donald Trump is a new reality and members of his cabinet in some instances have either relations with Russia or courting the Kremlin's affections.
March 31, 2021
Smug EU gets its comeuppance
Reviewed in the United States on May 10, 2020
I did not take the trouble to look at the experience of the authors before I bought this book, and I wish I had. Both of these guys are political consultants. (And that is synonymous with "hack," in case you didn't know. They are the people who ALL predicted Hillary Clinton as the presidential winner.)
This book is essentially a shill for NATO--you know, that organization that do Europeans benefit from while refusing to pay for? And that they expect the United States to shoulder the burden of? That one?
Syllogistically:
¶Anybody that has an interest that is at cross-purposes with the United States is bad.
¶Vladimir Putin has his own interests that are independent of the United States.
¶Therefore, Vladimir Putin is bad.
Even if the situation is as bad as what the authors want us to believe, the questions that I have are:
1. The (Western) Europeans have enough money to defend themselves. If they don't have the will, whose problem is that? (p.35)
2. It happens all the time that there is some body of people somewhere (nation, tribe, ethnic group, business, etc) that will not get its act together, and they find themselves displaced all the time. If Vladimir Putin has the foresight to play 4D chess with the other Europeans, then isn't it survival of the fittest?
And it's not the first time that this happened, and it is what drives progress. People who *will not* learn better ways to do things getting displaced by those who will.
3. What dog does the United States really have in this fight? As a US taxpayer, I could not care less about the self-generated morass in Europe. (Or anywhere else in the world, for that matter.)
4. Is there another alternative for the US? Such as: neutrality and non-alignment.
There have been plenty of countries that have gotten by just fine in modern times staying away from the rest of the world. (Switzerland and Singapore are excellent examples. Japan was cut off from the rest of the world for several centuries, and they came through it just fine.)
The United States has gotten involved in things that were outside of its borders many times, and they backfired in the worst way imaginable.
--For some reason, they decided they had to take in a lot of Muslim refugees from Somalia and the Middle East. And it has been a disaster.
--The long involvement in the Vietnam Incident created the sixties, and it wasn't enough to just lose that decade. The products of that time are still teaching at universities where they have been able to infect the minds of the last two generations.
--Fidel Castro outlived every single president who tried to topple him, and in the meanwhile we have imported millions of people into the United States who do not speak English *decades* later.
Trying to get involved with defending everybody in Europe against Russia just might backfire in a way that is bound only by the imagination.
5. Hubris isn't enough to run/save a country.
The (Western) European countries are just so smug and self-important, that the only way that a useful lesson will be learned (IF it will be learned) will be through their interactions with somebody like Vladimir Putin.
--This is not the first time in history that somebody has had to learn that the hard way. After 1861, Japan modernized and took China as a colony. But, England tried to establish trading rights in the Celestial Kingdom 75 years before and were told that their manufacturers were "toys for children."
And a century passed by, and that was enough time for Japan to come in completely subjugate China because of their intransigence.
And so, why is Europe a special case? And why do we want to get involved with their learning process?
6. Being "cool" is not enough to be a serious competitor in The Game of Global Chess.
And so, in the USA between 2008 and 2016, they had a babbling (but cool!) idiot in the White House who did not understand this. (It has been observed more than one time that there is no structure so stable that black management cannot destroy it. And so the fortune is told again with NATO.)
Hollow threats ("red lines"), inadequate funding/perception of the problem and a black Head of State drove several more nails into the coffin of NATO.
It is what it is.
7. Trying to have so many irons in the fire is prohibitively expensive and difficult even for a much wealthier country like the United States.
Given that Russia has some very serious demographic / financial problems: Can they really do as much as they want to?
Can they do as much as (*some* of us) are afraid that they will be able to do?
8. A topic that comes up again and again is the fact that Russia has abundant gas/oil reserves, and the countries that are of concern for these authors have an equal abundance of energy insecurity.
But, again, whose fault is that?
Some people somewhere can convince themselves that traditional hydrocarbon energy is dirty and that they are "being cool" by restricting its development and production.
In fact, some people *have* done that and left themselves exposed in a dreadful way.
9. The authors also get into the Syrian conflict.
But, the problem with that is: the Arabs have been killing each other for a long time. If you ask the question "When are they not at war with each other?" you would really have to scratch your head they were not.
What is the United States going to do to bring to a conclusion something that has been going on even since before the times of Islam?
