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.

His ebook was provided to me by NetGalley and my review is my honest opinion.

This was a short, incisive read. Abelow lays out the reasoning behind his argument that the West--and, specifically, the US--has played an influential part in the current war in Ukraine and what consequences might lay ahead if something isn't done. I highly recommend this; it's not often a quick read, but it is needed.

How the West Brought War to Ukraine by Benjamin Abelow was received directly from the publisher and I chose to review it. If you listen to the mainstream media and the politicians, you would think the "war" in Ukraine is Russia trying to take over a poor sovereign nation. If you can rationally think, you should be able to see the Western politicians have, and still are, pushing Putin more and more to cause more and more strife in the region. This author and his book give's a short and concise explanation of what the West caused and continues to cause and how our involvement is only making things worse. This book needs to be read and talked about by every citizen of Western nations to get the real
understanding of what has and is still going on to cause the conflict in Ukraine.

4 Stars

The defense of war crimes and crimes against humanity has no excuse. This pamphlet is a defense of torture, murder, genocide and sexual violence.

Instead of reading this, you can read The Death of a Soldier Told by His Sister, by Olesya Khromeychuk; or The Ukraine, by Artem Chapeye; or Apricots of Donbas, by Lyuba Yakimchuk. For a view of the people like this author and the way they promote war crimes and help them be recreated over and over again, you can also read German Atrocities, 1914: A History of Denial, by John Horne and Alan Kramer.

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.

How the West Brought War to Ukraine
By Benjamin Abelow

This book is a real eye opener, with regard to how easily powerful government forces and media can convince citizens of the rightness of their actions while withholding large amounts of information prejudicial to their plans and ideas. It is short – only 152 pages – but is a damning indictment of the role the West has played to bring about this war, when it could so easily been avoided.

While the author does not exonerate Mr. Putin, he provides proven information which implicates the United States government and its NATO allies for not acting responsibly in what would be in global best interests, and in failing to factor in well known "red lines" expressed by the Russian government. Mr. Abelow clearly shows areas where our government patently chose to disregard what was bound to happen in reaction to NATO expansion toward the Russian border.

That our government has been operating with blinders firmly in place in regard to geopolitics is creating a scary situation for the future. This book should be a must-read for every thinking person who understands that our very lives may be hanging in the balance.

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, billions of our tax dollars, 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.

How the West Brought War to Ukraine

by Benjamin Abelow

A short book, How the West Brought War to Ukraine, presents an important but controversial view of which countries are behind the current conflict between Russia and Ukraine. To understand Benjamin Abelow’s thesis, you have to revisit history going back almost 200 years to the Monroe Doctrine. In 1823, the United States made it clear that foreign forces placed near U.S. territory are in violation of that policy and provide a reason for war. If you follow that to its logical conclusion, countries massing troops on Russia’s border, especially with weapons whose capability allows reaching within Russia’s borders, is clearly an offensive act.

For years, the U.S. and NATO have been setting up countries that border Russia with military aid to be able to fight a proxy war. Abelow explains “How the Narrative Drives the War” in his introduction in which he lists the Western provocations. The rest of the book is an amplification and explanation of each one of these. One of his most compelling arguments is asking his reader to put the U.S. in Russia’s position. What would the U.S. do? How would it react if foreign forces massed on the Mexican or Canadian border with the ability to send destructive weapon fire into the U.S.?

The author is not a Putin lover, but he does try to present the other side, the side the Western media is not showing. The author is sympathetic to both Russian and Ukrainian soldiers. Among the many leaders he quotes, he includes Chas Freeman, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs. He speaks of the U.S.’s two contradictory aims which will result in many deaths. Dripping with irony, Freeman says “We will fight to the last Ukrainian for Ukrainian independence.” The author also spreads the blame around to many Western leaders (including George W. Bush, Trump, and Biden) who have reneged on promises to secure borders and have propped up regimes whose goals were to break down those borders. You may or may not agree with the author, but if you read the book, you will be able to have an informed opinion about this conflict which could potentially evolve into a nuclear war.

I received a complimentary copy of this book in exchange for an honest review. Opinions expressed in this review are completely my own.

Rating: 5/5

Category: History, Nonfiction, Politics

Notes: 1. I always try to learn from history, and there are very few politicians I trust. I have to ask why we are involved in this conflict. It is hard to convince me that it is out of concern for the common man and woman in Ukraine when there are conflicts and genocides all over the world that we ignore. It seems something more than altruism is at play.
2. I have bumped this review ahead in my queue because the book’s message is time sensitive. Recently pipelines that are important to our world were blown up, and this morning I read that an important bridge suffered an explosion in the Crimea and apparently several people lost their lives. There has been war and conflict in that part of the world for centuries, but it seems there currently is evil afoot with a very destructive path.
3. For memorable lines for this complex topic, I am just noting one paragraph rather than 3 shorter passages. I think it presents the theme and the persuasive writing style of this book quite well.


