Ukraine and Russia: From Civilized Divorce to Uncivil War

Many people condemn President Putin for annexing the Crimea and starting a war in eastern Ukraine in 2014, and indeed believe that "there is no argument in support of an opposing point of view." Such people have not read this book.It is difficult to find authors who are not in one camp or the other--either pro-Russia or pro-Ukraine. Paul D'Anieri seems to be one of the few writers who bends over backwards trying to be fair to both sides. Rather than take a side, he seeks to explain how the situation between Russia and Ukraine unfolded, and he makes a point of exploring the root causes of the conflict.The idea that Putin had legitimate, rational reasons for his actions in Ukraine is seldom discussed in the West. However, consider this: 1) The US used force to support Kosovo's detachment from Serbia in 1999. Putin considers Western condemnation of using force in Ukraine to be typical Western hypocrisy. 2) The US Assistant Secretary of State for European affairs (Victoria Nuland) and the US ambassador to Ukraine at the time (Geoffrey Pyatt) publicly sided with the protesters in December 2013. Putin considers this an illegal intervention in the internal affairs of Ukraine, and he believes that the US actively worked to destabilize the country. 3) The US extension of NATO to Russia's borders is a violation of an oral agreement made by Secretary of State James Baker to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990 during negotiations over the reunification of Germany. This alleged promise to Russia is a matter of considerable dispute, and the truth has never been definitively established. Nevertheless, Putin believes that NATO expansion to the former Soviet republics--to include, eventually, Georgia and Ukraine--is an act of bad faith and aggression.D'Anieri quotes one Russian analyst who claims: "In their [Russians'] view, Russia's subordinate position is the illegitimate result of a never-ending U.S. campaign to keep Russia down and prevent it from regaining its proper status." This is indeed how most Russian officials view the world, although one would be hard-pressed to find a US official who believes that we are trying to keep Russia down. Nevertheless, US actions on countless occasions have tended to give Russia confirmation of this belief."On January 12, 1994, US President Bill Clinton stopped in Kyiv on his way to Moscow, . . . and announced that Ukraine had been invited to join NATO's Partnership for peace (PfP)." Russia--in economic chaos at the time--could not do much about it. Fast-forward to April 2008. At the NATO summit in Bucharest, a Declaration was released that stated: "NATO welcomes Ukraine's and Georgia's Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO." This was the equivalent of waving a red flag in front of a bull, from a Russian point of view.The events leading up to February 20-22, 2014 are meticulously chronicled by D'Anieri. The author makes the case that Viktor Yanukovych, the Ukrainian president at the time, walked away from the Association Agreement with the European Union at the last hour (November 21, 2013) because he had no choice. Ukraine was facing default, and desperately needed aid. The EU only offered 610 million euros--far short of what was needed. Moreover, Putin more or less threatened to ensure Ukrainian bankruptcy, and the defeat of Yanukovych in the next election if he went forward with the trade deal with the EU.The author writes that: "the possibility that Yanukovych's ouster would permanently reorient Ukraine toward the West seems to have convinced Putin that there was little to lose, and perhaps much to gain, in seizing territory that Russia has long claimed."D'Anieri's sums up the differing perspectives concisely: "In many respects, the problem of blame boils down to what one thinks of Russia's claim on Ukraine. To the extent the claim is not legitimate, Russia is to blame for pursuing it. To the extent that claim is legitimate, one can blame Ukraine for not acquiescing to it and the West for backing Ukraine." He concludes: "Russia seeks an order based on the dominance of the great powers that was widely accepted in the era prior to World War I. The West rejects this idea, insisting instead on an order based on a combination of democracy and international institutions. . . . Russia's deployment of force in 2014 can be viewed as a determination to no longer accept the results of a set of rules it did not endorse."This book is a provocative, superb analysis of a conflict that show no signs of resolution.

I recommend this book for anyone who wants to dig deeper into what’s happening in Ukraine. It really explains the historical ties between Russia and Ukraine. The sources of much of the tensions in the area. And how the west and Russian hardliners, like Putin, view the prospect of NATO, the EU, and the rise of Democracy much differently. The first chapter gives you a complete overview of the points made in the book of which each subsequent chapter goes into greater detail. You’ll get a little more out of this than what you’re getting from the talking heads in the media.

Very fair and thoroughly. Quite detailed. I highly recommend this. It's quite long though. It's pretty good. Some pictures would be nice

Really concise and timely information on a topic you will not get objective information on in the media. The background information goes back to the break up of the Soviet Union and beyond. It is a bit on the pedantic side with all the foot noting. It is not overly long at less than 300 pages. Read this and decide for yourself what you can take seriosely in the daily news on the matter.

The cover of the book has a thin layer of plastic that easily comes off after moderate use of the book.

I've read a lot of books on relations between Ukraine and Russia over the years, and especially since the 2014 annexation of Crimea I've been struggling to find one to recommend to others. There are a lot of books on the topic by academics and journalists, but they tend to be partial in at least one (often several) respects. D'Anieri has produced a very readable and thoughtful volume, that brings together a rigorous analysis of the historical background and immediate causes of the ongoing war informed by IR theory. The result is a nuanced and balanced account that is gripping to read - quite an impressive trick to pull off!

Very informative but not too "high-brow". Gives all the info you would expect from the title and makes for a very interesting read. Would recommend.