What *can* the United States do to bring this to a conclusion?
Verdict: This book is really not worth the time (even though it is only 137 pages), and it's really not worth the money.
Not recommended.
Let the Europeans/Arabs figure it out themselves.
Leave us out of this.
Reviewed in the United States on May 10, 2020
I did not take the trouble to look at the experience of the authors before I bought this book, and I wish I had. Both of these guys are political consultants. (And that is synonymous with "hack," in case you didn't know. They are the people who ALL predicted Hillary Clinton as the presidential winner.)
This book is essentially a shill for NATO--you know, that organization that do Europeans benefit from while refusing to pay for? And that they expect the United States to shoulder the burden of? That one?
Syllogistically:
¶Anybody that has an interest that is at cross-purposes with the United States is bad.
¶Vladimir Putin has his own interests that are independent of the United States.
¶Therefore, Vladimir Putin is bad.
Even if the situation is as bad as what the authors want us to believe, the questions that I have are:
1. The (Western) Europeans have enough money to defend themselves. If they don't have the will, whose problem is that? (p.35)
2. It happens all the time that there is some body of people somewhere (nation, tribe, ethnic group, business, etc) that will not get its act together, and they find themselves displaced all the time. If Vladimir Putin has the foresight to play 4D chess with the other Europeans, then isn't it survival of the fittest?
And it's not the first time that this happened, and it is what drives progress. People who *will not* learn better ways to do things getting displaced by those who will.
3. What dog does the United States really have in this fight? As a US taxpayer, I could not care less about the self-generated morass in Europe. (Or anywhere else in the world, for that matter.)
4. Is there another alternative for the US? Such as: neutrality and non-alignment.
There have been plenty of countries that have gotten by just fine in modern times staying away from the rest of the world. (Switzerland and Singapore are excellent examples. Japan was cut off from the rest of the world for several centuries, and they came through it just fine.)
The United States has gotten involved in things that were outside of its borders many times, and they backfired in the worst way imaginable.
--For some reason, they decided they had to take in a lot of Muslim refugees from Somalia and the Middle East. And it has been a disaster.
--The long involvement in the Vietnam Incident created the sixties, and it wasn't enough to just lose that decade. The products of that time are still teaching at universities where they have been able to infect the minds of the last two generations.
--Fidel Castro outlived every single president who tried to topple him, and in the meanwhile we have imported millions of people into the United States who do not speak English *decades* later.
Trying to get involved with defending everybody in Europe against Russia just might backfire in a way that is bound only by the imagination.
5. Hubris isn't enough to run/save a country.
The (Western) European countries are just so smug and self-important, that the only way that a useful lesson will be learned (IF it will be learned) will be through their interactions with somebody like Vladimir Putin.
--This is not the first time in history that somebody has had to learn that the hard way. After 1861, Japan modernized and took China as a colony. But, England tried to establish trading rights in the Celestial Kingdom 75 years before and were told that their manufacturers were "toys for children."
And a century passed by, and that was enough time for Japan to come in completely subjugate China because of their intransigence.
And so, why is Europe a special case? And why do we want to get involved with their learning process?
6. Being "cool" is not enough to be a serious competitor in The Game of Global Chess.
And so, in the USA between 2008 and 2016, they had a babbling (but cool!) idiot in the White House who did not understand this. (It has been observed more than one time that there is no structure so stable that black management cannot destroy it. And so the fortune is told again with NATO.)
Hollow threats ("red lines"), inadequate funding/perception of the problem and a black Head of State drove several more nails into the coffin of NATO.
It is what it is.
7. Trying to have so many irons in the fire is prohibitively expensive and difficult even for a much wealthier country like the United States.
Given that Russia has some very serious demographic / financial problems: Can they really do as much as they want to?
Can they do as much as (*some* of us) are afraid that they will be able to do?
8. A topic that comes up again and again is the fact that Russia has abundant gas/oil reserves, and the countries that are of concern for these authors have an equal abundance of energy insecurity.
But, again, whose fault is that?
Some people somewhere can convince themselves that traditional hydrocarbon energy is dirty and that they are "being cool" by restricting its development and production.
In fact, some people *have* done that and left themselves exposed in a dreadful way.
9. The authors also get into the Syrian conflict.
But, the problem with that is: the Arabs have been killing each other for a long time. If you ask the question "When are they not at war with each other?" you would really have to scratch your head they were not.
