What do you think?
Rate this book
Provoked: How Washington Started the New Cold War with Russia and the Catastrophe in Ukraine
Over and over, U.S. government officials and their mainstream media allies called Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine an “unprovoked attack.” The slogan became so overused that people began to ask the obvious Why do they protest so much?
In How Washington Started the New Cold War with Russia and the Catastrophe in Ukraine, Scott Horton explains how since the end of the last Cold War and the fall of the Soviet Union, successive U.S. administrations pressed their advantage against the new Russian Federation to the point that it finally blew up into a full-scale war between Russia and Ukraine.
From NATO expansion into Eastern Europe, to “shock therapy” economic policy, the Balkan and Chechen wars, color-coded revolutions, new missile defense systems, assassinations, Russiagate and ultimately the brutal conflict in Ukraine, Provoked shows what really happened and why it did not have to be this way.
In How Washington Started the New Cold War with Russia and the Catastrophe in Ukraine, Scott Horton explains how since the end of the last Cold War and the fall of the Soviet Union, successive U.S. administrations pressed their advantage against the new Russian Federation to the point that it finally blew up into a full-scale war between Russia and Ukraine.
From NATO expansion into Eastern Europe, to “shock therapy” economic policy, the Balkan and Chechen wars, color-coded revolutions, new missile defense systems, assassinations, Russiagate and ultimately the brutal conflict in Ukraine, Provoked shows what really happened and why it did not have to be this way.
2316 pages, Kindle Edition
Published November 21, 2024
274 people are currently reading
1720 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 44 reviews
March 25, 2025
“Ukraine was inseparably identified with Russia, going back to Vladimir of Kiev in 988.” At the dawn of the first Cold War, Senator Robert Taft said at NATO’s creation, it was “obviously an aggressive move” and “How would we feel if Russia undertook to arm a country on our border; Mexico, for instance?” He also said that “we are arming half the world against the other half of the world.” Eisenhower once said, “If in 10 years, all American troops stationed in Europe for national defense purposes have not been returned to the United States, then this whole project will have failed.” Can anyone imagine Clinton, Obama, or Biden daring say any of this? We were taught that JFK got Russia to remove its missiles from Cuba, but never taught that in return the US removed its Jupiter nuclear missiles from Turkey, and promised to never invade Cuba again. James Baker promised Gorbachev not once but SIX times not to expand NATO east if he agreed to German unification. Baker even confirmed it at a press conference – and then Democrat Clinton violated the promise. When Gorbachev asked to also join NATO, “Baker changed the subject.” In 1991, when Yeltsin also asked to join NATO, Baker again changed the subject. No doubt, when Baker’s wife asked, “When can I climax too, James?” Baker changed the subject yet again. Clinton ignored Yeltsin twice when he asked Clinton if Russia could join NATO since Clinton felt it HAD to expand. Yeltsin said Clinton’s NATO expansion was a betrayal of the Russia and “inherently hostile to Russia’s interests. But as the war mongering hag Hillary will tell you, Bill and betrayal are close friends. Brzezinski said, the US wouldn’t let Russia join NATO because the US would have to share decision making with Russia. The US knowingly crossed Putin’s red line when it pushed for Ukraine and Georgian membership at the 2008 NATO summit. In 2000, Clinton merely ignored Putin when he asked if Russia could join NATO. “Barack Obama continued down the same destructive path as his predecessors.” He even helped Saudi Arabia “launch a genocidal war against Yemen.” And in 2014, “Obama’s and allied support for the Syrian rebels helped to create the ISIS Caliphate in eastern Syria and Iraq (p.481).” Henry Kissinger revealed, “The demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one.”
NATO Expansion Opposed: Even right-winger Pat Buchanan thought NATO expansion was a bad idea. He said that “By moving NATO onto Russia’s front porch, we have scheduled a twenty-first century confrontation” and risking Yeltsin being replaced by “an anti-American nationalist.” Famed foreign policy expert George Kennan said post-Soviet NATO expansion was “turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime” and was “the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era.” Most Cold War hawks and experts agreed NATO expansion was a colossal blunder including Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Richard Pipes, Edward Luttwak, General Brent Scowcroft, William Perry, Paul Nitze, McNamara, Robert Gates and Paul Wellstone (Wellstone said it would cause “a poisoning of relations with Russia and ultranationalists coming into power” and Moynihan said it would “antagonize Russia”). Liberals won’t tell you that EVEN the New York Times editorial board was against NATO expansion saying expansion could “strengthen Russian nationalists opposed to Boris Yeltsin and his Western-oriented reformers.” But of course, war criminals Kissinger and Biden loved NATO expansion. Expanding NATO did exactly what William Perry said it would - create an “autocratic leader who would instead demand respect and power through force.” The members of the Council on Foreign Relations were opposed to expansion by a margin of two to one. Who wanted NATO expansion the most? The arms industry, specifically Lockheed Martin executives (p.56).
Ambassador Matlock said Bill Clinton expanded NATO to get the Polish vote in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Illinois. And expanding NATO would take the expansion topic away from Republicans in ’96. Democrats have a long history of moving to the Right to shortsightedly take votes away from the Republicans – Truman created the Cold War out of thin air to win the election through fear and take Republican votes. The decision to expand NATO East was in 1993. That move made Gorbachev say in 2008, “It shows they (the US) cannot be trusted.” Rachel Maddow and Heather Cox Richardson will never ask their viewers, “Suppose Russia were to conclude a military alliance with Mexico, Venezuela and Cuba …wouldn’t that provoke a negative reaction in the United States?” Give me a progressive any day.
MSNBC and Rachel Maddow will never tell you how the US took out Ukraine in 2014: The US then removed its democratically elected leader to abet the financial rape of Ukraine. Journalist Robert Parry wrote of the US-led 2014 Ukraine coup, “In the upside-down world that has become the US news media, the democratically elected president was a dictator and foreign sponsored coup makers who overthrew the popularly chosen leader were ‘pro-democracy’ activists.” One month after the US-led Ukraine Coup of 2014, the IMF austerity plan for Ukraine was implemented. According to Forbes, instead of helping Ukrainians it caused “a 47% to 66% increase in personal tax rates; a 50% increase in monthly gas bills”, etc. “Due to high inflation and major cuts to the welfare state, many Ukrainians saw their living standards collapse. Meanwhile “corruption prevailed” leading to $15 billion of Ukrainian government funds embezzled in 2014 alone. “Freedom and democracy had nothing to do with it.” “Now the US and not Russia would chart Ukraine’s course” was the gist of Condoleezza Rice’s op-ed in the Washington Post. Listen to this: “Ten years later, in February 2024, the New York Times admitted the CIA had moved in immediately after the coup and launched a covert war against Russia.” “The CIA sent ‘scores’ of spies into the country, created 14 secret bases ‘along the Russian border’.” The author artfully adds, “People talk as though Ukraine suddenly found itself in a war in the year 2022, but more than 14,000 people were killed in the 2014-2015 war.” “Rachel Maddow made a second career out of pushing the Steele dossier hoax and reduced herself to a discredited, raving loon in the process.” Liberals STILL love every word out of her mouth. Added to Maddow’s endless blathering about unfounded Russian hacking, was her comment “this was an obvious fraud.”
Minsk II: If Ukraine adhered to Minsk II and promised to not join NATO there would have been no Russian invasion. Zelensky himself was elected “on a promise to implement to Minsk agreements”, but didn’t fearing the Ukrainian Right Sector nationalists would then take him out. Stephen Cohen said Zelensky “won an enormous mandate to make peace” but couldn’t because of fear of Nazi threats, unless the US had his back. But historically the US only have someone’s back if he was submissively greased up and already bent over. Even Poroshenko earlier had stated he couldn’t implement Minsk II w/o US support, which he too never got. In 2009, 51% of Ukrainians opposed joining NATO and 28% wanted to. In 2/2015, the Minsk II agreement was signed. The UN approved it, but the Ukrainian Rada quickly passed a law to make its implementation impossible. Ukrainian Nazis said they were not bound by it. After Putin’s invasion US liberals went ballistic, while those not so afflicted, “for a man who was said to be in a hurry to conquer all of Europe, Vladimir Putin was sure taking his time.” Richard Sakwa said 2014 US intervention killed the Ukrainian history of neutrality. The US state department spent $8.5 million on a “NATO Yes” campaign. Ukraine’s neutrality law was then quickly repealed. In 2016, NATO brazenly held military exercises “right on Russia’s western border.” Imagine Russian or Chinese interests doing that on the US border. Nothing to see here, folks!
General Michael Flynn said, “War is a massive racket. We are at war constantly. At the end of the day, it’s about making money.” Pre-Musk Twitter used to be “overrun by federal cops and spies, particularly from the FBI (p.430)”. “Facebook, Amazon, Google, You Tube, and Apple are riddled with American spies and national security state apparatchiks – they helped build it in the first place (p.431)” US citizens telling the truth there are treated as “spreaders of foreign misinformation.”
Ukraine Invasion Prelude & Provocation: Two months after Biden took office, he “vastly increased provocative missions in the Black Sea, sent B-1 bombers to Norway, had F-15s practice cruise missile launches over the Baltic Sea, leveled personal insults against Putin and added new sanctions.” As a chaser, he handed over “Kosovo to a bunch of terrorists and gangsters.” What could go wrong? In 2020, B4 the invasion, Zelensky turned against Russia w/ his National Security Strategy, and pushed a bid to join NATO including threatening “to make nuclear weapons if the nation was denied entry into NATO.” Who doesn’t like getting threatened? Zelensky then shut down opposition media. “US bombers carried out exercises 12 ½ miles off Russia’s coast” which Russia called rehearsal for a nuclear strike. A former German Chancellor said then, “No one who is at the head of Russia will allow this.” In January 2022, the US “poured hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of weapons into Ukraine.” On February 19th, the German Chancellor advised Zelensky “to renounce his intent to join NATO and declare neutrality.” Nothing happened. The author admits Putin still had other options which he should have done (bring in UN peacekeepers, turn off natural gas supplies, offer a UN veto, etc.), but still “many of Putin’s accusations were true. Mearsheimer and Walt said Ukraine at the time had a “de facto” NATO membership.
Post-Ukraine Invasion: In April 2022, Ukraine worked out a ceasefire deal with Russia, then to stop approaching peace Boris Johnson rushed to Ukraine to say if Ukraine dared make peace with Russia “they could not count on US support”. Never mind that the US people can’t even count on US support (Ukraine gives its people free healthcare). How crazy were the Russian demands? Ukraine had to promise not to join NATO (duh!), protect bilingualism in law, “accept strong federalism for the Donbas” and recognize Russian sovereignty over Crimea (Russia’s only warm water port.) It didn’t help when war criminal Biden called Putin a “war criminal” (Projection 101), “murderous thug” and “dictator”. When Biden last saw Saudi Arabia’s dictator, he actually fist-bumped him for the TV cameras – who knew there were good and bad dictators? Then Biden actually said Putin was guilty of genocide in Ukraine. When it was not genocide in Ukraine, Biden called it genocide, when it clearly WAS genocide in Gaza, Biden said it wasn’t. Someone get him a dictionary.
Ukraine during the war: Ukraine’s Nazis made it clear “they would not tolerate peace with the east.” In early 2024, Zelensky increased the draft by another 500,000 soldiers. “All men between 18 and 60 are prohibited from leaving the country.” 650,000 men in Ukraine then illegally fled the country. “Up to 50,000 Ukrainian limbs had been amputated by the summer of 2023 (p.560).” CBC News portrayed a Ukrainian military full of untrained conscripts being torn to shreds by Russian artillery as a “meat grinder.” A former marine told ABC News “that life expectancy at the front in Bakhmut was just four hours.” “The Times and the Journal also conceded that Ukrainian forces had repeatedly filmed themselves executing Russian prisoners.” “The Guardian reported as early as June 2022 that Ukrainian casualty rates were as many as 1,000 per day, approximately ¼ of them killed in action. A senior aide to President Zelensky confirmed those numbers.” Zelensky’s government has charged more than 600 people with treason. Imagine that in the US. “A Pentagon inspector general report showed that of the $23 billion in military equipment the US had sent by October 2022, much of it was simply stolen by criminals (p.590).” “The Pentagon Inspector General’s office says it cannot account for at least $1 billion worth of military aid (to Ukraine).” Pause to wave the Ukrainian flag. The American arms industry made a killing” - “Shares in Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, Northrup Grumman and General Dynamics appreciated in value by 17.82% on average in the one-year span since the day of the Russian February 24 invasion.” Make your killing with killing. “At least 50 congressmen and senators invest in weapon stocks.” In 2023 Discord leaks showed US leaders knew they couldn’t win the Ukraine war, “so they lied rather than stop.” Those leaks showed Russia had plenty of ammunition whereas “Ukrainians were running out of ammunition, artillery shells, rockets and especially anti-aircraft missiles”. “So, Ukrainians are currently being killed for nothing in a war they have already lost. Perhaps they should have just implemented Minsk II when they had the chance.” Ukrainians have already lost more men than the US did in Vietnam – “the wounded and the dead are left on the battlefield, because medics are unable to reach them.” “Meanwhile, Zelensky’s aide admitted that even if the US gave them everything they promised, ‘we don’t have the men to use them’.” The US has given Ukraine more than $50 billion in weapons for this proxy war that can’t be won; your tax dollars hard at work. Emily Harding , a US intelligence analyst says, “The money we spend on Ukraine doesn’t leave the US. It goes to the US defense industry.” “The New York Times reported (in 2024) how the American and European foreign policy establishments knew that Ukraine could not win the war, and the West could not afford to produce enough weapons to keep them fighting.”
Russia during the war: Putin’s invasion actually increased Putin’s polling numbers and 68% of Russians said they would vote for him (up from 49% before the war). Putin was “easily” reelected in 2024.” Russia’s economy improved, and in 2024 the World bank upgraded Russia from a ‘medium’ to a ‘high’ income country. “Russia’s trade with India was up 400%. Russia was even selling oil to the US ,“$700 million per day, according to Natalie Jaresko - and don’t forget America’s nuclear reactors are working off of Russian uranium (p.581). Imagine mainstream media asking if the US actually fought Putin, who we are carefully taught to hate, how then would the US fuel its nuclear reactors? In 2022, a Szazadveg Foundation survey (p. 598) found more than 70% of Europeans favored a ceasefire. Russia produces more than three times the artillery shells than the US and Europe combined (3 million annually). The US tried hard with the Putin equals Hitler analogy but the world immediately contrasted the morality of the Russian invasion with equally illegal US war crimes against Iraq, Serbia, and Libya.
No one flying Ukrainian colors on their Facebook page will tell you that in 2024, “an incredible 94% of American people, and 88% of Europeans said they wanted a negotiated settlement. In February, 72% of Ukrainians had said the same.” Nor will they tell you more than 1.2 million Ukrainians fled to Russia during this war. Wait. You mean not EVERY Ukrainian hates Putin? Nor will liberals tell you that according to the Economist that one out of five Ukrainian soldiers have gone AWOL. Some “simply walk off or flee from the battlefield.” Nothing to see here folks…
Fun Facts: The US Abrams tank’s fuel filters “have to be cleaned several times a day and require constant maintenance.” Imagine shouting at your enemy, ‘Hey stop! I have to clean my air filter!’ The author says, “they were designed primarily for taking money from taxpayers, not fighting enemies.” And Ukraine only had six qualified pilots “one of whom crashed and died within the first couple of days.” According to the NYT, “The US is really running the war from a tech center they call ‘the Pit’ in Germany (p.568)”. “The Ukraine remains one of the most corrupt countries in the world (p.631).” By 2024, US debt was over $35 trillion with a $1 trillion annual interest on that debt. That annual interest alone is greater than the US defense budget.
Neville Chamberlin Munich Appeasement Redux: “Munich has virtually always been used as a cheap excuse to fight every American War since WWII”: used by Truman in Korea, Eden in the Suez, JFK in the Cuban Missile Crisis, LBJ in Vietnam, Bush I in the Persian Gulf War, Madeliene Albright in Kosovo, Bush Jr in Iraq War II, Biden on Putin, and by most US liberals on Facebook the second Trump pulled funds for Ukraine in 2025. Give me a progressive any day.
Francis Fukuyama “demanded America invade Iraq” and “insisted Ukraine will win” its war. He gets $300,000 annually “miseducating young students at Stanford and associating with various neo-Nazis.” The author calls the Daily Beast “extremely pro-war”. The author ends this book with “America’s relationship with Russia is the single most important matter facing humanity.” Cooperation or courting WWIII? Kissinger himself said it was time to negotiate before the Ukraine conflict escalated into a “real war between major powers.” “When even Henry Kissinger says your foreign policy is too belligerent and dangerous, then that must be because it is.”
US liberals collectively bemoaned the death of Navalny on Facebook, but none of them will tell you he was a right-wing nationalist kicked out of his own “party for demonizing Muslim immigrants, comparing them to cockroaches and dental cavities.” “Navalny was not a liberal at all. He was far to the right of Putin.” As for Putin, even the NYT conceded that Putin was at best a “soft” authoritarian compared to the nationalists, including Navalny. Think of Putin as a center-right conservative as opposed to a right-wing ethnic nationalist.
I put SIX more paragraphs of this review in the comment section due to the review's length. Check them out too... Anyway, this was an amazing 670-page heavily documented paperback book with small type and packed with great info, as you can see from the length of this review. The highest kudos to Scott Horton on a meticulous job, well done. I loved it and you will too.
