I struggled with the style of writing. It is an informative book but just found the writing style too academic.

My review:

***


The perception of world peace has changed dramatically in the past two to three years. Russia is increasingly being held responsible for its attempts to instigate a harmful global conflict. There is growing concern that Western institutions designed to maintain peace may struggle to withstand this pressure.

Why did these institutions defy the hostility of a political-military bloc that controlled nearly half of the world and one-third of the global population and had a significant military advantage with nuclear weapons at their disposal? Additionally, why do Western institutions now appear to be on the brink of collapse during relative peace? And why do the Western institutions now seem on the verge of crumbling in an era of relative peace?

The misunderstanding surrounding the fundamental changes that occurred between the fall of the Berlin Wall and the decision of most Soviet republics to break away from the union is truly alarming.

In his reflective report, Colonel Alexander Vindman highlights the "all too transactional nature" of the U.S.-Russia relationship, the American attitude towards Ukraine's autonomy, and the widespread misconception about its identity. Washington tends to view Ukraine as merely a resistance to Russia's claims, characterized by chauvinism and threats. Unfortunately, this perspective lacks a broader vision of Ukraine's role in the region and its geopolitical significance.

In Chapter 2, Vindman discusses the viewpoints of an informal group of policy advisors and high-ranking officials who came together in the spring of 1989 to analyze the declining power of the Soviet Union. This group saw the potential collapse of the Soviet Union as a threat to its status as a stable imperial power, rather than an opportunity to promote Western values. Their primary concern was the safety of nuclear weapons, rather than the liberation of oppressed nations. Vindman cites then-CIA Director Robert Gates, who stated that the group concluded it was necessary "to do everything" to maintain a strong central government in Moscow.

At a critical moment for the future of Europe, the United States was primarily focused on denuclearization, aiming to remove remnants of the Soviet atomic arsenal from Ukraine.

As Vindman explains, this focus posed serious challenges for Ukraine's future. "Worse yet for Ukraine's future, the US had little understanding of Ukraine as a distinct entity with its own national identity, which limited consideration for any Ukraine-related policy."

No developments in the newly independent nation altered this perspective, even the alarming remarks made by Russia's Foreign Minister Andrey Kozyryev. Widely perceived as "liberal," Kozyryev, a decade before Putin, spoke in a tone of confrontation and aggression. He addressed the "post-imperial space of the former Soviet Union," where he asserted that Russia must defend its interests by any means necessary, including economic and military actions.

Ultimately, the US chose to partner with imperial Moscow rather than supporting a democratizing Ukraine, which was being shaped by former Ukrainian dissidents and political prisoners who fought against the post-Soviet nomenclature and sought to rebrand the Soviet Communist Party. Furthermore, Ukraine was barred from joining NATO.

Vindman makes significant efforts to explain why this illogical and shocking stance has had a profound impact on Ukraine-U.S. relations, as well as on Russia and other formerly captive nations, with potential consequences for the future. Drawing from his experience as a U.S. embassy military official in Kyiv and Moscow, and at the Pentagon, Vindman offers invaluable insight into the minds of key policymakers.

However, Vindman's book does not address the efforts of political parties formed by former political prisoners to rebuild Ukraine's historical, social, and political heritage, which was devastated by Soviet occupation. The "Army, Language, and Faith" triad, deeply rooted in the hearts of many Ukrainians and some veterans of the 1990s patriotic and national movement, played a crucial role in launching the Orange Revolution. Their children have fought and died against the same Russian imperialism now represented by Putin for the past 14 years. This is the real source of modern Ukraine's identity. 

However, setting aside that movement's role, Vindman cannot provide the reader with a clear understanding of the foundation of that identity. Logically, he falls into the trap that many do when criticizing Ukrainians' admiration for Stepan Bandera, a figure who dedicated his life to the national cause of defeating the Soviets. Many accuse Bandera of a grave error for having allied with the Germans, failing to grasp the true nature of the Soviets. The atrocities committed by the Soviets, as seen in events like the Katyn Massacre, The Vinnytsia massacre and, more recently, Bucha, showcase their inhumane nature, for which Moscow has yet to be held accountable. Vindman seems to overlook that Bandera is considered controversial by Russians but also by some Poles, who have never entirely accepted Ukraine's independence.

Stepan Bandera, Ukraine's national hero, was assassinated in Germany by an agent sent by the Kremlin. His legacy is contentious among Russians but is a testament to Ukraine's perseverance and commitment to sovereignty—embodying the nation-building triad of "Army, Language, and Faith." Whether the author agrees or not, shortly, no figure is likely to unite Ukrainians more than Bandera and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, despite their controversial status in Moscow. They will always be symbols of a common cause for Kyiv.

Despite some shortcomings, the book reads almost like a novel and provides a compelling explanation of Putin's motivation for his war against Ukraine and Washington's unpreparedness for the enormous conflict arising from this situation.

An informative book on how various US administrations have misunderstood the essential natures of Russia vs Ukraine over the decades since the fall of the Soviet Union. The US has mistakenly bought in to Russia's concept of its own exceptionalism and has treated it with kid gloves, as if it's still an empire. Each time Putin, Medvedev et al crossed a red line, the US opted for solutions of "realism" -- to solve temporarily -- rather than idealism -- to take the principled stance and fight for democracy. The realism approach has basically encouraged Russia's bad behavior, all the while ignoring the great promise of not just Ukraine, but the other democratic countries newly free of the Soviet yoke.
Vindman says that the current US administration is as fearful of a Russian loss as it is of a Russian win, so has been giving Ukraine just enough to stay alive but not enough to win. He states that there is still time to turn this around, not just for the sake of Ukraine, but for our democratic ideals, because otherwise, all of the other dictatorships will be empowered and emboldened to cross borders and take what they want with impunity.

Thank you, PublicAffairs, for providing this book for review consideration via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review. All opinions are my own.

Mr. Book just finished The Folly Of Realism: How the West Deceived Itself About Russia and Betrayed Ukraine, by Alexander Vindman.

This book will be released on February 25, 2025.

Vindman was the first White House official to testify, at the impeachment hearing against Trump, on what was on the July 25, 2019 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky, in which Trump asked Zelensky to investigate Hunter Biden.

This book gives a very good look at the history of the Ukraine/Russia relationship, along with how the United States has spent decades misjudging the situation and coming up with the wrong calculations and strategy options. The US actions have helped to embolden Russia over the years and have helped contribute to the mess we find ourselves in.

I give this book a B+. Goodreads and NetGalley require grades on a 1-5 star system. In my personal conversion system, a B+ equates to 4 stars. (A or A+: 5 stars, B+: 4 stars, B: 3 stars, C: 2 stars, D or F: 1 star).

This review has been posted at NetGalley, Goodreads and my blog, Mr. Book’s Book Reviews

I finished reading this on October 1, 2024.