What is the United States going to do to bring to a conclusion something that has been going on even since before the times of Islam?
What *can* the United States do to bring this to a conclusion?
Verdict: This book is really not worth the time (even though it is only 137 pages), and it's really not worth the money.
Not recommended.
Let the Europeans/Arabs figure it out themselves.
Leave us out of this.
May 1, 2021
Aunque el libro es interesante y ayuda a entender acontecimientos geopolíticos recientes, es totalmente imparcial. En algunas partes es la vieja historia de las miradas estadounidenses, Rusia es mala y EEUU es bueno. El libro nos habla de Putin y Rusia, de sus movimientos geopolíticos y su reacción en lugares como Ucrania, Siria, los países del Báltico y Europa. También de la propaganda rusa y su poder cibernético con hackers y trolls. La reacción de Putin ante el avance de la OTAN en el Este puede ser un asunto geopolítico clave del siglo XXI , al igual que el dominio energético y militar del Ártico.Lo curioso de la influencia de Putin es que ejerce poder en los extremos, desde el Frente Popular de Francia a nostálgicos comunistas de todo el mundo.
November 26, 2023
Very informative for newcomers
I'm not an excellent reviewer but this book lays out Putin's plan in a clear and concise way. I learned about new and important facts I otherwise wouldn't have discovered if it weren't for this book. Learning about Putin's political puppits in far left and far right populist parties across Europe really proves that Putin is aimed to destroy the EU and NATO. Obviously his invasion of Georgia and Ukraine are proof of Putin's tsarist like ambitions to expand the Russian empire. Putin also wants to increase the dependancy other countries have on Russian oil. With that said, I think if more people read this book, there would be far less disinformation and outright Russian propaganda permeating in American political discourse.
I'm not an excellent reviewer but this book lays out Putin's plan in a clear and concise way. I learned about new and important facts I otherwise wouldn't have discovered if it weren't for this book. Learning about Putin's political puppits in far left and far right populist parties across Europe really proves that Putin is aimed to destroy the EU and NATO. Obviously his invasion of Georgia and Ukraine are proof of Putin's tsarist like ambitions to expand the Russian empire. Putin also wants to increase the dependancy other countries have on Russian oil. With that said, I think if more people read this book, there would be far less disinformation and outright Russian propaganda permeating in American political discourse.
August 8, 2020
Isn't humanity lucky? I mean all those highly paid experts have missed the point, but a small governmental bureaucrat proved to be too strong for the Russians! The fact that Schoen is a lobbist making a good living from serving various power brokers should come as a bonus.
January 13, 2025
Interesting read especially after the breakout of the war in Ukraine. Overall I thought it was interesting to see how these points hold up in 2024. But I really did not like the writing in the book. I felt like most of the book was the same 9 or 10 points being recycled over and over again.
September 14, 2025
Throughout the whole book, the writer showed why Russia is wrong from a Western perspective. There are always two sides to a coin. He could have analyzed the issue from both sides, which would have made the book livelier.
March 11, 2020
Fascinating look at Putin’s goals for a resurgent Russian global super power and America’s lack of response.
March 12, 2022
Fancy a book like this becoming a non-fiction story.
March 27, 2022
Written in 2016… should have been a wake up call then. Here we are today seeing more of it play out …
December 22, 2016
It is strange to be reading this when so much of this actually occurring in our lives right now. I wish every person would read it, so that they would understand what we are dealing with. I'm sure though that the pro-Putin Trump people would not believe what it says. - they would believe it is political. It so strange that they believe the lies, but deny the truth. I guess this is similar to what happened in Nazi Germany
February 6, 2017
This was one of the most informative books I have read on U.S.-Russian relations. At times I felt the book was a little alarmist or doomsdayish, but the content, facts, and arguments presented made it well worth the read.
March 16, 2023
Totally biased
April 8, 2017
Except running brothels and drug rings, Russian President Vladimir Putin has done everything nefarious in Europe. This is the central idea of the book.
In the introduction chapter, Schoen and Smith give a glimpse of Putin’s four-pronged plan: “By fracturing the transatlantic relationship between America and its European allies, undermining or even destroying the NATO alliance, dividing the European Union, and establishing Russian hegemony in Europe both within and beyond the former borders of the Soviet Union, Putin seeks to usher in a new world order that recalls the bipolar rivalries and tensions between political systems during the Cold War.”