NATO Expansion Opposed: Even right-winger Pat Buchanan thought NATO expansion was a bad idea. He said that “By moving NATO onto Russia’s front porch, we have scheduled a twenty-first century confrontation” and risking Yeltsin being replaced by “an anti-American nationalist.” Famed foreign policy expert George Kennan said post-Soviet NATO expansion was “turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime” and was “the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era.” Most Cold War hawks and experts agreed NATO expansion was a colossal blunder including Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Richard Pipes, Edward Luttwak, General Brent Scowcroft, William Perry, Paul Nitze, McNamara, Robert Gates and Paul Wellstone (Wellstone said it would cause “a poisoning of relations with Russia and ultranationalists coming into power” and Moynihan said it would “antagonize Russia”). Liberals won’t tell you that EVEN the New York Times editorial board was against NATO expansion saying expansion could “strengthen Russian nationalists opposed to Boris Yeltsin and his Western-oriented reformers.” But of course, war criminals Kissinger and Biden loved NATO expansion. Expanding NATO did exactly what William Perry said it would - create an “autocratic leader who would instead demand respect and power through force.” The members of the Council on Foreign Relations were opposed to expansion by a margin of two to one. Who wanted NATO expansion the most? The arms industry, specifically Lockheed Martin executives (p.56).
Ambassador Matlock said Bill Clinton expanded NATO to get the Polish vote in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Illinois. And expanding NATO would take the expansion topic away from Republicans in ’96. Democrats have a long history of moving to the Right to shortsightedly take votes away from the Republicans – Truman created the Cold War out of thin air to win the election through fear and take Republican votes. The decision to expand NATO East was in 1993. That move made Gorbachev say in 2008, “It shows they (the US) cannot be trusted.” Rachel Maddow and Heather Cox Richardson will never ask their viewers, “Suppose Russia were to conclude a military alliance with Mexico, Venezuela and Cuba …wouldn’t that provoke a negative reaction in the United States?” Give me a progressive any day.
MSNBC and Rachel Maddow will never tell you how the US took out Ukraine in 2014: The US then removed its democratically elected leader to abet the financial rape of Ukraine. Journalist Robert Parry wrote of the US-led 2014 Ukraine coup, “In the upside-down world that has become the US news media, the democratically elected president was a dictator and foreign sponsored coup makers who overthrew the popularly chosen leader were ‘pro-democracy’ activists.” One month after the US-led Ukraine Coup of 2014, the IMF austerity plan for Ukraine was implemented. According to Forbes, instead of helping Ukrainians it caused “a 47% to 66% increase in personal tax rates; a 50% increase in monthly gas bills”, etc. “Due to high inflation and major cuts to the welfare state, many Ukrainians saw their living standards collapse. Meanwhile “corruption prevailed” leading to $15 billion of Ukrainian government funds embezzled in 2014 alone. “Freedom and democracy had nothing to do with it.” “Now the US and not Russia would chart Ukraine’s course” was the gist of Condoleezza Rice’s op-ed in the Washington Post. Listen to this: “Ten years later, in February 2024, the New York Times admitted the CIA had moved in immediately after the coup and launched a covert war against Russia.” “The CIA sent ‘scores’ of spies into the country, created 14 secret bases ‘along the Russian border’.” The author artfully adds, “People talk as though Ukraine suddenly found itself in a war in the year 2022, but more than 14,000 people were killed in the 2014-2015 war.” “Rachel Maddow made a second career out of pushing the Steele dossier hoax and reduced herself to a discredited, raving loon in the process.” Liberals STILL love every word out of her mouth. Added to Maddow’s endless blathering about unfounded Russian hacking, was her comment “this was an obvious fraud.”
Minsk II: If Ukraine adhered to Minsk II and promised to not join NATO there would have been no Russian invasion. Zelensky himself was elected “on a promise to implement to Minsk agreements”, but didn’t fearing the Ukrainian Right Sector nationalists would then take him out. Stephen Cohen said Zelensky “won an enormous mandate to make peace” but couldn’t because of fear of Nazi threats, unless the US had his back. But historically the US only have someone’s back if he was submissively greased up and already bent over. Even Poroshenko earlier had stated he couldn’t implement Minsk II w/o US support, which he too never got. In 2009, 51% of Ukrainians opposed joining NATO and 28% wanted to. In 2/2015, the Minsk II agreement was signed. The UN approved it, but the Ukrainian Rada quickly passed a law to make its implementation impossible. Ukrainian Nazis said they were not bound by it. After Putin’s invasion US liberals went ballistic, while those not so afflicted, “for a man who was said to be in a hurry to conquer all of Europe, Vladimir Putin was sure taking his time.” Richard Sakwa said 2014 US intervention killed the Ukrainian history of neutrality. The US state department spent $8.5 million on a “NATO Yes” campaign. Ukraine’s neutrality law was then quickly repealed. In 2016, NATO brazenly held military exercises “right on Russia’s western border.” Imagine Russian or Chinese interests doing that on the US border. Nothing to see here, folks!
General Michael Flynn said, “War is a massive racket. We are at war constantly. At the end of the day, it’s about making money.” Pre-Musk Twitter used to be “overrun by federal cops and spies, particularly from the FBI (p.430)”. “Facebook, Amazon, Google, You Tube, and Apple are riddled with American spies and national security state apparatchiks – they helped build it in the first place (p.431)” US citizens telling the truth there are treated as “spreaders of foreign misinformation.”
Ukraine Invasion Prelude & Provocation: Two months after Biden took office, he “vastly increased provocative missions in the Black Sea, sent B-1 bombers to Norway, had F-15s practice cruise missile launches over the Baltic Sea, leveled personal insults against Putin and added new sanctions.” As a chaser, he handed over “Kosovo to a bunch of terrorists and gangsters.” What could go wrong? In 2020, B4 the invasion, Zelensky turned against Russia w/ his National Security Strategy, and pushed a bid to join NATO including threatening “to make nuclear weapons if the nation was denied entry into NATO.” Who doesn’t like getting threatened? Zelensky then shut down opposition media. “US bombers carried out exercises 12 ½ miles off Russia’s coast” which Russia called rehearsal for a nuclear strike. A former German Chancellor said then, “No one who is at the head of Russia will allow this.” In January 2022, the US “poured hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of weapons into Ukraine.” On February 19th, the German Chancellor advised Zelensky “to renounce his intent to join NATO and declare neutrality.” Nothing happened. The author admits Putin still had other options which he should have done (bring in UN peacekeepers, turn off natural gas supplies, offer a UN veto, etc.), but still “many of Putin’s accusations were true. Mearsheimer and Walt said Ukraine at the time had a “de facto” NATO membership.
Post-Ukraine Invasion: In April 2022, Ukraine worked out a ceasefire deal with Russia, then to stop approaching peace Boris Johnson rushed to Ukraine to say if Ukraine dared make peace with Russia “they could not count on US support”. Never mind that the US people can’t even count on US support (Ukraine gives its people free healthcare). How crazy were the Russian demands? Ukraine had to promise not to join NATO (duh!), protect bilingualism in law, “accept strong federalism for the Donbas” and recognize Russian sovereignty over Crimea (Russia’s only warm water port.) It didn’t help when war criminal Biden called Putin a “war criminal” (Projection 101), “murderous thug” and “dictator”. When Biden last saw Saudi Arabia’s dictator, he actually fist-bumped him for the TV cameras – who knew there were good and bad dictators? Then Biden actually said Putin was guilty of genocide in Ukraine. When it was not genocide in Ukraine, Biden called it genocide, when it clearly WAS genocide in Gaza, Biden said it wasn’t. Someone get him a dictionary.
Ukraine during the war: Ukraine’s Nazis made it clear “they would not tolerate peace with the east.” In early 2024, Zelensky increased the draft by another 500,000 soldiers. “All men between 18 and 60 are prohibited from leaving the country.” 650,000 men in Ukraine then illegally fled the country. “Up to 50,000 Ukrainian limbs had been amputated by the summer of 2023 (p.560).” CBC News portrayed a Ukrainian military full of untrained conscripts being torn to shreds by Russian artillery as a “meat grinder.” A former marine told ABC News “that life expectancy at the front in Bakhmut was just four hours.” “The Times and the Journal also conceded that Ukrainian forces had repeatedly filmed themselves executing Russian prisoners.” “The Guardian reported as early as June 2022 that Ukrainian casualty rates were as many as 1,000 per day, approximately ¼ of them killed in action. A senior aide to President Zelensky confirmed those numbers.” Zelensky’s government has charged more than 600 people with treason. Imagine that in the US. “A Pentagon inspector general report showed that of the $23 billion in military equipment the US had sent by October 2022, much of it was simply stolen by criminals (p.590).” “The Pentagon Inspector General’s office says it cannot account for at least $1 billion worth of military aid (to Ukraine).” Pause to wave the Ukrainian flag. The American arms industry made a killing” - “Shares in Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, Northrup Grumman and General Dynamics appreciated in value by 17.82% on average in the one-year span since the day of the Russian February 24 invasion.” Make your killing with killing. “At least 50 congressmen and senators invest in weapon stocks.” In 2023 Discord leaks showed US leaders knew they couldn’t win the Ukraine war, “so they lied rather than stop.” Those leaks showed Russia had plenty of ammunition whereas “Ukrainians were running out of ammunition, artillery shells, rockets and especially anti-aircraft missiles”. “So, Ukrainians are currently being killed for nothing in a war they have already lost. Perhaps they should have just implemented Minsk II when they had the chance.” Ukrainians have already lost more men than the US did in Vietnam – “the wounded and the dead are left on the battlefield, because medics are unable to reach them.” “Meanwhile, Zelensky’s aide admitted that even if the US gave them everything they promised, ‘we don’t have the men to use them’.” The US has given Ukraine more than $50 billion in weapons for this proxy war that can’t be won; your tax dollars hard at work. Emily Harding , a US intelligence analyst says, “The money we spend on Ukraine doesn’t leave the US. It goes to the US defense industry.” “The New York Times reported (in 2024) how the American and European foreign policy establishments knew that Ukraine could not win the war, and the West could not afford to produce enough weapons to keep them fighting.”
Russia during the war: Putin’s invasion actually increased Putin’s polling numbers and 68% of Russians said they would vote for him (up from 49% before the war). Putin was “easily” reelected in 2024.” Russia’s economy improved, and in 2024 the World bank upgraded Russia from a ‘medium’ to a ‘high’ income country. “Russia’s trade with India was up 400%. Russia was even selling oil to the US ,“$700 million per day, according to Natalie Jaresko - and don’t forget America’s nuclear reactors are working off of Russian uranium (p.581). Imagine mainstream media asking if the US actually fought Putin, who we are carefully taught to hate, how then would the US fuel its nuclear reactors? In 2022, a Szazadveg Foundation survey (p. 598) found more than 70% of Europeans favored a ceasefire. Russia produces more than three times the artillery shells than the US and Europe combined (3 million annually). The US tried hard with the Putin equals Hitler analogy but the world immediately contrasted the morality of the Russian invasion with equally illegal US war crimes against Iraq, Serbia, and Libya.
No one flying Ukrainian colors on their Facebook page will tell you that in 2024, “an incredible 94% of American people, and 88% of Europeans said they wanted a negotiated settlement. In February, 72% of Ukrainians had said the same.” Nor will they tell you more than 1.2 million Ukrainians fled to Russia during this war. Wait. You mean not EVERY Ukrainian hates Putin? Nor will liberals tell you that according to the Economist that one out of five Ukrainian soldiers have gone AWOL. Some “simply walk off or flee from the battlefield.” Nothing to see here folks…
Fun Facts: The US Abrams tank’s fuel filters “have to be cleaned several times a day and require constant maintenance.” Imagine shouting at your enemy, ‘Hey stop! I have to clean my air filter!’ The author says, “they were designed primarily for taking money from taxpayers, not fighting enemies.” And Ukraine only had six qualified pilots “one of whom crashed and died within the first couple of days.” According to the NYT, “The US is really running the war from a tech center they call ‘the Pit’ in Germany (p.568)”. “The Ukraine remains one of the most corrupt countries in the world (p.631).” By 2024, US debt was over $35 trillion with a $1 trillion annual interest on that debt. That annual interest alone is greater than the US defense budget.
Neville Chamberlin Munich Appeasement Redux: “Munich has virtually always been used as a cheap excuse to fight every American War since WWII”: used by Truman in Korea, Eden in the Suez, JFK in the Cuban Missile Crisis, LBJ in Vietnam, Bush I in the Persian Gulf War, Madeliene Albright in Kosovo, Bush Jr in Iraq War II, Biden on Putin, and by most US liberals on Facebook the second Trump pulled funds for Ukraine in 2025. Give me a progressive any day.
Francis Fukuyama “demanded America invade Iraq” and “insisted Ukraine will win” its war. He gets $300,000 annually “miseducating young students at Stanford and associating with various neo-Nazis.” The author calls the Daily Beast “extremely pro-war”. The author ends this book with “America’s relationship with Russia is the single most important matter facing humanity.” Cooperation or courting WWIII? Kissinger himself said it was time to negotiate before the Ukraine conflict escalated into a “real war between major powers.” “When even Henry Kissinger says your foreign policy is too belligerent and dangerous, then that must be because it is.”
US liberals collectively bemoaned the death of Navalny on Facebook, but none of them will tell you he was a right-wing nationalist kicked out of his own “party for demonizing Muslim immigrants, comparing them to cockroaches and dental cavities.” “Navalny was not a liberal at all. He was far to the right of Putin.” As for Putin, even the NYT conceded that Putin was at best a “soft” authoritarian compared to the nationalists, including Navalny. Think of Putin as a center-right conservative as opposed to a right-wing ethnic nationalist.
I put SIX more paragraphs of this review in the comment section due to the review's length. Check them out too... Anyway, this was an amazing 670-page heavily documented paperback book with small type and packed with great info, as you can see from the length of this review. The highest kudos to Scott Horton on a meticulous job, well done. I loved it and you will too.
January 1, 2025
In Provoked Scott Horton does a good job trying to summarize the key facts leading up to the current war in Ukraine. The book is very lengthy and small print, so it is a pretty tough slog to get through. The author tries to weave things together in a narrative, but it's difficult because there are so many things occurring at different places in Europe and the Middle East at the same points in time that it is difficult to keep the narrative strictly chronologically.
The reader should know in advance that there is very little "new" reporting in here. The book is a summary of other newspaper and foreign policy magazine articles. That is not a criticism. Many history books are no different. But the reader should not pick this book up thinking there are "new" facts being reported. Instead, the book's main strength is that it methodically points out the hypocrisy of U.S. foreign policy since 1989 re: the "rules based international order" using contradictory statements by U.S. officials (including, many times, contradictory statements made by the exact same U.S. official).
My main criticisms are more on style than substance:
(i) The book would have been improved with more maps showing how the NATO alliance grew closer and closer to encircling Russia each time a new country was enacted. Maps for the Yugoslavia discussion would have been very helpful as well.
(ii) The author overuses indefinite articles and personal pronouns which makes some sentences far more confusing and cumbersome than they need to be.
(iii) The book would be improved by moving some of the sentences from the text to the footnotes and also hiving off certain sections and moving them to Appendices.
The reader should know in advance that there is very little "new" reporting in here. The book is a summary of other newspaper and foreign policy magazine articles. That is not a criticism. Many history books are no different. But the reader should not pick this book up thinking there are "new" facts being reported. Instead, the book's main strength is that it methodically points out the hypocrisy of U.S. foreign policy since 1989 re: the "rules based international order" using contradictory statements by U.S. officials (including, many times, contradictory statements made by the exact same U.S. official).
My main criticisms are more on style than substance:
(i) The book would have been improved with more maps showing how the NATO alliance grew closer and closer to encircling Russia each time a new country was enacted. Maps for the Yugoslavia discussion would have been very helpful as well.
(ii) The author overuses indefinite articles and personal pronouns which makes some sentences far more confusing and cumbersome than they need to be.
(iii) The book would be improved by moving some of the sentences from the text to the footnotes and also hiving off certain sections and moving them to Appendices.
March 24, 2025
Navigating a contentious geopolitical landscape rife with covert interests, Horton delivers a compelling analysis exposing the duplicity of U.S. foreign policy and the calamitous fallout it continues to perpetuate today. American author Scott Horton is the director of The Libertarian Institute, and host of Antiwar Radio, where he has reported on international affairs since 2003. Rooted in over 7,000 citations from declassified documents, interviews, media reports, and findings from the United Nations, Scott Horton’s latest book, "Provoked", aims to deconstruct the specious claims of Western media and uncover the underhanded actions that instigated America’s new Cold War.
The book follows successive U.S. presidential administrations, starting with the George H.W. Bush administration, and their negotiations with Mikhail Gorbachev following the dissolution of the U.S.S.R. Horton primarily follows a chronological path, occasionally shifting forward or backward in time to provide context or reveal relevant connections. Although the content is cogent and exhaustive, the book reads like a concatenation of note cards, with oddly subtitled paragraphs and occasional satirical remarks. The scarcity of editorial commentary and the lack of visuals (maps, images, graphs, or polls) make for a rather dry reading experience. Despite this, the book delivers a flood of credible accounts and compelling details, bound to keep shocked readers turning the page.
