What do you think?
Rate this book
Kuka puolustaisi Eurooppaa? - Hyökkäävä Venäjä, uinuva manner
Käsillä on viimeiset hetket huolehtia Euroopan puolustuksesta.
Huippuasiantuntija avaa Venäjän uhkaa ja uuden johtajuuden tarvetta Euroopassa.
Kolme vuosikymmentä kestäneen asevoimien vähentämisen ja puolustusteollisuuden supistamisen jälkeen Eurooppa on varsin suojaton – samalla kun Venäjä käy laajentumissotaa ja Yhdysvallat on ristiriitainen ja jakautunut.
Tässä ajankohtaisessa ja tärkeässä kirjassa huippuasiantuntija Keir Giles selittää, kuinka lännen haluttomuus kohdata Venäjää on ruokkinut uhkaa ja kuinka Putinin kunnianhimo vaarantaa koko Euroopan. Hän arvioi Naton roolia ja puutteita turvallisuuden takaajana ja sitä, pystyvätkö EU tai halukkaiden liittoumat täyttämään aukon. Ennen kaikkea Giles korostaa uuden johtajuuden tarvetta vapaan maailman puolustamisessa sen jälkeen, kun Yhdysvallat on siirtynyt tästä roolista syrjään.
Teoksessa on Hannu Himasen esipuhe, ja lisäksi Keir Giles on kirjoittanut suomalaiseen versioon Yhdysvaltojen presidentinvaalien lopputuloksen vaikutuksesta Euroopan puolustukseen.
"Venäjän aikomuksia ei voida enää kiistää – mutta kuten Keir Giles kylmäävillä yksityiskohdilla selittää, Euroopan puolustus on jäljessä. Tämä kirja on elintärkeä kehotus toimia ennen kuin se on liian myöhäistä." – Toomas Hendrik Ilves, Viron entinen presidentti
Huippuasiantuntija avaa Venäjän uhkaa ja uuden johtajuuden tarvetta Euroopassa.
Kolme vuosikymmentä kestäneen asevoimien vähentämisen ja puolustusteollisuuden supistamisen jälkeen Eurooppa on varsin suojaton – samalla kun Venäjä käy laajentumissotaa ja Yhdysvallat on ristiriitainen ja jakautunut.
Tässä ajankohtaisessa ja tärkeässä kirjassa huippuasiantuntija Keir Giles selittää, kuinka lännen haluttomuus kohdata Venäjää on ruokkinut uhkaa ja kuinka Putinin kunnianhimo vaarantaa koko Euroopan. Hän arvioi Naton roolia ja puutteita turvallisuuden takaajana ja sitä, pystyvätkö EU tai halukkaiden liittoumat täyttämään aukon. Ennen kaikkea Giles korostaa uuden johtajuuden tarvetta vapaan maailman puolustamisessa sen jälkeen, kun Yhdysvallat on siirtynyt tästä roolista syrjään.
Teoksessa on Hannu Himasen esipuhe, ja lisäksi Keir Giles on kirjoittanut suomalaiseen versioon Yhdysvaltojen presidentinvaalien lopputuloksen vaikutuksesta Euroopan puolustukseen.
"Venäjän aikomuksia ei voida enää kiistää – mutta kuten Keir Giles kylmäävillä yksityiskohdilla selittää, Euroopan puolustus on jäljessä. Tämä kirja on elintärkeä kehotus toimia ennen kuin se on liian myöhäistä." – Toomas Hendrik Ilves, Viron entinen presidentti
328 pages, Hardcover
Published March 27, 2025
50 people are currently reading
465 people want to read
About the author
Keir Giles
40 books49 followersKEIR GILES has spent his career watching, studying and explaining Russia.
Keir works with Chatham House in London, and the Conflict Studies Research Centre, a small group of experts in defence and security. Outside the UK, he has provided advice, analysis and expertise on Russia across Europe and North America.
Keir works with Chatham House in London, and the Conflict Studies Research Centre, a small group of experts in defence and security. Outside the UK, he has provided advice, analysis and expertise on Russia across Europe and North America.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
March 16, 2025
We’re fucked.
January 7, 2025
If we were in any doubt that Russia’s Imperialistic attitude was limited to its current despot, then the children’s wall map, sold in everyday Moscow, that shows the borders of Russia extending to the boundaries of the former Russian Empire (including not only Ukraine and Belarus but also Finland and Poland!) should alarm us: it’s being taught to the next generation!
‘Who Will Defend Europe?’ Is a real wake up call to us all.
As we start 2025 the world order is being challenged. We have lived through times so peaceful that the popular consensus was that our militaries can atrophy.
And yet, we have states that are intent on disregarding national boundaries for their own interest - China, Iran, North Korea, Russia.
(A point starkly made in the excellent Autocracy Inc [Anne Applebaum])
Diplomacy has failed (see how Macron has changed his tune). Trade links have failed (see how Europe has been so reliant on Russian gas). And there has been a history of disregard for national borders - Georgia, Crimea, Ukraine.
Russia is a nuclear weapons wielding bully.
Which brings us to Ukraine.
If Russia takes Ukraine, it will have proved that it can just invade without fear of consequence.
World order is just about who is the bigger bully.
If Russia accepts a peaceful settlement (which almost certainly grants it land taken - as otherwise it wouldn’t accept!), it will have proved that invading gains itself territory. It just needs to be stronger *next* time.
World order is just about who is the bigger bully.
Do we seriously think, that with its now proven track record, that it will stop at Ukraine? Remember that children’s map.
The only option is containment. To beat back the bully. Show them that bullying is futile, that they should be a good citizen.
‘Si vis pacem, para bellum’ (if you want peace, prepare for war) - Vegetius
And it is here that I am at a loss:
‘according to one assessment in 2022, at the height of fighting in Donbas, Russia was using more ammunition in two days than the entire British military had in stock.’
‘even after a full replacement programme the UK will have a total number of tanks that is comparable with a week or two of attrition on a battlefield like those of Ukraine.’
And we haven’t talked about our inadequate air force concentrated in just two bases. Or the island nation whose navy doesn’t have enough sailors to man its ships.
How can this be? And why is there no debate? Why are the alarm bells not sounding?
Either we don’t feel that there’s a threat, or we think that defending against Russia is someone else’s problem?
Neither are true.
We need to wake up to what is happening. Yes the costs are high. But if we don’t prepare the cost will be unthinkable.
I ended 2024 worried for Ukraine. I start 2025 worried about our world.
In the late 1938, Hitler was allowed to annex Czechoslovakia. The cost? World War 2.
When our children look back on us, will they shake their heads in despair at our selfish, short-sighted inability to learn?
‘Who Will Defend Europe?’ Is a real wake up call to us all.
As we start 2025 the world order is being challenged. We have lived through times so peaceful that the popular consensus was that our militaries can atrophy.
And yet, we have states that are intent on disregarding national boundaries for their own interest - China, Iran, North Korea, Russia.
(A point starkly made in the excellent Autocracy Inc [Anne Applebaum])
Diplomacy has failed (see how Macron has changed his tune). Trade links have failed (see how Europe has been so reliant on Russian gas). And there has been a history of disregard for national borders - Georgia, Crimea, Ukraine.
Russia is a nuclear weapons wielding bully.
Which brings us to Ukraine.
If Russia takes Ukraine, it will have proved that it can just invade without fear of consequence.
World order is just about who is the bigger bully.
If Russia accepts a peaceful settlement (which almost certainly grants it land taken - as otherwise it wouldn’t accept!), it will have proved that invading gains itself territory. It just needs to be stronger *next* time.
World order is just about who is the bigger bully.
Do we seriously think, that with its now proven track record, that it will stop at Ukraine? Remember that children’s map.
The only option is containment. To beat back the bully. Show them that bullying is futile, that they should be a good citizen.
‘Si vis pacem, para bellum’ (if you want peace, prepare for war) - Vegetius
And it is here that I am at a loss:
‘according to one assessment in 2022, at the height of fighting in Donbas, Russia was using more ammunition in two days than the entire British military had in stock.’
‘even after a full replacement programme the UK will have a total number of tanks that is comparable with a week or two of attrition on a battlefield like those of Ukraine.’