Putin’s plan can fracture the transatlantic relationship between America and its European allies in two ways. First, by breeding Euro-skeptical parties, as Schoen and Smith write on pages one and two: “Putin has struck at the core of the transatlantic alliance, breeding Euro-skeptical parties that want to do away with the EU [European Union] and encouraging anti-American politicians who advocate for the dissolution of NATO”. Second, by tempering the common set of values such as human rights, a free economy and liberal democracy, as Schoen and Smith write on page three: “America and Western Europe share many political and cultural values [such as human rights, a free economy and liberal democracy] and a deep generations bond forged in the fires of twentieth-century history [underpinning the transatlantic project].” However, Schoen and Smith think that these values were compromised while allowing the entry of former Eastern Bloc (or Communist countries) into NATO and EU and the vulnerability offered would be exploited, as they write on page three: “Putin has noticed our wavering devotion to Western values and our lackadaisical defense of core Western ideals.”
Putin’s plan can undermine or destroy the NATO alliance in two ways. First, by making the NATO members realize the impotence of NATO, as Schoen and Smith write on page 30: “In 2014 alone, NATO members scrambled jets 442 times in response to Russian activity…Alarmingly, NATO has become so impotent that some member states are taking steps to build defense and security relationships outside of the alliance. In Northern Europe, NATO members Denmark, Iceland, and Norway are meeting and directly coordinating security policy with non-NATO members Sweden and Finland. These new mutual-defense arrangements are directly driven by Russian aggression in the Arctic and Scandinavia. [The same is what the Baltic states (Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia) and Poland are doing].” Second, by fostering friendly relations with some NATO countries, as Schoen and Smith write on page 37: [S]ome NATO members that were hostile to the Soviet Union are not necessarily as hostile toward Putin’s Russia, and indeed some have friendlier relationship with Moscow than they do with Washington, London, or Brussels. Greece and Hungary are at the top of this list, with both having denounced as a ‘Trojan horse’ for Putin within NATO [and this may lead to “Finlandization” (or complacency) of Europe with Putin].”
Putin’s plan can disrupt the unity of Europe in two ways. First, by encouraging Muslim migrant crisis in Europe, as Schoen and Smith write on page 10: “[W]hen Putin began supporting Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria in 2011, he knew or hoped that the Syrian civil war would produce a large-scale migrant crisis in Europe… [It happened] because of Assad’s brutality and the Russian military support that enabled it. The migrant crisis benefits Putin by fostering division among Western allies and showing Europe’s inability to deal with a major challenge to its political and economic systems. By precipitating the United Kingdom’s exit [i.e. the Brexit] from EU, the migrant crisis struck a blow to European unity that may even be fatal.” Second, by using proxies in Europe, as Schoen and Smith write on page 107: “Unlike the Soviet Union’s subversive support for communist and socialist parties in the West, today Russia’s proxies [in the form of political lackeys and private sector agents] are ideologically diverse, from the far left [socialists] in Greece to the far right [nationalists] in France [to become Putin’s fifth column in EU].”
Putin’s plan can establish Russian hegemony in Europe in two ways. First, by launching a hybrid warfare in Europe, as Schoen and Smith write on page 44: “By employing hybrid warfare, which combines conventional military forces with unconventional forces, information warfare, subterfuge, and propaganda [which is designed to slip under NATO’s threshold of perception and reaction], Russia has pioneered a new and dangerously effective method of conquest – as the world saw when Russia [made a soft annexation of the regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia in August 2008 and] annexed Crimea [from Ukraine, in March 2014, with the help of the Little Green Men, who were in fact Russian Spetsnaz forces incognito, defying the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances of December 1994 guaranteeing Ukraine’s territorial integrity on giving up nuclear weapons].” Second, by enjoying monopoly over the supply of energy (oil and gas) to Europe especially central, northern and eastern, as Schoen and Smith write on page 95: “Putin has effectively weaponized Russia’s energy reserves and leverage them as a foreign policy tool … The EU gets one-third of its natural gas and 35 percent of its crude oil from Russia.” Further, they write on page 98: “The EU is, after all, among the world’s largest economies, accounting for 24 percent of global GDP. Putin knows that if he pulls the plug on European energy supplies, the world economy will take a hit. Russia holds an energy trump card over Europe and, by extension, on all of global trade.”