Delving into the dissolution of Yugoslavia, Horton cuts through the hypocrisy of the Clinton administration and the unsanctioned bombing campaign of 1999. He then smoothly transitions into the war on terrorism of the ‘90s and ‘00s, suggesting that CIA-funded Jihadist groups during the Soviet-Afghan War, along with the backing of Islamic militant groups during the Kosovo War, provided fertile ground for a multinational Jihadist movement to grow and spread throughout the region, leading to terrorist attacks worldwide. Instead of working in conjunction to stifle these murderous groups, Putin and Bush continued to butt heads as they simultaneously grappled for hegemony in the Caucasus region.
In his criticism of NATO expansionism, Horton does not discriminate in his attacks on both neoconservatives, such as Donald Rumsfeld and John Bolton, and corrupt Democrats, including Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland. He presents a thorough exposé of revolutions in Georgia, Ukraine, and other former soviet states, unveiling the incentives and unscrupulous forces that aided them. From big-time donors like George Soros, who proudly boasts of his ability to manifest change, to the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which advocates for fair, free elections while overtly meddling in them, the evidence is damning.
After establishing the foundation for the current heightened tensions between Russia and the West, the final 170 pages are dedicated solely to the developments, storylines, and leaks emerging from the Russo-Ukrainian war between March 2022 and October 2024. Horton condemns Putin’s actions: “This does not justify what Putin did in response, or the worsening problems that are almost certain to result from his war,” while highlighting alternatives Putin could have pursued instead of invading Ukraine. He also investigates why promising peace deals failed early in the war and continue to be discouraged by Western powers. As an anti-war advocate, Horton acknowledges his bias while also providing a convincing argument for a reduction in U.S. intervention.
Critics hoping to dismiss this work as “Russian Propaganda” will be disappointed to find their hackneyed rhetoric cited and deflected with an array of verified records, testimonies, and legal documents to support his arguments. However, the deliberate intention to shape the book around the errors of American policymakers will likely limit its audience.
Poised to be a seminal historical account of ongoing affairs, "Provoked" guides readers through the missteps of hawkish U.S. officials, the nefarious involvement of NGOs in notorious color revolutions, and the concerted effort to destabilize the Caucasus region in favor of the West. Horton not only casts doubt on the shallow slogan of 'unprovoked attack'—routinely trotted out by politicians with antagonistic motives—but also erodes the spurious moral and democratic claims made to defend interventionist actions. Despite its textbook-like structure and ideological lean, "Provoked" succeeds as a pertinent and invaluable resource for understanding modern-day conflicts through a well-contextualized lens.
The book follows successive U.S. presidential administrations, starting with the George H.W. Bush administration, and their negotiations with Mikhail Gorbachev following the dissolution of the U.S.S.R. Horton primarily follows a chronological path, occasionally shifting forward or backward in time to provide context or reveal relevant connections. Although the content is cogent and exhaustive, the book reads like a concatenation of note cards, with oddly subtitled paragraphs and occasional satirical remarks. The scarcity of editorial commentary and the lack of visuals (maps, images, graphs, or polls) make for a rather dry reading experience. Despite this, the book delivers a flood of credible accounts and compelling details, bound to keep shocked readers turning the page.
Delving into the dissolution of Yugoslavia, Horton cuts through the hypocrisy of the Clinton administration and the unsanctioned bombing campaign of 1999. He then smoothly transitions into the war on terrorism of the ‘90s and ‘00s, suggesting that CIA-funded Jihadist groups during the Soviet-Afghan War, along with the backing of Islamic militant groups during the Kosovo War, provided fertile ground for a multinational Jihadist movement to grow and spread throughout the region, leading to terrorist attacks worldwide. Instead of working in conjunction to stifle these murderous groups, Putin and Bush continued to butt heads as they simultaneously grappled for hegemony in the Caucasus region.
In his criticism of NATO expansionism, Horton does not discriminate in his attacks on both neoconservatives, such as Donald Rumsfeld and John Bolton, and corrupt Democrats, including Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland. He presents a thorough exposé of revolutions in Georgia, Ukraine, and other former soviet states, unveiling the incentives and unscrupulous forces that aided them. From big-time donors like George Soros, who proudly boasts of his ability to manifest change, to the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which advocates for fair, free elections while overtly meddling in them, the evidence is damning.
After establishing the foundation for the current heightened tensions between Russia and the West, the final 170 pages are dedicated solely to the developments, storylines, and leaks emerging from the Russo-Ukrainian war between March 2022 and October 2024. Horton condemns Putin’s actions: “This does not justify what Putin did in response, or the worsening problems that are almost certain to result from his war,” while highlighting alternatives Putin could have pursued instead of invading Ukraine. He also investigates why promising peace deals failed early in the war and continue to be discouraged by Western powers. As an anti-war advocate, Horton acknowledges his bias while also providing a convincing argument for a reduction in U.S. intervention.
Critics hoping to dismiss this work as “Russian Propaganda” will be disappointed to find their hackneyed rhetoric cited and deflected with an array of verified records, testimonies, and legal documents to support his arguments. However, the deliberate intention to shape the book around the errors of American policymakers will likely limit its audience.
Poised to be a seminal historical account of ongoing affairs, "Provoked" guides readers through the missteps of hawkish U.S. officials, the nefarious involvement of NGOs in notorious color revolutions, and the concerted effort to destabilize the Caucasus region in favor of the West. Horton not only casts doubt on the shallow slogan of 'unprovoked attack'—routinely trotted out by politicians with antagonistic motives—but also erodes the spurious moral and democratic claims made to defend interventionist actions. Despite its textbook-like structure and ideological lean, "Provoked" succeeds as a pertinent and invaluable resource for understanding modern-day conflicts through a well-contextualized lens.
December 5, 2024
Brilliant. This book, written from a pro-peace perspective, gives you almost everything you need to know about Russian-NATO relations since the mid 80s.
Delivered in short, punchy topics, every page deals with a different feature. This covers an astonishingly wide range of issues. Every little news item you heard about 5 years ago is covered in depth. Heavily referenced, this book reveals just how blazingly our governments (I am British) lie to us. They lie constantly. At many points in this book my jaw literally dropped. The Russiagate stuff, my lord. I had kind of overheard something about Trump working with the Russians. All lies. The final 200 pages or so get into the meat of the war. Having spent the previous sections setting up our government's incompetence and recklessness, these final few chapters are heartbreaking. Just heartbreaking. I highlighted a good 30% of the book because every few paragraphs had explosive material I wanted to remember.
The great fact about the author is he has followed up all these lies and points out that they admitted lying, just a few years later. It's a huge book, but every page is essential to tell the full story. Well worth the £15 I spent on it. I got it on kindle and the author hyperlinked all his thousands of references, which made checking them trivially easy.
Delivered in short, punchy topics, every page deals with a different feature. This covers an astonishingly wide range of issues. Every little news item you heard about 5 years ago is covered in depth. Heavily referenced, this book reveals just how blazingly our governments (I am British) lie to us. They lie constantly. At many points in this book my jaw literally dropped. The Russiagate stuff, my lord. I had kind of overheard something about Trump working with the Russians. All lies. The final 200 pages or so get into the meat of the war. Having spent the previous sections setting up our government's incompetence and recklessness, these final few chapters are heartbreaking. Just heartbreaking. I highlighted a good 30% of the book because every few paragraphs had explosive material I wanted to remember.
The great fact about the author is he has followed up all these lies and points out that they admitted lying, just a few years later. It's a huge book, but every page is essential to tell the full story. Well worth the £15 I spent on it. I got it on kindle and the author hyperlinked all his thousands of references, which made checking them trivially easy.
December 26, 2024
Provoked: How Washington started the new Cold War with Russia and the catastrophe in Ukraine.
Excellent, well documented history with something like 7000 footnotes in it from America’s perspective. What the politicians and generals said and what they did from the fall of the Berlin Wall up and through to Trump’s second transition.
Horton’s central thesis is that the United States played a key role in provoking Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. He rejects the mainstream narrative that Russia's actions were entirely "unprovoked" and driven solely by Vladimir Putin's imperial ambitions. He even shows, that the US politicians including the foreign policy establishment, in their own words kept saying we can't keep provoking Putin! Horton contends that U.S. policy, particularly since the collapse of the Soviet Union, has consistently sought to encircle Russia, undermine its influence, and provoke actions that would justify military escalation.
Here is what George Kennan, the Cold Warrior and maybe the most famous diplomat in US history who was the father of the Cold War containment policy, in a NY Times Opinion piece - A Fateful Error - in 1997.
"Why, with all the hopeful possibilities engendered by the end of the Cold War, should East-West relations become centered on the question of who would be allied with whom and, by implication, against whom in some fanciful, totally unforeseeable and most improbable future military conflict?”
“expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era. Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking..."
Or just listen to what our current CIA director wrote to Condoleeza Rice, when he was the US ambassador to Russia in the famous "Nyet means Nyet" memo we can now read thanks to Julian Assange:
"Ukraine and Georgia's NATO aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region. Not only does Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine Russia's influence in the region, but it also fears
unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests. Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face"
The book follows a chronological order, starting with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Scott tracks a series of pivotal moments that laid the groundwork for the current conflict. These moments include the expansion of NATO eastward, U.S. support for anti-Russian elements in Ukraine, attempts to sabotage their economy including "shock therapy" and sabotaging oil pipelines, and a series of aggressive foreign policies that consistently disregarded Russian security concerns. A very convincing case is made that these actions were designed not just to challenge Russia, but to elicit a response—ultimately pushing the Kremlin into military confrontation.
Here are just a handful of the critical junctures that ultimately led to the absolute bloodbath we are seeing in Ukraine with so much unnecessary loss of life. And this should go without saying, at no point does Scott justify Putin's invasion, he made that decision that has led to tens of thousands of dead Ukranians and Russians, but the US unequivocally pushed them over the line, and as Americans, that should be our focus especially as we fund this war.
NATO Expansion: Horton provides a detailed account of the U.S. push to expand NATO after the Cold War, incorporating former Eastern Bloc nations and Soviet republics into the alliance. While the U.S. justified this as a move to democratize and stabilize Europe, Horton argues that it was a deliberate encirclement of Russia. NATO's promises to exclude such expansion, made during the Cold War negotiations, were broken, and this breach created deep distrust in Moscow. And for all those that say, no promise was ever made in writing, well Jack Kennedy never signed a treaty with Kruschev to move our nukes out of Turkey! Scott shows that this was not a one off comment but committing to not expand NATO was the basis for the entirety of the discussions between the West and the Soviet Union that led to the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact.
The 2014 Ukrainian Coup and U.S. Involvement: A major focal point of Horton’s critique is the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution, which led to the ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych. The most interesting thing to me was that Yanukovych was never pro-Putin, but rejecting Russia's economic deal in favor of the EU's deal would have collapsed the Ukranian economy. The U.S. not only provided material aid but also sought to foster a new, pro-Western government in Ukraine, which was seen as a direct challenge to Russian influence in the region. Victoria Nuland was caught red handed on a phone call picking the future Ukranian parliament. This is obviously not the only coup discussed, the countless number of interventions throughout Eastern Europe (Rose Revolution, Denim Revolution, Orange Revolution, etc etc) were all provocations.
And there is so much more. Scott goes president by president starting with HW Bush, and once Clinton made the decision to expand NATO at the behest of the neocons and war mongers in DC, instead of going down the path of the partnership for peace that the military brass, including Wesley Clark were pushing for from a place of fear of provoking the Russians. Irrespective of how weak the Russians may have been, they always had 6000 nukes.
He talks about the Balkan wars and the US's role in backing what ultimately became Al Qaeda in Bosnia and Chechnya. Interestingly, he points out that 10 /19 of the 9/11 hijackers had been in Chechnya in the late 1990s!
Sadly, it seems we will never learn and the war party always gets their way. It didn't take long for the US to go back to backing the Jihadist's after 9/11. ANd of course when Putin wanted to keep killing Daesh or ISIS in Syria, he really crossed the line since, as Jake Sullivan said in the famous email to Hilary leaked via Wikileaks, "AQ (Al Qaeda) is on our side in Syria"
Scott also makes a convincing argument that we are arming, real-life far right Neo Nazi militias in Ukraine. Today, anyone that speaks about Nazi's in Ukraine is accused of parroting Putin's propaganda so instead of stating his opinion, he quotes the Ukrainians, human rights reports and countless other reports to demonstrate the point. Scott doesn’t suggest that the entire Ukrainian government or the majority or even a significant percentage of Ukrainians are Nazis, but he does highlight the prominent role played by certain far-right factions within Ukrainian politics and military units, especially since the 2014 Maidan Revolution and the subsequent war in Eastern Ukraine.
Here is what Oleh Tyahnybok (Svoboda Party leader) said in a famous speech to Parliament:
"We are going to cleanse this land of filth, this is the land of the Ukrainian people....There are three enemies of Ukraine: the Jews, the Russians, and the Poles"
Or what Andriy Biletsky, the leader of Azov Battalion said:
"The historic mission of our nation is to lead the white races of the world in a final crusade... against Semite-led Untermenschen [subhuman]."
Horton also references the use of neo-Nazi symbols by the Azov Battalion, such as the Wolfangel (a symbol similar to the Nazi Wolfsangel) and other emblems, including swastikas, associated with fascist movements.
I will end the review with this example that resonated with me. There was a diplomat or someone in the military establishment that asked a bunch of generals, what do you think we would do if the Russians installed a bunch of military bases and along our border with Mexico, and sending them missiles etc. And they said, well of course we would tell them they need to move and if they didn't we would invade in make them move. When the question was flipped saying well how do you think the Russians feel, the military brass said, "Wow, I have never thought of that.". And this is a pretty tame example, the better example would be putting their bases around Mexico, Canada, cuba etc, after trying to overthrow their leaders to put in their puppet presidents and then started persecuting Americans in Tijuana, banning English in the newspaper, persecuting Anglo Saxon Protestants etc. But this example really resonated and explains how we, as America, who were the unequivocal leader of the free world 30 years ago, are where we are today.
Excellent, well documented history with something like 7000 footnotes in it from America’s perspective. What the politicians and generals said and what they did from the fall of the Berlin Wall up and through to Trump’s second transition.
Horton’s central thesis is that the United States played a key role in provoking Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. He rejects the mainstream narrative that Russia's actions were entirely "unprovoked" and driven solely by Vladimir Putin's imperial ambitions. He even shows, that the US politicians including the foreign policy establishment, in their own words kept saying we can't keep provoking Putin! Horton contends that U.S. policy, particularly since the collapse of the Soviet Union, has consistently sought to encircle Russia, undermine its influence, and provoke actions that would justify military escalation.
Here is what George Kennan, the Cold Warrior and maybe the most famous diplomat in US history who was the father of the Cold War containment policy, in a NY Times Opinion piece - A Fateful Error - in 1997.
"Why, with all the hopeful possibilities engendered by the end of the Cold War, should East-West relations become centered on the question of who would be allied with whom and, by implication, against whom in some fanciful, totally unforeseeable and most improbable future military conflict?”
“expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era. Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking..."
Or just listen to what our current CIA director wrote to Condoleeza Rice, when he was the US ambassador to Russia in the famous "Nyet means Nyet" memo we can now read thanks to Julian Assange:
"Ukraine and Georgia's NATO aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region. Not only does Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine Russia's influence in the region, but it also fears
unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests. Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face"
The book follows a chronological order, starting with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Scott tracks a series of pivotal moments that laid the groundwork for the current conflict. These moments include the expansion of NATO eastward, U.S. support for anti-Russian elements in Ukraine, attempts to sabotage their economy including "shock therapy" and sabotaging oil pipelines, and a series of aggressive foreign policies that consistently disregarded Russian security concerns. A very convincing case is made that these actions were designed not just to challenge Russia, but to elicit a response—ultimately pushing the Kremlin into military confrontation.
Here are just a handful of the critical junctures that ultimately led to the absolute bloodbath we are seeing in Ukraine with so much unnecessary loss of life. And this should go without saying, at no point does Scott justify Putin's invasion, he made that decision that has led to tens of thousands of dead Ukranians and Russians, but the US unequivocally pushed them over the line, and as Americans, that should be our focus especially as we fund this war.
NATO Expansion: Horton provides a detailed account of the U.S. push to expand NATO after the Cold War, incorporating former Eastern Bloc nations and Soviet republics into the alliance. While the U.S. justified this as a move to democratize and stabilize Europe, Horton argues that it was a deliberate encirclement of Russia. NATO's promises to exclude such expansion, made during the Cold War negotiations, were broken, and this breach created deep distrust in Moscow. And for all those that say, no promise was ever made in writing, well Jack Kennedy never signed a treaty with Kruschev to move our nukes out of Turkey! Scott shows that this was not a one off comment but committing to not expand NATO was the basis for the entirety of the discussions between the West and the Soviet Union that led to the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact.
The 2014 Ukrainian Coup and U.S. Involvement: A major focal point of Horton’s critique is the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution, which led to the ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych. The most interesting thing to me was that Yanukovych was never pro-Putin, but rejecting Russia's economic deal in favor of the EU's deal would have collapsed the Ukranian economy. The U.S. not only provided material aid but also sought to foster a new, pro-Western government in Ukraine, which was seen as a direct challenge to Russian influence in the region. Victoria Nuland was caught red handed on a phone call picking the future Ukranian parliament. This is obviously not the only coup discussed, the countless number of interventions throughout Eastern Europe (Rose Revolution, Denim Revolution, Orange Revolution, etc etc) were all provocations.
