What do you think?
Rate this book


200 pages, Paperback
First published October 24, 2022
Having come of age around the time the Cold War ended, I found that the authors' account of the origins of the war concur with my own recollections - which seem to differ with the account given by leading politicians. To be sure this is not a history book or an academic treatise, it is an essay painted in broad strokes taking us from the time the US Foreign Policy Establishment announced its goal of "Full Spectrum Dominance" in the '90s, to the ouster of Ukrainian's President Yanukovych, the rise of Zelensky and the preparations for war. The authors are adamant that the US Foreign Policy Establishment's aim of preventing the emergence of alternate power centers applies not only to foes like Russia, but to allies as well - especially Europe. While most Americans may object that this is not true, the authors show how US Foreign policy when viewed from abroad looks anything but benevolent.
To be sure, the authors don't blame the US for all of Europe's woes. After Helmut Kohl, German politicians in particular lost sight of the European Project, that grand idea of a deeper political and financial union. And without those twin pillars, the common currency became a burden and source of internecine fighting during and after the financial crises. And this is actually the crux of the book, how to resurrect the European Project and bring about a lasting peace from Lisbon to Vladivostok. Europe has to do itself, but the authors wonder if it has the strength and will of its earlier visionaries.
To some the book may seem tainted by anti-american sentiments, to others its capitalism critique and hymn to socialism may come across as a throwback to a pre-globalisation age, and to still others the emotion laded sentences may seem out of place given the gravity of the topic. Leaving the grousing aside, this book is an important contribution to a public debate that has seen its bounds increasingly constrained by a cabal that claims to be fighting for democracy, but, as the authors point out, are in fact doing the exact opposite, for by demonizing opposing viewpoints they betray our democratic ideals.