And we haven’t talked about our inadequate air force concentrated in just two bases. Or the island nation whose navy doesn’t have enough sailors to man its ships.
How can this be? And why is there no debate? Why are the alarm bells not sounding?
Either we don’t feel that there’s a threat, or we think that defending against Russia is someone else’s problem?
Neither are true.
We need to wake up to what is happening. Yes the costs are high. But if we don’t prepare the cost will be unthinkable.
I ended 2024 worried for Ukraine. I start 2025 worried about our world.
In the late 1938, Hitler was allowed to annex Czechoslovakia. The cost? World War 2.
When our children look back on us, will they shake their heads in despair at our selfish, short-sighted inability to learn?
January 24, 2025
The authors analysis cuts through wishful thinking about Russia with seven vital insights: 1) competition with Russia is permanent, not temporary. 2) we must prepare for strategic surprises. 3) containing Russian power now will cost less than dealing with an emboldened adversary later. 5) the concrete goal must be reducing Russia's capacity to cause harm. 5) the West faces a broader challenge from the China-Russia-Iran-North Korea axis that it must win. 6) survival trumps all other priorities - making defense spending non-negotiable. 7) Russia chooses war when it sees it as effective to achieve its political objectives, deterring this choice requires rapid European rearmament and credible willingness to use force.
The author's clear-eyed assessment offers an essential roadmap for confronting current geopolitical challenges with the urgency and seriousness they demand.
One key argument against this approach is that the book's thesis assumes Russia's adversarial relationship with Europe is historically fixed and immutable. While this view justifies robust military preparedness, it potentially overlooks alternative approaches. Some scholars suggest Europe could complement deterrence with creative diplomatic initiatives aimed at fostering positive evolution in Moscow's strategic thinking - offering a more comprehensive path to European security.
The author's clear-eyed assessment offers an essential roadmap for confronting current geopolitical challenges with the urgency and seriousness they demand.
One key argument against this approach is that the book's thesis assumes Russia's adversarial relationship with Europe is historically fixed and immutable. While this view justifies robust military preparedness, it potentially overlooks alternative approaches. Some scholars suggest Europe could complement deterrence with creative diplomatic initiatives aimed at fostering positive evolution in Moscow's strategic thinking - offering a more comprehensive path to European security.
June 25, 2025
(The English review is placed beneath the Russian one)
Это уже третья книга этого автора, которую я читаю и как все предыдущие, она получалась довольно скучной. У автора какой-то талант на то, чтобы писать скучные книги. Хотя по названию может показаться, что книга отличается от остальных подобных книг наличием эксклюзивного материала, т.е. что автор провёл интересные исследования, но на самом деле автор просто пересказывает то, что уже и так было известно. К примеру, вторая часть книги посвящена обзору военной составляющей европейских армий. Возможно, самим европейцам читать о том, сколько у них танков и артиллерии и интересно, но мне вот было невообразим скучно, ведь всё что пишет автор, это то, как это выглядит в теории. На практике же мы не знаем, как поведут себя элиты европейских стран, насколько успешной и лёгкой будет мобилизация граждан Европы (в армию) и насколько успешными будут непосредственно сами военные действия.
Конечно, к любой войне государство должно готовиться заранее и иметь все возможности, чтобы успешно отразить военную агрессию и тут я не спорю с важностью той темы, которую поднимает автор. Однако автор настолько увлечён и убеждён в истинности своей теории о неизбежности войны Европы и России, что это немного пугает. Одно дело путинская пропаганда, которая изображает страны Запада в качестве главного врага, но совсем другое дело, когда нечто похожее делают эксперты на Западе и вот это не может не беспокоить. Можно вспомнить ситуацию с Грузией и Украиной, когда политики этих стран делали похожие заявления об откровенно враждебных действиях России и обозначали Россию в качестве непосредственного врага, что потом и произошло, только уже не в виде политической риторики, а в виде реальных танков и ракет. Поэтому я и задаю вопрос: где граница между здравой идей иметь сильную оборону (защиту) от военной интервенции, какой угодно страны и проведения политики взаимной эскалации?
Мне могут возразить, что Россия первой начала политику эскалации, первой напала на своих соседей и риторика у российских политиков всегда была агрессивной. Это верно, но изменить политику в России ни в самой России, ни за её пределами, в силу диктаторской природы текущей российской власти, невозможно. В настоящий момент можно сделать лишь два здравых шага: 1. Быть подготовленным к возможной войне и 2. Не использовать эскалирующую риторику, дабы не дать дополнительные аргументы российской власти. И вот если первый пункт активно притворятся в жизнь, то второй пункт встречает сильное сопротивление, отчасти из-за таких вот авторов. Всё же целью должно быть не сама война, а её избежание. Если война уже началась, это значит что проиграли обе стороны. Читая же эту книгу, возникает ощущение, что автор именно этого и желает – чтобы война между Европой и Россией состоялась. Я же считаю, что если это случится, это будет катастрофой для всех, а не только для России.
Вторая составляющая этой книги посвящена текущей военной конфронтацией между Россией и Украиной. Тут так же позиция автора выглядит странно, учитывая двоякое поведение США и Европы. Хотя на словах ЕС и США поддерживают Украину, на практике помощь оказывается в самых минимальных масштабах, а с приходом Трампа она вообще поставлена под вопрос. Учитывая, что в США не диктатура, а демократия и Дональд Трамп не является единственным человеком, который определяет внешнюю политику США, вызывает удивление, что многие другие видные политические деятели США так быстро и молча приняли позицию Дональда Трампа по российско-украинскому конфликту. На фоне этого выглядит странным решение автора не рассматривать в качестве актуального вопрос перемирия между Россией и Украиной. Среди прочего автор пишет, к каким ужасным последствиям может привести поражение Украины в войне с Россией, включая повторение идеи, что если Россия выйдет из этой войны победительницей, она продолжит своё наступление, но уже в направлении Европы. Такая позиция кажется мне очень странной, учитывая, что Россия даже восточную часть Украины не может оккупировать, что уж говорить про теоретическую оккупацию прибалтийских стран, на что и намекает автор. В этом смысле у меня большие сомнения относительно того, что Россия обязательно нападёт на страны восточной Европы. Хотя, конечно, я не могу полностью этого исключать, особенно после того как Россия вторглась в Грузию в 2008 году (с Украиной отношения ухудшались, начиная с 2004 года, и поэтому теоретически события 2014 и 2022 года были относительно предсказуемыми).
Главная проблема в разделе про российско-украинский военный конфликт, это убеждённость автора в том, что Украине нужно любыми силами додавить Россию, говоря, что у стран Запада достаточно средств, чтобы финансировать Украину и даже и дальше успешно поставлять ей вооружение. Однако автор совершенно ничего не говорит о живой силе Украины, т.е. он не пишет, что делать с сокращающейся украинской армией. Можно предположить, что мужчин Украина всегда найдёт и, следовательно, это не может быть проблемой. Однако с моей точки зрения это совершенно не так и проблема с недокомплектованием как российской, так и украинской армиями является центральным вопросом в нынешнем военном конфликте. И у России нет в достаточном количестве солдат для полной оккупации Украины и у Украины нет столько солдат, чтобы отбросить российскую армию к границам 1991 года (если не случиться что-то экстраординарное, конечно). Так что о самом главном – о солдатах и об их желании/не желании воеват��, – автор как раз и не пишет. Оно и понятно, ведь для этого нужно проводить сложные исследования этого вопроса, которые могут даже и разрушить ту идеалистическую теорию, которую построил автор о том, что Россия вот-вот вторгнется на территорию восточной Европы.
This is the third book by this author that I've read, and like all the previous ones, it turned out to be pretty boring. The author has a talent for writing boring books. Although, by the title, it may seem that the book differs from other similar books by the presence of exclusive material, i.e., that the author has conducted interesting research, but, in fact, the author simply retells what was already known. For example, the second part of the book is devoted to an overview of the military component of European armies. Perhaps it is interesting for Europeans to read about how many tanks and artillery they have but I was unimaginably bored because everything the author writes is how it looks in theory. In practice, we do not know how the elites of European countries will behave, how successful and easy will be the mobilization of European citizens (into the army) and how successful will be the military action itself.