And there is so much more. Scott goes president by president starting with HW Bush, and once Clinton made the decision to expand NATO at the behest of the neocons and war mongers in DC, instead of going down the path of the partnership for peace that the military brass, including Wesley Clark were pushing for from a place of fear of provoking the Russians. Irrespective of how weak the Russians may have been, they always had 6000 nukes.
He talks about the Balkan wars and the US's role in backing what ultimately became Al Qaeda in Bosnia and Chechnya. Interestingly, he points out that 10 /19 of the 9/11 hijackers had been in Chechnya in the late 1990s!
Sadly, it seems we will never learn and the war party always gets their way. It didn't take long for the US to go back to backing the Jihadist's after 9/11. ANd of course when Putin wanted to keep killing Daesh or ISIS in Syria, he really crossed the line since, as Jake Sullivan said in the famous email to Hilary leaked via Wikileaks, "AQ (Al Qaeda) is on our side in Syria"
Scott also makes a convincing argument that we are arming, real-life far right Neo Nazi militias in Ukraine. Today, anyone that speaks about Nazi's in Ukraine is accused of parroting Putin's propaganda so instead of stating his opinion, he quotes the Ukrainians, human rights reports and countless other reports to demonstrate the point. Scott doesn’t suggest that the entire Ukrainian government or the majority or even a significant percentage of Ukrainians are Nazis, but he does highlight the prominent role played by certain far-right factions within Ukrainian politics and military units, especially since the 2014 Maidan Revolution and the subsequent war in Eastern Ukraine.
Here is what Oleh Tyahnybok (Svoboda Party leader) said in a famous speech to Parliament:
"We are going to cleanse this land of filth, this is the land of the Ukrainian people....There are three enemies of Ukraine: the Jews, the Russians, and the Poles"
Or what Andriy Biletsky, the leader of Azov Battalion said:
"The historic mission of our nation is to lead the white races of the world in a final crusade... against Semite-led Untermenschen [subhuman]."
Horton also references the use of neo-Nazi symbols by the Azov Battalion, such as the Wolfangel (a symbol similar to the Nazi Wolfsangel) and other emblems, including swastikas, associated with fascist movements.
I will end the review with this example that resonated with me. There was a diplomat or someone in the military establishment that asked a bunch of generals, what do you think we would do if the Russians installed a bunch of military bases and along our border with Mexico, and sending them missiles etc. And they said, well of course we would tell them they need to move and if they didn't we would invade in make them move. When the question was flipped saying well how do you think the Russians feel, the military brass said, "Wow, I have never thought of that.". And this is a pretty tame example, the better example would be putting their bases around Mexico, Canada, cuba etc, after trying to overthrow their leaders to put in their puppet presidents and then started persecuting Americans in Tijuana, banning English in the newspaper, persecuting Anglo Saxon Protestants etc. But this example really resonated and explains how we, as America, who were the unequivocal leader of the free world 30 years ago, are where we are today.
January 10, 2025
Provoked is Scott Horton's magnum opus. With a length of 670 pages, chock full of footnotes with sources this is an unparalleled masterpiece for the ages.
The book is structured in roughly chronological order, with each section highlighting a given presidential administration beginning with H.W. Bush. Scott does a masterful job walking the reader through the process of the dissolution of the Soviet Union all the way to November 2024 and everything in between.
The prospective reader might be intimidated by the book's length. But make no mistake, every paragraph contained therein is absolutely crucial to history. There is no stone left unturned. While most books on this subject may find it too dilatory to wade into the wars in the Balkans or address every single ridiculous allegation of the Russiagate nonsense, Scott is not intimidated by these topics.
The obvious topics one might expect to see are, of course, covered such as NATO expansion, the Madian coup, Minsk II, sanctions, etc. But where this book really shines is in its coverage of some of the more overlooked or forgotten topics, such as the Bosnian war, the Kosovo war, the economic pillage of Russia in the 1990s, and the myriad of CIA-sponsored color coded revolutions in Georgia, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Lebanon, Serbia, Albania, Belarus, Armenia, Azerbaijan, etc. The incidents may seem isolated and unrelated to the casual Western observer (to the extent they are observed at all), but in context and in sequence it is obvious that these are relentless and unnecessary provocations.
I must also note the excellent coverage of Russiagate. Despite following these events in real time over the years, even I found these disjointed conspiracies to be confusing. Trying to sort through topics such as Carter Page, Paul Manafort, Alfa bank, DNC "hacking", the Podesta emails, the so-called "Ukrainegate", Hunter's laptop, by way of conventional mainstream sources will only provide confusion at best, and lies at worst. Luckily Scott takes every single Russiagate allegation separately and refutes each one with plenty of sources to back his case up. By the end of the section, the reader is left breathless that the world swallowed itself in a frenzy over absolutely nothing. For those of us who are a bit older, it reminds me of the WMD nonsense from 20+ years ago.
A note about his sourcing: For the skeptic, don't think that Scott only sources fringe publications, illegitimate kooks, or RT and TASS. It is evident that Horton goes well out of his way to cite NYT, WaPo, CNN, and the entire neocon establishment and lets them hang themselves by their own words. A critic cannot possibly accuse the author of cherry-picking his sources or relying on "misinformation". An honorable mention must include his vicious takedown of the liars Fiona Hill, Charlie Savage, John Brennan, and James Clapper.
And lastly, one should not callously accuse Horton of being "pro-Russian". That is not his argument. He is no fan of Vladimir Putin. He is an anti-war activist and specifically opposes the 2022 invasion, giving several peaceful alternatives that should have been taken instead. Nor is the author "anti-American". His ideology is rooted in peaceful libertarianism, of a brand that is unfortunately somewhat unique to America. Nor is the author partisan. He is equally acerbic in his criticisms of every administration since the end of the Cold War, both Republican and Democrat.
In short, this book is not for the light-hearted, for the partisan hack, or the dishonest bad-faith actor. This book is reserved for the intellectually honest, good faith intellectuals, who are interested in the nonpartisan evidence-based history of US-Russia relations over the last 30 years and how we wound up in such a disastrous state of affairs.
You may find some bad reviews, but invariably they ALWAYS will just drone on about "pro-Russian talking points", "America-bashing", "Putin apologist", "how much did Russia pay you?" etc. They NEVER dare to refute specific arguments that Horton makes, because they simply are unable to do so in the face of the deluge of evidence against them.
The book is structured in roughly chronological order, with each section highlighting a given presidential administration beginning with H.W. Bush. Scott does a masterful job walking the reader through the process of the dissolution of the Soviet Union all the way to November 2024 and everything in between.
The prospective reader might be intimidated by the book's length. But make no mistake, every paragraph contained therein is absolutely crucial to history. There is no stone left unturned. While most books on this subject may find it too dilatory to wade into the wars in the Balkans or address every single ridiculous allegation of the Russiagate nonsense, Scott is not intimidated by these topics.
The obvious topics one might expect to see are, of course, covered such as NATO expansion, the Madian coup, Minsk II, sanctions, etc. But where this book really shines is in its coverage of some of the more overlooked or forgotten topics, such as the Bosnian war, the Kosovo war, the economic pillage of Russia in the 1990s, and the myriad of CIA-sponsored color coded revolutions in Georgia, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Lebanon, Serbia, Albania, Belarus, Armenia, Azerbaijan, etc. The incidents may seem isolated and unrelated to the casual Western observer (to the extent they are observed at all), but in context and in sequence it is obvious that these are relentless and unnecessary provocations.
I must also note the excellent coverage of Russiagate. Despite following these events in real time over the years, even I found these disjointed conspiracies to be confusing. Trying to sort through topics such as Carter Page, Paul Manafort, Alfa bank, DNC "hacking", the Podesta emails, the so-called "Ukrainegate", Hunter's laptop, by way of conventional mainstream sources will only provide confusion at best, and lies at worst. Luckily Scott takes every single Russiagate allegation separately and refutes each one with plenty of sources to back his case up. By the end of the section, the reader is left breathless that the world swallowed itself in a frenzy over absolutely nothing. For those of us who are a bit older, it reminds me of the WMD nonsense from 20+ years ago.
A note about his sourcing: For the skeptic, don't think that Scott only sources fringe publications, illegitimate kooks, or RT and TASS. It is evident that Horton goes well out of his way to cite NYT, WaPo, CNN, and the entire neocon establishment and lets them hang themselves by their own words. A critic cannot possibly accuse the author of cherry-picking his sources or relying on "misinformation". An honorable mention must include his vicious takedown of the liars Fiona Hill, Charlie Savage, John Brennan, and James Clapper.
And lastly, one should not callously accuse Horton of being "pro-Russian". That is not his argument. He is no fan of Vladimir Putin. He is an anti-war activist and specifically opposes the 2022 invasion, giving several peaceful alternatives that should have been taken instead. Nor is the author "anti-American". His ideology is rooted in peaceful libertarianism, of a brand that is unfortunately somewhat unique to America. Nor is the author partisan. He is equally acerbic in his criticisms of every administration since the end of the Cold War, both Republican and Democrat.
In short, this book is not for the light-hearted, for the partisan hack, or the dishonest bad-faith actor. This book is reserved for the intellectually honest, good faith intellectuals, who are interested in the nonpartisan evidence-based history of US-Russia relations over the last 30 years and how we wound up in such a disastrous state of affairs.
You may find some bad reviews, but invariably they ALWAYS will just drone on about "pro-Russian talking points", "America-bashing", "Putin apologist", "how much did Russia pay you?" etc. They NEVER dare to refute specific arguments that Horton makes, because they simply are unable to do so in the face of the deluge of evidence against them.
December 23, 2024
Scott Hortons is encyclopedia knowledge of the war state and the military industrial complex is essential knowledge and understanding why the US is a state of constant war
Provoke goes in the grade details covering the last 36 years of US foreign policy that we told Gorbachev yellson that we would not expand NATO to eastern Europe that we funded jihadis to fight in Chechnya and Bosnia and that for the last 36 years, Russian leaders have said that if we brought Ukraine into NATO, it would lead to war and we ignored that fact the chapter on Russian collusion will make you angry with the attempted coup against the president. All in all this is probably the best book I’ve read on the subject, and I would recommend it to everybody.
March 2, 2025
After reading this, you'll be frustrated and impressed at how effective the US propaganda machine is.
February 20, 2025
As a veteran I believe anyone who served should read this book. It is shameful what we have done maintain power over taking care of the people.
February 6, 2025
This book left no stone unturned.
August 6, 2025
First thoughts: If you haven't read this book or are not familiar with the 30 year history of the Ukraine conflict chances are you are ignorant and propagandized out of your mind. I don't know how to say that nicely but it's just a fact. This is coming from someone, who until a short time ago, thought Israel was the good guys and was excited for Iraq war 2, so we are all learning here just how diabolical our government is.
The content in this book is so important although I surmise there are other books on the topic that are good as well but I doubt they are 670 pages long with 10k citations.
If there are any problems with the book it is that the author is encyclopedia and just pours out facts in an interesting but somewhat dry and at times tedious manner, but the content more then compensates for that. For instance I really didn't need to have 100 pages on the Russiagate hoax. It could easily have been dealt with in a much shorter period and did not need to go through the history and debunking of each and every hoax. It is interesting to have a record but I would have preferred him to spend that energy on Biden's handling of the crisis in the year leading up to the invasion which he covers but briefly. Despite being one of the most important periods in the saga he covers it the briefest.
Another is that most of the book is derived from American sources besides quotes from Putin and some of his top officials and Solzhenitsyn. So if you are worried this is "Kremlin interference" it's definitely not. I would have liked a little more insight into their side. For example he never even hints at the fact of Putin's guidance of Russia from a devastated nation in the 90s to a country that is now going toe to toe with US and north America, Europe and Australia, and winning. But I guess that would have gotten in the way of his libertarianism.
He has two quotes from Solzhenitsyn which I found fascinating. One is Solzhenitsyn pleading Ukraine to stay apart of Russia when the USSR was collapsing and the other is him talking about the blatant attempt by America to destroy Russia by expanding NATO and all the color revolutions in neighboring countries. It's pretty bad when the guy who helped bring down the USSR is pointing his guns at the US and it's unending crimes.
One of the saddest things about our treatment of Russia since the first Cold War ended is that during that war Russian's may not have liked our government but they loved us and now that is no longer true... Which proves not only was the Cold War pointless but we lost it completely. To me that is one of the firmest indications of America's and American's guilt in this conflict.
One of the weird things about this book is that while he details in excruciating detail how the US provoked this war he still calls it unjustified for Russia to do what it did. I mean this has to be the most provoked war in world history, the US did everything short of actually attacking an Russia with military force. At one point he starts listing things Putin could have done and they were absurd. One was to refer to the ICC to address the situation in the Donbas which he then later describes as being politicized and controlled by the West. Yeah, what a serious alternative. The only alternative for Putin would to just sit tight and wait for the West to fall apart from within. But Russian history being what it is that was just not an option. Do you really think any Russian leader would allow a Neo-Nazi regime who worships Bandera to grow stronger and stronger on it's border? Not happening. It would be like us allowing Bin Laden to train an army in Texas.
So much for a few quick thoughts!
Synopsis:
In order to overthrow Gorbachev Yeltsin helps to break up the USSR. America assists in him smashing congress and consolidating power in the presidency. Gorbachev, Yeltsin, and Putin ask to join NATO and even demand that they join. Putin asks both Clinton and Bush. What could go wrong?
The one victorious war we have had since ww2 was supporting Al Qaida in Afghanistan and getting the USSR to invade. We have implemented the same strategy over and over again. We have supported Al Qaida in Bosnia and Kosovo in order to break up Yugoslavia for some nefarious reason I don't get, while also claiming that territorial borders are sacred. Pot meet ketal. We also supported them in Chechnya, Syria, and Libya.
We overthrew Ukraine in a coup in 2004 but it did not last and was overturned. So in 2014 we did it again but supported Nazi's and their many militias to do it which kept them in power. Poroshenko and Zelenskyy both ran on peace with Russia and both of them were forced at gun point by Azov and the others to attack Donbas and avoid any peace deal. They seemed to possibly be open to peace in 2022 but Boris Johnson shut it down.
The point of all the color revolutions and provocations seems to be to isolate and surround Russia and then provoke them to invade Ukraine and getting them into their own Afghanistan. Everyone seems to have expected Russia to win quickly and then get caught in a costly insurgency. I don't know if Putin intended this and the author didn't mention it but it seems that whether Russia was legitimately stymied or is just playing conservative, by not quickly rolling over Ukraine they have forced NATO to send very costly weapon systems and due to Ukraine's economy collapsing they also have to fund the government. While we intended to get them caught in Afghanistan it has been the US that is caught.
The purpose that is even openly stated at times is to decolonize and break up Russia like we did the USSR. When that became the objective is hard to say but I can't imagine a more insulting idea and action to the Russian's who have already fought a rather large war against someone with a mustache who wanted to do similar things to them.
Citations:
pg. 128 the Kosovo conflict broke the myth of the ww2 rules based international order and set the predicate for Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
pg. 158 "But it is worth noting not just the predictions of disaster by the experts in the beginning, but Putin's attempt to nullify the threat of what was still an anti-Russian military alliance, which claimed not to be one, by calling their bluff and asking to join."
pg. 202 Bush telling Putin he needed to negotiate with terrorists that had just killed 329 people including 186 children in 2004 after Bush had invaded several countries due to 911, destroyed their relationship and broke Russia off from the West according to the Post.
pg. 370 American strategy since ww1 has been to make sure no one power such as Germany or Russia from gaining dominance in Europe. What would be even worse is an alliance between Germany and Russia.
pg. 508 Under Biden Russia tried to see if the US was willing to negotiate and set any limits to it's power in Europe which the US quickly shut down by ignoring.
pg. 532 The author says it was America's war in Vietnam that spread communism next door to Cambodia. Not only did the war not halt communism it spread it...
pg. 592 Helsinki Commission staffed by the Defense department and others said our strategic objective was to decolonize Russia and break it up as we did the USSR.
The content in this book is so important although I surmise there are other books on the topic that are good as well but I doubt they are 670 pages long with 10k citations.
If there are any problems with the book it is that the author is encyclopedia and just pours out facts in an interesting but somewhat dry and at times tedious manner, but the content more then compensates for that. For instance I really didn't need to have 100 pages on the Russiagate hoax. It could easily have been dealt with in a much shorter period and did not need to go through the history and debunking of each and every hoax. It is interesting to have a record but I would have preferred him to spend that energy on Biden's handling of the crisis in the year leading up to the invasion which he covers but briefly. Despite being one of the most important periods in the saga he covers it the briefest.
Another is that most of the book is derived from American sources besides quotes from Putin and some of his top officials and Solzhenitsyn. So if you are worried this is "Kremlin interference" it's definitely not. I would have liked a little more insight into their side. For example he never even hints at the fact of Putin's guidance of Russia from a devastated nation in the 90s to a country that is now going toe to toe with US and north America, Europe and Australia, and winning. But I guess that would have gotten in the way of his libertarianism.
He has two quotes from Solzhenitsyn which I found fascinating. One is Solzhenitsyn pleading Ukraine to stay apart of Russia when the USSR was collapsing and the other is him talking about the blatant attempt by America to destroy Russia by expanding NATO and all the color revolutions in neighboring countries. It's pretty bad when the guy who helped bring down the USSR is pointing his guns at the US and it's unending crimes.
One of the saddest things about our treatment of Russia since the first Cold War ended is that during that war Russian's may not have liked our government but they loved us and now that is no longer true... Which proves not only was the Cold War pointless but we lost it completely. To me that is one of the firmest indications of America's and American's guilt in this conflict.
One of the weird things about this book is that while he details in excruciating detail how the US provoked this war he still calls it unjustified for Russia to do what it did. I mean this has to be the most provoked war in world history, the US did everything short of actually attacking an Russia with military force. At one point he starts listing things Putin could have done and they were absurd. One was to refer to the ICC to address the situation in the Donbas which he then later describes as being politicized and controlled by the West. Yeah, what a serious alternative. The only alternative for Putin would to just sit tight and wait for the West to fall apart from within. But Russian history being what it is that was just not an option. Do you really think any Russian leader would allow a Neo-Nazi regime who worships Bandera to grow stronger and stronger on it's border? Not happening. It would be like us allowing Bin Laden to train an army in Texas.
So much for a few quick thoughts!
Synopsis:
In order to overthrow Gorbachev Yeltsin helps to break up the USSR. America assists in him smashing congress and consolidating power in the presidency. Gorbachev, Yeltsin, and Putin ask to join NATO and even demand that they join. Putin asks both Clinton and Bush. What could go wrong?
The one victorious war we have had since ww2 was supporting Al Qaida in Afghanistan and getting the USSR to invade. We have implemented the same strategy over and over again. We have supported Al Qaida in Bosnia and Kosovo in order to break up Yugoslavia for some nefarious reason I don't get, while also claiming that territorial borders are sacred. Pot meet ketal. We also supported them in Chechnya, Syria, and Libya.
We overthrew Ukraine in a coup in 2004 but it did not last and was overturned. So in 2014 we did it again but supported Nazi's and their many militias to do it which kept them in power. Poroshenko and Zelenskyy both ran on peace with Russia and both of them were forced at gun point by Azov and the others to attack Donbas and avoid any peace deal. They seemed to possibly be open to peace in 2022 but Boris Johnson shut it down.
The point of all the color revolutions and provocations seems to be to isolate and surround Russia and then provoke them to invade Ukraine and getting them into their own Afghanistan. Everyone seems to have expected Russia to win quickly and then get caught in a costly insurgency. I don't know if Putin intended this and the author didn't mention it but it seems that whether Russia was legitimately stymied or is just playing conservative, by not quickly rolling over Ukraine they have forced NATO to send very costly weapon systems and due to Ukraine's economy collapsing they also have to fund the government. While we intended to get them caught in Afghanistan it has been the US that is caught.
The purpose that is even openly stated at times is to decolonize and break up Russia like we did the USSR. When that became the objective is hard to say but I can't imagine a more insulting idea and action to the Russian's who have already fought a rather large war against someone with a mustache who wanted to do similar things to them.
Citations:
pg. 128 the Kosovo conflict broke the myth of the ww2 rules based international order and set the predicate for Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
pg. 158 "But it is worth noting not just the predictions of disaster by the experts in the beginning, but Putin's attempt to nullify the threat of what was still an anti-Russian military alliance, which claimed not to be one, by calling their bluff and asking to join."
pg. 202 Bush telling Putin he needed to negotiate with terrorists that had just killed 329 people including 186 children in 2004 after Bush had invaded several countries due to 911, destroyed their relationship and broke Russia off from the West according to the Post.
pg. 370 American strategy since ww1 has been to make sure no one power such as Germany or Russia from gaining dominance in Europe. What would be even worse is an alliance between Germany and Russia.
pg. 508 Under Biden Russia tried to see if the US was willing to negotiate and set any limits to it's power in Europe which the US quickly shut down by ignoring.
pg. 532 The author says it was America's war in Vietnam that spread communism next door to Cambodia. Not only did the war not halt communism it spread it...
pg. 592 Helsinki Commission staffed by the Defense department and others said our strategic objective was to decolonize Russia and break it up as we did the USSR.
October 19, 2025
I speak for a man
Who gave for this land
Took a bullet in the back
For his pay
Spilled his blood
In the dirt and the dust
He's back to say
That what he has seen
Is hard to believe
And it does no good
To just pray
He asks of us to stand
And we must end this war today
With his mind,
He's saying, "No more!"
With his heart,
He's saying, "No more!"
With his life,
He's saying, "No more war!"
- Eddie Vedder
This book sets the standard for current affairs writing, journalism, and unbiased criticism.
Who gave for this land
Took a bullet in the back
For his pay
Spilled his blood
In the dirt and the dust
He's back to say
That what he has seen
Is hard to believe
And it does no good
To just pray
He asks of us to stand
And we must end this war today
With his mind,
He's saying, "No more!"
With his heart,
He's saying, "No more!"
With his life,
He's saying, "No more war!"
- Eddie Vedder
This book sets the standard for current affairs writing, journalism, and unbiased criticism.
February 18, 2025
An incredibly well researched and well written account of how we got to our current involvement with the Ukraine conflict. Scott does a masterful job of pulling news sources and verifying reports to weave a detailed timeline of US foreign policy with respect to Ukraine. This book is a must for anyone who wants to truly attempt to comprehend the mess we have gotten ourselves into.
July 19, 2025
Scott Horton gives a meticulous breakdown of the ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia, whilst breaking through the mainstream propaganda of "Russia bad, Putin bad, Ukraine good, Zelensky good". Starting from President H.W. Bush up to the start of Trump's second term, he goes through the unnecessary provocations and poor judgment of U.S decision makers towards Russia that led to the current conflict. From the reunifcation of East and West Germany effectively ending WW2 where U.S presidents and policy makers continiously said "NATO will not expand eastward" which then changed to "NATO isn't a military alliance" to "Well it is a military alliance, but its a defensive one", NATO them bomb the Serbians in Yugoslavia who didn't attack any NATO force under the Bill Clinton administration. Meanwhile, they're bringing in all these former Soviet countries into the alliance, which greatly angered the Russians. Russia kind of has to put up with this in the 90s and early 2000s because of their strength as a country which is excacerbated by the U.S pretending to help them towards a market economy but essentially mess it up and whether intentional or not leads to the creation of the Russian oligarchs who plunder and loot Russia whilst many Russians are sent into extrme poverty. By the turn of the century, Russians had come to see the words 'freedom' and 'democracy' as mere synonyms for 'poverty' and 'helplessness'. Boris Yeltsin, who was president at the time, was rightly blamed for this corruption and had an approval rating of 6% going into the next election. However, a combination of George Soros, the newly created Russian oligarchs and funding pumped in by America through USAID and other NGOs helped Yeltsin win the election, although all rigging aside, Yeltsin and his supporters ended up having to steal the election outright as they resorted to ballot box stuffing. Fast forward to New Year's 1999, and the oligarchs were well and truly in control of the Russian Federation and were using Yeltsin as a puppet. Yelstin steps down and Vladamir Putin ascends to power, its funny looking back now but at the time this was celebrated in the American establishment and Russian Oligarchs as they saw Putin as someone they could control. This soon turned out to not be the case as Putin quickly reigned in the oligarchs. Its important to note throughout this time America was convinving more eastern european countries to join NATO and as Pat Buchanan predicted a nationalist strongman came into power as a reaction to American over reach after the soviet union. In the George Bush years.
After Bill Clinton, George Bush came into power after campaigning on a humble foreign policy. In a joint press conference with Bush on the topic of NATO, Putin said, "We ask ourselves, is this a military organisation? Yes, it's a military organisation. It doesn't want us in it. No, they dont want us. It's moving towards our border. Yes, it's moving towards our border.Why?". However Putin when he first came to power at leats was very pro western. His actions support this, after the 9/11 terrorist attack he was the first world leader to call Bush and offer Russias support. He also offered Russias full cooperation in Americas war on terror in the middle east offering Russian intelligence and Military bases. However despite Putins efforts America turned around and withdrew from the anti ballistic missile treaty. He then added missiles in Now NATO countries Poland, Romania and the Czech republic. Putin expalined that the Russian fear that when defensive missiles are deployed they could give one side the false confidence to attempt a first strike, relying on the missiles to protect them from retaliation and upsetting the balance of power. Russia was also facing their own terrorist problem at this time with the Chechens, it was later discovered that the U.S was backing them in a continued attempt to keep Russia unstable. Furthermore the U.S goverment backed colour coded revolutions in countries that were aligned with Russia. This basically consisted of America overthrowing democratically elected leaders and then installing thier own leader who would be more aligned with Americas policys. An example of this the Orange revolution in Ukraine where Yanukovych was ousted for pro western candidate Lukashenko through Millions of dollars being pumped into propaganda. A critical insight into Russia’s perspective came from the leaked 2008 U.S. State Department memo titled “Nyet Means Nyet: Russia’s NATO Enlargement Redlines,” authored by then-U.S. Ambassador to Russia William Burns (later CIA Director under Biden). Horton highlights this memo as a pivotal document, where Burns explicitly warned Washington that Russia viewed NATO’s potential inclusion of Ukraine and Georgia as an existential threat. The memo detailed Putin’s firm stance that NATO’s eastward expansion, especially into Ukraine, crossed a "red line" that could provoke severe Russian backlash, including military action to protect its strategic interests, such as the Black Sea Fleet in Crimea. Despite this warning, the Bush administration pushed forward at the 2008 NATO Bucharest Summit, declaring that Ukraine and Georgia would eventually join NATO. This decision ignored Burns’s caution that "nyet means nyet" (no means no), signalling Russia’s non-negotiable opposition. Quoting from the document is reads "Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face." Horton argues this was a reckless move, as Ukraine’s NATO aspirations directly threatened Russia’s security buffer and naval presence. The 2008 Russo-Georgian War over South Ossetia, triggered by Georgia’s NATO-backed assertiveness under President Mikheil Saakashvili, served as a stark warning of Russia’s willingness to act militarily. Horton notes the U.S. encouraged Georgia’s provocations without providing meaningful support when Russia responded decisively.
Obama then came in and was considered the peace candidate. One might think this was true, considering he received the Nobel Peace Prize during his presidency, but that would overlook his five wars and further provocation of Russia. After making fun of Mitt Romney for being stuck in the cold war era when runnning for president Obama continued Americas terrible policys towards them. Horton’s analysis centers on the 2014 Ukraine crisis as a U.S.-instigated turning point. He describes the ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych as an unconstitutional coup, widely documented by sources like the BBC and The Guardian, which reported that Yanukovych’s removal in February 2014 bypassed Ukraine’s constitutional impeachment process. Despite Yanukovych agreeing to an EU-brokered power-sharing deal, U.S.-backed protests, fueled by $5 billion in U.S. aid since 1991 (as admitted by Victoria Nuland in a leaked call with Geoffrey Pyatt), led to his overthrow. The call, intercepted and published by Russian media but verified by Western outlets, showed U.S. officials handpicking Ukraine’s new leadership, including Arseniy Yatsenyuk, confirming U.S. orchestration.Post-coup, Ukraine’s Russian-speaking population, concentrated in the east and Crimea, faced severe marginalization. Horton cites reports from Human Rights Watch and the UN documenting bans on Russian-language education, media, books, and films under laws passed by Kyiv’s new government. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church, linked to Moscow, was targeted, with clergy harassed and churches seized, as reported by Reuters and Al Jazeera. In Donbas, the conflict between Russian-speaking separatists and Ukrainian forces resulted in over 15,000 deaths by 2022, per UN estimates, with civilians bearing significant losses. Horton highlights the role of neo-Nazi groups like the Azov Battalion, whose Nazi-inspired symbols and ties to WWII collaborator Stepan Bandera were covered by outlets like The New York Times and TIME. These groups, integrated into Ukraine’s military, were implicated in atrocities like the 2014 Odessa Trade Union House fire, where 42 pro-Russian activists died, as documented by Amnesty International.The Obama administration’s response—sanctions on Russia, military aid to Ukraine, and NATO’s buildup in Eastern Europe, including missile systems in Poland and Romania—ignored Russia’s warnings from “Nyet Means Nyet.” Horton argues this validated Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, seen as protecting Russian-speaking populations and strategic interests, and escalated the Donbas conflict, with U.S. weapons fueling Kyiv’s campaign against its own citizens.
Regarding trumps first termHorton contends that Trump’s presidency was shaped by intense anti-Russian hysteria in the U.S. media and political establishment, which falsely portrayed Trump as a Russian asset and Putin as having subverted U.S. democracy. Outlets like CNN, MSNBC, and The Washington Post amplified the "Russiagat"” narrative, alleging Russian interference in the 2016 election and Trump’s collusion, based on unverified claims like the Steele dossier, widely covered but later discredited, per The New York Times. Horton argues this media-driven frenzy, coupled with pressure from Democrats and establishment Republicans, boxed Trump in, forcing him to adopt a tougher stance on Russia to prove his independence from Putin. Despite Trump’s calls for better relations, evidenced by his 2018 Helsinki summit with Putin, his administration escalated policies against Russia. Trump approved lethal aid to Ukraine, including Javelin missiles, as reported by The Washington Post, intensifying the Donbas conflict, where Russian-speaking communities faced ongoing violence and cultural suppression through language and media bans, documented by the OSCE. The influence of neo-Nazi groups like Azov grew, with Reuters noting their role in Ukraine’s military, yet U.S. aid continued unchecked. The 2019 U.S. withdrawal from the INF Treaty, covered by CNN, alarmed Russia by enabling new missile deployments in Europe. Trump’s push for U.S. LNG exports, according to Bloomberg, aimed to undercut Russia’s gas market, potentially hitting its economy. Support for anti-Russian movements, like Belarus’s 2020 protests, reinforced Moscow’s view of U.S. encirclement. Horton suggests that the Russiagate hysteria, by pressuring Trump to prove he wasn’t "soft" on Russia, ensured continuity in provocative policies, undermining his own diplomatic instincts.
Horton portrays the Biden years as the culmination of U.S. provocations, with Ukraine undeniably losing ground and facing severe conscription issues, largely ignored by American politicians, while the U.S. repeatedly rejected Putin’s peace offers. By 2022, Russia’s invasion was triggered, which Horton frames as a response to decades of NATO expansion, the 2014 coup, and ongoing persecution in Donbas, where 15,000 had died pre-invasion, per UN estimates. Ukraine’s military position deteriorated, with Russia making steady gains in the east since the failed 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive, per CSIS. Ukraine’s manpower crisis became acute, with reports from Reuters and The Washington Post noting forced conscription, desertions, and a shrinking pool of recruits due to heavy casualties and an aging population.
Horton portrays the Biden years as the culmination of U.S. provocations, with Ukraine undeniably losing ground and facing severe conscription issues, largely ignored by American politicians, while the U.S. repeatedly rejected Putin’s peace offers. By 2022, Russia’s invasion was triggered, which Horton frames as a response to decades of NATO expansion, the 2014 coup, and ongoing persecution in Donbas, where 15,000 had died pre-invasion, per UN estimates. Ukraine’s military position deteriorated, with Russia making steady gains in the east since the failed 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive, per CSIS. Ukraine’s manpower crisis became acute, with reports from Reuters and The Washington Post noting forced conscription, desertions, and a shrinking pool of recruits due to heavy casualties and an aging population.
Horton portrays the Biden years as the culmination of U.S. provocations, with Ukraine undeniably losing ground and facing severe conscription issues, largely ignored by American politicians, while the U.S. repeatedly rejected Putin’s peace offers. By 2022, Russia’s invasion was triggered, which Horton frames as a response to decades of NATO expansion, the 2014 coup, and ongoing persecution in Donbas, where 15,000 had died pre-invasion, per UN estimates. Ukraine’s military position deteriorated, with Russia making steady gains in the east since the failed 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive, per CSIS. Ukraine’s manpower crisis became acute, with reports from Reuters and The Washington Post noting forced conscription, desertions, and a shrinking pool of recruits due to heavy casualties and an aging population. Horton argues U.S. politicians, from Biden to congressional hawks, are fully aware of Ukraine’s slaughter but seem determined to keep the war going to weaken Russia, prioritising geopolitical aims over Ukrainian lives. Over $100 billion in U.S. aid since 2022, per Responsible Statecraft, fuels the conflict but fails to address Ukraine’s collapsing defences or conscription woes. The U.S repeatedly rejected Putin’s peace offers. In April 2022, Turkey- and Israel-mediated talks neared a deal for Russian withdrawal in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality, but the U.S. and UK blocked it, with Boris Johnson urging Zelenskyy to fight on, per Fair Observer and Ukrainska Pravda. In September 2022, Putin offered a ceasefire to freeze the front lines, which was rejected by Biden and Jake Sullivan, according to The New York Times. In January 2024, Putin reiterated this, according to the Institute for the Study of War, but the U.S. dismissed it, as reported by Reuters. A 2023 Neue Zürcher Zeitung report claimed CIA Director Burns offered Russia 20% of Ukraine’s territory, which was denied by the CIA and rejected by both sides. Horton argues these rejections, driven by the U.S. intent to prolong the war, ignored Ukraine’s devastation and exploited events like the Bucha atrocities to derail diplomacy. Horton also emphasises that U.S.-led sanctions, intended to cripple Russia’s economy, have been largely ineffective. Reports from Bloomberg and The Wall Street Journal indicate that Russia has adapted by redirecting trade to China, India, and other non-Western markets, with oil exports reaching record highs in 2023 despite the imposition of price caps. The ruble stabilised, according to Reuters, and Russia’s GDP growth outpaced that of some G7 nations in 2024, according to IMF data.
To conclude, Biden’s rhetoric, calling Putin a "war criminal" and pushing NATO’s open-door policy, per CNN, closed diplomatic avenues. Sanctions, billions in aid, and NATO’s militarisation, per Reuters, entrenched the conflict, leaving Ukraine to bear the human cost while U.S. leaders prioritise weakening Russia over ending the slaughter.
There's alot I haven't been able to touch on here, but I tried to summarise Horton's main points. If one wants to gain an understanding of the conflict without the distortions of mainstream media, I highly recommend this book.
After Bill Clinton, George Bush came into power after campaigning on a humble foreign policy. In a joint press conference with Bush on the topic of NATO, Putin said, "We ask ourselves, is this a military organisation? Yes, it's a military organisation. It doesn't want us in it. No, they dont want us. It's moving towards our border. Yes, it's moving towards our border.Why?". However Putin when he first came to power at leats was very pro western. His actions support this, after the 9/11 terrorist attack he was the first world leader to call Bush and offer Russias support. He also offered Russias full cooperation in Americas war on terror in the middle east offering Russian intelligence and Military bases. However despite Putins efforts America turned around and withdrew from the anti ballistic missile treaty. He then added missiles in Now NATO countries Poland, Romania and the Czech republic. Putin expalined that the Russian fear that when defensive missiles are deployed they could give one side the false confidence to attempt a first strike, relying on the missiles to protect them from retaliation and upsetting the balance of power. Russia was also facing their own terrorist problem at this time with the Chechens, it was later discovered that the U.S was backing them in a continued attempt to keep Russia unstable. Furthermore the U.S goverment backed colour coded revolutions in countries that were aligned with Russia. This basically consisted of America overthrowing democratically elected leaders and then installing thier own leader who would be more aligned with Americas policys. An example of this the Orange revolution in Ukraine where Yanukovych was ousted for pro western candidate Lukashenko through Millions of dollars being pumped into propaganda. A critical insight into Russia’s perspective came from the leaked 2008 U.S. State Department memo titled “Nyet Means Nyet: Russia’s NATO Enlargement Redlines,” authored by then-U.S. Ambassador to Russia William Burns (later CIA Director under Biden). Horton highlights this memo as a pivotal document, where Burns explicitly warned Washington that Russia viewed NATO’s potential inclusion of Ukraine and Georgia as an existential threat. The memo detailed Putin’s firm stance that NATO’s eastward expansion, especially into Ukraine, crossed a "red line" that could provoke severe Russian backlash, including military action to protect its strategic interests, such as the Black Sea Fleet in Crimea. Despite this warning, the Bush administration pushed forward at the 2008 NATO Bucharest Summit, declaring that Ukraine and Georgia would eventually join NATO. This decision ignored Burns’s caution that "nyet means nyet" (no means no), signalling Russia’s non-negotiable opposition. Quoting from the document is reads "Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face." Horton argues this was a reckless move, as Ukraine’s NATO aspirations directly threatened Russia’s security buffer and naval presence. The 2008 Russo-Georgian War over South Ossetia, triggered by Georgia’s NATO-backed assertiveness under President Mikheil Saakashvili, served as a stark warning of Russia’s willingness to act militarily. Horton notes the U.S. encouraged Georgia’s provocations without providing meaningful support when Russia responded decisively.
Obama then came in and was considered the peace candidate. One might think this was true, considering he received the Nobel Peace Prize during his presidency, but that would overlook his five wars and further provocation of Russia. After making fun of Mitt Romney for being stuck in the cold war era when runnning for president Obama continued Americas terrible policys towards them. Horton’s analysis centers on the 2014 Ukraine crisis as a U.S.-instigated turning point. He describes the ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych as an unconstitutional coup, widely documented by sources like the BBC and The Guardian, which reported that Yanukovych’s removal in February 2014 bypassed Ukraine’s constitutional impeachment process. Despite Yanukovych agreeing to an EU-brokered power-sharing deal, U.S.-backed protests, fueled by $5 billion in U.S. aid since 1991 (as admitted by Victoria Nuland in a leaked call with Geoffrey Pyatt), led to his overthrow. The call, intercepted and published by Russian media but verified by Western outlets, showed U.S. officials handpicking Ukraine’s new leadership, including Arseniy Yatsenyuk, confirming U.S. orchestration.Post-coup, Ukraine’s Russian-speaking population, concentrated in the east and Crimea, faced severe marginalization. Horton cites reports from Human Rights Watch and the UN documenting bans on Russian-language education, media, books, and films under laws passed by Kyiv’s new government. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church, linked to Moscow, was targeted, with clergy harassed and churches seized, as reported by Reuters and Al Jazeera. In Donbas, the conflict between Russian-speaking separatists and Ukrainian forces resulted in over 15,000 deaths by 2022, per UN estimates, with civilians bearing significant losses. Horton highlights the role of neo-Nazi groups like the Azov Battalion, whose Nazi-inspired symbols and ties to WWII collaborator Stepan Bandera were covered by outlets like The New York Times and TIME. These groups, integrated into Ukraine’s military, were implicated in atrocities like the 2014 Odessa Trade Union House fire, where 42 pro-Russian activists died, as documented by Amnesty International.The Obama administration’s response—sanctions on Russia, military aid to Ukraine, and NATO’s buildup in Eastern Europe, including missile systems in Poland and Romania—ignored Russia’s warnings from “Nyet Means Nyet.” Horton argues this validated Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, seen as protecting Russian-speaking populations and strategic interests, and escalated the Donbas conflict, with U.S. weapons fueling Kyiv’s campaign against its own citizens.
Regarding trumps first termHorton contends that Trump’s presidency was shaped by intense anti-Russian hysteria in the U.S. media and political establishment, which falsely portrayed Trump as a Russian asset and Putin as having subverted U.S. democracy. Outlets like CNN, MSNBC, and The Washington Post amplified the "Russiagat"” narrative, alleging Russian interference in the 2016 election and Trump’s collusion, based on unverified claims like the Steele dossier, widely covered but later discredited, per The New York Times. Horton argues this media-driven frenzy, coupled with pressure from Democrats and establishment Republicans, boxed Trump in, forcing him to adopt a tougher stance on Russia to prove his independence from Putin. Despite Trump’s calls for better relations, evidenced by his 2018 Helsinki summit with Putin, his administration escalated policies against Russia. Trump approved lethal aid to Ukraine, including Javelin missiles, as reported by The Washington Post, intensifying the Donbas conflict, where Russian-speaking communities faced ongoing violence and cultural suppression through language and media bans, documented by the OSCE. The influence of neo-Nazi groups like Azov grew, with Reuters noting their role in Ukraine’s military, yet U.S. aid continued unchecked. The 2019 U.S. withdrawal from the INF Treaty, covered by CNN, alarmed Russia by enabling new missile deployments in Europe. Trump’s push for U.S. LNG exports, according to Bloomberg, aimed to undercut Russia’s gas market, potentially hitting its economy. Support for anti-Russian movements, like Belarus’s 2020 protests, reinforced Moscow’s view of U.S. encirclement. Horton suggests that the Russiagate hysteria, by pressuring Trump to prove he wasn’t "soft" on Russia, ensured continuity in provocative policies, undermining his own diplomatic instincts.
Horton portrays the Biden years as the culmination of U.S. provocations, with Ukraine undeniably losing ground and facing severe conscription issues, largely ignored by American politicians, while the U.S. repeatedly rejected Putin’s peace offers. By 2022, Russia’s invasion was triggered, which Horton frames as a response to decades of NATO expansion, the 2014 coup, and ongoing persecution in Donbas, where 15,000 had died pre-invasion, per UN estimates. Ukraine’s military position deteriorated, with Russia making steady gains in the east since the failed 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive, per CSIS. Ukraine’s manpower crisis became acute, with reports from Reuters and The Washington Post noting forced conscription, desertions, and a shrinking pool of recruits due to heavy casualties and an aging population.
Horton portrays the Biden years as the culmination of U.S. provocations, with Ukraine undeniably losing ground and facing severe conscription issues, largely ignored by American politicians, while the U.S. repeatedly rejected Putin’s peace offers. By 2022, Russia’s invasion was triggered, which Horton frames as a response to decades of NATO expansion, the 2014 coup, and ongoing persecution in Donbas, where 15,000 had died pre-invasion, per UN estimates. Ukraine’s military position deteriorated, with Russia making steady gains in the east since the failed 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive, per CSIS. Ukraine’s manpower crisis became acute, with reports from Reuters and The Washington Post noting forced conscription, desertions, and a shrinking pool of recruits due to heavy casualties and an aging population.
Horton portrays the Biden years as the culmination of U.S. provocations, with Ukraine undeniably losing ground and facing severe conscription issues, largely ignored by American politicians, while the U.S. repeatedly rejected Putin’s peace offers. By 2022, Russia’s invasion was triggered, which Horton frames as a response to decades of NATO expansion, the 2014 coup, and ongoing persecution in Donbas, where 15,000 had died pre-invasion, per UN estimates. Ukraine’s military position deteriorated, with Russia making steady gains in the east since the failed 2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive, per CSIS. Ukraine’s manpower crisis became acute, with reports from Reuters and The Washington Post noting forced conscription, desertions, and a shrinking pool of recruits due to heavy casualties and an aging population. Horton argues U.S. politicians, from Biden to congressional hawks, are fully aware of Ukraine’s slaughter but seem determined to keep the war going to weaken Russia, prioritising geopolitical aims over Ukrainian lives. Over $100 billion in U.S. aid since 2022, per Responsible Statecraft, fuels the conflict but fails to address Ukraine’s collapsing defences or conscription woes. The U.S repeatedly rejected Putin’s peace offers. In April 2022, Turkey- and Israel-mediated talks neared a deal for Russian withdrawal in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality, but the U.S. and UK blocked it, with Boris Johnson urging Zelenskyy to fight on, per Fair Observer and Ukrainska Pravda. In September 2022, Putin offered a ceasefire to freeze the front lines, which was rejected by Biden and Jake Sullivan, according to The New York Times. In January 2024, Putin reiterated this, according to the Institute for the Study of War, but the U.S. dismissed it, as reported by Reuters. A 2023 Neue Zürcher Zeitung report claimed CIA Director Burns offered Russia 20% of Ukraine’s territory, which was denied by the CIA and rejected by both sides. Horton argues these rejections, driven by the U.S. intent to prolong the war, ignored Ukraine’s devastation and exploited events like the Bucha atrocities to derail diplomacy. Horton also emphasises that U.S.-led sanctions, intended to cripple Russia’s economy, have been largely ineffective. Reports from Bloomberg and The Wall Street Journal indicate that Russia has adapted by redirecting trade to China, India, and other non-Western markets, with oil exports reaching record highs in 2023 despite the imposition of price caps. The ruble stabilised, according to Reuters, and Russia’s GDP growth outpaced that of some G7 nations in 2024, according to IMF data.
To conclude, Biden’s rhetoric, calling Putin a "war criminal" and pushing NATO’s open-door policy, per CNN, closed diplomatic avenues. Sanctions, billions in aid, and NATO’s militarisation, per Reuters, entrenched the conflict, leaving Ukraine to bear the human cost while U.S. leaders prioritise weakening Russia over ending the slaughter.
There's alot I haven't been able to touch on here, but I tried to summarise Horton's main points. If one wants to gain an understanding of the conflict without the distortions of mainstream media, I highly recommend this book.
February 2, 2026
This book has over ten thousand endnotes. Full review to follow.
“The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back. Because the Cold War has been over for 20 years! ” – Barack Obama, 2012
“The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path, and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked.” —John J. Mearsheimer, 2014
“I knew Scott knew a lot of stuff. I didn’t know he could just sit there and go three hours like a James Michtener novel getting into the details, but without losing the audience. ” – Bob Murphy, 2024
“The title is PROVOKED, not JUSTIFIED.” – Scott Horton, 2024
Coming of age amid 9/11 and the terror war made me obsessed with DC’s foreign policy – understanding its actions in the world, and their consequences. The government’s line that “[terrorists] hate us for our freedoms” fell apart pretty quickly for me, as I read Zinn and Kinzer and began seeing how often DC has behaved like a bully while hiding under virtue’s cloak. Over the years I began realizing that news stories I encountered as fragments – war in Chechnya, some fracas over Georgia in 2008 – were really part of a larger story, and it was a story that made more sense as I encountered more pieces and puzzling out the order of them. Provoked is Scott Horton’s attempt to tell that story within a larger history of all that DC has done within Eurasia since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. It is a doorstopper of a book with over ten thousand endnotes, and some chapters that carrying a thousand endnotes on their own. The names, events, and interlocking crises can feel overwhelming at times, but Horton’s clear passion and command of the subject made this a much easier read than might be expected. I do not know how the Russo-Ukraine war, nearing its fourth year, will end – but Provoked is a solid introduction to how it started.
The western narrative regarding the war is a very tidy, neat, and emotionally suasive one. Poor, innocent Ukraine was shamelessly attacked by the nogoodnik Putin, intent on recreating the Russian Empire as though he’d been possessed by the spirit of Kaiser Wilhelm II. Horton regards this narrative as simplistic and naive, and – to those in authority doing the telling – self-serving. The history begins with the promising end of the 1980s: Reagan and Gorbachev agreeing to destroy 90% of the world’s nuclear arms; the fall of the wall in Germany; the dissolution of the Soviet Union observed by a savvy George H.W. Bush who promised not to dance on the remains of the Berlin wall. There were many in the United States who argued for a return to being a ‘normal country’ – but that did not happen. Blame it on the military industrial complex, or the hubris of DC’s elite who viewed this as America’s time to step fully into the sun and become the world power – the global peacemaker and arbiter of order. This had already begun by the end of Bush I’s administration, and the aggrandizement only intensified with every succeeding president. Horton attributes this to the ‘iron triangle’, a joint effort of think tanks, lobbying firms, and the defense industry.
We learn of Clinton openly sending people to involve themselves in Russia’s first elections, of dumping foreign aid carelessly into the hands of men who would become Russia’s oligarchs, and of Clinton taking advantage of Russia’s sudden withdrawal to begin meddling in Bosnia. At first, this Bosnian adventure seems like a strange detour, nowhere near the gates of Kiev or the Kremlin, but it serves two purposes in Horton’s narrative. First, it shows that rather than winding down NATO or becoming a “normal country,” DC chose to bask in its unipolar moment and rebrand itself as a global peacekeeper—resolving disputes largely in its own interests. NATO, in turn, became a tool to keep Europe aligned with DC’s strategic vision, just as the European Union was starting to take shape. It would be a bit and bridle keeping Europe trotting to DC’s lead. Second, the stated justification for U.S. and NATO intervention in the Balkans—the protection of an ethnic minority from a belligerent majority—is exactly the precedent Vladimir Putin cited when he announced the invasion of the Donbass to protect the lives of Russian Ukrainians from a hostile government.
I am not going to attempt to precis a book this large and so overflowing with details, but one running theme for me was how invasive and often destructive DC’s elites have been. I have been a cranky libertarian for fifteen years now; before that I was reading Howard Zinn and Stephen Kinzer. I thought I was as cynical about DC as it was possible to be, but Horton treated me to a new course in stunned outrage. Learning about the US role in how Russia stumbled from Soviet cronyism to kleptocratic cronyism was one thing, but seeing Clinton aiding and abetting jihadist groups in Yugoslavia – and ditto Bush in Chechnya later on – made me furious, frankly. In pursuit of “global dominance”, under the color of spreading “democracy”, DC has armed and funded bad actors year after year. There’s one shocking statement in here where, witnessing the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, a state department official muses that this situation could work quite well for us: Afghanistan might become another Saudi Arabia. We get oil and stability; the women get burkas. In addition to the main geopolitical coverage – covering how DC essentially resurrected NATO’s reason for being by antagonizing Russia into belligerence – Scott also looks at the way DC’s propaganda machine has managed public opinion at home. One golden example of this is the Washington Post crying foul because Trump was ending support to an “anti-Assad” group in Syria. The group? al-Queda. So much for “never forget”.
It should be noted that Horton writes not in defense of Russia’s actions, but as an explanation of how Putin came to a tipping point where he decided expending men and material to secure Russian interests in the Donbass was more prudent than not. It is an exercise in literary realpolitik. But just as Ron Paul was hissed at by John McCain for suggesting that US foreign policy had led to terrorism becoming an active threat, so too are any critics of the DC-Brussels narrative dismissed as Putin apologists. As Horton said in an interview about the book, though, “The title is Provoked – not Justified.” Time and again we see DC deliberately shoving its weapons into Russia’s personal space – in Georgia in 2008, and especially in Ukraine in 2014. The Maidan ‘coup’, or ‘revolution’ – which noun the reader uses depends on how seriously they take DC and its corporate media allies’ version of the facts – is most important here, because it led directly to the 2022 move by Russia. The democratically elected president of Ukraine was overthrown and a hostile anti-Russia figure installed in office: Russia, in response to a declared enemy on their borders, rushed to secure its bases in Crimea. Ever since then, Russians in the Donbass regions – regions appended to Ukraine by the Soviets, not historically connected to Ukraine – have been antagonized by ‘their’ government in Kiev. Readers may say Russia should have operated through diplomatic channels, but when the DC-Eurocracy is actively promoting anti-Russians on Russia’s borders, why are they surprised when Russia retaliates? DC even promoted Islamic terrorists within Russia during the early War on Terror! Provoke a bear, and it swats back angrily; it does not matter to the bear that you think it is somewhere it ought not to be. This is most visible when Hillary Clinton declared that Russia was doing things in NATO’s backyard – because NATO had pushed its backyard into Russia’s patio. Pray tell, what relation do Poland and Ukraine have to the North Atlantic?
Provoked is not an easy book: in size, in density, or in its challenge to mainstream narratives. There are many for whom Russia is simply the villain, full stop, and its geostrategic interests and fears do not concern them a wit. I doubt this book will sway them—not as though they’d pick up a 700-page book contra to their own opinion to begin with. But for those willing to sit with complexity, Horton offers something vital: a way to understand Putin’s actions without excusing them. The “Provoked, not Justified” distinction matters. One can recognize that DC spent three decades treating Russia like a defeated enemy rather than a potential partner, even laughing at its application to join NATO, and that it armed jihadists and staged coups and pushed NATO right up to Russia’s doorstep—and still condemn the invasion of Ukraine. Understanding why someone does something is not the same as endorsing it. But if we don’t understand the provocations, we’re left with a Saturday-morning-cartoon version of geopolitics where Putin is just a villain coldly swiveling around in his wingtip chair, stroking a cat, and that shallow narrative makes it impossible to prevent the next disaster.
I’ve listened to Scott’s podcast for years, so I thought I knew how the pieces fit together, more or less—but Scott goes into deep detail on ancillary things like Bosnia and the Balkans, all new terrain for me. Even those who think they know this story will find Provoked teaches them something. And for those coming to it fresh, willing to question what they’ve been told? It will both enrage and edify. For anyone trying to understand how the post–Cold War world curdled into a new cold war—and why Ukraine became the flashpoint—this is a daunting but monumentally useful account.
NOTE: Read in June 2025. Re-read in stages in the last six months. This is a big ol’ book.
“The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back. Because the Cold War has been over for 20 years! ” – Barack Obama, 2012
“The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path, and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked.” —John J. Mearsheimer, 2014
“I knew Scott knew a lot of stuff. I didn’t know he could just sit there and go three hours like a James Michtener novel getting into the details, but without losing the audience. ” – Bob Murphy, 2024
“The title is PROVOKED, not JUSTIFIED.” – Scott Horton, 2024
Coming of age amid 9/11 and the terror war made me obsessed with DC’s foreign policy – understanding its actions in the world, and their consequences. The government’s line that “[terrorists] hate us for our freedoms” fell apart pretty quickly for me, as I read Zinn and Kinzer and began seeing how often DC has behaved like a bully while hiding under virtue’s cloak. Over the years I began realizing that news stories I encountered as fragments – war in Chechnya, some fracas over Georgia in 2008 – were really part of a larger story, and it was a story that made more sense as I encountered more pieces and puzzling out the order of them. Provoked is Scott Horton’s attempt to tell that story within a larger history of all that DC has done within Eurasia since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. It is a doorstopper of a book with over ten thousand endnotes, and some chapters that carrying a thousand endnotes on their own. The names, events, and interlocking crises can feel overwhelming at times, but Horton’s clear passion and command of the subject made this a much easier read than might be expected. I do not know how the Russo-Ukraine war, nearing its fourth year, will end – but Provoked is a solid introduction to how it started.
The western narrative regarding the war is a very tidy, neat, and emotionally suasive one. Poor, innocent Ukraine was shamelessly attacked by the nogoodnik Putin, intent on recreating the Russian Empire as though he’d been possessed by the spirit of Kaiser Wilhelm II. Horton regards this narrative as simplistic and naive, and – to those in authority doing the telling – self-serving. The history begins with the promising end of the 1980s: Reagan and Gorbachev agreeing to destroy 90% of the world’s nuclear arms; the fall of the wall in Germany; the dissolution of the Soviet Union observed by a savvy George H.W. Bush who promised not to dance on the remains of the Berlin wall. There were many in the United States who argued for a return to being a ‘normal country’ – but that did not happen. Blame it on the military industrial complex, or the hubris of DC’s elite who viewed this as America’s time to step fully into the sun and become the world power – the global peacemaker and arbiter of order. This had already begun by the end of Bush I’s administration, and the aggrandizement only intensified with every succeeding president. Horton attributes this to the ‘iron triangle’, a joint effort of think tanks, lobbying firms, and the defense industry.
We learn of Clinton openly sending people to involve themselves in Russia’s first elections, of dumping foreign aid carelessly into the hands of men who would become Russia’s oligarchs, and of Clinton taking advantage of Russia’s sudden withdrawal to begin meddling in Bosnia. At first, this Bosnian adventure seems like a strange detour, nowhere near the gates of Kiev or the Kremlin, but it serves two purposes in Horton’s narrative. First, it shows that rather than winding down NATO or becoming a “normal country,” DC chose to bask in its unipolar moment and rebrand itself as a global peacekeeper—resolving disputes largely in its own interests. NATO, in turn, became a tool to keep Europe aligned with DC’s strategic vision, just as the European Union was starting to take shape. It would be a bit and bridle keeping Europe trotting to DC’s lead. Second, the stated justification for U.S. and NATO intervention in the Balkans—the protection of an ethnic minority from a belligerent majority—is exactly the precedent Vladimir Putin cited when he announced the invasion of the Donbass to protect the lives of Russian Ukrainians from a hostile government.
I am not going to attempt to precis a book this large and so overflowing with details, but one running theme for me was how invasive and often destructive DC’s elites have been. I have been a cranky libertarian for fifteen years now; before that I was reading Howard Zinn and Stephen Kinzer. I thought I was as cynical about DC as it was possible to be, but Horton treated me to a new course in stunned outrage. Learning about the US role in how Russia stumbled from Soviet cronyism to kleptocratic cronyism was one thing, but seeing Clinton aiding and abetting jihadist groups in Yugoslavia – and ditto Bush in Chechnya later on – made me furious, frankly. In pursuit of “global dominance”, under the color of spreading “democracy”, DC has armed and funded bad actors year after year. There’s one shocking statement in here where, witnessing the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan, a state department official muses that this situation could work quite well for us: Afghanistan might become another Saudi Arabia. We get oil and stability; the women get burkas. In addition to the main geopolitical coverage – covering how DC essentially resurrected NATO’s reason for being by antagonizing Russia into belligerence – Scott also looks at the way DC’s propaganda machine has managed public opinion at home. One golden example of this is the Washington Post crying foul because Trump was ending support to an “anti-Assad” group in Syria. The group? al-Queda. So much for “never forget”.
It should be noted that Horton writes not in defense of Russia’s actions, but as an explanation of how Putin came to a tipping point where he decided expending men and material to secure Russian interests in the Donbass was more prudent than not. It is an exercise in literary realpolitik. But just as Ron Paul was hissed at by John McCain for suggesting that US foreign policy had led to terrorism becoming an active threat, so too are any critics of the DC-Brussels narrative dismissed as Putin apologists. As Horton said in an interview about the book, though, “The title is Provoked – not Justified.” Time and again we see DC deliberately shoving its weapons into Russia’s personal space – in Georgia in 2008, and especially in Ukraine in 2014. The Maidan ‘coup’, or ‘revolution’ – which noun the reader uses depends on how seriously they take DC and its corporate media allies’ version of the facts – is most important here, because it led directly to the 2022 move by Russia. The democratically elected president of Ukraine was overthrown and a hostile anti-Russia figure installed in office: Russia, in response to a declared enemy on their borders, rushed to secure its bases in Crimea. Ever since then, Russians in the Donbass regions – regions appended to Ukraine by the Soviets, not historically connected to Ukraine – have been antagonized by ‘their’ government in Kiev. Readers may say Russia should have operated through diplomatic channels, but when the DC-Eurocracy is actively promoting anti-Russians on Russia’s borders, why are they surprised when Russia retaliates? DC even promoted Islamic terrorists within Russia during the early War on Terror! Provoke a bear, and it swats back angrily; it does not matter to the bear that you think it is somewhere it ought not to be. This is most visible when Hillary Clinton declared that Russia was doing things in NATO’s backyard – because NATO had pushed its backyard into Russia’s patio. Pray tell, what relation do Poland and Ukraine have to the North Atlantic?
Provoked is not an easy book: in size, in density, or in its challenge to mainstream narratives. There are many for whom Russia is simply the villain, full stop, and its geostrategic interests and fears do not concern them a wit. I doubt this book will sway them—not as though they’d pick up a 700-page book contra to their own opinion to begin with. But for those willing to sit with complexity, Horton offers something vital: a way to understand Putin’s actions without excusing them. The “Provoked, not Justified” distinction matters. One can recognize that DC spent three decades treating Russia like a defeated enemy rather than a potential partner, even laughing at its application to join NATO, and that it armed jihadists and staged coups and pushed NATO right up to Russia’s doorstep—and still condemn the invasion of Ukraine. Understanding why someone does something is not the same as endorsing it. But if we don’t understand the provocations, we’re left with a Saturday-morning-cartoon version of geopolitics where Putin is just a villain coldly swiveling around in his wingtip chair, stroking a cat, and that shallow narrative makes it impossible to prevent the next disaster.
I’ve listened to Scott’s podcast for years, so I thought I knew how the pieces fit together, more or less—but Scott goes into deep detail on ancillary things like Bosnia and the Balkans, all new terrain for me. Even those who think they know this story will find Provoked teaches them something. And for those coming to it fresh, willing to question what they’ve been told? It will both enrage and edify. For anyone trying to understand how the post–Cold War world curdled into a new cold war—and why Ukraine became the flashpoint—this is a daunting but monumentally useful account.
NOTE: Read in June 2025. Re-read in stages in the last six months. This is a big ol’ book.
May 9, 2025
Scott Horton's Provoked is must reading for all those making decisions about U.S. policy toward Ukraine or just those wishing to speak about the conflict from an informed perspective. I benefited greatly by the information this book made so clear. It might be possible to argue with Scott Horton's policy positions, but it is not possible to argue with the facts he provides. His data comes from reliable sources and each statement of fact is documented in footnotes.
I was startled to discover the extent of the U.S. government's duplicity for so many years. When Germany re-united, our government gave assurances to Moscow that NATO troops and weapons would not extend further into Germany toward the east. Not only did we expand NATO without apology or negotiations with Russia, we sought to insure American hegemony by spreading our influence more and more toward Eastern Europe by funding and leading the so-called Color Revolutions in numerous states formerly under Soviet rule. The US also directed the Maidan Revolution in Ukraine in 2014 that through threat of violence overthrew a democratically elected government in Ukraine that was on much better terms with Russia. Ukraine's eastern provinces were unwilling to honor that revolution, which led to small-scale fighting of a civil-war type for years and efforts by Kiev to repress Russian language and culture in those regions. Assurances were repeatedly made by the US and the rest of the West that NATO membership would not be denied to Ukraine. Interpreting this eastward expansion as a security threat, and appalled at the mistreatment of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine, Putin eventually was provoked into invading.
I was alarmed to read of US efforts to influence elections not only in former Soviet republics via NGOs and USAID, but even elections in Russia itself. Truly we were more involved in election interference in Eastern Europe than Russia ever had been in America.
The real tragedy is that Putin was a Western-leaning technocrat who was more willing to cooperate with the West than nearly any of his former political rivals. Looking to lock-in US advantage, we sought to destabilize and bankrupt Russia rather than welcome it to the West. This is a lost opportunity that can never be recovered.
Most disturbing have been efforts by the Western powers to thwart negotiations for peace between Ukraine and Russia. The lives lost due to this selfish ambition on the part of the West should weigh heavily on the consciences of Boris Johnson, Joe Biden, and others. Obviously, Putin's invasion was not right, nor was it justified, but the West bares much of the blame for the existence and continuance of this costly war. Also of concern is the influence of Nazi-affiliated nationalists in Ukraine's armed forces, as well as Muslim radicals, trained and armed by the west, seeking only to kill Russians in repayment for Russian actions in Afghanistan and Chechnya.
Lasting peace in that country can only come by steps like those proposed in the Minsk accords that Kiev, encouraged by the US, has not followed. As an incentive for Putin to withdraw his forces and establish an end to fighting, I would like to see the US offer withdrawal from NATO as the key bargaining chip. Europe has the means to defend itself, we would be much less likely to be drawn into a nuclear conflict, and the US could save American dollars and lives. We must be willing to give up our presumed right to dictate how the rest of the world conducts itself and begin lessening the animosity we attract by bullying our global neighbours. Otherwise the blow-back and the wars will be unceasing.
I was startled to discover the extent of the U.S. government's duplicity for so many years. When Germany re-united, our government gave assurances to Moscow that NATO troops and weapons would not extend further into Germany toward the east. Not only did we expand NATO without apology or negotiations with Russia, we sought to insure American hegemony by spreading our influence more and more toward Eastern Europe by funding and leading the so-called Color Revolutions in numerous states formerly under Soviet rule. The US also directed the Maidan Revolution in Ukraine in 2014 that through threat of violence overthrew a democratically elected government in Ukraine that was on much better terms with Russia. Ukraine's eastern provinces were unwilling to honor that revolution, which led to small-scale fighting of a civil-war type for years and efforts by Kiev to repress Russian language and culture in those regions. Assurances were repeatedly made by the US and the rest of the West that NATO membership would not be denied to Ukraine. Interpreting this eastward expansion as a security threat, and appalled at the mistreatment of ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine, Putin eventually was provoked into invading.
I was alarmed to read of US efforts to influence elections not only in former Soviet republics via NGOs and USAID, but even elections in Russia itself. Truly we were more involved in election interference in Eastern Europe than Russia ever had been in America.
The real tragedy is that Putin was a Western-leaning technocrat who was more willing to cooperate with the West than nearly any of his former political rivals. Looking to lock-in US advantage, we sought to destabilize and bankrupt Russia rather than welcome it to the West. This is a lost opportunity that can never be recovered.
Most disturbing have been efforts by the Western powers to thwart negotiations for peace between Ukraine and Russia. The lives lost due to this selfish ambition on the part of the West should weigh heavily on the consciences of Boris Johnson, Joe Biden, and others. Obviously, Putin's invasion was not right, nor was it justified, but the West bares much of the blame for the existence and continuance of this costly war. Also of concern is the influence of Nazi-affiliated nationalists in Ukraine's armed forces, as well as Muslim radicals, trained and armed by the west, seeking only to kill Russians in repayment for Russian actions in Afghanistan and Chechnya.
Lasting peace in that country can only come by steps like those proposed in the Minsk accords that Kiev, encouraged by the US, has not followed. As an incentive for Putin to withdraw his forces and establish an end to fighting, I would like to see the US offer withdrawal from NATO as the key bargaining chip. Europe has the means to defend itself, we would be much less likely to be drawn into a nuclear conflict, and the US could save American dollars and lives. We must be willing to give up our presumed right to dictate how the rest of the world conducts itself and begin lessening the animosity we attract by bullying our global neighbours. Otherwise the blow-back and the wars will be unceasing.
July 23, 2025
I finished this book-brick in good time, worth every word and minute of it. Provocative in its own right, Scott Horton has masterfully dissected the origin and rise of the New Cold War as thoroughly as he spotlighted the naked emperors of the War on Terror in “Fool’s Errand.” It’s therefore no easy read - 95% of general bookstore readers will shy away like timid spirits before a crucifix. No matter: it has an assured spot on the shelves of any serious student of modern US foreign policy, whether one agrees with the author or not.
Faced by the withering away of the alleged Evil Empire of Cold War I, the MIC had to cast about looking for new monsters to destroy. Handy demons were deployed to justify predation into the new “blank spaces” – Milosevic, Saddam, Osama, Qaddafi and, increasingly “Putin” – which, as Horton ably demonstrates, were steps to the current moment when irresistible expansion meets solid brick wall. Horton debunks the reigning neo-con mythology from 1991 to today’s brink of nuclear war, the closest since the October missiles of ’62.
Horton also tasks the favored liberal/progressive/democrat conspiracy theory of Russiagate, as deluded a piece of political theater as Trump’s “stolen election”, swallowed wholesale as gospel by the very folk decrying “deplorables” and “birthers.” What comes through this unfolding tale is its convergence with an earlier one. Modern neo-cons, or Horton himself, may never have read T. Lothrop Stoddard’s classic 1920s polemic, “The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy,” but the premises share the same foundations of protecting Western wealth and privilege against the heathen hordes of the East. Thus Russia is land of “Asiatics,” while Ukrainians are “Europeans” by default, though their genetic differences are minimal. Westernness, Europeaness, like “whiteness” before it, is thus exposed as the convenient construct of great power politics rather than a scientific assessment of nations.
Horton outlines the WW II Nazidom origins of the radical right forces that shanghaied the Ukrainian state in 2014 with Western support, just as the West used the followers of Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera during the cold war. Right Sector, Azov Battalion, Svoboda – these are the equivalent of a Ukrainian HAMAS, seeking an allout war upon the “Muscovite Entity” and counting on NATO backing of the kind they once enjoyed with the Third Reich. You can be sure if an outside military bloc lent a fraction of the aid to HAMAS that the US has allowed to slip into *these* extremist hands, we’d be in WW III already.
Let me close – read the book. Like Danton’s head on the guillotine, it’s worth a look.
Faced by the withering away of the alleged Evil Empire of Cold War I, the MIC had to cast about looking for new monsters to destroy. Handy demons were deployed to justify predation into the new “blank spaces” – Milosevic, Saddam, Osama, Qaddafi and, increasingly “Putin” – which, as Horton ably demonstrates, were steps to the current moment when irresistible expansion meets solid brick wall. Horton debunks the reigning neo-con mythology from 1991 to today’s brink of nuclear war, the closest since the October missiles of ’62.
Horton also tasks the favored liberal/progressive/democrat conspiracy theory of Russiagate, as deluded a piece of political theater as Trump’s “stolen election”, swallowed wholesale as gospel by the very folk decrying “deplorables” and “birthers.” What comes through this unfolding tale is its convergence with an earlier one. Modern neo-cons, or Horton himself, may never have read T. Lothrop Stoddard’s classic 1920s polemic, “The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy,” but the premises share the same foundations of protecting Western wealth and privilege against the heathen hordes of the East. Thus Russia is land of “Asiatics,” while Ukrainians are “Europeans” by default, though their genetic differences are minimal. Westernness, Europeaness, like “whiteness” before it, is thus exposed as the convenient construct of great power politics rather than a scientific assessment of nations.
Horton outlines the WW II Nazidom origins of the radical right forces that shanghaied the Ukrainian state in 2014 with Western support, just as the West used the followers of Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera during the cold war. Right Sector, Azov Battalion, Svoboda – these are the equivalent of a Ukrainian HAMAS, seeking an allout war upon the “Muscovite Entity” and counting on NATO backing of the kind they once enjoyed with the Third Reich. You can be sure if an outside military bloc lent a fraction of the aid to HAMAS that the US has allowed to slip into *these* extremist hands, we’d be in WW III already.
Let me close – read the book. Like Danton’s head on the guillotine, it’s worth a look.
March 21, 2025
Scott Horton’s Provoked is a masterpiece that examines how America started the Ukraine War. At first glance, its size might seem daunting or even boring, given its focus on a single topic. However, that couldn’t be further from the truth. The book is masterfully structured, combining hundreds of fascinating and different stories contributing to the larger narrative. Each story is compelling and thought-provoking, yet together, they form an intricate and cohesive picture. The research is evident, with every claim backed by footnotes and sources, lending the book both authority and depth.
What makes Provoked truly remarkable is its ability to keep readers engaged, even with such a dense subject matter. The variety of stories ensures there’s always something new and unexpected, compelling you to keep turning the pages. For a book of this length, maintaining this level of intrigue is no small feat—it’s a standout achievement in both literature and nonfiction. In my opinion, it’s one of the most engaging and enlightening books I’ve ever read.
The last part of the book is particularly revealing, showing just how ruthless and demonic Washington’s foreign policy truly is. Lives are treated as disposable, mere obstacles or sacrifices in the pursuit of a broader agenda. Horton does not shy away from depicting the horrors of war, illustrating the carnage on the front lines. He states the similarities between this conflict and the trench warfare of World War I—where no significant land is gained or lost, but countless soldiers are thrown into a relentless meat grinder. It’s a brutal and sobering reminder of how little regard elites have for human life.
The core takeaway from the book is clear: chapter after chapter, it shows how the West repeatedly poked the bear, pushing Russia further and further east. There were countless opportunities to integrate Russia into the Western fold, yet they were ignored. In this context, Putin’s reactions appear moderate—any other leader might have launched a full-scale conflict with the West years earlier. Horton’s work dismantles the mainstream narratives supporting Ukraine and the West’s stance, leaving readers with a realistic perspective on the situation. Anyone interested in politics needs to read this book—it’s a vital and eye-opening story.
What makes Provoked truly remarkable is its ability to keep readers engaged, even with such a dense subject matter. The variety of stories ensures there’s always something new and unexpected, compelling you to keep turning the pages. For a book of this length, maintaining this level of intrigue is no small feat—it’s a standout achievement in both literature and nonfiction. In my opinion, it’s one of the most engaging and enlightening books I’ve ever read.
The last part of the book is particularly revealing, showing just how ruthless and demonic Washington’s foreign policy truly is. Lives are treated as disposable, mere obstacles or sacrifices in the pursuit of a broader agenda. Horton does not shy away from depicting the horrors of war, illustrating the carnage on the front lines. He states the similarities between this conflict and the trench warfare of World War I—where no significant land is gained or lost, but countless soldiers are thrown into a relentless meat grinder. It’s a brutal and sobering reminder of how little regard elites have for human life.
The core takeaway from the book is clear: chapter after chapter, it shows how the West repeatedly poked the bear, pushing Russia further and further east. There were countless opportunities to integrate Russia into the Western fold, yet they were ignored. In this context, Putin’s reactions appear moderate—any other leader might have launched a full-scale conflict with the West years earlier. Horton’s work dismantles the mainstream narratives supporting Ukraine and the West’s stance, leaving readers with a realistic perspective on the situation. Anyone interested in politics needs to read this book—it’s a vital and eye-opening story.
January 8, 2026
Scott Horton’s Provoked: How Washington Started the New Cold War with Russia and the Catastrophe in Ukraine is a monumental achievement in revisionist history and foreign policy analysis. Spanning nearly 700 pages and supported by thousands of citations, the book provides a rigorous, chronological indictment of the bipartisan consensus that Horton argues led the world to the brink of nuclear conflict.
In my view, Horton’s greatest feat is his meticulous documentation throughout this entirety of this book. He doesn't rely on speculation; instead, he uses the words of Washington’s own "graybeards"—including George Kennan, William Burns, and even Barack Obama—to show that the current crisis was predicted by experts for decades.
Some key examples of this:
- NATO Expansion: He expertly traces the "not one inch" promise and the subsequent waves of expansion that turned Russia from a potential partner into a cornered adversary.
- The 2014 Turning Point: The book offers a gripping account of U.S. involvement in the Maidan Revolution, framing it as a critical escalation that shattered Ukrainian neutrality.
Clarity and Scope: Despite its length, Horton’s prose is accessible, making complex geopolitical manoeuvres understandable for the average reader while remaining dense enough to serve as a reference for scholars.
In summary, Provoked is an essential read for anyone tired of "good vs. evil" media narratives. It challenges the reader to view the conflict through the lens of strategic empathy—not to excuse the invasion, but to understand the specific U.S. policy failures that made it almost inevitable.
It is a sobering, provocative, and ultimately necessary autopsy of American hegemony in Eastern Europe. Highly recommended and while unsettling to read, it was one of the best books I have read in 2025 in this genre of writing.
In my view, Horton’s greatest feat is his meticulous documentation throughout this entirety of this book. He doesn't rely on speculation; instead, he uses the words of Washington’s own "graybeards"—including George Kennan, William Burns, and even Barack Obama—to show that the current crisis was predicted by experts for decades.
Some key examples of this:
- NATO Expansion: He expertly traces the "not one inch" promise and the subsequent waves of expansion that turned Russia from a potential partner into a cornered adversary.
- The 2014 Turning Point: The book offers a gripping account of U.S. involvement in the Maidan Revolution, framing it as a critical escalation that shattered Ukrainian neutrality.
Clarity and Scope: Despite its length, Horton’s prose is accessible, making complex geopolitical manoeuvres understandable for the average reader while remaining dense enough to serve as a reference for scholars.
In summary, Provoked is an essential read for anyone tired of "good vs. evil" media narratives. It challenges the reader to view the conflict through the lens of strategic empathy—not to excuse the invasion, but to understand the specific U.S. policy failures that made it almost inevitable.
It is a sobering, provocative, and ultimately necessary autopsy of American hegemony in Eastern Europe. Highly recommended and while unsettling to read, it was one of the best books I have read in 2025 in this genre of writing.
March 1, 2025
“Ukraine is still one of the most corrupt countries in the world and his back sliding on Democratic norms, barring opposition parties, nationalizing industry banning the use of the Russian language arresting citizens with anti-war or pro Russian opinions, shutting down private media and severely censoring its state news agencies. Zelensky has continued the religious war began by his predecessor raiding Ukrainian orthodox churches, despite the fact that they have broken ties with Moscow and condemn the invasion, unequivocally and even putting orthodox Metropolitan Pabvlo under house arrest. The government has also banned Russian language books in media and implemented severe censorship of war reporting more than 600 people have been charged with treason by Zelensky’s government. Then there is all the torture kidnapping and disappearances in the dirty war in the east over the last decade, as well as Zelensky’s anti-corruption crackdowns, including against his old benefactor Igor Kolomosky, whom he had arrested and regional governors and top cabinet officials. Though reportedly insisted upon by the United States for public relations reasons these look in practice, much more like ruthless consolidations of power.” (Igor Kosovo & Oleksiy Sorkin July 23, 2022”Zelenskyy fire slew of top official sites need to clean up Ukraine” )
May 8, 2025
Is so easy to have a simplistic view of this conflict if all you do is watch western legacy media.
I remember before getting interested for real in this conflict the narrative was simple, Putin is bad, he wants to invade Europe, basically Hitler, hopefully the good guys win... right ?
The reality is that war is never that simple, and history doesn't start in 2022, once i heard so many academics and geopolitics analyst like Professor Mearsheimer and Professor Sachs i understood how completely empty the narrative from the western media was, and this book was just the cherry on top, official source after official source showing countless provocations, time and time again, yet somehow the war lobby in Washington never thought that Russia would actually follow through.
3 years later, Russia followed trough, has control of 4 oblasts from Ukraine, Europe is broke since they can't access cheap Russian energy, the frontline is a meat grinder and everybody on the western legacy media is still acting like history started in 2022.
5/5 would recommend to anybody that wants more context from this war, whether you're Ukrainian, Russian, EU lover, even Taiwanese (so this doesn't happen to your country in the future) whatever you are, if you have any interest in how this war got started please give this a read
I remember before getting interested for real in this conflict the narrative was simple, Putin is bad, he wants to invade Europe, basically Hitler, hopefully the good guys win... right ?
The reality is that war is never that simple, and history doesn't start in 2022, once i heard so many academics and geopolitics analyst like Professor Mearsheimer and Professor Sachs i understood how completely empty the narrative from the western media was, and this book was just the cherry on top, official source after official source showing countless provocations, time and time again, yet somehow the war lobby in Washington never thought that Russia would actually follow through.
3 years later, Russia followed trough, has control of 4 oblasts from Ukraine, Europe is broke since they can't access cheap Russian energy, the frontline is a meat grinder and everybody on the western legacy media is still acting like history started in 2022.
5/5 would recommend to anybody that wants more context from this war, whether you're Ukrainian, Russian, EU lover, even Taiwanese (so this doesn't happen to your country in the future) whatever you are, if you have any interest in how this war got started please give this a read
December 2, 2025
How Washington Started the New Cold War with Russia and the Catastrophe in Ukraine is one of the most compelling and thoroughly argued books I’ve read on recent geopolitical history. Scott Horton lays out a clear, well-researched narrative showing how decades of U.S. policies, from NATO expansion to political interference and economic pressure, played a major role in escalating tensions that ultimately erupted into the devastating war in Ukraine.
What makes this book stand out is Horton’s ability to take complex events and explain them in a way that is accessible without sacrificing depth. He connects the dots across multiple administrations and global flashpoints, revealing how each step contributed to a larger pattern of provocation and mistrust.
Whether or not you agree with every conclusion, this book is invaluable for anyone trying to understand the roots of the current conflict. It challenges mainstream narratives, encourages deeper critical thinking, and presents a perspective that is rarely given serious attention in popular discourse.
A bold, meticulously documented, and eye-opening read. Highly recommended.
What makes this book stand out is Horton’s ability to take complex events and explain them in a way that is accessible without sacrificing depth. He connects the dots across multiple administrations and global flashpoints, revealing how each step contributed to a larger pattern of provocation and mistrust.
Whether or not you agree with every conclusion, this book is invaluable for anyone trying to understand the roots of the current conflict. It challenges mainstream narratives, encourages deeper critical thinking, and presents a perspective that is rarely given serious attention in popular discourse.
A bold, meticulously documented, and eye-opening read. Highly recommended.
August 24, 2025
This is a very interesting and easy to read book (mostly because it confirms what I've heard and are my suspicions). For all those who believe our Lame Stream Media, Vlad Putin is a murderous war monger who'd conquer Europe (like Hitler) if given half a chance. But, if you recall history (and I've been around for most of the USSR into Russia history) then you'd remember most of what this author writes occurred. But if you don't believe him Read his copious endnotes sprinkled liberally through the book (I doubt if any paragraph has 0). What this book (an I) contend is, Russia has been teased/tormented by US/UK/NATO and lied to about its own security And NATO having No intention to expand towards Russia (when that's All it did). And, lied to that is might be a part of NATO security. For if NATO is Only a Defensive Alliance for PEACE, why should Not Russia be invited too???? The reasons are political (geopolitical power) and beyond me. But for all who'd Like to Know More about what's actually going on between the US and Russia (w Ukraine just in-between), Read this book!
December 2, 2025
Provoked is one of the most compelling and well-researched books I’ve read on the roots of the Russia-Ukraine war. Scott Horton delivers a clear, detailed, and unflinching look at decades of geopolitical decisions that set the stage for today’s crisis. Whether you agree with every conclusion or not, the depth of context he provides is incredibly valuable.
Horton connects the dots, from NATO expansion to political meddling, economic policies, and international flashpoints, showing how a pattern of escalation and miscalculation built up over time. What I appreciate most is that the book challenges the simplified narratives we often hear and instead encourages readers to understand the full historical picture.
It’s sharp, brave, and thought-provoking. If you’re looking for a book that cuts through the noise and helps you understand why this war happened and how it might have been avoided, this is a must-read. I couldn’t put it down.
Horton connects the dots, from NATO expansion to political meddling, economic policies, and international flashpoints, showing how a pattern of escalation and miscalculation built up over time. What I appreciate most is that the book challenges the simplified narratives we often hear and instead encourages readers to understand the full historical picture.
It’s sharp, brave, and thought-provoking. If you’re looking for a book that cuts through the noise and helps you understand why this war happened and how it might have been avoided, this is a must-read. I couldn’t put it down.
June 4, 2025
/B An important book in the face of all the narratives and simplifications/B
In these times, it takes a lot of courage to write a book like this in the West. To detail how the relationship with Russia died in all the different places in Balkan, Eastern Europe etc. He shows in great detail the various developments and also the protagonists on the side of the West and that was not only the US presidents Bush, Clinton, Obama but also in Europe among others Germany, Croatia, Slovenia or the EU. how the West in particular applied principles such as the inviolability of the border and declared them invalid when they were not in its interests. The book should not be seen as a judgement on the Ukraine war or an apologia for Russia, but simply helps to paint a true picture of developments
In these times, it takes a lot of courage to write a book like this in the West. To detail how the relationship with Russia died in all the different places in Balkan, Eastern Europe etc. He shows in great detail the various developments and also the protagonists on the side of the West and that was not only the US presidents Bush, Clinton, Obama but also in Europe among others Germany, Croatia, Slovenia or the EU. how the West in particular applied principles such as the inviolability of the border and declared them invalid when they were not in its interests. The book should not be seen as a judgement on the Ukraine war or an apologia for Russia, but simply helps to paint a true picture of developments
December 2, 2025
Provoked offers a clear and well-researched look at how decades of U.S. and Russian tensions led to the war in Ukraine. Scott Horton breaks down complex history, NATO expansion, economic policies, political upheavals in a way that’s easy to follow and genuinely eye-opening. Whether or not you agree with every point, the book provides valuable context that’s often missing from mainstream discussions. A thoughtful, professional, and important read for anyone trying to understand how this conflict truly developed.
May 7, 2025
This took forever for me to get through but it was 100% worth it. The author covers the story of the United States, Ukraine, and Russia from the early 90's to today and it is a wild ride. Every time I read one of Horton's books, I feel like I've taken another one of the blue pills from the Matrix and I can't unsee what I've learned. It's a big ask, to ask anyone to read this book because it's so large (670 pages with over 6,000 citations) but if you are interested, I can't recommend it enough.
June 12, 2025
Absolute horror story about what is REALLY happening right under our noses. And we are paying for ALL of it with our hard earned money as we are taxed to death to line the pockets of corrupt politicians and warmongers.
Every American should read this well documented account of why Putin really invaded Ukraine, how the government of Ukraine is absolutely corrupt and how OUR country plainly caused the whole mess to keep us at war. All because of Greed.
Every American should read this well documented account of why Putin really invaded Ukraine, how the government of Ukraine is absolutely corrupt and how OUR country plainly caused the whole mess to keep us at war. All because of Greed.
December 2, 2025
Scott Horton delivers an incredibly detailed and informative account of the long road leading up to the Russia–Ukraine war. What I appreciated most is how he pieces together decades of events, policies, conflicts, treaties, and political missteps, to show how we arrived at this crisis. This book isn’t about taking sides; it’s about understanding history. A must-read for anyone who wants more than the simplified narratives offered by mainstream media.
January 15, 2026
This book is quite an achievement, about 700 pages and filled with sources, the most complete rendering of the Ukraine crisis of the many books I have read up to now. The author is from the U.S. and shows what a massive fingerprint his country has on this disaster. He also shows the complexities of politics within Ukraine, it's relationship to Russia, and how the 2014 coup began a descent into the dark place of today. If you want to truly understand this conflict, get this book.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 44 reviews