Publication: August 31, 2022—Siland Press

Memorable Lines:

Had the United States not pushed NATO to the border of Russia; not deployed nuclear-capable missile launch systems in Romania and planned them for Poland and perhaps elsewhere as well; not contributed to the overthrow of the democratically elected Ukrainian government in 2014; not abrogated the ABM treaty and then the intermediate-range nuclear missile treaty, and then disregarded Russian attempts to negotiate a bilateral moratorium on deployments; not conducted live-fire exercises with rockets in Estonia to practice striking targets inside Russia; not coordinated a massive 32-nation military training exercise near Russian territory; not intertwined the U.S. military with that of Ukraine; etc. etc. etc.—had the United States and its NATO allies not done these things, the war in Ukraine probably would not have taken place. I think that is a reasonable assertion.

This is the second book I read proffering the idea that an expansionist NATO triggered Putin into going full Hitler. The other is Not One Inch: America, Russia, and the Making of Post-Cold War Stalemate. This one is much briefer, but more focused on placing the blame on NATO, the West and the U.S. Considering the arguments a second time, I am still not convinced. I mean, the West was opposed to a nuclear Soviet Union, communist China, even North Korea yet ultimately accepted these realities without resorting to invasion, rape and pillage, and annexation. Some particular arguments and points I responded to:...

This is a tight treatise - looks like the physical version comes in at 88 pages - about why Vladimir Putin invaded the Ukraine in early 2022, and why no one "in the know" should be surprised by his actions. It argues that, while of course Mr. Putin is the only one ultimately responsible for his own actions, the West only pretends that those actions were completely unprovoked. It isn't overtly bashing any one country in the "west" or NATO, but it does show how the power players have often not been willing to negotiate peacefully with Mr. Putin.

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 the 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.

I honestly do not know what to think about this book. As a resident in the Midwest of the US, I have had little to no contact with persons from another country, let alone a country with a Communist background, which is horridly different to what I know and appreciate. However, the author does make some valid points, though overall, I feel like he is incredibly biases towards the former Soviet bloc's point of view. I am glad I have read it, just because I can have an inkling of what others DO feel about US policies around the world.

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.

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.

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.

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...}

Benjamin Abelow's 'book' (though to be honest it's not really long enough to be considered a book) is very poorly researched in trying to find a balanced approach to Ukrainian history. Even the specific 'Russian Hawks' he notes in the book he clearly ignores years of their own statements to further his own aims. If you want a good explanation of the way American Christian isolationists thinks this is a good look to understand, but please understand the true history of the Russian/Ukraine conflict is much deeper.

Without extensive research, which I am disinclined to do, I cannot speak to the accuracy of the author's assertions. Regardless, he presents a compelling argument for at least questioning the narrative that is presented as facts by the politicians, the media, and all parties with vested interest in the conduct of current world affairs. The sources he quotes would have first-hand knowledge beyond the average citizen's of the rhetoric and negotiations that have been presented and either heeded or ignored in formulating policies that have led to the current crisis in the Ukraine. This is definitely a book that will inspire the reader to seek to look beyond the headlines before drawing conclusions about public policy.

This is a slim volume that tries to offer some nuance and additional perspective with respect to Vladimir Putin's decision to invade Ukraine. The author doesn't necessarily break new ground but he highlights some of the most important issues that Putin continuously referred to and brought up in international gatherings and discussions that were seemingly ignored or not taken seriously. In this respect, there is not much new or original material as discussions revolve around the expansion of NATO, promises supposedly made and never kept by the West, the US unilaterally leaving various treaties revolving around anti-ballistic missiles, medium range surface-to-surface missiles, conducting training experiences on Russia's borders, and continually arming Ukraine to the tune of billions in the post-Maidan period. A lot of agency is taken away from Putin which is not necessarily a bad thing as it shows how NATO and the US are not without fault for the invasion of Ukraine, but this is a primer at best and needs to be read with a wide variety of literature that not only focuses on the international/security issues Putin and Russia have been dealing with but also internal issues that undoubtedly have had an impact on both, and vice versa. It's important to keep in mind that Putin's actions were not made in a vacuum and by better understanding his positions and thoughts, we will better understand how this war began and, just maybe, what needs to happen for it to end.

This book is almost 100% incorrect, but you should still read it to understand how isolationists think. Also, this book never mentions several vital facts. After the fall of the USSR in 1991, Ukraine agreed to give up its nukes in exchange for a security guarantee from the USA, the UK, and others but the author never mentions this agreement. Perhaps worst of all Mr. Abelow repeatedly warns against a possible nuclear exchange but also insists that Mr. Putin is motivated by Russia's possible lack of deterrence and he may not have it both ways. Last, the timing of this book could not be worse given Ukraine's battlefield success against the Red Army in the East.