Of course, for any war, the state must prepare in advance and have all the capabilities to successfully repel military aggression, and here, I do not argue with the importance of the topic that the author raises. However, the author is so passionate and convinced of the truth of his theory about the inevitability of war between Europe and Russia that it is a bit scary. It's one thing for Putin's propaganda to portray Western countries as the main enemy, but it's quite another when experts in the West do something similar, and that's disturbing. We can recall the situation with Georgia and Ukraine when politicians of these countries made similar statements about openly hostile actions of Russia and designated Russia as a primary enemy, which then happened, but not in the form of political rhetoric, but in the form of real tanks and missiles. That is why I ask the question: where is the border between the common sense idea of having a strong defense (protection) against military intervention of any country and the policy of mutual escalation?
People might argue that Russia was the first who initiate the policy of escalation, the first to attack its neighbors, and the rhetoric of Russian politicians has always been aggressive. This is true, but it is impossible to change the policy in Russia, either in Russia itself or abroad, due to the dictatorial nature of the current Russian government. There are only two sensible steps that can be taken at this point: 1. Be prepared for a possible war and 2. Not to use escalating rhetoric, so as not to give additional arguments to the Russian authorities. And while the first point is being actively practiced, the second point is met with strong resistance, partly because of such authors. The goal should not be war itself, but its avoidance. If the war has already started, it means that both sides have lost. Reading this book, one gets the feeling that this is exactly what the author wants - the war between Europe and Russia. I believe that if it happens, it will be a disaster for everyone, not just Russia.
The second component of this book is devoted to the current military confrontation between Russia and Ukraine. Here, too, the author's position looks strange, given the dual behavior of the United States and Europe. Although the EU and the U.S. pay lip service to Ukraine, in practice the assistance is very minimal, and with Trump's arrival, it has been called into question. Given that the US is not a dictatorship but a democracy and Donald Trump is not the only person who determines US foreign policy, it is surprising that many other prominent US politicians have so quickly and silently accepted Donald Trump's position on the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Against this background, the author's decision not to consider the truce between Russia and Ukraine as a topical issue seems strange. Among other things, the author writes about the dire consequences of Ukraine's defeat in a war with Russia, including a reiteration of the idea that if Russia emerges from this war victorious, it will continue its offensive, but in the direction of Europe. This position seems very strange to me, given that Russia cannot even occupy the eastern part of Ukraine, let alone the theoretical occupation of the Baltic states, which is what the author is hinting at. In that sense, I have big doubts about Russia necessarily attacking Eastern European countries. Although, of course, I can't completely rule it out, especially after Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 (relations with Ukraine had been deteriorating since 2004, so, theoretically, the events of 2014 and 2022 were relatively predictable).
The main problem in the section on the Russian-Ukrainian military conflict is the author's conviction that Ukraine needs to crush Russia by any means necessary, saying that Western countries have enough money to finance Ukraine and even continue to successfully supply it with weapons. However, the author says absolutely nothing about Ukraine's manpower, i.e., he does not write what to do with the shrinking Ukrainian army. One can assume that Ukraine will always find men and, therefore, this cannot be a problem. However, from my point of view, this is not the case at all and the understaffing of both the Russian and Ukrainian armies is the central issue in the current military conflict. Russia does not have enough soldiers to completely occupy Ukraine, and Ukraine does not have enough soldiers to push the Russian army back to the 1991 borders (unless something extraordinary happens, of course). So, the author does not write about the most important thing - soldiers and their willingness/unwillingness to fight. It is understandable because for this purpose it is necessary to conduct complex research on this issue, which can even destroy the idealistic theory that the author has built that Russia is about to invade the territory of Eastern Europe.
Это уже третья книга этого автора, которую я читаю и как все предыдущие, она получалась довольно скучной. У автора какой-то талант на то, чтобы писать скучные книги. Хотя по названию может показаться, что книга отличается от остальных подобных книг наличием эксклюзивного материала, т.е. что автор провёл интересные исследования, но на самом деле автор просто пересказывает то, что уже и так было известно. К примеру, вторая часть книги посвящена обзору военной составляющей европейских армий. Возможно, самим европейцам читать о том, сколько у них танков и артиллерии и интересно, но мне вот было невообразим скучно, ведь всё что пишет автор, это то, как это выглядит в теории. На практике же мы не знаем, как поведут себя элиты европейских стран, насколько успешной и лёгкой будет мобилизация граждан Европы (в армию) и насколько успешными будут непосредственно сами военные действия.
Конечно, к любой войне государство должно готовиться заранее и иметь все возможности, чтобы успешно отразить военную агрессию и тут я не спорю с важностью той темы, которую поднимает автор. Однако автор настолько увлечён и убеждён в истинности своей теории о неизбежности войны Европы и России, что это немного пугает. Одно дело путинская пропаганда, которая изображает страны Запада в качестве главного врага, но совсем другое дело, когда нечто похожее делают эксперты на Западе и вот это не может не беспокоить. Можно вспомнить ситуацию с Грузией и Украиной, когда политики этих стран делали похожие заявления об откровенно враждебных действиях России и обозначали Россию в качестве непосредственного врага, что потом и произошло, только уже не в виде политической риторики, а в виде реальных танков и ракет. Поэтому я и задаю вопрос: где граница между здравой идей иметь сильную оборону (защиту) от военной интервенции, какой угодно страны и проведения политики взаимной эскалации?
Мне могут возразить, что Россия первой начала политику эскалации, первой напала на своих соседей и риторика у российских политиков всегда была агрессивной. Это верно, но изменить политику в России ни в самой России, ни за её пределами, в силу диктаторской природы текущей российской власти, невозможно. В настоящий момент можно сделать лишь два здравых шага: 1. Быть подготовленным к возможной войне и 2. Не использовать эскалирующую риторику, дабы не дать дополнительные аргументы российской власти. И вот если первый пункт активно притворятся в жизнь, то второй пункт встречает сильное сопротивление, отчасти из-за таких вот авторов. Всё же целью должно быть не сама война, а её избежание. Если война уже началась, это значит что проиграли обе стороны. Читая же эту книгу, возникает ощущение, что автор именно этого и желает – чтобы война между Европой и Россией состоялась. Я же считаю, что если это случится, это будет катастрофой для всех, а не только для России.
Вторая составляющая этой книги посвящена текущей военной конфронтацией между Россией и Украиной. Тут так же позиция автора выглядит странно, учитывая двоякое поведение США и Европы. Хотя на словах ЕС и США поддерживают Украину, на практике помощь оказывается в самых минимальных масштабах, а с приходом Трампа она вообще поставлена под вопрос. Учитывая, что в США не диктатура, а демократия и Дональд Трамп не является единственным человеком, который определяет внешнюю политику США, вызывает удивление, что многие другие видные политические деятели США так быстро и молча приняли позицию Дональда Трампа по российско-украинскому конфликту. На фоне этого выглядит странным решение автора не рассматривать в качестве актуального вопрос перемирия между Россией и Украиной. Среди прочего автор пишет, к каким ужасным последствиям может привести поражение Украины в войне с Россией, включая повторение идеи, что если Россия выйдет из этой войны победительницей, она продолжит своё наступление, но уже в направлении Европы. Такая позиция кажется мне очень странной, учитывая, что Россия даже восточную часть Украины не может оккупировать, что уж говорить про теоретическую оккупацию прибалтийских стран, на что и намекает автор. В этом смысле у меня большие сомнения относительно того, что Россия обязательно нападёт на страны восточной Европы. Хотя, конечно, я не могу полностью этого исключать, особенно после того как Россия вторглась в Грузию в 2008 году (с Украиной отношения ухудшались, начиная с 2004 года, и поэтому теоретически события 2014 и 2022 года были относительно предсказуемыми).
Главная проблема в разделе про российско-украинский военный конфликт, это убеждённость автора в том, что Украине нужно любыми силами додавить Россию, говоря, что у стран Запада достаточно средств, чтобы финансировать Украину и даже и дальше успешно поставлять ей вооружение. Однако автор совершенно ничего не говорит о живой силе Украины, т.е. он не пишет, что делать с сокращающейся украинской армией. Можно предположить, что мужчин Украина всегда найдёт и, следовательно, это не может быть проблемой. Однако с моей точки зрения это совершенно не так и проблема с недокомплектованием как российской, так и украинской армиями является центральным вопросом в нынешнем военном конфликте. И у России нет в достаточном количестве солдат для полной оккупации Украины и у Украины нет столько солдат, чтобы отбросить российскую армию к границам 1991 года (если не случиться что-то экстраординарное, конечно). Так что о самом главном – о солдатах и об их желании/не желании воеват��, – автор как раз и не пишет. Оно и понятно, ведь для этого нужно проводить сложные исследования этого вопроса, которые могут даже и разрушить ту идеалистическую теорию, которую построил автор о том, что Россия вот-вот вторгнется на территорию восточной Европы.
This is the third book by this author that I've read, and like all the previous ones, it turned out to be pretty boring. The author has a talent for writing boring books. Although, by the title, it may seem that the book differs from other similar books by the presence of exclusive material, i.e., that the author has conducted interesting research, but, in fact, the author simply retells what was already known. For example, the second part of the book is devoted to an overview of the military component of European armies. Perhaps it is interesting for Europeans to read about how many tanks and artillery they have but I was unimaginably bored because everything the author writes is how it looks in theory. In practice, we do not know how the elites of European countries will behave, how successful and easy will be the mobilization of European citizens (into the army) and how successful will be the military action itself.
Of course, for any war, the state must prepare in advance and have all the capabilities to successfully repel military aggression, and here, I do not argue with the importance of the topic that the author raises. However, the author is so passionate and convinced of the truth of his theory about the inevitability of war between Europe and Russia that it is a bit scary. It's one thing for Putin's propaganda to portray Western countries as the main enemy, but it's quite another when experts in the West do something similar, and that's disturbing. We can recall the situation with Georgia and Ukraine when politicians of these countries made similar statements about openly hostile actions of Russia and designated Russia as a primary enemy, which then happened, but not in the form of political rhetoric, but in the form of real tanks and missiles. That is why I ask the question: where is the border between the common sense idea of having a strong defense (protection) against military intervention of any country and the policy of mutual escalation?
People might argue that Russia was the first who initiate the policy of escalation, the first to attack its neighbors, and the rhetoric of Russian politicians has always been aggressive. This is true, but it is impossible to change the policy in Russia, either in Russia itself or abroad, due to the dictatorial nature of the current Russian government. There are only two sensible steps that can be taken at this point: 1. Be prepared for a possible war and 2. Not to use escalating rhetoric, so as not to give additional arguments to the Russian authorities. And while the first point is being actively practiced, the second point is met with strong resistance, partly because of such authors. The goal should not be war itself, but its avoidance. If the war has already started, it means that both sides have lost. Reading this book, one gets the feeling that this is exactly what the author wants - the war between Europe and Russia. I believe that if it happens, it will be a disaster for everyone, not just Russia.
The second component of this book is devoted to the current military confrontation between Russia and Ukraine. Here, too, the author's position looks strange, given the dual behavior of the United States and Europe. Although the EU and the U.S. pay lip service to Ukraine, in practice the assistance is very minimal, and with Trump's arrival, it has been called into question. Given that the US is not a dictatorship but a democracy and Donald Trump is not the only person who determines US foreign policy, it is surprising that many other prominent US politicians have so quickly and silently accepted Donald Trump's position on the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Against this background, the author's decision not to consider the truce between Russia and Ukraine as a topical issue seems strange. Among other things, the author writes about the dire consequences of Ukraine's defeat in a war with Russia, including a reiteration of the idea that if Russia emerges from this war victorious, it will continue its offensive, but in the direction of Europe. This position seems very strange to me, given that Russia cannot even occupy the eastern part of Ukraine, let alone the theoretical occupation of the Baltic states, which is what the author is hinting at. In that sense, I have big doubts about Russia necessarily attacking Eastern European countries. Although, of course, I can't completely rule it out, especially after Russia invaded Georgia in 2008 (relations with Ukraine had been deteriorating since 2004, so, theoretically, the events of 2014 and 2022 were relatively predictable).
The main problem in the section on the Russian-Ukrainian military conflict is the author's conviction that Ukraine needs to crush Russia by any means necessary, saying that Western countries have enough money to finance Ukraine and even continue to successfully supply it with weapons. However, the author says absolutely nothing about Ukraine's manpower, i.e., he does not write what to do with the shrinking Ukrainian army. One can assume that Ukraine will always find men and, therefore, this cannot be a problem. However, from my point of view, this is not the case at all and the understaffing of both the Russian and Ukrainian armies is the central issue in the current military conflict. Russia does not have enough soldiers to completely occupy Ukraine, and Ukraine does not have enough soldiers to push the Russian army back to the 1991 borders (unless something extraordinary happens, of course). So, the author does not write about the most important thing - soldiers and their willingness/unwillingness to fight. It is understandable because for this purpose it is necessary to conduct complex research on this issue, which can even destroy the idealistic theory that the author has built that Russia is about to invade the territory of Eastern Europe.
February 23, 2025
leitura absolutamente obrigatória para todos aqueles que se interessam por matérias de segurança e defesa europeia, sobretudo para quem ignora a situação precária em que a europa se encontra nos dias de hoje.
no início do século, nós europeus por norma olhávamos para a guerra como algo distante e opcional, um capricho dos americanos que tínhamos o luxo de recusar. hoje em dia, não só temos uma rússia hostil em vias de anexar um dos seus vizinhos pela força e em plena guerra híbrida com o ocidente (fomento de partidos extremistas, sabotagem, subversão, patrocínio de terroristas, etc.), como temos uma nova velha administração trump pronta para nos apunhalar pelas costas.
estará toda a europa condenada? toda não, como no asterix existe um grupo de países (polónia, suécia, estados bálticos, finlândia) prontos a resistir agora e sempre ao invasor. dantes tínhamos o luxo de ignorar os seus avisos, hoje não. hora de acordar.
no início do século, nós europeus por norma olhávamos para a guerra como algo distante e opcional, um capricho dos americanos que tínhamos o luxo de recusar. hoje em dia, não só temos uma rússia hostil em vias de anexar um dos seus vizinhos pela força e em plena guerra híbrida com o ocidente (fomento de partidos extremistas, sabotagem, subversão, patrocínio de terroristas, etc.), como temos uma nova velha administração trump pronta para nos apunhalar pelas costas.
estará toda a europa condenada? toda não, como no asterix existe um grupo de países (polónia, suécia, estados bálticos, finlândia) prontos a resistir agora e sempre ao invasor. dantes tínhamos o luxo de ignorar os seus avisos, hoje não. hora de acordar.
February 6, 2025
Giles spells out that Russia will not stop until it wins against Ukraine, and even then will continue to threaten Europe. The solution is the military defeat of Russia, or the ability to firmly deter with tangible defense capabilities currently lacking in Europe. (5/2025)
April 26, 2025
The best line of defense against Russia is opposing him, building our militaries, and supporting Ukraine, so why we're doing none of these things I'm not sure and neither is Giles.
Excellent points about Russia and war in Europe, minus a star for that random anti immigrant sentence I didn't enjoy
Excellent points about Russia and war in Europe, minus a star for that random anti immigrant sentence I didn't enjoy
October 20, 2025
Kansantajuisesti kirjoitettu ja koostettu. Antaa selkeän kuvan tilanteesta, mutta on kuten alkuteksteissä luvataan, suomalaiselle lukijalle mielenrauhaa häiritsevää lukemista. Jospa nyt kuitenkin jokainen huolehtisi sen kotivaran kuntoon.
January 15, 2025
I very much doubt John Mearsheimer set out intending to be the handy go-to name for Russia and its propagandists, but there it is.
Keir Giles
......
Mearsheimer, like other IR profs, has a powerful incentive not to recognise facts and reality. Because as soon as they admit that reality does not conform with the theories they preach, it renders not only their own careers but also their entire industry completely pointless.
Keir Giles
The guy is in Bizarro-World with his views on International Relations with all his quirky opinions, and takes issues with virtually everyone. Maybe the problem is with Keir?
.......
.......
He's one of the most interesting of the class of aggressive hysterics, I fear.
and in the extreme minority that Ukraine now needs nuclear weapons as well as everyone in Central/Eastern Europe to 'fix everything'
and feels it's pretty likely Russia will invade a NATO country because they can
and I thought the Neoconservatives were needing a straight-jacket
........
The Diplomatic Courier
Giles sees the possibility of a Russian incursion into a NATO member–state, taking a small piece of territory and daring NATO to respond, as a highly likely course of action.
........
I was shocked that he seems to believe hook, line and sinker the world view of Yuri Bezmenov.
Who seems to be the darling of the John Birchers, Austrian Economists, Tea Partiers, and James Jesus Angleton's of the world.
"Bezmenov is best remembered for his anti-Marxist, anti-Soviet, and anti-atheist lectures and books published in the 1980s."
.........
Bezmenov’s daughter recalls that her father “saw himself as a prophet.” He imagined evidence of Soviet penetration and disinformation everywhere. Bezmenov’s alarmist message gained very little currency and his former handlers in the Canadian intelligence community reported that he worked "with lower level fringe groups of little consequence." [quote]
.........
You'll notice a pattern.
Yuri Bezmenov did not give his speeches or interviews to nearly any outlets of repute or real reach; functionally, he was just shouting into the (mostly) Conservative circles like the John Birch Society and extremely anti-Soviet circles all the time.
Yuri Beznemov's actions betray his words - he said he came to warn the United States and the West about the Soviets, but his actions are those of a man trying to sow conflict and division by speaking to one side to rile them up and set them against a group who should be their ally.
Bezmenov's entire ideology is functionally (and at times literally if you read his other works) "Literally everything liberal/progressive is a Soviet plant and only red-blooded American conservatism and rejection of the things those other people stand for can save America!"
To put it bluntly - the things Beznemov talks about and suggests the Soviets do to the US don't work in a country where people like Romney and Trump exist in the same party, or where someone like AOC and Biden can peacefully co-exist in the same party. The US is simply too massive, too diverse for that kind of strategy to work - you can sow chaos by following some basic psychology tricks, sure. But you'd need willing accomplices, AND another method of attack if you actually wanted to destroy a country like the United States. [quote]
.........
Disputes over authenticity of Bezmenov's KGB Officer status, political affiliation, and conspiracy theories
Doubts have been expressed regarding Bezmenov's KGB role, if any; according to some sources, Bezmenov was not a part of the KGB First Chief Directorate.
Bezmenov's audiences have included American far-right and anti-communist movements, to whom he often gave speeches and lectures on their platforms. One of such is his interview with conspiracy theorist G. Edward Griffin. Bezmenov himself was involved with the anti-communist and far-right Unification Church and the John Birch Society.
When questioned about his association with the John Birch Society and the doubts raised about his allegiance, he responded "I'm not a member. I don't agree with everything they say", and stated that he resorted to right-wing platforms as a result of mainstream media outlets refusing to provide him with a platform, such as The New York Times. [wiki]
..........
Interview
Keir Giles - Russia's Next War - Who Will Defend Europe from an Aggressive and Militaristic Russia?
Jonathan Fink, Interviewer: But there seems, of course, to be a reluctance to get more involved, directly involved in not just the protection of Ukraine, but Europe itself. And if we look back, as you've said there, to echoes of History, we can't find an absolute match. But of course, in the 1930s there was the threat of fascism as an ideology being attractive to a number of Americans. I mean, we can't get away from that. And in the current climate, it seems that some echoes of that rhetoric and behaviour and the admiration of authoritarians is being channelled in the figure of Donald Trump. This all seems to have a curious sort of predictive power in the works of Yuri Bezmenov, who talked about the Soviet strategy as being a long term one to divide and conquer to create the sense within your enemy of self-loathing, which undermines their ability to defend themselves. What is your view of America? You devote a whole chapter to this about America that is distracted and divided.
Keir Giles: Well, even in that chapter about the destruction and division of America, it doesn't focus quite so much on the the American political leaning that enables a figure like Donald Trump to emerge. And yes, I agree absolutely with you. If you read the works of people like Yuri Bezmenov about how they planned to target US, society and us thinking over the long term, it makes very depressing reading and listening now, because of course you can see all of those projects coming to fruition. But the problem we have is that even if the United States is not under a Trump presidency after November, even if the US is acting as a rational actor, which is protecting its own interests around the world, we still have a problem in Europe, not just as as I mentioned before, because the the reasons why the United States puts limits on how this vast quantity of aid that is poured into Ukraine can be used, would also apply to European allies, but also because the situation has got even worse. It is not just the fear of escalation that we've already discussed on on your on your show here. It is also now the fact that the United States is being pulled in so many different directions, so many different global priorities, which it seems the assessment in DC are higher than the challenge to Europe. There is the US Navy saying it has to be ready for war with China by 2027. There is Israel, and the United States has shown very clearly that it places a much higher priority on protecting Israel and Israeli civilians than it does on Ukraine and people living there, because it will protect Israel in a way that has been consistently refused to Ukraine….”
October 14th 2024
Interesting.
...........
Legacy
Since his death, Bezmenov's "Soviet subversion model" has been studied and interpreted by faculty and staff at the Joint Special Operations University (JSOU) to analyze historical events, including the decade-long Russian campaign that preceded the 2008 Russo-Georgian War.
His work has also been cited by senior director of UPenn's Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement, and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Michael R. Carpenter.
His lectures have also been used by Yale senior lecturer Asha Rangappa, to illustrate the concept of active measures in the Soviet Union's supposed disinformation campaigns in the United States.
........
As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who is demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell him nothing, even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents and pictures. …he will refuse to believe it… That's the tragedy of the situation of demoralization.
Yuri Bezmenov [1983]
........
Pro-American literature and lectures (Los Angeles, 1981–1986)
He moved to Los Angeles in the 1980s. In 1983, at a lecture in Los Angeles, Bezmenov expressed the opinion that he "wouldn't be surprised" if the Soviet Union had shot down Korean Air Lines Flight 007 in order to kill Larry McDonald, an anti-communist Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives. Around the same time, Bezmenov had a child in the West, a daughter named Tanya. He later had a son named Jonathan.
[Larry McDonald maintained the most conservative voting record of any Democrat in Congress and crusaded against communism. He became chairman of the John Birch Society in 1983, months before his death. He was remembered as a martyr by American conservatives.]
[In 1979, with John Rees and Major General John K. Singlaub, McDonald founded the Western Goals Foundation.]
[According to The Spokesman-Review, it was intended to "blunt subversion, terrorism, and communism" by filling the gap "created by the disbanding of the House Un-American Activities Committee and what [McDonald] considered to be the crippling of the FBI during the 1970s". McDonald became the chairman of the John Birch Society in 1983, succeeding Robert Welch]
[At the time of his death, Western Goals was being sued by the ACLU for obtaining illegal Los Angeles Police Department Intelligence Files from 1975 that had been ordered destroyed and computerizing them in a database on a $100,000 computer in Long Beach at the house of an attorney connected to the U.S. intelligence community. Many of these files concerned individuals from Ronald Reagan's term as Governor of California, and it was speculated that Western Goals was using these files to blackmail figures in the Reagan Presidential Administration.]
In 1984, he gave an interview to G. Edward Griffin, titled 'Soviet Subversion of the Free World Press'. In the interview, Bezmenov stated that the KGB wanted the political system of the United States to gradually be subverted and explained methods that they were supposedly using.
The main emphasis of the KGB is not in the area of intelligence at all. Only about 15% of time, money, and manpower is spent on espionage and such. The other 85% is a slow process which we call either ideological subversion or active measures… or psychological warfare.
........