While drawing the attention of a reader towards Putin’s master plan, the book underscores the comparative failure of the former US President Barack Obama each time Putin succeeds. For instance, Russia reasserted when Obama submitted to Putin in Syria, as Schoen and Smith write on pages 38 and 39: “Obama’s failure to enforce his infamous ‘redline’ [against the Assad regime in 2012] on chemical weapons in Syria discredited him in the eyes of the world. It suggested to America’s allies that we don’t keep our promises and suggested to our enemies that testing our rhetorical commitments with military assertiveness pay offs. If a Putin-backed Assad can walk all over Obama in Syria [since 2011 when the Syrian crisis erupted and since September 2015 when Russia sent its military to Syria to help the Assad regime], then why can’t Putin himself do the same in Ukraine, or the Baltics, or anywhere else he chooses, Article 5 notwithstanding? Indeed, …the Kremlin identified Obama’s failure to enforce the red line in Syria as a turning point in the Russian calculus over using military force in Ukraine.” That is, the weakness showed in Syria by the US emboldened Russia to invade Ukraine and occupy Crimea in March 2014.
Whether Putin has devised a master plan or not, he is out to perform two tasks. First, defending Russia against the Western propaganda of all types, and second, making people believe that the world is not unipolar, as Schoen and Smith write on pages 68 and 69: “Late in 2014, Russia announced Sputnik, a new communications effort focusing on radio and the Internet to supplement RT [Russia Today, which is a multi-lingual broadcast media started by Putin in 2005 to be an alternative news source to Western media]. [Sputnik’s focus is] Countering Western ‘propaganda’ and the ‘unipolarity’ promoted by Western allies. ‘We are against the aggressive propaganda that everybody is fed with and that imposes a unipolar model of the world…We will say what others are silent about. The world is tired of one country thinking of itself as exceptional’…”
Schoen and Smith believe that understanding Putin’s master plan will help neutralize it accordingly. Nevertheless, one of the most interesting features of the book is that it considers Putin a permanent factor in international politics to steer Russia indefinitely.
In the introduction chapter, Schoen and Smith give a glimpse of Putin’s four-pronged plan: “By fracturing the transatlantic relationship between America and its European allies, undermining or even destroying the NATO alliance, dividing the European Union, and establishing Russian hegemony in Europe both within and beyond the former borders of the Soviet Union, Putin seeks to usher in a new world order that recalls the bipolar rivalries and tensions between political systems during the Cold War.”
Putin’s plan can fracture the transatlantic relationship between America and its European allies in two ways. First, by breeding Euro-skeptical parties, as Schoen and Smith write on pages one and two: “Putin has struck at the core of the transatlantic alliance, breeding Euro-skeptical parties that want to do away with the EU [European Union] and encouraging anti-American politicians who advocate for the dissolution of NATO”. Second, by tempering the common set of values such as human rights, a free economy and liberal democracy, as Schoen and Smith write on page three: “America and Western Europe share many political and cultural values [such as human rights, a free economy and liberal democracy] and a deep generations bond forged in the fires of twentieth-century history [underpinning the transatlantic project].” However, Schoen and Smith think that these values were compromised while allowing the entry of former Eastern Bloc (or Communist countries) into NATO and EU and the vulnerability offered would be exploited, as they write on page three: “Putin has noticed our wavering devotion to Western values and our lackadaisical defense of core Western ideals.”
Putin’s plan can undermine or destroy the NATO alliance in two ways. First, by making the NATO members realize the impotence of NATO, as Schoen and Smith write on page 30: “In 2014 alone, NATO members scrambled jets 442 times in response to Russian activity…Alarmingly, NATO has become so impotent that some member states are taking steps to build defense and security relationships outside of the alliance. In Northern Europe, NATO members Denmark, Iceland, and Norway are meeting and directly coordinating security policy with non-NATO members Sweden and Finland. These new mutual-defense arrangements are directly driven by Russian aggression in the Arctic and Scandinavia. [The same is what the Baltic states (Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia) and Poland are doing].” Second, by fostering friendly relations with some NATO countries, as Schoen and Smith write on page 37: [S]ome NATO members that were hostile to the Soviet Union are not necessarily as hostile toward Putin’s Russia, and indeed some have friendlier relationship with Moscow than they do with Washington, London, or Brussels. Greece and Hungary are at the top of this list, with both having denounced as a ‘Trojan horse’ for Putin within NATO [and this may lead to “Finlandization” (or complacency) of Europe with Putin].”
