How the West Brought War to Ukraine: Understanding How U.S. and NATO Policies Led to Crisis, War, and the Risk of Nuclear Catastrophe

by Benjamin Abelow

According to the mainstream Western narrative, Vladimir Putin is an insatiable, Hitler-like expansionist who invaded Ukraine in an unprovoked land grab.

That story is incorrect.

In reality, the United States and NATO bear much of the responsibility for the Ukraine crisis. Through a series of misguided policies, Washington and its European allies placed Russia in an untenable situation for which war seemed, to Mr. Putin and his military staff, the only workable solution.

In How the West Brought War to Ukraine , author Benjamin Abelow lays out the relevant history and explains how the West needlessly produced conflict, subjecting its own citizens—and the rest of the world—to the risk of nuclear war.

Endorsed by leading defense experts and policy analysts, this brief and highly readable book shows how the West provoked the crisis and now labors under an existential threat of its own making.

How the West Brought War to Ukraine looks beneath the surface of recent events. It lets readers understand the deeper sources of the Ukraine war and provides new insights into how the conflict might be resolved.

If you'd like to hear the author respond to the claims that the Ukraine war is a "humanitarian" venture and that Ukraine has the "right" to join NATO, go to the Author's page. There you will find two short video clips (two minutes each).To get to that page, click on the author's photo beneath the cover image of the book (this may not be an option from mobile devices).

Genres: Politics, History, Nonfiction, Russia, Ukraine, War, Audiobook

76 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2022

Reviews

[Metodi Markov · Rating 1 out of 5]

Review on English, followed by the Bulgarian one. Ревюто на английски е първо, следва това на български.

RuZZians simply adore to pretend being victims!

And it work surprisingly well, especially among those westerners that have no clue what aggresive and brainless beings they actually are. That never visited the shithole called now RuZZian Federation, never met RuZZians and their homeland never suffered the yoke that RuZZian horde of criminals and murderers, that's what they bring whenever they occupy the weaker neighbor countries.

RuZZians skillfully use people like Abelow to manipulate and spread their lies around the world. But he is no friend for them - rashist have term "useful idiots" (credit to Lenin - cruel and useless mass murderer) and they moke and despise them all the time. No difference if they are paid like Abelow, or they do it for free, like the those that left positive reviews for his bullshits. Sadly, they are a legion and that helps to RuZZian in their major task - ruin life of millions, including themselves...

I can write a lot more about fundamental problems that normal people have with this giant tumor that wants to rule all the world, but will just post a list of their aggressive actions and the wars they started from 1918 till today:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...

P.S. I find it rather strange, how a guy without relevant education and knowledge for this part of the world comes out so fast with a book that clearly defends and justifies the fascist RuZZian aggression against Ukraine. So for me, this scumbag is definitely paid and have to be sued as collaborator of this criminal regime of Putin!

—————————————————————————

РуZнаците обожават да се преструват на жертви!

И това работи учудващо добре, особено сред тези западняци, които нямат представа какви агресивни и безмозъчни същества всъщност са те. Които никога не са посещавали дупката, наречена сега РуZка федерация, никога не са срещали РуZнаци и тяхната родина никога не е страдала от игото, което рашистката орда от престъпници и убийци носи, когато окупират по-слабите съседни държави.

РуZнаците умело използват хора като тоя анонимник Abelow, за да манипулират и разпространяват лъжите си по света. Но той далеч не им е приятел - рашистите имат термина "полезни идиоти" (заслуга на Ленин - жесток и безполезен масов убиец) и им се подиграват и презират през цялото време. Няма разлика дали им се плаща като на Abelow, или го правят безплатно, като тези, оставили тук положителни отзиви за неговите глупости. За съжаление, те са легион и това помага на РуZнаците в основната им задача - да съсипят живота на милиони, включително и на себе си...

Мога да пиша още много за основните проблеми, които нормалните хора имат с този гигантски тумор, който иска да съсипе целия свят, но просто ще публикувам списък на техните агресии и войни, които са започнали от 1918 г. до днес:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...

P.S. Намирам за доста странно, как човек без съответното образование и познания по отношение на тази част на света излиза светкавично с книга, която ясно защитава и оправдава руската фашистка агресия срещу Украйна. За мен този мръсник определено е платен и трябва да бъде съден като съучастник на престъпния путинистки режим!

[David Rush · Rating 1 out of 5]

The title says it all “How the West Brought War to Ukraine”

I would re-title it “When & How it is OK to Bomb People in 8 Easy Steps”

Even though Russia crossed a border...“invaded”.. with tanks and has been bombing schools, hospitals, and more...“The West” and more specifically it is the U.S. that is actually responsible. And to to expressly state for him what he says somewhat obliquely, he thinks Russia (Putin really) is justified, correct, on the right side of ethics and history, to invade, kill people, and bomb Ukraine in general. He never says the invasion of Ukraine by Russians is bad, or bad but necessary. He skirts it and somewhere says he is not a Putin defender...then goes on the be his defender.

So, this is not a realpolitik view where for the greater good of the planet one country must be allowed to invade and cruelly control another for, "the greater good".

BUT the absolute most curious thing about this book is that only in the last chapter on a book about Ukraine are the people of Ukraine even mentioned, and then only one or two sentences. Not a single quote from ANY Ukrainian. Weird huh? Maybe at least ask one person what they think? Seems like Ukrainians ought to figure into a book about a war in Ukraine, at least it seems so to me, but I have always had quirky opinions.

So, there is never any mention of what Ukrainians want, well, except in the last chapter when he implies Zelensky was courting fascists. And, to repeat myself (for emphasis), no Ukrainian citizens are allowed to speak, and no history of Ukraine is discussed. Basically, to mis-plagiarize the Brady Bunch it is always “Russia, Russia, Russia, Russia”. What is clear is that it does not matter to the author what any of this means to people or the country of Ukraine.

I made a whole lot of highlights and notes but basically it boils down to whenever he brings up how much the Russians are hurt by “the West” or how the Russians are hurt that they keep getting their generals killed...my note there says just this…

WHO invaded WHOM???
or is that, WHO invaded WHO???

If you invade a country people are going to fight you. Why is that so hard to understand? There very well may be other geopolitical implications but he never acknowledges the citizens might not want to be invaded. Even if some like the Ruskies, do all of them? Maybe ask a few.

He complains about any military build-up in bordering countries to Russian and says it is a threat to Russia, but what happened in this case? WHO invaded WHO???

In fact, it is obvious the Ukrainians were right to prepare for an invasion. You don’t know why? Well, WHO invaded WHO???


It is like the author idolizes the schoolyard bully who says “Why are you making me hit you?” while the bully beats up some kid.

Ok some nitpicks

“The story begins in 1990” loc 185. I mean jeepers, I am no history major but to say it all starts in 1990 for conflicts that go back thousands of years...that is just lazy. And from the Stalin bio I read it seems like he really wanted to grind Ukraine into the dust even back then.

Complaining about Poland in NATO and why Russian didn’t like it, for you see…
“Poland has a long history of hostility toward Russia.…” Location 212

MAYBE there is some backstory to that? Maybe there were, well reasons?

And this is part of the bigger problem, there are always “reasons” why it is OK for Russian to bomb and invade Ukraine, but never reasons for anybody else to be suspicious of Russian intentions. In my fantasy world somebody making any proposition would first lay out the best arguments for a contrary view and go into why they thought this other way was better. Well....that ain't what this is.
In this book there is no opposition view other than some cartoon about everybody, in the West, unfairly portraying Putin as a baddie. Well Ok, but the thing is he NEVER presents any possible view of the people the Russian army is killing...never. So not only does he not present their best argument he does not even see an argument from them at all. Kinda weird.

One more nit to pick… there was a lot of vagueness stated like he was really proving something but actually it was innuendo filled with nothing. Such as searching the kindle for “may have” I found it 10 times in this short book.

“may have directly instigated, and armed, far-right coup” loc 165.

See what he did there, he says something instigated a coup, but hedged it by sayin “may have”. So he gets to have it both ways.

“Russian cheating may have been largely a pretext” loc 404
Then again it may not have been...soooo why put it in. And if he can definitely prove it, please do. Otherwise it is just an opinion and I can come up a gazillion different opinions just like him.

And at the start of the book he criticizes people who say Putin should be replaced in some regime change scenario because you don't know who might follow him and they could be way worse. So don't even imagine an alternate course for history.

Valid point. But his whole last chapter is called "A Counterfactual History" where he does exactly the thing he said others shouldn't do, he imagines an alternate course for history with way better outcomes. He describes what "would have" (not "could have") happened if the U.S. had not acted like it did. So in this chapter the rules have changed about alternate paths in history, with the big difference being when he is daydreaming everything turns out wonderfully and there are no worse actors or situations that could have occurred.

Finally, there is a lot about how we can’t let Putin feel threatened, but, again what about the Ukrainians...he never asks them if they feel threatened.

The moral of this guy’s story is the Ukrainians are not worth as much as Russians and he spells it out at the end of the book

“In fact, Ukraine hardly matters at all. From an American perspective—and I say this with no disrespect for the Ukrainian people—Ukraine is irrelevant.” 715

“with no disrespect for the Ukrainian people—Ukraine is irrelevant”. Would they say “none taken”? Would you?

It is behind a paywall I think but an interesting and nuanced view of actual Ukrainians is here
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2022...

Oh yeah, got the book from NetGalley so thanks to them for letting me read it.

[Matt · Rating 1 out of 5]

Well, it was mercifully short anyhow. This appears to be a slight expansion of a Medium essay the author wrote a few months ago and for a mere 99 cents on Amazon, you are still being ripped off by a few bucks.

Thank you (?) to Netgalley for the review copy of this one.

Where to even begin? Like most Russian apologists, there is an every once in a while nod to the idea "well, I'm not saying that I support anything Putin does, I'm just saying it isn't really his fault."

The book (really more of a pamphlet, this is the type of thing before the internet that would be handed to you by a wild eyed college kid wearing Lyndon LaRouche buttons), intensely talks about the supposed foreign policy missteps of the West (and by West, we mostly mean the US here) while almost glibly ignoring any Russian policy choices.

For example, not once is the Budapest Memorandum mentioned. This memorandum signed by the US, UK and Russia (along with three former Soviet states, including Ukraine) was a non-proliferation treaty. The memorandum stated that the three powers would respect the sovereignty of former Soviet states, not use or threaten military force, nor use or threaten economic coercion to advance their own interests. Ukraine transferred their nuclear weapons to Russia as a result of this treaty and has not pursued their own program. This was considered a great success until Russia violated this agreement repeatedly. This seems like an important piece of history, but it isn't mentioned once in the book.

The citations in the book are comical. The same people are cited repeatedly, and to say they have some issues is a bit of an understatement. Some are RT commentators, some are antisemitic, most are exiled from everywhere except RT and Tucker, and for good reason. These things aren't mentioned of course. It would be like a book pushing right wing conspiracies that referred to Michael Flynn as a "retired general" or Dan Bongino as "Former Secret Service agent." Technically true of course, but really missing some important context. Most stories about John Wayne Gacy don't have quotes from him that refer to him as "midwestern children's entertainer"

The primary thrust of the book is that states near Russia should not have the power of self determination. They have a responsibility to their citizens to avoid conflict with Russia at all cost and essentially they should kowtow to any demands. These demands include banning former Soviet states from joining NATO.

Whether or not Russia likes their former states becoming part of NATO, they have no right to make those demands. Sovereign nations are responsible for their own defense strategies and treaties.

The argument is essentially "if border nations do things that aren't approved by Russia, they are perfectly justified in taking offensive military action because they have legitimate worries." It's truly an insane argument.

Even more insane is the argument that when there is concern militarily that authoritarianism within a nation necessarily follows. Yes, when a journalist is murdered for questioning Putin's war, or an oligarch falls out the window of a windowless building? Well, that's the west's fault as well.

In the end, the entire book weak attempt at justification for the invasion of a sovereign nation.

Frankly it is an embarrassing exercise in absolving Russia of any autonomy.

[Marsha · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is not a book so much as an 88 page propaganda pamphlet published by a press that has no website and has only ever published this one title. The author's only credential is that he has a BA in European History and his sources include Youtube videos, RT and Fox News commentators. The argument and premise is straight out of Putin's mouth, that NATO started the war by encroaching on countries that Russia considers within their sphere of influence. There's no understanding that countries, including formerly captured nations of the USSR, have the right to self-determination. There's also no acknowledgement of broken Russian promises, aka, the Budapest Agreement, or that Russia's actions are that of a gangster state. If Russia stopped fighting, the war would end; if Ukraine stopped fighting, Ukraine would end.

Putin counts on his useful western fools. Don't be one of them.

[David · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is a pro Russian propaganda rag. I knew that when I ordered it, but was interested to hear what the author had to say. Basically, he says that Russia is justified in invading Ukraine because the US has been mean to Russia for years. We have treated Russia like a dangerous bully, which justifies its invasion of a neighboring country. Putin rails against NATO aggression, even though the only invasions in Eastern Europe have come from Russia: Hungary in 1954, Czechoslovakia in 1969, and Ukraine in 2014 and 2022.
One of the truisms of life is that a liar always thinks that everyone else is lying, and an aggressor always assumes that his enemies will start an unprovoked fight. NATO has treated Russia as it has deserved to be treated. The blame falls squarely on Putin's shoulders.
Thanks to the publisher and NetGalley for providing an advance reader copy of tis book in exchange for an honest review.

[Randall Wallace · Rating 4 out of 5]

The US refuses to negotiate with Russia or compromise. Yet we remember well the nuclear war threat of the Cuban Missile Crisis was ended by compromise. Evidently real bullies don’t compromise, like actors in a bad Steven Seagal movie they act like they are “Above the Law”. One month before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, “Russia demanded a written guarantee that Ukraine would never become part of NATO and that the alliance remove the military assets it had deployed in East Europe since 1997.” US Secretary of State Blinken responded by saying, “There is no change. There will be no change.” One month later comes Putin’s military reply to Blinken’s rigid response.

After Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, “the US military raised its alert status to Defcon 3 for the first time since the 2001 attack on the World Trade Towers.” The US chose to first respond to Russia by moving towards nuclear war, than to logically negotiate, mediate or ameliorate. A top Brussels political analyst said, “Russia has more nuclear weapons than the United States. Russia has more modern weapons than the Unites States. Russia can level to the ground the United States in 30 minutes.” He thought US response to be “almost suicidal.” This book has no interest in justifying the invasion but argues that the US has a thirty-year history of provocations directed at Russia. Like most books on Ukraine this book agrees about the huge provocation of Clinton and NATO expanding NATO up the borders of Russia. The author writes, “I simply want to note that the West acted in a way calculated to deceive Moscow” and that led to Russia no longer trusting neither NATO nor the US. Clinton brought Poland into NATO in 1999 knowing full well how hostile Poland was towards Russia. In 2001, Bush Jr withdraws the US from the ABM treaty (a huge fuck you to Russia) and in 2004 added more NATO countries to encircle Russia.

As you see, the US intentionally denied Russia its own Monroe Doctrine. Did you ever wonder why only the US has a “Monroe Doctrine” and if any other large country like Russia wants their own safe zone like the Monroe Doctrine offers, US media says they are crazy and unrealistic? The US demands North, South and Central America all to itself, no Russian or Chinese military forces, but if Russia wants the same buffer around itself, it must be only deeply delusional or paranoid? After the US led Ukraine Coup of 2014, Ukraine clearly became hostile to Russia (with “four high-ranking members who be legitimately labeled neofascists”).

Hypocrisy Alert: imagine if Russia financed a successful Coup in Mexico which became openly hostile to the US – imagine Russia using “rocket installations in Mexico to conduct live-fire training exercises to practice destroying military targets inside America?” Would the US have any legitimate reason to feel provoked? Of course, the US would demand those installations be removed. Simple. No country can install missiles on our hemisphere, but we can put them wherever we want? This is high-school bully justice, or American foreign policy style. As Putin said in 2021, “Are we putting our rockets on the borders of the United states? No, we’re not. It’s the US with its rockets coming to our doorstep.”

US Tomahawks are presently positioned to easily reach Moscow and these puppies provide up to ten times the yield of the Hiroshima bomb. Poland, which hates Russia happily just got an Aegis site that accommodates 24 of these love missiles, Romania has a site as well – that means 48 missiles waiting to be launched at Russia to create World War III. Don’t piss us off! Such nuclear war would mean World War IV will definitely have to be fought with either sticks and stones, or toothless verbal taunts.

In 2017, John Mearsheimer wrote how offensive it looked to Moscow that Trump had just starting selling lethal weapons to Ukraine then, changing US policy (in place from 2014-2017). Then in 2021, Britain deliberately entered Russia’s Black sea territorial waters during a naval exercise. It was part of a Ukraine and US co-hosted naval exercise bringing in navies from 32 countries. Did you also know that in December 2021 the Russian ambassador wrote in Foreign Policy Journal that NATO was carrying out “roughly 40 large training exercises annually near Russia. The situation is extremely dangerous.” How could Russia not find ANY of this a deliberate provocation?

Famed diplomat George Kennan couldn’t believe we’ve ended up with Russia where we’ve ended up. He said our differences were not with Russia, but with the Soviet Union, “and now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime.” Two Secretaries of Defense, Robert McNamara, Paul Nitze, and famed commie hater Richard Pipes, Robert Gates, Jack F. Matlock and John Mearsheimer all agree with Kennan. NATO’s ill-advised enlargement itself increased its security concerns – so, intentionally decreasing security for Russia has thus led to decreasing security for NATO.

Russia hawk Fiona Hill admits that in 2007, Putin the world on notice “that Moscow would not accept the further expansion of NATO”. “Then within a year in 2008 NATO gave an open door to Georgia and Ukraine.” “Russia took no action in Ukraine in 2008 because the Ukrainian government pulled back from seeking NATO membership.” Hill goes on to say US intelligence knew than NATO expansion might well risk Russia’s annexation of Crimea. When Russia annexed Crimea, it was no surprise but expected, and so feigned anger was only a PR fueled indignance. Hill thinks the worst Putin is up to is to divide up Ukraine, not to occupy it.

Zelensky ran on a peace platform in in 2019. The German Chancellor told Zelensky to renounce NATO aspirations and Biden and Putin would sign it. Had Zelensky signed it, there would have been no Russian invasion. “Richard Sakwa suggested Mr. Zelensky could have made peace with Russia by speaking just five words, Ukraine will not join NATO.” He said, If you think Putin is bluffing, call his bluff. Austria and Finland clearly benefited from neutrality with the Soviet Union. It can be done. When Zelensky was elected in 2019, Russia expert Stephen F. Cohen said that Zelensky will be under great pressure from the Ukraine far right now and they have already said they would kill him if he seriously negotiates with Putin. Stephen said that Zelensky would naturally roll rightward unless the US instead encouraged diplomacy with Putin, and that’s what happened, Zelensky rolled to the right.

“What sane person could believe that putting a Western arsenal on Russia’s border would not produce a powerful response?” In 2008, the US ambassador to Moscow (who now heads the CIA) said that for Russia, Ukraine was the “reddist of red lines,” “Ukraine is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a vital security interest of the United States.” Unrelieved pressure for Ukraine to join NATO in Ukraine in the end will destroy Ukraine. Is pushing the one issue and risking nuclear war worth it? Will Ukraine follow Nancy Reagan’s advice and “Just Say No”?

In conclusion: Americans must note that unlike the US, Moscow doesn’t have two oceans to protect itself, it has no mountains to protect itself, nor rivers, nor even defensible borders. It obviously learned from the demo (Napoleon’s and Hitlers brutal invasions) to be a little wary of invasion or simply adjacent provocation. Disregarding Russia’s security concerns about being intentionally encircled just because you insist on being a douchebag exceptionalist diva rogue state just won’t cut it anymore. Countries that think they are threatened tend to get some authoritarian aspects: look at Lincoln suspending the writ of habeas corpus in 1861, or Woodrow Wilson’s draconian bullshit against the anti-war crowd in WWI. George Kennan predicted in 1998 that NATO expansion would “have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy.” The US has for decades been pushing Russia, provoking it into a response. We are taught by media omission to see only the Russian response in Ukraine and not the decades of intentional provocation leading up it. Gilbert Doctorow wrote that to strongly decrease the threat of nuclear war today, “the escape from this is in front of everybody’s nose: it’s to do a deal with Mr. Putin.” Great book, super glad I read it. Noam himself says of this book, “Very well done.”

[Doreen Prentiss Gabriellini · Rating 1 out of 5]

How The West Brought War to Ukraine: Understanding How US and NATO Policies Led to Crisis, war and the Risk of Nuclear Catastrophe By Benjamin Abelow is the biggest propaganda piece I have read since the Cold War. The publishing company has no website and after investing Mr. Abelow you will find he has a Bachelor’s Degree in European History and is a You Tuber.

The main idea of the ‘pamphlet’ (only 88 pages) is that the Countries on the boundaries of Russia should not have the power of sovereignty. They should not have any determination over their own Country. The feeling one gets while reading this is that the author is a fan of Putin. The essence is that NATO started the war by encroaching on Countries that Russia considers within their influence.

There is absolutely no acknowledgment that Putin is a bully, that he has broken promises to many.
Apparently the citizens of Ukraine should avoid conflict with Russia at all cost and bend to Russia’s will. Whether or not Russia “likes” what their border Countries are doing is not relevant. Whether Russia likes their former “states” becoming part of NATO, they have no right to make those demands. Ukraine is responsible for their own treaties and defense strategies. To be truthful it comes across as justification of Russia invading Ukraine.

Thanks to the Publisher, Author and NetGalley for the ARC in exchange for an honest review.

[Bonnye Reed · Rating 1 out of 5]

I received a complimentary ARC of How the West Brought War to Ukraine from Netgalley, author Benjamin Abelow, and publisher Siland Press.

The atrocities in Ukraine are sinful. The Ukrainian people are suffering every day and many are now homeless and hungry. War Crimes are taking place uninhibited. Americans are doing what they can, with equipment, government billions, personal donations to aid programs and our thoughts and prayers. However, the RUSSIANS brought war to Ukraine, and there should be no doubt about where the blame should be placed. I was not convinced that any of author Benjamin Abelow's prostheses put forward were accurate, and did not finish the book.
pub date August 2022
Siland Press
Reviewed only on Goodreads, and Netgalley.

[Astrid Galactic · Rating 5 out of 5]

An extremely important and relevant book for today's world and its events. Abelow cuts through the media propaganda and narrative to explain what the true causes were that led to the current conflict in the Ukraine with an eye on how NATO and the West influenced the current path. Going back as far as the removal of the Berlin Wall and NATO's encroachment eastward with its influence from the Pentagon in the US.

This is not a book that leans toward any particular party affiliation. It's never even suggested as it equally points fingers at both sides without actually bothering with noting one party or the other. Instead, the fingers point more at various military officials and the military industrial complex. In other words, these are Deep State actions.

There is also a look at Putin and the basic psychology of how one would react to such a move eastward.

This is an important book to read by anyone wanting to have a better understanding of how we got to where we are today in the Ukraine and Russian war with its Western influence. It's an easy and short read, yet packed with the basics of what one needs to know regarding today's standing with NATO and how it has led to the potential outbreak of WWIII. Read for yourself and you be the judge.

[Σταμάτης Καρασαββίδης · Rating 5 out of 5]

The author is most times stating the obvious that everyone in the entire world knows and still westerners are seething in the reviews. Love to see it. Great and easy read nonetheless!

5/5

[sarah · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic book. Happy to support an author who is challenging the narrative that the USA has spun since the early 20th centuries. Other, poor, reviews are perfect examples of western indoctrination and the poor education system while does not allow dissent or critical thought. The USA has manipulated NATO states into not only doing their dirty work but allowing their citizens and their economies to suffer under the guise that Russia is always one step away from triggering a nuclear Holocaust. All of this while casually looking away at the terror the USA has caused around the world. I am grateful to Benjamin Abelow for putting this into print.

[Max · Rating 1 out of 5]

Russian propaganda that falls perfectly in Russia’s narrative. Utter rubbish coming from someone who either has no grasp on the issue or is working for a bonus from RT. Don’t waste your time and don’t get mislead.

[Jim Razinha · Rating 4 out of 5]

Short book that is more a white paper. As Jack Matlock, former Ambassador to the Soviet Union, said in the Praise section: concise.

I received a review copy of this through NetGalley. Well composed, easily read, with links to the source material to check for yourself, the analysis and arguments are sound. If you are receptive. I suspect the hawks will disagree.

Anyone who knows anything about US history knows our culpability in fomenting international discord (that's a understated way of putting it, I know.) And Mr. Abelow rightly addresses "how the United States would react if 'the shoe were on the other foot' — that is, if Russia acted toward the United States as the West has acted toward Russia." We're not clean in this. Yes, Putin made the decision, but we've irrupted for lesser reasons. We didn't want missiles in our back yard in 1962, why would they want live fire exercises immediately adjacent to Russia? We have a history of we-can-do-it but you-can't. Wilson was all about a world "safe for democracy", but that world didn't include Central and South America. What about a manufactured war on Spain to acquire their acquisitions? Or...

Anyway, NATO expansion is untenable to Russia, and Abelow concludes the push is what got us to this point in Ukraine history.

A few selected takeaways; even though this was short, I made a lot of notes, not all are here:
[on that dichotomy again] Paul Nitze, previously Secretary of the Navy and Secretary of Defense, who had opposed Kennan's policy of static containment, favoring more aggressive attempts to compel the Russians to vacate territories.
{Iraq was statically contained. Until it wasn't. Or we were told it wasn't.}

[Fiona Hill] In fact, late in the interview, Hill describes those who point to Western responsibility for the Ukraine crisis as dupes of Russian disinformation: “I mean he [Putin] has got…masses of the U.S. public saying, ‘Good on you, Vladimir Putin,' or blaming NATO, or blaming the U.S. for this outcome. This is exactly what a Russian information war and psychological operation is geared towards.”
{Masses? Only the gullible, and the R party...}

[George Kennan's observation] Far from protecting the West, he explained, expansion would lead the U.S. toward war with Russia. And once this outcome occurred, Kennan predicted, proponents of the expansion would say this proved that inherent Russian militarism was the cause. Kennan stated: “Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the proponents of expansion] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are—but this is just wrong.”
{My note was "Post hoc ergo propter hoc. More though, self fulfilling prophesy." And the next chapter was titled "How Overly Pessimistic Narratives Become Self-Fulfilling Prophecies"}

[more dichotomy] ... the United States and its European allies have implied that a rational actor would be assuaged by the West's statements of benign intention: that the weapons, training, and interoperability exercises, no matter how provocative, powerful, or close to Russia's borders, are purely defensive and not to be feared.
{We conduct massive military exercises in conjunction with South Korea, and get outraged when KJU rattles his sabre?}

[objectives portrayed, and objectives hidden] Even from a blinkered American perspective, the whole Western plan was a dangerous game of bluff, enacted for reasons that are hard to fathom. Ukraine is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a vital security interest of the United States. In fact, Ukraine hardly matters at all.
{How many of our incursions are for actual strategic importance? Into countries that are not really a vital security interest? Well, they may be now...}

[Roel Peters · Rating 2 out of 5]

Oh boy. Another author that treats the US as the only country with culpability -- Russia simply responds rationally to external threats.

Eastward expansion: check.
Bucharest: check.
Arms treaties: check.
Fascist coup: check.

Not once does the author consider that the Ukraine and the Eastern European countries also acted rationally to seek assurances from the Western alliance, after being militarily overrun and turned into a Russian satellite state multiple times in history.

With a selective reading, and carefully selected insinuations, the author builds a counterfactual narrative to come to the conclusion that the conflict has been in the making for decades, and that the West's provocations are to blame.

Budapest Memorandum? Never heard of.
Putin's 2004 statements after meeting de Hoop Scheffer? Too obscure to mention.
Glazyev tapes? Probably fake.
Novorossiya? Meh.
Putin's self-comparison to Peter The Great? But that was only after the war started, of course.

I have my own counterfactual: what if no ex-KGB'er would have come to power? What if he didn't poison all critics, defectors and political opponents? What if he didn't tolerate and partner with monstrous tools such as Kadyrov? What if billions of profits from its natural resources weren't poured in disinformation campaigns around the globe and especially in its former satellite states? What if they would've let nation-states determine their own fate, partnerships and form of government and respect sovereignty? What if Putin didn't proclaim to be inspired by Russian exceptionalist philosophers?

Maybe a country of 40 million inhabitants also deserves sovereignty?

[GreyAtlas · Rating 1 out of 5]

I do not understand how or why this was even published, aside from that it contributes to a pushed narrative. It is too short to be a book, and its chapters are of less substance than even a low rated political article. Abelow writes offensive, subjective opinions such as "ukraine is irrelevant to the USA". He also dissected, irrelevantly, words of respected Russia analyst Fiona Hill by just regurgitating what she said in new words. How is that worthy of publication? I also caught a grammar error on page 44 where it said "the provocations that the united state and its allies", like, come on that is very glaring. Overall, I cannot recommend this short, attention seeking essay format of a publication from someone that appears to hold NO expertise in the subject and has two other books on something called "acid-base"... whut???

An advanced copy was kindly provided by the publisher on request via Netgalley.com

[Zach Carter · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pretty solid laying out the facts that are basically untouchable and buried in the West. It's a bit narrow in its focus, missing some other key points that would have been nice to include, but for what it is - short, punchy, and provocative - it's worth a read, especially if you're hazy on recent history in the region.

[Joan Relke · Rating 1 out of 5]

If you want to read this book, then also google Soviet and Russian Disinformation. Also read Thomas Rid's Active Measures, consult some former Warsaw Pact journalists and academics, read and listen to current Russian journalists, academics, and politicians. Inform yourselves.

[Reid tries to read · Rating 3 out of 5]

The United States/NATO strategy to “fight Russia to the last Ukrainian” in an attempt to destabilize Russia is a suicide mission. If Putin feels seriously threatened he could very likely use nuclear weapons as a last resort. Both the U.S and Russian state departments have alluded to such a scenario. If he is overthrown without the launching of nukes, the turmoil in a country with a nuclear arsenal just as large as America’s is frightening to say the least. In the off chance that Putin is overthrown and succeeded without any nukes being launched, America must ensure their new Russian puppet has full control of the Russian nuclear arsenal and doesn’t not intend to use it like Putin threatens to do; the history of America’s hand picked successors in previous regime change efforts doesn’t paint this as a likely outcome.

NATO has long been poking the Russian bear. NATO has expanded 1000 miles eastward since the fall of the USSR (wasn’t NATO made specifically to fight the Soviet Union? Weird huh), while countries in it have not only reneged on anti-ballistic missiles treaties, but have been equipped with anti-ballistic launchers capable of firing offensive nuclear weapons. America supported the overthrow a Russian-puppet government in Ukraine for a pro-Atlantic government (with a healthy heap of Nazis running their military), then proceeded to dump billions of dollars into bolstering Ukraine’s military. NATO countries have even participated in live fire “training scenarios” near Russia’s border; often these scenarios are designed to train troops on how to capture and destroy missile-defense systems.

In 1999 NATO accepted Poland as a member state, despite informal agreements between American and Russian state officials that NATO would not move closer to Russia. This worried Russian leaders, as Poland and Russia were very hostile to each other. 2 years later, George W Bush withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty. Then in 2004 NATO admitted more countries, including some that bordered Russia. 4 years later in 2008, NATO announced at the Bucharest summit that it intended to induct Ukraine and Romania into NATO, despite the fact (or because of the fact) that they both border Russia. This was an existential threat in the eyes of Russian policy makers, and they loudly voiced their disapproval to this potential “encirclement”. They were never inducted, but the fear lingered.

In 2014 the United States almost certainly helped overthrow the Viktor Yanukovych regime in Ukraine for a pro-western one. The United States had already poured around $5 billion into ‘pro-democracy’ groups in Ukraine since 1991, and members of the American ruling class such as certified war criminal John McCain were brazen enough to pose for photo-ops with the coup leaders. A leaked phone call between U.S. Secretary of State at the time, Victoria Nuland, and the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine showed that key players in American foreign policy determinations were secretly plotting to overthrow Yanukovych. Ukrainian ambassador Pyatts told Nuland “I think we're in play. The Klitschko [Vitaly Klitschko, one of three main opposition leaders] piece is obviously the complicated electron here. Especially the announcement of him as deputy prime minister … But I think your argument to him, which you'll need to make, I think that's the next phone call you want to set up, is exactly the one you made to Yats [Arseniy Yatseniuk, another opposition leader]. ”. Nuland responded to him: “Good. I don't think Klitsch should go into the government. I don't think it's necessary, I don't think it's a good idea.“ This is evidence that Nuland, Pyatts, and other state officials were actively planning the composition of a post-Yanukovych government with Viktor’s direct opposition.
Russia impulsively annexed Crimea after the coup in order to maintain control of its naval base in Sevastopol.

After the Crimean invasion, America poured billions of dollars to “improve (the Ukrainian military’s) interoperability with NATO”. In 2017 Trump’s administration began selling lethal arms to Ukraine, a change in the previous policy of selling purely defensive gear such as body armor. Alongside the U.S., other NATO countries also began shipping weapons to Ukraine while training its armed forces and allowing its military to participate in joint-NATO military exercises. In 2021 NATO “reiterated the decision (they) made in the 2008 Bucharest summit that Ukraine will become a member of NATO”. This was after NATO had, in Estonia in 2020 and 2021, coordinate “exercises” that consisted of launching missiles (whose ranges were hundreds of miles) about 70 miles off of Russia’s border. All this combines to give an impression that Russia was being probed by NATO as it was encircled.

So I guess this essay does a pretty decent job at arguing ‘how’ the West brought upon the Ukrainian-Russian war, but it seriously is lacking in the ‘why’ department. Critical liberals like this author and John Mearsheimer love to point out how stupid American foreign policy makers are, but even if they are dumb (and I’m not convinced; they might have an insane death drive but they aren’t stupid), why have these “dumb” Ukraine-hawks been able to dominate and ice out any opposition to such a risky maneuver? It seems like key elements influencing the decision making processes at the highest levels of the American/Western ruling class are just glossed over or ignored.

[Райна Максимова · Rating 1 out of 5]

Срамно е, че издателство като "Изток-запад" издава подобни прокремълски пропагандни парцали. Авторът тълкува тенденциозни фактите, прилага недействителни аргументи и повтаря едно и също във всяка глава. Освен, че е откровена лъжа, книгата е и зле написана. А защо името на Чомски фигурира в предговора, е загадка.

[Andrew · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thought-provoking thesis. Would like to find something other than mainstream media material that could explain how exactly we, the “West,” justify our current actions and policies that this book claims are, at the very least, illogical.

[Sam Bledsoe · Rating 1 out of 5]

It's a short book, which is why I ended up giving it a chance. It's not a counterpoint to a mainstream audience, rather it's just an hour and half of saying Putin was provoked. It's critical of the American military as long as the conversation is talking about how the USA deals with Russia, but is silent on any operations in the Middle East and how these conflicts played into the growing conflict. While it talks about NATO bases in Eastern Europe, it offers no perspective from any of these countries and completely ignores Ukraine's connection with the rest of Europe and the world. While he claims to offer a better history than what is presented by the current media, he ignores large parts which ultimately hurts his arguments. He talks about the Russo-Georgian conflict in 2008, but ignores the gas standoff in 2009. Poorly researched and presented, but it's short at least.

[Brice Karickhoff · Rating 4 out of 5]

Listened to this after hearing 10 minutes of the author on RFKs podcast. Biggest takeaway: everyone should dial back their geopolitical opinions a bit bc everything is 100x more complex than we think. Stick to simple issues like healthcare and gun control (sarcasm - there are almost no simple issues in my opinion)

[Angel · Rating 5 out of 5]

How did we arrive here ?

Before answering this question it’s imperative that you choose malleability over jingoism, over ethnocentrism so that you can form an opinion that isn’t rooted in blinded nationalism.

The author makes a solid argument dating back to the 1990s, where he states the west bares a great deal of responsibility for sowing the seeds that created this war between NATO/Ukraine and Russia. Exacerbating the security concerns harbored by Putin , due to NATO not only encroaching on Russian boarders, but installing missile systems on those boarders.

I see that some reviews of the book have dismissed this brief read as being “Russian propaganda.” This caused me to be cautious in my approach, I decided to do independent research on the information as I read .

I will review a few of the author’s arguments.

In 2019 the United States unilaterally withdrew from the 1987 treaty on intermediate-range nuclear weapons, this is true ….however the reasons for their withdrawal could be debated ( the author states this ) as some can make the argument that the United States withdrew because Russia violated the treaty as well. I researched this myself, and the author is correct. The United States withdrew , but it’s an argument that could be debated.

In late 2013 into early 2014 anti government protests occurred in Kiev, causing the democratically elected pro- Russian president to flee the country. The new government in Kiev was pro- Western and anti- Russian . The author does state that the United States did play a role in these events , but he’s transparent in stating the full extent of United States involvement may never be publicly known. What’s most revealing is that the phone call of the assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland is mentioned, when she openly discusses who should replace the former president of Ukraine that was forced to flee the country. Why is a United States politician discussing who should lead Ukraine ? I researched these events , it checks out.

In 2016 the United States implemented an anti ballistic missile site in Romania, this “defense” system can also become offensive, as it can accommodate nuclear tipped offensive missiles like the Tomahawk cruise missiles. This anti ballistic missile site was also incorporated in Poland. Russia views both incidents as threats to their national security. I researched this, it also checks out.

Lastly Russia demanded a written guarantee that Ukraine would never become a part of NATO. Blinken responded to this request regarding potential incorporation of Ukraine into NATO with saying “ there is no change. There will be no change.” Essentially denying the negotiation and request from Putin that could’ve alleviated his security concerns with NATO encroaching on Russian territory, and stopped this war from occurring .

There are a lot of additional arguments the author makes , he states within the first few pages that his intention isn’t to obfuscate Putin’s crimes , what he wishes to do is reveal aspects to this tragic war that unfolded in part due to provocations by western powers . Provocations that are rarely if at all mentioned in media .

[Æ · Rating 4 out of 5]

How did the West bring war to Ukraine? The answer may surprise you…
…it’s NATO expansion. It’s always been NATO expansion.

This is more of an extended article than a book. The audiobook is only an hour long. So very easy to consume if you’re interested in the subject. I think it was really detailed while still being brief.


Here’s my book report…

Let me make something perfectly clear from the jump. Regarding this conflict,
• I do not support the government of Russia,
• I do not support NATO or the US Government,
• I do not support the government of Ukraine.

The US populace has never been known as a people who knows their history, or having a basic understanding of the actions of their government. But let’s break this down as simply as possible
• WW2 is won on the backs of millions of Soviet soldiers overwhelming and defeating the Germans.
• Stalin expects to be folded into the new world order alongside its fellow superpower, the US Empire.
• The US Empire is ruled by Capitalists who would rather betray their allies than dare surrender another dime of profits to the working class. Normalizing relations with the USSR would normalize the concept of worker-controlled enterprise. Cue the Cold War.
• NATO is created, does a lot of coups around the world.
• 1962, NATO installs missiles in Turkey, right at the Soviet front door. The USSR, in kind, installs missiles in Cuba. The US comes minutes away from nuclear Armageddon. Then everyone makes a deal to withdraw the Cuban missiles in exchange for the Turkey missiles. Crisis averted.
• Yada Yada Yada
• 1990, The Soviet Union collapses. US & European enterprise pick to the bone all social programs in the former soviet states, resulting in a crashing of life expectancy and other health indicators. For some strange reason, a large % of people surveyed in these countries wished it never collapsed. Huh. Weird.
• The Russian Government, AFTER losing the Cold War, thinks it’ll FINALLY be folded into the now unipolar world order.
• Instead, the US and NATO continue to provoke Russia with NATO expansion. The purpose of NATO has always been to fight Russia. Always. Its expansion is a clear and present danger for the existence of the Russian state. The Russian government understands this clearly.

• “According to an analysis by the National Security Archive of George Washington University, where relevant declassified documents are posted, ‘a cascade of assurances about Soviet security [were] given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991.’ These assurances pertained not only to the question of NATO’s expansion into East Germany, as is sometimes asserted, but also to the expansion of NATO into the countries of Eastern Europe. Nonetheless, within a few years, NATO began to expand toward Russia’s border. Although the assurances had not been instantiated in formal treaties, ‘subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion’ were not simply Russian propaganda but, rather, were ‘founded in written contemporaneous [memoranda] at the highest levels’ of Western governments.”

• So we lied to them saying that their existence was secured since NATO would not expand. But NATO expanded anyway. Golly I wonder why Russia doesn’t trust us. Putin must be paranoid, that’s it. Only logical explanation.

• 1999, NATO brings in Poland among other countries. “In a recent interview, Army Colonel (retired) Douglas Macgregor, Ph.D., a storied Iraq commander who helped develop U.S. war plans for Europe, commented on the admission of one of these countries: ‘[W]hen we decided in 1999 to bring in Poland…[t]he Russians were very worried—not so much because NATO was hostile at the time but because they knew that Poland was. Poland has a long history of hostility toward Russia.… Poland is, if anything, at this point in time, a potential catalyst for war with Russia.’”

• 2001, GWBush withdraws the US from the Antiballistic Missle Treaty with Russia. This is seen as yet another western provocation. Treaties help prevent war. Withdrawing from them helps antagonize and goad toward war.

• 2004, “NATO admitted additional East European countries, including Romania and Estonia, the latter of which borders on Russia. By this point, NATO had expanded close to a thousand miles toward Russia.” This is more provocation.

• 2008, at a NATO summit, NATO announced its intentions to admit Ukraine and Georgia as members. Both countries border Russia. “Although European members of NATO had serious reservations, the administration of President George W. Bush used the position of the United States as senior member of the alliance to push the issue, and the following unequivocal statement was included in the memorandum: ‘We agreed today that these countries [Ukraine and Georgia] will become members of NATO.’”

George W. Bush is one of the key players at fault for the war in Ukraine. This is a red line for Russia. an unacceptable scenario for the very existence and autonomy of their country.

• 2008, In an official cable from the then-U.S. ambassador to Russia (William J. Burns headlined “Nyet Means Nyet [No Means No]: Russia’s NATO Enlargement Redlines.” and read: “Not only does Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine Russia’s influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests.”

• 2008, Georgia
• “United States led a 2,000-man military exercise inside Georgia.”
• Days later, Georgia “launched a massive, fourteen-hour artillery and rocket assault on a semi-autonomous Georgian district (South Ossetia). That district borders on Russia and has close ties to it.”
• In response, Russia invades Georgia, fighting against soldiers armed and trained by the US.
• The US Media called it “an unprovoked invasion.” Did I say “media”? I meant “consent manufacturers”
• Colonel Macgregor explains: “The Russians ultimately intervened in Georgia, and the whole purpose of that intervention was to signal to us [the United States] that they would not tolerate a NATO member on their borders, particularly a member that was hostile to them, as at the time the Georgian Government was. So, I think what we’re dealing with now [the war in Ukraine] is exactly the outcome that Ambassador Burns feared when he said ‘no means no.’”

• In 2014, the US government backed a coup in Ukraine. Why? The same reason why the US has been backing coups for 100+ years: more money for investors. Open the markets to more effectively drain the wealth of the target country. The US succeeded in installing a pro-west government in a country that borders Russia.

• In response to the 2014 US-backed coup, Russia annexed Crimea to prevent Ukraine from blocking access to “its vital warm-water naval base in Sevastopol, Crimea—access to which Russia had previously negotiated….”

• After the annexation of Crimea, “the U.S. began a massive program of military aid to Ukraine. According to the U.S. Congressional Research Service, a partial accounting since 2014, not including most of the military aid initiated since the 2022 war began, amounts to over four billion dollars, most coming through the State Department and Department of Defense.”
This was essentially a way to unofficially bring Ukraine into NATO. They wanted to “improve interoperability with NATO” even though Ukraine wasn’t in NATO (yet).

• 2016, The US installs a an anti-ballistic missile [ABM] system in Romania. “Though ostensibly defensive, the ABM system uses the Mark-41 ‘Aegis’ missile launchers, which can accommodate a variety of missile types: not just ABMs, designed to shoot down incoming ballistic missiles, but also—crucially—nuclear-tipped offensive weapons like the Tomahawk cruise missile.” Wow. Missile sites at the Russian border. Where have I heard this before?? Surely this won’t be seen as provocative, right???

“The American response to Mr. Putin’s concerns about the ABM sites has been to assert that the United States does not intend to configure the launchers for offensive use. But this response requires the Russians to trust America’s stated intentions, even in a crisis, rather than to judge the threat by the potential of the systems”

• 2017, The US begins selling lethal weapons to Ukraine, a change to a 2014 policy that only non-lethal items were sold (like body armor).

• 2019, “the United States unilaterally withdrew from the 1987 treaty on intermediate-range nuclear weapons.” They claimed the Russians were cheating, but “the key point is that the United States withdrew unilaterally rather than aggressively seeking to resolve the issues. In deciding to do so, the Americans may have sensed a military advantage, because the missiles in question would be placed in Europe, close to Russia, whereas Russia did not have plans to place weapons at equivalent distances from the United States”

• 2021, “Ukraine and America co-hosted a major naval exercise in the Black Sea region involving navies from 32 countries. Operation Sea Breeze almost provoked Russia to fire at a British naval destroyer that deliberately entered what Russia considers its territorial waters.”

That’s it. That’s the road to war. Was it all “Russian Aggression?” is “Putin crazy” and “as bad as Hitler?” I don’t think so. I think if you back someone into a corner, they lash out. You back Russia into a corner, they lash out. Do I support this war? No. Do I support Russia? No. But I can see where they’re coming from.

Imagine if the shoe were on the other foot. What if the USSR overthrew the government of Canada or Mexico to install a puppet government for them to control? Would the US sit idly by? Of course not, they’d invade immediately. Would the media frame this as “unprovoked US aggression?” Of course not. It’d be called “liberating the people from the new tyrannical government” or the US media would be completely silent on the matter.
And yet somehow “freethinking bleeding heart dove liberals” don’t seem to grasp what’s happening here. They immediately fall into the same trap every time: “US good. US enemies bad”.

The key takeaway is that we need to understand our history or else we’ll keep getting dragged into one bullshit conflict after another.

What’s the resolution here?
• Ukraine is in NATO, their economy gets destroyed by more corporate ghouls as well as the US wanting to get some of the money back that it lent to em. (Most probable)
• Russia takes over all of Ukraine and absorbs it into Russia or some new confederation (least probable)
• Ukraine and the US sue for peace and sign a treaty saying Ukraine will NOT join NATO ever. (2nd-least probable but what I think would be most ideal)

[Filippo Pasqui · Rating 4 out of 5]

È da alcuni anni che la situazione geopolitica gestita da Nato e USA mi inquieta molto e leggere questo libro mi ha dato modo di trovare le parole giuste e le motivazioni per dare un volto più definito a queste preoccupazioni. La propaganda Occidentale ha portato implicitamente a vietare l’essere riflessivi su temi così complessi e così duraturi nel tempo, per cui la lettura di questo libricino è necessaria per una visione completa della situazione anche per rendere il dibattito pubblico più strutturato. Metto quattro stelle perché avrei preferito più pagine da leggere

[Lukas Dufka · Rating 1 out of 5]

Don’t waste your time.

[Dmitry · Rating 1 out of 5]

(The English review is placed beneath the Russian one)

Ты меня не пили, ты меня не смеши,
Это всё костыли для хромой души.
Не такой ценой, не с такой высоты,
Это всё перегной, будут ли цветы?

Эта книга напомнила мне другую книгу – Russia's War by Jade McGlynn – в том смысле, что обе занимают крайние позиции. Если в одной книге автор утверждает, что в начавшемся 24 февраля конфликте на территории Украины виноват русский народ, а не Путин и элита, то в книге How the West Brought War to Ukraine автор утверждает в точности обратное – виноваты США и ЕС, но не Путин и элита. С моей точки зрения, обе позиции ошибочны, как это часто бывает с любыми радикальными мнениями.

Во-первых, это даже не книга, а большая статья, которую можно прочесть за одни вечер. Во-вторых, вся книга сводится к тезису – если бы НАТО не расширялось на восток, т.е. к границам России, никакого военного конфликта ни в Грузии, ни в Украине не случилось бы. Другими словами, с точки зрения автора, вина лежит на странах Запада и в особенности на США. Это напоминает советское время, когда политологи все политические шаги рассматривали именно с позиции противостояния социалистического лагеря и капиталистического блока. Другими словами, такое чувство, что автор этой книги всё ещё живёт в 80-х, в эпохе Холодной войны. Поэтому не удивительно, что он цитирует такого человека как George Kennan («during the 1940s, he pioneered the policy of “containment” and later served as ambassador to the Soviet Union») который предупреждает об опасности расширения НАТО. Я не согласен с этим потому, что СССР давно нет, а РФ не является по духу продолжением Советского Союза. У СССР была мощная коммунистическая идеология, в которую верили многие люди по всему миру, и которая объясняла, почему советские люди живут при самом лучшем режиме. В России никакой такой идеологии просто нет, как нет ни желания, ни возможностей построения сильного военного государства по образцу СССР. В СССР было множество закрытых институтов, в которых люди трудились на ВПК, а в России ничего такого нет. Но самое главное отличие нынешней РФ от СССР, это принятие философии консюмеризма, которая была чужда СССР. Короче говоря, нельзя сравнивать СССР, который действительно пытался распространить своё влияние и свою идеологию (коммунистическую) на весь мир. Сегодняшняя Россия хочет распространить своё влияние на весь мир, но не может, ибо нет главного - Идеи.

В-третьих, главный фактор, почему автор этой книги ошибается, является последнее событие в Финляндии. Я говорю о принятии Финляндии в НАТО и на отсутствие реакции России, на это событие. Это событие доказывает ошибочность этой книги. Автор утверждает, что конфликт между Украиной и Россией произошёл из-за того, что «Ukraine shares a 1,200-mile land border with Russia, parts of which are just 400 miles from Moscow». Но как быть с такими странами членами НАТО как Финляндия, Эстония, Латвия и Литва, чьи границы располагаются примерно на таком же расстоянии от Москвы, как и украинские? Расстояние от Sumy, Sumy Oblast, Ukraine до Москвы - 643 километра, а расстояние от Москвы до города Rēzekne, Latvia – 680 километров. Расстояние от Москвы до Tartu, Estonia – 848 километров. Как видим, даже если бы Украина была членом НАТО, это никак не повлияло, т.к. Финляндия, Латвия, Литва и Эстония уже находятся очень и очень близко к Москве. Следовательно, тезис, что конфликт начался из-за опасения, что вблизи Москвы будут развёрнуты силы НАТО, не состоятелен, ибо они УЖЕ развёрнуты на таком же расстоянии от Москвы, как если бы речь шла о территории Украины. Так что главный тезис автора не верен.

В-четвёртых, я не зря упомянул отсутствие реакции на приём Финляндии в НАТО, ибо это доказывает, что дело не в том, что НАТО стало ближе к российским границам (и, следовательно, автор ошибается). От Санкт-Петербурга до ближайшего эстонского города – 150 километров или около 2,5 часов на автомобиле. Настолько близко ко второй столице России никакая украинская территория приблизиться не может. Опять же, НАТО уже у самых границ России и Украина, в этом смысле, никак и ни на что повлиять уже не могла. НАТО уже у самого российского порога и это не беспокоило ни Путина, ни российское правительство на всём протяжении правления Путина. Так что забудьте о НАТО, как главную причину начала боевых действий на территории Украины и просто откройте Google Map и посмотрите, сколько стран членов НАТО окружают РФ и насколько близко к Москве пролегает их границы. После это вы поймёте, что расширение НАТО не является причиной вторжения.

«The United States was not alone in starting to sell lethal weapons to Ukraine. Neither was it alone in coordinating militarily with Ukraine, even though Ukraine was not yet a NATO member».

Почему автор не задаётся вопросом, что произошло в Украине из-за чего США стали помогать? Когда произошли события, о которых пишет автор? На странице, где автор обсуждает это решение США, мы видим такие даты: 2014, 2017, 2019, 2020, 2021. Что же случилось в 2014 году? Может, была нарушена безопасность Украины, появилась какая-та угроза стране, случилось что-то плохое, после чего США начали поставлять оружие в Украину и тренировать украинских солдат? Я бы понял, если дата была бы 2000 год или 2004 или 2008, но НАТО стало помогать Украине после известных событий 2014 года, т.е. как действие, направленное на защиту страны, а не на нападение. Другим словами, если бы «зелёные человечки» не появились в Крыму и на Донбассе, то никакого оружия НАТО не передало бы Украине и никаких солдат не тренировало бы. Но автор почему-то такое умозаключение не делает. Далее, смотрим Википедию, где говорится следующее: «С 2003 года на территории Казахстана регулярно проводятся международные миротворческие учения. В них участвуют военные контингенты стран — членов НАТО и стран СНГ (без России). В Казахстане по стандартам НАТО идёт обучение контингента миротворческого батальона «Казбат». По мнению некоторых экспертов, профильная работа НАТО в Казахстане, который имеет наиболее продвинутый уровень кооперации с Североатлантическим альянсом, представляется масштабной». Что же это получается товарищи, Казахстан делает то же самое, в чём обвиняют Украину, но только не с 2014 года, а с 2003? Вот это да!

Но мне больше всего понравилась вот эта цитата из книги – «In fact, George Kennan predicted this in 1998. NATO expansion, he said, would “have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy.” Обана! Оказывается, демократии в России не стало не из-за царя Бориса (Ельцина), не из-за залоговых аукционов и бандитизма, не из-за олигархата и даже не из-за Путина с его ГБ, а из-за расширения НАТО. ��от это да! Такого поворота я конечно не ожидал. Скоро окажется, что революция в какой-нибудь африканской стране стало той причиной, почему мы живём с абсолютным монархом. После этого трудно эту книгу воспринимать всерьёз. Фантазии автора, конечно, забавные, но очень уж автор заигрался с ними.

И последнее. Если допустить идею, что Россию беспокоит не близость натовских границ, а принятие бывших республик СССР в НАТО, то даже с этой точки зрения, нынешний конфликт это предположение опровергает. Допустим, Россия, ни при каких условиях, не хочет видеть Украину в НАТО. Но тогда возникает вопрос: зачем она начала полномасштабное вторжение 24 февраля 2022 года, ведь часть территории уже была под контролем России, следовательно, в НАТО Украину и так бы не приняли. Более того, можно было просто ввести российские войска на территорию Украины на один день, тем самым показав, что Россия не допустит принятие Украины в НАТО, если это главное что беспокоит РФ. Можно было бы обменять Донбасс на конституционно закреплённый внеблоковый статус Украины. Ничего этого не было сделано, так что дело не в НАТО.

This book reminded me of another book - Russia's War by Jade McGlynn - in the sense that both take extreme positions. While in one book, the author argues that the Russian people, not Putin and his elite, are to blame for the conflict in Ukraine that began on February 24, in the book "How the West Brought War to Ukraine," the author argues exactly the opposite: the US and the EU are to blame, but not Putin and the elite. In my view, both positions are wrong, as is often the case with any radical opinion.

First of all, this is not even a book, but a large article that can be read in one evening. Secondly, the whole book boils down to the thesis that if NATO had not expanded eastward, i.e., to Russia's borders, no military conflict would have occurred in Georgia or Ukraine. In other words, from the author's point of view, the blame lies with the countries of the West, and especially with the United States. This is reminiscent of the Soviet era when political scientists considered all political steps from the standpoint of the confrontation between the socialist camp and the capitalist bloc. In other words, it feels like the author of this book is still living in the 80s, in the Cold War era. So it is not surprising that he quotes someone like George Kennan ("during the 1940s, he pioneered the policy of 'containment' and later served as ambassador to the Soviet Union"), who warns of the dangers of NATO expansion. I disagree with this because the USSR is long gone, and the Russian Federation is not, in spirit, a continuation of the Soviet Union. The USSR had a powerful communist ideology that many people around the world believed in, and that explained why Soviet people lived under the best regime. In Russia, there is simply no such ideology, nor is there any desire or ability to build a strong military state along the lines of the USSR. In the USSR, there were many closed institutes (and closed cities) where people worked for the military-industrial complex, but in Russia, there is nothing like that. But the most important difference between the current Russian Federation and the USSR is the adoption of the philosophy of consumerism, which was alien to the USSR. In short, you cannot compare the USSR, which really tried to spread its influence and its ideology (communist) to the whole world. Today, Russia wants to spread its influence over the whole world, but it cannot because it lacks the main thing - the Idea.

Third, the main factor why the author of this book is wrong is the latest event in Finland. I am talking about Finland's admission to NATO and Russia's lack of reaction to this event. This event proves the fallacy of this book. The author claims that the conflict between Ukraine and Russia occurred because "Ukraine shares a 1,200-mile land border with Russia, parts of which are just 400 miles from Moscow." But what about NATO members such as Finland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, whose borders are about the same distance from Moscow as Ukraine's? The distance from Sumy, Sumy Oblast, Ukraine to Moscow is 643 kilometers, and the distance from Moscow to Rēzekne, Latvia is 680 kilometers. The distance from Moscow to Tartu, Estonia is 848 kilometers. As we can see, even if Ukraine were a NATO member, it would not have had any effect since Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia are already very, very close to Moscow. Therefore, the thesis that the conflict started because of the fear that NATO forces would be deployed near Moscow is not valid because they are already deployed at the same distance from Moscow as if it were the territory of Ukraine. So, the author's main thesis is not correct.

Fourthly, I mentioned the lack of reaction to Finland's admission to NATO because it proves that it's not that NATO has gotten closer to Russia's borders (therefore, the author is wrong). From St. Petersburg to the nearest Estonian city is 150 kilometers or about 2.5 hours by car. No Ukrainian territory can come so close to Russia's second capital. Again, NATO is already at the very borders of Russia and Ukraine, in this sense, could not influence anything. NATO is already at Russia's very doorstep, and this has not bothered either Putin or the Russian government throughout Putin's reign. So forget about NATO as the main reason for the start of hostilities in Ukraine and just open Google Maps and see how many NATO member states surround Russia and how close to Moscow their borders are. After that, you will realize that NATO expansion is not the reason for the invasion.

«The United States was not alone in starting to sell lethal weapons to Ukraine. Neither was it alone in coordinating militarily with Ukraine, even though Ukraine was not yet a NATO member».

Why doesn't the author ask what happened in Ukraine that caused the US to help? When did the events the author writes about take place? On the page where the author discusses this US decision, we see these dates: 2014, 2017, 2019, 2020, 2021. What happened in 2014? Did Ukraine's security get violated? Was there some threat to the country? Did something bad happen, after which the US started supplying weapons to Ukraine and training Ukrainian soldiers? I would understand if the date was 2000, 2004, or 2008, but NATO started helping Ukraine after the famous events of 2014, i.e., as an action to defend the country, not to attack. In other words, if "little green men" had not appeared in Crimea and Donbas, NATO would not have transferred any weapons to Ukraine and would not have trained any soldiers. But for some reason, the author does not make such an inference. Further, look at Wikipedia, which says the following: "Since 2003, international peacekeeping exercises have been held regularly in Kazakhstan. Military contingents of NATO member states and CIS countries (without Russia) participate in them. The contingent of the peacekeeping battalion "Kazbat" is being trained in Kazakhstan according to NATO standards. According to some experts, NATO's profile work in Kazakhstan, which has the most advanced level of cooperation with the North Atlantic Alliance, appears to be large-scale." What is it, comrades, that Kazakhstan is doing the same thing that Ukraine is accused of, but only not since 2014, but since 2003? Wow!

But I liked this quote from the book the most - "In fact, George Kennan predicted this in 1998. NATO expansion, he said, would "have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy." Wow! It turns out that democracy in Russia did not become not because of Tsar Boris (Yeltsin), not because of bail auctions and banditry, not because of the oligarchy, and not even because of Putin and his KGB friends, but because of NATO expansion. Wow! I certainly didn't expect such a turnaround. Soon, it will turn out that a revolution in some African countries was the reason why we live with an absolute monarch. After that, it's hard to take this book seriously. The author's fantasies, of course, are funny, but the author played with them too much.

One last thing. Assuming the idea that Russia is not concerned about the proximity of NATO's borders but about the admission of the former Soviet republics to NATO, the current conflict disproves this assumption. Let's assume that Russia, under no circumstances, wants to see Ukraine in NATO. But then the question arises: why did Russia launch a full-scale invasion on February 24, 2022, since part of the territory was already under Russian control, so Ukraine would not have been admitted to NATO anyway? Moreover, Russia could have just put Russian troops into Ukraine for one day, thereby showing that Russia will not tolerate Ukraine's admission to NATO if that's the main thing the Russian Federation is concerned about. One could have exchanged Donbas for a constitutionally enshrined non-aligned status for Ukraine. None of this has been done, so it's not about NATO.

[Vivek KuRa · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very brief yet a plausible alternative argument and analysis of this conflict, which cannot be disregarded or dismissed as a Russian propaganda. This book directly contradicts and challenges the very common rhetoric propagated to the public by policy makers via media in the west. Some of the points and claims made by the author is worth an investigation. A must read for anybody who wants to know the untold side of the story and is concerned by this brutal conflict.

[Joy Reading · Rating 5 out of 5]

Short, brilliant, easy to read and essential reading for everyone currently on the earth. Comes highly recommended by well respected thinkers as now also comes highly recommended by me!

[csillagkohó · Rating 2 out of 5]

2,5

Let me first say I think Abelow's main argument – that NATO expansion bears great responsibility in escalating the Ukraine situation – should be common sense at this point. Indeed it has been surreal to see how even self-professed leftists vehemently disagree with this. Maybe due to an (understandable) fear to be seen as pro-Russian agitators, or a lack of background knowledge, or to fit in with the fashionably pro-Ukrainian discourse of the left-liberal think tanks and NGOs in which they operate.

That said, Abelow does go far in describing Russia as a purely reactive force. His observations about Western behaviour and provocations are correct, but Russia itself has little agency in this reading. The annexation of Crimea is described as the result of a "well-founded concern" about the risk that the new pro-Western Ukrainian regime would seize the base at Sevastopol. Okay, but by this same logic Bay of Pigs should also be described as a perfectly reasonable outcome of the American "concern" about Guantánamo and Cuban strategic importance. Shouldn't the point be that, in both cases, those invasions demonstrate the deeper tendency of Russia and the US to project their strategic and economic imperial goals?

There is some cherrypicking going on as well (Abelow does not mention the Surkov leaks or other indicators of Russian chauvinism throughout the years). I also find it deeply annoying that Abelow still describes Maidan as "an armed, far-right coup in Ukraine". Not only is this biased and inaccurate, it's also irrelevant. It is perfectly possible to make the argument against NATO expansion by pointing only at the destructive logic of mutual escalation, without resorting to these exaggerated claims about Ukraine's domestic politics. All in all the booklet is not terrible, and it may have value to someone who is new to the debate, but there have to exist better and more elaborate texts that put forward similar arguments.