[Many of Griffin's books and films were published by other organizations such as Robert Welch's American Opinion in Belmont, Massachusetts, and Western Islands in Boston. Griffin also produced printed works and films with Major General John K. Singlaub, publisher and national security journalist John H. Rees, and U.S. Congressman Larry McDonald at the Western Goals Foundation, a private domestic intelligence agency active in the United States beginning in 1979.] [wiki]
///////////////
Honestly I think he's the Ayn Rand of Sovietologists, every other Thursday
About as unrealistic as you can get
As hysterical and pathological in his paranoia as James Jesus Angleton
///////////////
On 2 October 2023, Giles published an opinion piece on the Politico website titled "Fighting against the USSR didn’t necessarily make you a Nazi", in which he wrote that being a member of the Waffen-SS did not necessarily mean that somebody was guilty of war crimes.
////////
ouch
the author seems to mentioned this review on twitter
5 hours ago
Is anybody out there a keen user of Goodreads? If so, perhaps you'd do me the favour of reporting this post, supposedly a 1* review (posted well before the book was even available to be read) but actually a long unrelated rant by a Russia-friendly troll.
5 hours ago
and four hours later a new account on goodreads pops up
two reviews of the authors books, one being a critique of my snarky reviews
All five star reviews with basically people obsessed with merely one author
who appear hours over someone hysterical about this review???
I guess that's how how the soviets work, stuff the ballot box 80% in the other direction because 90% would look suspicious, to fix 'the problem'
I guess at 9am everyone bought their books at the bookstore, and finished them by noon.
And the guy in Kentucky flew on the Concord to get his copy in the Airport bookstore, or maybe Amazon UK is getting speedy these days.
When the Amazing Criswell predicts that with certain types of hysterics, the world will be saddened by the 'perception' that 'unknown agents' have flooded the place with 'suspicious' 5 star book reviews like some Communists rigging elections.
Sadly, it sounds like having friends on twitter can make one look bad then they do stupid stunts that 'feel' like reviews on goodreads.
Greetings, my friends. We are all interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives.
And remember, my friends, future events such as these will affect you in the future.
Criswell
/////////
Clearly I've watched the YouTube interviews about the book, and it was actually the transcripts which are the basis for this review.
Sadly I'm a Mearsheimer troll, not terribly a fan of Russia or the Ukraine and their Fourth World Authoritarianism death-spiral of their decaying nation states, with their minor impact in the civilizational clash in the bigger scheme of things.
hopefully I won't be cancelled, and there will be thousands of fantastic reviews to balance out my lack of being impressed.
I guess I can smell hysteria at 500 paces
Keir Giles
......
Mearsheimer, like other IR profs, has a powerful incentive not to recognise facts and reality. Because as soon as they admit that reality does not conform with the theories they preach, it renders not only their own careers but also their entire industry completely pointless.
Keir Giles
The guy is in Bizarro-World with his views on International Relations with all his quirky opinions, and takes issues with virtually everyone. Maybe the problem is with Keir?
.......
.......
He's one of the most interesting of the class of aggressive hysterics, I fear.
and in the extreme minority that Ukraine now needs nuclear weapons as well as everyone in Central/Eastern Europe to 'fix everything'
and feels it's pretty likely Russia will invade a NATO country because they can
and I thought the Neoconservatives were needing a straight-jacket
........
The Diplomatic Courier
Giles sees the possibility of a Russian incursion into a NATO member–state, taking a small piece of territory and daring NATO to respond, as a highly likely course of action.
........
I was shocked that he seems to believe hook, line and sinker the world view of Yuri Bezmenov.
Who seems to be the darling of the John Birchers, Austrian Economists, Tea Partiers, and James Jesus Angleton's of the world.
"Bezmenov is best remembered for his anti-Marxist, anti-Soviet, and anti-atheist lectures and books published in the 1980s."
.........
Bezmenov’s daughter recalls that her father “saw himself as a prophet.” He imagined evidence of Soviet penetration and disinformation everywhere. Bezmenov’s alarmist message gained very little currency and his former handlers in the Canadian intelligence community reported that he worked "with lower level fringe groups of little consequence." [quote]
.........
You'll notice a pattern.
Yuri Bezmenov did not give his speeches or interviews to nearly any outlets of repute or real reach; functionally, he was just shouting into the (mostly) Conservative circles like the John Birch Society and extremely anti-Soviet circles all the time.
Yuri Beznemov's actions betray his words - he said he came to warn the United States and the West about the Soviets, but his actions are those of a man trying to sow conflict and division by speaking to one side to rile them up and set them against a group who should be their ally.
Bezmenov's entire ideology is functionally (and at times literally if you read his other works) "Literally everything liberal/progressive is a Soviet plant and only red-blooded American conservatism and rejection of the things those other people stand for can save America!"
To put it bluntly - the things Beznemov talks about and suggests the Soviets do to the US don't work in a country where people like Romney and Trump exist in the same party, or where someone like AOC and Biden can peacefully co-exist in the same party. The US is simply too massive, too diverse for that kind of strategy to work - you can sow chaos by following some basic psychology tricks, sure. But you'd need willing accomplices, AND another method of attack if you actually wanted to destroy a country like the United States. [quote]
.........
Disputes over authenticity of Bezmenov's KGB Officer status, political affiliation, and conspiracy theories
Doubts have been expressed regarding Bezmenov's KGB role, if any; according to some sources, Bezmenov was not a part of the KGB First Chief Directorate.
Bezmenov's audiences have included American far-right and anti-communist movements, to whom he often gave speeches and lectures on their platforms. One of such is his interview with conspiracy theorist G. Edward Griffin. Bezmenov himself was involved with the anti-communist and far-right Unification Church and the John Birch Society.
When questioned about his association with the John Birch Society and the doubts raised about his allegiance, he responded "I'm not a member. I don't agree with everything they say", and stated that he resorted to right-wing platforms as a result of mainstream media outlets refusing to provide him with a platform, such as The New York Times. [wiki]
..........
Interview
Keir Giles - Russia's Next War - Who Will Defend Europe from an Aggressive and Militaristic Russia?
Jonathan Fink, Interviewer: But there seems, of course, to be a reluctance to get more involved, directly involved in not just the protection of Ukraine, but Europe itself. And if we look back, as you've said there, to echoes of History, we can't find an absolute match. But of course, in the 1930s there was the threat of fascism as an ideology being attractive to a number of Americans. I mean, we can't get away from that. And in the current climate, it seems that some echoes of that rhetoric and behaviour and the admiration of authoritarians is being channelled in the figure of Donald Trump. This all seems to have a curious sort of predictive power in the works of Yuri Bezmenov, who talked about the Soviet strategy as being a long term one to divide and conquer to create the sense within your enemy of self-loathing, which undermines their ability to defend themselves. What is your view of America? You devote a whole chapter to this about America that is distracted and divided.
Keir Giles: Well, even in that chapter about the destruction and division of America, it doesn't focus quite so much on the the American political leaning that enables a figure like Donald Trump to emerge. And yes, I agree absolutely with you. If you read the works of people like Yuri Bezmenov about how they planned to target US, society and us thinking over the long term, it makes very depressing reading and listening now, because of course you can see all of those projects coming to fruition. But the problem we have is that even if the United States is not under a Trump presidency after November, even if the US is acting as a rational actor, which is protecting its own interests around the world, we still have a problem in Europe, not just as as I mentioned before, because the the reasons why the United States puts limits on how this vast quantity of aid that is poured into Ukraine can be used, would also apply to European allies, but also because the situation has got even worse. It is not just the fear of escalation that we've already discussed on on your on your show here. It is also now the fact that the United States is being pulled in so many different directions, so many different global priorities, which it seems the assessment in DC are higher than the challenge to Europe. There is the US Navy saying it has to be ready for war with China by 2027. There is Israel, and the United States has shown very clearly that it places a much higher priority on protecting Israel and Israeli civilians than it does on Ukraine and people living there, because it will protect Israel in a way that has been consistently refused to Ukraine….”
October 14th 2024
Interesting.
...........
Legacy
Since his death, Bezmenov's "Soviet subversion model" has been studied and interpreted by faculty and staff at the Joint Special Operations University (JSOU) to analyze historical events, including the decade-long Russian campaign that preceded the 2008 Russo-Georgian War.
His work has also been cited by senior director of UPenn's Penn Biden Center for Diplomacy and Global Engagement, and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Michael R. Carpenter.