Putin’s plan can disrupt the unity of Europe in two ways. First, by encouraging Muslim migrant crisis in Europe, as Schoen and Smith write on page 10: “[W]hen Putin began supporting Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria in 2011, he knew or hoped that the Syrian civil war would produce a large-scale migrant crisis in Europe… [It happened] because of Assad’s brutality and the Russian military support that enabled it. The migrant crisis benefits Putin by fostering division among Western allies and showing Europe’s inability to deal with a major challenge to its political and economic systems. By precipitating the United Kingdom’s exit [i.e. the Brexit] from EU, the migrant crisis struck a blow to European unity that may even be fatal.” Second, by using proxies in Europe, as Schoen and Smith write on page 107: “Unlike the Soviet Union’s subversive support for communist and socialist parties in the West, today Russia’s proxies [in the form of political lackeys and private sector agents] are ideologically diverse, from the far left [socialists] in Greece to the far right [nationalists] in France [to become Putin’s fifth column in EU].”
Putin’s plan can establish Russian hegemony in Europe in two ways. First, by launching a hybrid warfare in Europe, as Schoen and Smith write on page 44: “By employing hybrid warfare, which combines conventional military forces with unconventional forces, information warfare, subterfuge, and propaganda [which is designed to slip under NATO’s threshold of perception and reaction], Russia has pioneered a new and dangerously effective method of conquest – as the world saw when Russia [made a soft annexation of the regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia in August 2008 and] annexed Crimea [from Ukraine, in March 2014, with the help of the Little Green Men, who were in fact Russian Spetsnaz forces incognito, defying the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances of December 1994 guaranteeing Ukraine’s territorial integrity on giving up nuclear weapons].” Second, by enjoying monopoly over the supply of energy (oil and gas) to Europe especially central, northern and eastern, as Schoen and Smith write on page 95: “Putin has effectively weaponized Russia’s energy reserves and leverage them as a foreign policy tool … The EU gets one-third of its natural gas and 35 percent of its crude oil from Russia.” Further, they write on page 98: “The EU is, after all, among the world’s largest economies, accounting for 24 percent of global GDP. Putin knows that if he pulls the plug on European energy supplies, the world economy will take a hit. Russia holds an energy trump card over Europe and, by extension, on all of global trade.”
While drawing the attention of a reader towards Putin’s master plan, the book underscores the comparative failure of the former US President Barack Obama each time Putin succeeds. For instance, Russia reasserted when Obama submitted to Putin in Syria, as Schoen and Smith write on pages 38 and 39: “Obama’s failure to enforce his infamous ‘redline’ [against the Assad regime in 2012] on chemical weapons in Syria discredited him in the eyes of the world. It suggested to America’s allies that we don’t keep our promises and suggested to our enemies that testing our rhetorical commitments with military assertiveness pay offs. If a Putin-backed Assad can walk all over Obama in Syria [since 2011 when the Syrian crisis erupted and since September 2015 when Russia sent its military to Syria to help the Assad regime], then why can’t Putin himself do the same in Ukraine, or the Baltics, or anywhere else he chooses, Article 5 notwithstanding? Indeed, …the Kremlin identified Obama’s failure to enforce the red line in Syria as a turning point in the Russian calculus over using military force in Ukraine.” That is, the weakness showed in Syria by the US emboldened Russia to invade Ukraine and occupy Crimea in March 2014.
Whether Putin has devised a master plan or not, he is out to perform two tasks. First, defending Russia against the Western propaganda of all types, and second, making people believe that the world is not unipolar, as Schoen and Smith write on pages 68 and 69: “Late in 2014, Russia announced Sputnik, a new communications effort focusing on radio and the Internet to supplement RT [Russia Today, which is a multi-lingual broadcast media started by Putin in 2005 to be an alternative news source to Western media]. [Sputnik’s focus is] Countering Western ‘propaganda’ and the ‘unipolarity’ promoted by Western allies. ‘We are against the aggressive propaganda that everybody is fed with and that imposes a unipolar model of the world…We will say what others are silent about. The world is tired of one country thinking of itself as exceptional’…”
Schoen and Smith believe that understanding Putin’s master plan will help neutralize it accordingly. Nevertheless, one of the most interesting features of the book is that it considers Putin a permanent factor in international politics to steer Russia indefinitely.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews