What came first, the Putin or the egg? Thoroughly researched for the points the author was trying to make. Contains some Disingenuous mischaracterizations, like claiming that the coup in Ukraine was far right and replaced a ‘democratically elected pro-russia’ government with an ‘unelected pro-western’ one. Russian election interference in ukraine is obviously even more pervasive than in the US in 2016. A ‘Democratically elected’ government in ukraine that is also pro-russia is the functionally equivalent of a US backed president of a banana republic. While sentiment for and against russia certainly depends on the region within ukraine, the ‘coup’ was a popular uprising against a president who was clearly pandering to russia, against the popular sentiment of the people. The elected president fled the country rather than go through the impeachment process, and parliament ordered a new election held on the grounds that the president had abandoned the country. That’s hardly a coup.

I could go on about similar instances for pages and pages. Suffice it to say that Abelow is an apologist for Putin and Russia in a way that would make Chamberlain proud. If you want the contrarian viewpoint on the war (ie, the ‘it’s not Russia’s fault’ view), read this. Just be aware that it doesn’t take someone with a Phd in international affairs to see through the flimsy reasoning presented here. NATO has been underfunded and undersupported for decades. A Russia that feels threatened by it and by its expansion into neighboring countries should generate additional suspicion. And concepts of popular sovereignty and self determination mandate that no country has an automatic ‘sphere of influence’ in the way that Abelow suggests is only fair. Russia is a second rate power projecting the last vestiges of its strength and influence in a desperate attempt at relevance. Arguments such as Abelow’s only encourage old style despots like Putin.

Very good and well written book. Worth the price. Thanks for taken the time to write. For some reason i need 100 characters.

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 the U.S. is who 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 were 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…

Now WHO was invaded by WHOM???

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 was invaded by WHOM???

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

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?

Poorly disguised and meagerly resourced, How the West... fails in the simplest task of all: asking and answering who invaded whom. Western policy is a blunt tool that often results in hilariously infelicitous repercussions. But we hardly need 200 pages of warmed-over Mearsheimer fever dreams to be told that. Russia has been attacking - with malign intent - sovereign nations since the Soviet Union began its rapid decline. The West did not create that. The book ignores this. 0 stars.

A compact and concise history of how the United States impact on what led to Russia invading Ukraine. Decisions made decades ago, impacted the decision of Putin invading Ukraine. We will probably never really know why Putin did what he did, but the United States did not help in the findings along with NATO that caused this War in Ukraine.

I received an ARC from Siland Press & NetGalley for my honest review.

Concise and straight to the point, How the West Brought War to Ukraine should be obligatory reading and widely known. I’m glad I read it; it opened my eyes in more ways than one. The biggest losers in this game of chess are, unfortunately, the ones risking it all in the war. When politicians and diplomats mislead or plainly lie, the ones on the defensive are seen invariably as the villains.

Disclaimer: The publisher provided me with a digital ARC, via Netgalley, in exchange for my honest opinion.

An excellent primer for ways the US had been involved in the Russia v Ukraine situation from far before last year. I would recommend this to anyone looking for more information than what the news is sharing and would like to see further resources from this title.

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.

Very Insightful and well researched analysis of the current situation in Ukraine. I appreciated the historical aspects and discussion provided by Benjamin Abelow as he presented a new perspective on how he believes we played a larger role in the current situation than I had previously considered. I received an ARC of How the West Brought War to Ukraine, all opinions are my own.

This book is “endorsed by leading defense experts and policy analysts.” While brief it is an easily readable book by the author. The author explains the how and history of the West caused conflict causing its own country and Europe the risk of a nuclear war. He does give insights to how this conflict may be resolved.

This was difficult for me to read at first but I do think there has been knowledge not given to us in America. This book has given much to think about. It is well written and given me information that I wish I had known earlier since Ukraine’s war against Russia. It is an important book to read.

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!

The author of this book deliberately omits or manipulates facts – about war in Ukraine, Georgia, and most importantly about NATO organisation. I choose to show only some of these misleading opinions, because after chapter 1 I already had a full page of comments.

Regarding of the author’s “key Western provocations”:
"Expanded NATO over a thousand miles eastward pressing it toward Russia’s borders." - It is not easy to join NATO. Some countries are waiting years to have accepted their application, which can be rejected more than once. Such is the case of Ukraine and my country, Slovakia, too. Countries themselves decide if they want to join NATO, with the vote of their citizens. Also, importantly, NATO is a defensive organization, not an offensive one. Therefore, it is not true, as the author writes, that NATO is expanding to provoke Russia. Countries around Russia are simply afraid of Russia and I am not surprised.

The author somehow omits the fact, what the Soviet Union was responsible for in its ´vassal´ countries - they ´liberated´ countries with tanks (f.e. Czechoslovakia), zero freedom of citizens, persecuted, did not respect human rights. More than seven hundred citizens of Czechoslovakia lost their lives for political reasons, more than sixteen thousand were taken from their homes. (source: https://buraniemytov.sk/1-1-totalitna-povaha-rezimu-a-jeho-obete/). Do we really wonder why former communist countries are afraid of Russia, which is controlled by a practically one not-exactly-democratically voted president for life?

"Helped lay the groundwork for, and may have directly instigated, and armed, far-right coup in Ukraine. This coup replaced a democratically elected pro-Russian government with and unelected pro-Western one." – if the author means Euromaidan in 2014 (because Zelensky was democratically elected with 73% votes), Ukrainians demanded from the pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych the signature of the Association Agreement with the European Union, which he had promised but refused after pressure from Putin – that was the beginning of Maidan. The misleading is that USA was behind these events. (f.e. source: https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/explainers/understanding-ukraines-euromaidan-protests )

"Poland has a long history of hostility toward Russia" – but the author intentionally does not explain why Poland has this history (fun fact: because of long history of Russian expansion and hostility toward Poland).

It is true that Russia has largest number of nuclear weapons – but the author somehow forgot to add that huge part of these weapons is from Ukraine – as Russia, the US and other countries signed in Budapest Memorandum, 1994. Also, ´surprisingly´, the first point of Memorandum is: Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders. Which Russia violated multiple times already.

This book is not only “opinion of the other side” but can be dangerous with helping to promote misinformation and Russian propaganda about NATO. I didn’t include a lot of sources, but everyone can find, quite easily, facts about history. I would NOT recommend this book to anyone and do NOT support its publication.

P.S.: At least he called the war „Russian invasion“ and not „the special operation“.

This is a very hard work to rate, but I applause to the author and publisher for stating facts.
War is terrible, it brings chaos for decades to come, brings deaths and humanitarian disaster, it is also a cash grab for many parties, who are not directly involved in the conflict....
I am sure this work will be wildly criticized and author demonized, with the overall narrative that US has regarding this war... but these are the facts that Russian and pro-russian parties were stating since the beginning... Ukraine, people of Ukraine became a tool, how terrible to say so, but this is the climax of 30 years of provocative from NATO... everything was done to provoke and have Russia announce the "war", everything...
Russia is demonized, rightly so, this war , brotherly war is inhuman, but yet NATO did everything for it to happen... and who gets to take all the burden, the people of Ukraine, soldiers from both countries...
This is a terrible situation, just thanks to author for bringing facts to light...
And if US and NATO was so interested in peace and democracy, maybe it would have said a word when war is emerging miles away from Ukraine in Armenia and Artsakh... but since no way to demonize Russia, why bother to even talk about it...
Populism won... death continues...
Anyway, peace to all of us , hope this black wave ends soon... nothing is more valuable than human life....

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???

From NATO expansion to America’s broken promises it seems like it’s the same old story. Since the 1940s legitimate informed people have been warning America to steer clear of Russia but it seems true to history the people who are supposed to be the smartest and are supposed to keep us safe do not listen. To put it plainly since the beginning of America it seems we do wrong and make it look like the other person is crazy. Don’t get me wrong I love America and wouldn’t want to live anywhere else but come on guys! You cannot keep getting uncomfortably close with your missiles and then act like he started it. I wish I was smarter and could put it in more eloquent words and write a more well thought out review but essentially we have a bunch of jerks running the country and they keep getting us into trouble and then will blame the other person. I know Russia isn’t without fault but we had a very long grace period before they decided to make the Ukraine nonessential. I am still happy to be an American and because I am one I can ask such questions and make these statements. I totally enjoyed this book I love eye-opening dialogue and learning something I didn’t already know that is exactly what happened with this book. I do want to say I think the people in the Ukraine are totally innocent in without fault and have put up a mighty fight and good luck to them but I think because America was essentially the catalyst maybe they could help the Ukraine out more! If I was smarter I would have better answers but I am just a reviewer and I think this book is a good one and I highly recommend it. I received it from NetGalley and a publisher but I am leaving this review voluntarily please forgive any mistakes as I am blind and dictate my review.gg

To call How the West Brought War to Ukraine a book is a bit generous. Coming in well under one-hundred pages, this essay is somewhat hindered by using a book format, as the rather ponderous prologue may turn off some readers. If you stick around for the rest, however, you'll find a clear and concise explanation--and no, not an excuse, despite what critics claim--for how the Russian invasion of Ukraine came to pass, and the numerous policy blunders that could have prevented it. Abelow's argument is one that many readers will likely come in wanting to refute, but the best defense he provides is the trove of direct quotes from numerous foreign policy experts who warned against something like this happening for decades. Abelow shows no preference to either Biden or Trump, placing blame on both of them for escalating tensions with Russia. If I had one major critique of How the West Brought War to Ukraine, it's that one could learn just as much from listening to an interview with any of the experts cited here. Nevertheless, this is an essay worth reading, even if one does not ultimately find it convincing.

I have long maintained that you have no business having an opinion on one side of an argument if you can’t articulate the other side and know why they feel differently. With the war in Ukraine, I have found myself often thinking, “What is Putin / Russia thinking?!” – and this short book provides that other side of the story. It was really interesting and eye-opening to see what the American media isn’t telling us about how we got to this state of war, with a lot of history I had been unaware of. In sum, the author emphasizes that Russia was backed into a corner by the West, and if the shoe were on the other foot, we probably would have fought back even harder than Russia is doing now. While I recognize that this treatise seems biased against the US rather than being a truly balanced view, it’s made me look at world news with a new lens, and I feel like I can now better balance out the American coverage with what’s actually happening (like, the recent application filed by Ukraine to join NATO and all the backstory for why that’s controversial). My only nitpick is that even at just 76 pages, this book is still very repetitive in making a limited set of arguments but expounding on them repeatedly. If you are in a rush, you could probably read just the intro chapter and still be much better informed than 99% of Americans.

Thank you NetGalley for another great book provided in advance of full publication.

Like most, I was shocked at Russia's invasion of Ukraine and like many viewed Putin as another Hitler like demagogue bent on world domination, scooping up territory to enlarge the empire. Another egotistical narcissist maniac that the world has unfortunately seen too many of and continue to see. My opinion has not changed. What has changed based on the reading of this taught timely little book is how the world has gotten to where we are, on the verge of nuclear armageddon and the United States role in the journey.

In Benjamin Abelow's view, the West was complicit in starting the Ukraine crisis and bears a significant responsibility in where we are today. He pulls back the curtain and exposes how the United States and our allies over the past several decades set the stage for a Russian invasion of Ukraine. How we teased and taunted Putin to do what he has done.

In 1832 President Jame Monroe articulated what later became the "Monroe Doctrine", which in essence states that any efforts by European powers to control or influence sovereign states in the western region would be viewed as a threat to United States' security. The doctrine also stated that the U.S. would not become embroiled, interfere, or put its fingers (my words) in the internal affairs of European nations. In a sense it spelled out a position of nonintervention by the United States in affairs outside its territories. The doctrine continues to be the established policy of the United States since its adoption which we saw in action during the Kennedy administration and the Cuban Missile crisis with Russian.

The author draws a parallel between the U.S. position vis a vis the Monroe Doctrine and its total ignoring of said doctrine with its activities in Eastern Europe. He asserts that the United States and its NATO allies are at the heart of the Ukraine crisis and through failed policies that transcend both parties who have controlled the White House since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Russia was put in an untenable situation for which Mr. Putin could not turn away from. What would the United States' position be if Russia or China armed Brazil,
Argentina or even Mexico, similar to what we have done with Poland and Ukraine (pre-war). We evoke the Monroe Doctrine and war would very well be on the table. As the author states, is this no different?

There is no mistake that this war was caused and started by Vladimir Putin and he is fully accountable for the horror it has wrecked on the Ukrainian people. That said, most wars are not started in a vacuum, there are elements that pave the way and this book clearly points out how the U.S. government and NATO hastened and facilitated the paving.

If you want a new perspective on the causes of the Ukraine war and what might come next, then pick up this book.

I believe that anyone will benefit from reading this book. The information is clearly presented, and the book is easy to read. I think the reader will learn information that wasn't known. I read an electronic copy courtesy of Net Galley.

A quick, concise read describing the history and motivations of the war in Ukraine. A great read for those who feel they aren't getting the whole story.