His lectures have also been used by Yale senior lecturer Asha Rangappa, to illustrate the concept of active measures in the Soviet Union's supposed disinformation campaigns in the United States.
........
As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who is demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell him nothing, even if I shower him with information, with authentic proof, with documents and pictures. …he will refuse to believe it… That's the tragedy of the situation of demoralization.
Yuri Bezmenov [1983]
........
Pro-American literature and lectures (Los Angeles, 1981–1986)
He moved to Los Angeles in the 1980s. In 1983, at a lecture in Los Angeles, Bezmenov expressed the opinion that he "wouldn't be surprised" if the Soviet Union had shot down Korean Air Lines Flight 007 in order to kill Larry McDonald, an anti-communist Democratic member of the United States House of Representatives. Around the same time, Bezmenov had a child in the West, a daughter named Tanya. He later had a son named Jonathan.
[Larry McDonald maintained the most conservative voting record of any Democrat in Congress and crusaded against communism. He became chairman of the John Birch Society in 1983, months before his death. He was remembered as a martyr by American conservatives.]
[In 1979, with John Rees and Major General John K. Singlaub, McDonald founded the Western Goals Foundation.]
[According to The Spokesman-Review, it was intended to "blunt subversion, terrorism, and communism" by filling the gap "created by the disbanding of the House Un-American Activities Committee and what [McDonald] considered to be the crippling of the FBI during the 1970s". McDonald became the chairman of the John Birch Society in 1983, succeeding Robert Welch]
[At the time of his death, Western Goals was being sued by the ACLU for obtaining illegal Los Angeles Police Department Intelligence Files from 1975 that had been ordered destroyed and computerizing them in a database on a $100,000 computer in Long Beach at the house of an attorney connected to the U.S. intelligence community. Many of these files concerned individuals from Ronald Reagan's term as Governor of California, and it was speculated that Western Goals was using these files to blackmail figures in the Reagan Presidential Administration.]
In 1984, he gave an interview to G. Edward Griffin, titled 'Soviet Subversion of the Free World Press'. In the interview, Bezmenov stated that the KGB wanted the political system of the United States to gradually be subverted and explained methods that they were supposedly using.
The main emphasis of the KGB is not in the area of intelligence at all. Only about 15% of time, money, and manpower is spent on espionage and such. The other 85% is a slow process which we call either ideological subversion or active measures… or psychological warfare.
........
[Many of Griffin's books and films were published by other organizations such as Robert Welch's American Opinion in Belmont, Massachusetts, and Western Islands in Boston. Griffin also produced printed works and films with Major General John K. Singlaub, publisher and national security journalist John H. Rees, and U.S. Congressman Larry McDonald at the Western Goals Foundation, a private domestic intelligence agency active in the United States beginning in 1979.] [wiki]
///////////////
Honestly I think he's the Ayn Rand of Sovietologists, every other Thursday
About as unrealistic as you can get
As hysterical and pathological in his paranoia as James Jesus Angleton
///////////////
On 2 October 2023, Giles published an opinion piece on the Politico website titled "Fighting against the USSR didn’t necessarily make you a Nazi", in which he wrote that being a member of the Waffen-SS did not necessarily mean that somebody was guilty of war crimes.
////////
ouch
the author seems to mentioned this review on twitter
5 hours ago
Is anybody out there a keen user of Goodreads? If so, perhaps you'd do me the favour of reporting this post, supposedly a 1* review (posted well before the book was even available to be read) but actually a long unrelated rant by a Russia-friendly troll.
5 hours ago
and four hours later a new account on goodreads pops up
two reviews of the authors books, one being a critique of my snarky reviews
All five star reviews with basically people obsessed with merely one author
who appear hours over someone hysterical about this review???
I guess that's how how the soviets work, stuff the ballot box 80% in the other direction because 90% would look suspicious, to fix 'the problem'
I guess at 9am everyone bought their books at the bookstore, and finished them by noon.
And the guy in Kentucky flew on the Concord to get his copy in the Airport bookstore, or maybe Amazon UK is getting speedy these days.
When the Amazing Criswell predicts that with certain types of hysterics, the world will be saddened by the 'perception' that 'unknown agents' have flooded the place with 'suspicious' 5 star book reviews like some Communists rigging elections.
Sadly, it sounds like having friends on twitter can make one look bad then they do stupid stunts that 'feel' like reviews on goodreads.
Greetings, my friends. We are all interested in the future, for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives.
And remember, my friends, future events such as these will affect you in the future.
Criswell
/////////
Clearly I've watched the YouTube interviews about the book, and it was actually the transcripts which are the basis for this review.
Sadly I'm a Mearsheimer troll, not terribly a fan of Russia or the Ukraine and their Fourth World Authoritarianism death-spiral of their decaying nation states, with their minor impact in the civilizational clash in the bigger scheme of things.
hopefully I won't be cancelled, and there will be thousands of fantastic reviews to balance out my lack of being impressed.
I guess I can smell hysteria at 500 paces
February 2, 2025
I have finished reading “Who Will Defend Europe?: An Awakened Russia and a Sleeping Continent” by Keir Giles.
The argument for this book is simple, the countries of Europe have the reality of an aggressive and imperialist Russia next door but only some of them have woken up to it. There is a big gap in terms of preparedness between those countries that have once been occupied by Russia and those further away in Western Europe. To make matters worse, at the time of writing Europe faced the possibility of a second Trump presidency which would (and now does) put US security guarantees for Europe in doubt.
The author’s analysis on why many European nations, including the UK, have not invested in defence to the measure up to the threat is quite frank, if flavoured by some right wing reasoning. Very simply, European Governments (and by extension the people who voted them in) have got their priorities wrong and see Social spending as more important and Defence spending as an optional extra. This mentality is arguably a hold over from the end of the Cold War, the so-called “end of History” days. Our current security environment however shows that those days are very far away.
The author has meticulously researched a lot of the internal issues experienced by the defence establishments of many of Europe’s major countries. Most of them are frightening but similar stories of Defence Ministry double speak, mismanaged procurement contracts and the hollowing out of defence inventories.
The author made clear at the start of the book that his previous books interacted more directly with questions about the Russian Government’s motives, thinkings and recent efforts about subversion. I appreciate that this is how the author wished to span out their argument and sell their books, but at times it felt like parts of the argument were unsupported. It felt at times like linking all this together in one tract would have felt harder (ie. These guys are serious, this what they are doing and want to do and this why we need to change). But despite this the author does paint a stark picture of a lot of work that needs to be done for Europe’s actual defence capability to catch up with it’s leaders’ rhetoric.
If this book has a message it is that complacency costs lives. In order to drive that home the author presents a well researched case of political double speak and years of neglect of Europe’s defence establishments. The author outlines a lack of political will as the main problem, on this the author is right but the analysis feels a bit skin deep. The UK has historically got tackled the guns vs butter problem before, so it is surprising that this question was given short shrift.
Furthermore, while there are technical and practical arguments for what is needed to see off the greatest challenge to European security in decades, but it seems to me neglectful not to face up to the contemporary disturbing reality of politics in Europe. Far Right and Far Left populist parties present an unholy alliance of appeasement which would simply dismiss the arguments presented by the author. This is a potentially lethal mix when one considers how remote defence matters are from most Western European minds. It would seem that to overcome the defence challenge, we first have to defeat the political one. Perhaps the author’s follow up could look to take aim at this? Much like the invading Russian’s that they effectively support, these political parties need to be held to account too.
The argument for this book is simple, the countries of Europe have the reality of an aggressive and imperialist Russia next door but only some of them have woken up to it. There is a big gap in terms of preparedness between those countries that have once been occupied by Russia and those further away in Western Europe. To make matters worse, at the time of writing Europe faced the possibility of a second Trump presidency which would (and now does) put US security guarantees for Europe in doubt.
The author’s analysis on why many European nations, including the UK, have not invested in defence to the measure up to the threat is quite frank, if flavoured by some right wing reasoning. Very simply, European Governments (and by extension the people who voted them in) have got their priorities wrong and see Social spending as more important and Defence spending as an optional extra. This mentality is arguably a hold over from the end of the Cold War, the so-called “end of History” days. Our current security environment however shows that those days are very far away.
The author has meticulously researched a lot of the internal issues experienced by the defence establishments of many of Europe’s major countries. Most of them are frightening but similar stories of Defence Ministry double speak, mismanaged procurement contracts and the hollowing out of defence inventories.
The author made clear at the start of the book that his previous books interacted more directly with questions about the Russian Government’s motives, thinkings and recent efforts about subversion. I appreciate that this is how the author wished to span out their argument and sell their books, but at times it felt like parts of the argument were unsupported. It felt at times like linking all this together in one tract would have felt harder (ie. These guys are serious, this what they are doing and want to do and this why we need to change). But despite this the author does paint a stark picture of a lot of work that needs to be done for Europe’s actual defence capability to catch up with it’s leaders’ rhetoric.
If this book has a message it is that complacency costs lives. In order to drive that home the author presents a well researched case of political double speak and years of neglect of Europe’s defence establishments. The author outlines a lack of political will as the main problem, on this the author is right but the analysis feels a bit skin deep. The UK has historically got tackled the guns vs butter problem before, so it is surprising that this question was given short shrift.
Furthermore, while there are technical and practical arguments for what is needed to see off the greatest challenge to European security in decades, but it seems to me neglectful not to face up to the contemporary disturbing reality of politics in Europe. Far Right and Far Left populist parties present an unholy alliance of appeasement which would simply dismiss the arguments presented by the author. This is a potentially lethal mix when one considers how remote defence matters are from most Western European minds. It would seem that to overcome the defence challenge, we first have to defeat the political one. Perhaps the author’s follow up could look to take aim at this? Much like the invading Russian’s that they effectively support, these political parties need to be held to account too.
June 4, 2025
Keir Giles's Who Will Defend Europe proposes a powerful analysis on the contemporary Russian threat to Europe's peace and freedom. While knowing that national security is the foundation on which any other policy area is build, with wide spread ideas of anti-warism, there still is too much resentment and misunderstanding about collective security/defence. However that the criticism is understandable, it needs to be taken into account that aggressors will always exist and due to those disputes being rooted in history, wanting to solve them in diplomatic and peaceful ways will not always prevail. Territory, in this case, should not be seized by force, thus the US and European community needs to deter and punish Russia. Doing this could be the best way to deter other possible aggressors in the future.
This overview is a must read for anyone who better wants to understand the challenges we're currently facing, more specifically with the US shifting it's focus to the Indian Pacific. With strong comparisons it seems that investments in defence and resilience is like investing in insurance policy. Even those countries that lay far away from the 'danger zone' mostly pacifist orientated countries need to realise that they are not immune, however difficult we can not look away. In the end those that will not have invested in insurance, will be those that pay the highest price...
This overview is a must read for anyone who better wants to understand the challenges we're currently facing, more specifically with the US shifting it's focus to the Indian Pacific. With strong comparisons it seems that investments in defence and resilience is like investing in insurance policy. Even those countries that lay far away from the 'danger zone' mostly pacifist orientated countries need to realise that they are not immune, however difficult we can not look away. In the end those that will not have invested in insurance, will be those that pay the highest price...
May 23, 2025
During the book presentation in November 2024, I asked Giles about how we can bring back the sense of urgency that we had in 2022 so that policymakers take the needed measures to deter and, if necessary defend, against Russia.
„A steady stream of catastrophes.“
This is the paradox. For European leaders west of Warsaw to do what is necessary, it needs a strategic shock. Yet this strategic shock is what our policy is meant to avoid. Must we continue to pursue a policy of hope that inevitably leads to these catastrophes, to achieve the required shift in mentality? Are the historical experiences of Russian domination and the ongoing atrocities against Ukrainians not enough to push for comprehensive defence made up from consistent long-term military planning and a whole-of-society approach? Can we learn without suffering the pain first-hand?
Perhaps - perhaps not. Still, it is not too late yet and I remain cautiously optimistic that through educating policymakers and raising awareness among electorates of what is at stake, we can do what is necessary. And Giles‘ short and substantial book can help in this endeavour.
„A steady stream of catastrophes.“
This is the paradox. For European leaders west of Warsaw to do what is necessary, it needs a strategic shock. Yet this strategic shock is what our policy is meant to avoid. Must we continue to pursue a policy of hope that inevitably leads to these catastrophes, to achieve the required shift in mentality? Are the historical experiences of Russian domination and the ongoing atrocities against Ukrainians not enough to push for comprehensive defence made up from consistent long-term military planning and a whole-of-society approach? Can we learn without suffering the pain first-hand?
Perhaps - perhaps not. Still, it is not too late yet and I remain cautiously optimistic that through educating policymakers and raising awareness among electorates of what is at stake, we can do what is necessary. And Giles‘ short and substantial book can help in this endeavour.
December 6, 2025
Every good book has an element that strikes a chord especially. For me, it was the author's thoughts in the America chapter, 'Distracted and Divided'. I found his analysis terrifyingly accurate. The state of that nation's foreign relations, whether with Ukraine or more generally Europe, merits attention exactly of the kind the book offers - fact-based, extremely well argued and one that refuses to pull any punches. A world on offer from the two dinosaurs of global politics, Trump and - especially so - Putin, is a throwback that seeks to do just that, distract and divide. Too late for Europe's younger generation of political leaders to do anything about it? Hopefully not. The book is a wake-up call.
June 4, 2025
Excellent and necessary read for concerning times. What’s quite astounding is that Keir manages to labour what is effectively the same point for the entire book, with consistently new damning evidence of western inaction.
Keir puts forward a rational and very well backed up argument that Russia has no intention of stopping at Ukraine, and with a retreating US, Europe has to finally step up to the plate and answer the question of its own security, but as usual is paralysed by an inadequate recognition of the threat and the prevailing political mood.
Keir puts forward a rational and very well backed up argument that Russia has no intention of stopping at Ukraine, and with a retreating US, Europe has to finally step up to the plate and answer the question of its own security, but as usual is paralysed by an inadequate recognition of the threat and the prevailing political mood.
January 31, 2026
Erinomainen teos Euroopan tilanteesta. Aika karua luettavaa, etenkin jälkikäteen listattuna, muten huonosti Eurooppa on valmistautunut. Tai edes jälkikäteen reagoinut Venäjän aggressioon Ukrainassa. Iso pettymys on myös se, miten pitkään eurooppalaiset päättäjät toistivat venäläistä narratiivia ja eskalaation uhkaa, ja pidättivät Ukrainaa puolustamasta itseään.
Positiivinen yllätys miten paljon Suomea kehuttiin, kun itse on pitänyt tilannetta hyvin normaalina ja realistisena - muualla onkin turhaan toivottu parasta.
Positiivinen yllätys miten paljon Suomea kehuttiin, kun itse on pitänyt tilannetta hyvin normaalina ja realistisena - muualla onkin turhaan toivottu parasta.
November 24, 2024
Reading the book I could not help growing more and more worried. Ukrainians place so much hope on NATO but it seems that many years of neglect have led to the weakening of the European pillar of the alliance. Some of the anecdotes in the book like inability to expand munition production because a Tik-Tok data center is taking all the spare electricity in an area (I don't rember where) is tragicomical.
October 24, 2024
Keir Gilles is by far one of the most insightful experts if one wants to understand Russia and the background for their illegal invasion in Ukraine and imperial ambitions in general. If you are in doubt if it’s worth reading I can recommend to start with this interview with Keir Gilles. https://youtu.be/kE6e-bkSWPM?si=3hwY2...
June 24, 2025
Lots of interesting discussion points even if Giles tilts towards the hawkish sides of security politics. The chapter on Britain seems to be aimed at British readers, so it felt a bit boring as he describes internal affairs in Britain. But the rest of the book was interesting through and through.
June 10, 2025
UK author known as an expert on Russian military matters takes a hard look at the European security stance given the war in Ukraine. Informative and the author provides an interesting conclusion.
February 11, 2026
a thrilling analysis of europe´s defence capabilities
and about the lost art of deterrence
and about the lost art of deterrence
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews