2017 War with Russia: An Urgent Warning from Senior Military Command

by Richard Shirreff

Closely modelled on his NATO experience of war gaming future conflicts, 2017 War With Russia is a chilling account of where we are heading if we fail to recognise the threat posed by the Russian president.

Written by the recently retired Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe and endorsed by senior military figures, this book shows how war with Russia could erupt with the bloodiest and most appalling consequences if the necessary steps are not taken urgently.

President Putin said: 'We have all the reasons to believe that the policy of containment of Russia which was happening in the 18th, 19th and 20th century is still going on...' And 'If you press the spring, it will release at some point. Something you should remember.'

Like any 'strongman', the Russian president's reputation for strength is everything. Lose momentum, fail to give the people what they want and he fails. The President has already demonstrated that he has no intention of failing. He has already started a lethal dynamic which, unless checked right now, could see him invade the Baltic states.

Russia's invasion and seizure of Georgia in 2008 was our 'Rhineland moment'. We ignored the warning signs - as we did back in the 1930s - and we made it 'business as usual'.

Crimea in 2014 was the President's 'Sudetenland moment' and again he got away with it. Since 2014 Russia has invaded Ukraine. The Baltics could be next.

Our political leaders assume that nuclear deterrence will save us. General Sir Richard Shirreff shows us why this will not wash.

Genres: Fiction, War, Military Fiction, Politics, Russia, Thriller, Historical Fiction

460 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2016

About the author

General Sir Richard Shirreff KCB, CBE is a senior British Army officer. From March 2011 to March 2014, he served as NATO’s Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe. Educated at Oxford University, Shirreff rose quickly through the ranks of the British Army during the course of his 37-year career as an international leader and commander. He is a speaker, consultant, and advisor on issues of international politics and military strategy.

Reviews

[MischaS_ · Rating 3 out of 5]

Well, this is going to be rather hard. The first thing I have to say that with all respect for General Sir Richard Shirreff, he is not a novelist and it is something that is putting this book down.
From unbelievable dialogues to dialogues which are so strangely put together you are wondering who is actually talking. The author likes to put at least a page-long summary of a person character and their history when they enter the picture which is as you may imagine very distracting and feels very forced.
The author said that he wrote this because he believes that this way he will be able to approach more people who usually do not read policy papers for think-tanks. But he immediately fails since he has no idea how to write a novel. If he found a ghost-writer who would use what he had prepared as a storyline and made it more readable, it would be way better.

The book is filled with abbreviations, weapons, how NATO works etc. If you have no idea, it will be exhausting for you. If you do, you will be soon tired by the repetitions.

Where to start? President, how they always call the Russian president is very clearly Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin. The President is by the Russians called Vladimir Vladimirovich very often. Never Putin. But it could not be any more clear that it is actually him. I do not understand why the author tried to pretend it is actually not Putin when it is obvious it is actually him and on the other hand why he made it so clear it is actually Putin, but any of the other persons featured in the book are not also a portrait of a real politician. At first, I thought that the American President Dillon, since it is a woman and just won the elections is actually Hillary Clinton. But Dillon comes from a business sphere which is something that links her more to Donald Trump than Hillary Clinton. Also, Hillary Clinton as a former Secretary of State would not need a detailed briefing on how military works and what the generals just told her. So, I believe that the American President is actually a combination of both. Dillon has Trump's inexperience in the military, but I believe her decisions are more like Clinton's.
As for the British, I do not know the British political scene well enough to try to find some similarities.

I'm not going to go into the whole would Russia attack the Baltics, a NATO member state, because that is a complex issue and one that had a lot of attention since it is well known that Russia does not appreciate NATO at its borders.

What I did not appreciate about the novel is that it is very pro-Western and clearly anti-Russian. Putin is shown as a Bond movie villain or a villain in a Superhero movie. Those villains always have a great plan that clearly works until the point where the hero starts to fight against them when suddenly everything crumbles. Said villain is often ridiculed and humiliated.

The main thing Shirreff wanted to push through is how cutting the military budget is a bad thing! (Not going to go into if I agree or disagree.) But, he repeats it over and over again. Russians use it as one of the reasons why attack now, everyone uses it as an explanation for why the Russians attacked, why they cannot attack back, why their plan did not work etc.
In the end, one of the "heroes" of the novel talks about the future, and he has a long monologue where he is angry about how they cut the budget which caused everything. The monologue was absolutely cheezy but clearly something the author wanted to say himself, but he did not realise he already pushed that through somewhere around page 50.

What I found the most important and interesting is the NATO problem. Russia is not the problem. NATO which is not united and cannot come to a consensus is the real problem. And that was brilliantly shown. It takes very much for the 28 states to come to an agreement. It is even harder than to force them to really fulfil their promises. I say that as a citizen of a state that still did not fulfil of its promise to pay up the 2% GDP. And, it also showed how some states are becoming more and more depended on Russia. Russia is right now heavily investing in the Balkans. A couple of years ago I visited Montenegro, and I was surprised how much Russians invest there and that it was easier to speak Russian than English. And Montenegro is one of the possible nex members for NATO! Is that going to make the consensus any easier? NATO is shooting itself in the foot; they do not need Russia to do it.

I was probably never so inclined to write into a book as I was at this time but I've managed. But still, there are a couple of things I would like to address.

"...I'll have another chat to the Americans. Ask what they have done to stop the Russians lately."
-This shows my main problem with the British leaders in this book. I do not believe that the PM was supposed to be Theresa May, but I cannot say. Still, it seemed like the British were portrait especially dumb. Not thinking anything through and not expecting any revenge.

Which continues:

Walker had never heard of the place, so was glad when the CDS elaborated. The place? Kaliningrad! You are British, did you never see a map of Europe? Okay, I would have no problem with a random British person not knowing what Kaliningrad was but some sort of adviser for the British PM. During basically war! That is dumb! I'm not even going to apologise for that.


Any more and the "dubs" - dumb Ukrainian bastards - This is how you are going to show that the Russians are the bad guys? That they are going to call Ukrainians fighting against them "dubs"? Not buying.

It is a sad thing that I have to say that the best-written character is Major Vronsky from Spetsnaz. Technically a bad guy but still there is no one else that could be considered a good written. The Presidents or the British PM are not really characters you could consider. Morland is a bit too bland. And where Krauja could shine she was hidden behind Morland.


If you are interested in a war-game that shows Russia attacking the Baltics, I would suggest you watch the BBC's This World 2016 World War Three Inside the War Room. I believe it shows the decision making way better.

Also, the book basicaly ends with Putin dying when his hilecopter crashes. It is implied that he was in reallity killed since he lost all power after the attack on the Baltics. Plus that the new President is even bigger danger and more nationalist and most likely will seek revenge for the lost. I always said that we should not fear Putin's Russia but we should definitely fear Russia without Putin.

I'm still glad I read this but as I show there are many shortcomings on the authors part that pull this novel down. If there was the possibility to give half stars, this would be 2,5* but I'm going to round it up.

[Stéphane · Rating 2 out of 5]

Book written by a senior british army officer. What was I expecting? I ended up receiving what I deserved, 400 pages of badly-written western military propaganda, where the good guys fighting for freedom and ideals meet arrogant, drunk, mischievious commies.
Oh, and the ever-repeating mantra that budget cuts in Military spending are utter nonsense ? We get it after 50 pages, no need to shove it down our throats every two chapters.

That being said, '2017 WWRAUWFSMC' sheds some light on the inner workings of NATO, general diplomacy and balance of power in the nuclear age, so it is quite informative at times.

[Owlseyes]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016...


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wor...

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/magazine/cu...

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/mobile/...
...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wor...

https://www.rt.com/politics/official-...


Update
Why are they getting ready?
http://www.newsweek.com/russia-prepar...

[Matthew · Rating 2 out of 5]

A strong start that went down hill fast.
Suprised about some of the poor tech and hardware aspects of this book. Making putin out to be some sort of cheesy bond villian. The bias in this book is incredibly heavy and cheesy which is a shame.

[Ronan O’Neill · Rating 4 out of 5]

Such a timely read, days after the unprovoked invasion by Russia on the Ukraine. The writing is clunky, but that’s not what you’re reading it for. This book paints a very realistic picture of the world we are in, the aggressive nature of Putin, and the lack of readiness of NATO. I learned a lot about the potential future desire of Putin, and where is might travel. So, insights, yes, writing nope.

[Jacob Stelling · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book just wasn’t good, either as a military fiction or just a novel in general. While an interesting concept, there is a serious lack of pacing to the novel, cliche characters and a lack of any kind of subtlety in the writing.

Somehow, the author manages to combine unnecessary military jargon and overly complex descriptions of troop movements with a failure to hide his political points behind any level of facade. It is clear there is an agenda to this book, which is bashed over the reader’s head at every opportunity until it just becomes redundant.

Interesting in the context of Putin’s failure in Ukraine and a world in which Trump is president, but as a work of fiction this book fails miserably on pretty much every front.

[George · Rating 3 out of 5]

A Clancy-esque effort to simultaneously entertain and (in real life) to get the United States and United Kingdom and allies to beef up conventional forces in Europe contra Putin. Putin invades the Baltics, and a regular UK soldier who happens to be onsite has to act as a scout for the coming response. Generals show their gruffness by swearing. Many acronyms are taught the reader. The couple of women intelligence staffers are invariably competent and good-looking, forming caring relationships in the field and the war room with their male colleagues. Will they see each other after the war, if they survive?

Despite the formula fiction, the novel (written by former deputy NATO military chief Richard Shirreff) makes a thoughtful case that strong conventional forces in all the services (land, sea, air) enable the only effective non-nuclear (for "nuclear," read "Armageddon") response to aggressions of the type that Putin has carried out in Ukraine. And which he apparently frequently tests (as with air incursions, near-incursions, or heavier war drills) against NATO. The author asserts that NATO forces are sorely strapped. He particularly faults his own United Kingdom for what he describes as its lack of sea patrol aircraft, navy support and carrier group perimeter vessels; the regular army's dependence on reserves; and woeful gaps in logistics, hardware, and spare parts.

NATO comes under criticism for ungainliness due to its unanimous decision-making regime overburdened by a larger number of country members and lack of resolve vis a vis Ukraine. NATO units exist primarily on paper in that if they exist at all, they don't do enough joint training, and they can't be called up in a timely manner. Forward-stationed tanks and supplies don't mean anything, the author argues, if the United States and other countries would take a month to get them up and running.

The book clearly hopes to influence the presumably upcoming Hillary Clinton presidency, with a flattering female president character ("sixty years old but looking twenty years younger,") who takes bold and decisive steps to come to the aid of the Baltic states and Europe as a whole. Have I imagined things, or has the USA release date been moved up by a few months with Trump's campaign sputtering?

The book oddly refers to Putin as the "President" (thanks, lawyers?) so that the reader has to think for a second, "Does he mean the president of the United States or the president of Russia? Also, the text is littered with British figures of speech in the mouths and thoughts of Americans. (Kit instead of bags, transit accommodations instead of visiting officers' quarters, "CIA agree" instead of "the CIA agrees.) It's unclear whether these will be edited for the U.S. edition.

This book is worth reading, not necessarily because of its solid "C" entertainment value (you'd prefer it over the SkyMall catalog or the in-flight movie on an airplane) but because of its strangely likely ability to influence policy discourse. I first heard about it in a policy piece in a major US newspaper, and that was months before the scheduled US release date.

[Христо Блажев · Rating 3 out of 5]

Войната с Русия ще се развихри през лятото: http://knigolandia.info/book-review/2...

Тази книга има две страни. Едната е, че представя по изглеждащ достоверен начин колко сложна организация е НАТО и колко неподготвена е организацията за мащабен конфликт. Онова страшилище, с което са плашили до смърт нашите родители, вече го няма след десетилетията мир (визирам липсата на мащабни надлокални конфликти, които включват повече държави). Алиансът е оплетен в политически проблеми, а военните сили са все така ограничено национални и неспособни на ефективно сътрудничество на бойното поле. Същевременно дори водещи страни като Англия и Германия са отслабени военно след поредния рунд икономическа криза.

В кигата обаче точно НАТО трябва да се изправи срещу открита инвазия на руски войски в Украйна и след това в Литва, Латвия и Естония, завършваща с бърза и брутална окупация.

Enthusiast
http://knigolandia.info/book-review/2...

[Stefan Vucak · Rating 3 out of 5]

Given General Richard Shirreff's military background, I anticipated a thrilling WW III novel. Sadly, I was set up for a major disappointment. There is a wealth of information about NATO and disposition of European theater forces, which provided authenticity in the book. The political dimension of NATO partners left me scratching my head. Surely, those politicians would not be as naïve as they were presented! Similarly, the American woman president - with the current election climate there - was too much to swallow. The shallow attempt to hide Vladimir Putin by simply calling the Russian leader as President, made me wince.

When it came to describing the maneuvering of military forces, I could not fault the author's knowledge. Where the book failed badly was lack of the human dimension. Several promising starts were made, but none were developed, the book relying on action to keep it alive. Some attempts at adding humanity were made, but it was all very superficial. I was particularly disappointed with the ending. Anticipating an exciting raid on Russian nuclear missile sites, followed by an ultimatum and negotiations with the Russians to vacate the Baltic states, the book just ended as though a major chapter had been cut out.

The book reflected a military person's perspective of modern warfare - and not done very well either - where people were simply bit players, inserted as an afterthought.

A less than satisfying read.

[Scott · Rating 2 out of 5]

Reading this book was something of a treat. Back in the '80s, I devoured books about NATO going to war with the then Soviet Union by the dozens. Hackett, Clancy, Coyle, Peters, and so many more authors provided me hours of "what-if?" military fiction speculation about what such a brutal war could look like. They were all as fascinating as they were informative about the weapons and military doctrines of NATO and the Warsaw Pact during those tense times.

Well, fast forward to the modern world and a lot has changed. While NATO is still around, the Warsaw Pact is gone, as is the Soviet Union. But Russia is still there, and despite an initial bout of feebleness in the wake of the Soviet collapse, it is starting to reassert itself politically and militarily again, as seen it its invasion of Georgia and Ukraine. While NATO is bigger than ever, it is also currently weaker than it ever has been in its long history due to military budgets being slashed in the wake of the end of the Cold War. Apparently, many western leaders continue to believe Fukuyama's rosey prediction about the "End of History."

And that is the point of this book. As General Hackett did with his masterful "The Third World War," Shirreff is attempting to do by sounding the alarm about how unchecked Russian aggression may well bring NATO to the point of existential crisis and even nuclear war with Russia if strong measures aren't taken now to blunt Putin's ambitions. Shirreff, as deputy commander of SACEUR, was in a position to see firsthand western weakness in the face of greater and greater Russian provocations over the last few years, so his thoughts on the matter shouldn't be taken lightly (his opening essay is particularly fascinating to read as it recounts his actual experience as Deputy SACEUR during Russia's invasion of Ukraine).

Overall, the book was a good read that was very reminiscent of the military fiction of the Cold War years. Most of the book details the Russian invasion of the Baltic states, particularly Latvia, and a group of British and Latvian soldiers who engage in guerrilla warfare when they become trapped behind the lines. While there are some scenes of high level politics, I found them mostly to be there for reasons of geo-strategic exposition. Overall, I thought Shirreff did a decent job of conveying what a Russian invasion of the Baltics might look like, and NATO's subsequent bungled response, something reminiscent of Ralph Peter's excellent "Red Army".

What I found particularly interesting was seeing how things have changed militarily since the Cold War ended. Shirreff's depiction of the importance of cyberwarfare and social media in contemporary military operations was particularly fascinating as such things didn't exist back during the Cold War years. To also see how decrepit NATO has become since the Cold War ended was, frankly, shocking.

That was the "good" about the book - and it was mostly good. Now the "bad":

The ending was absolutely terrible. Not because it was poorly written, or because it was tragic, but because it almost seemed like Shirreff got bored with the story, or maybe he just couldn't devote any more time to his book, and decided to write a three-page conclusion and call it a day! Frankly, I was stunned when I went from a tense scene where NATO troops were launching a high-risk invasion into Kaliningrad, once designed to seize Russian nukes and use them in a high stakes gamble to get Putin to back off, to finding "Epilogue" being the header of the next chapter! I was so shocked that I found myself flipping back and forth looking for some missing pages! NATO is in the opening moves of a high risk gamble, one the author kept telling us could start an intercontinental nuclear war, and the author decides to call it day and write what is basically a superficial "and they lived happily ever after" epilogue as a way of ending the story? I am not kidding when I say I was absolutely stunned by this anticlimactic and, frankly, lazy ending. I would have much rather reached the sudden epilogue to have discovered that a forthcoming Book 2 would continue where this left off.

Because of this terrible ending, I ultimately found the book to be very disappointing. Shirreff was on to something good but instead decided to phone-in a deeply disappointing ending at the pinnacle of the narrative. As a result, what would have been a three star review is now two stars ("fair") with an "incomplete assignment" notation.

[Jan · Rating 1 out of 5]

Putin's Russia is a clear and present threat for the Baltic states and thereby for all of NATO. The purpose of this book is to illuminate how this threat could manifest itself in the immediate future.

The author should be eminently well suited to provide comprehensive, insightful and compelling insight into this scenario. He fails miserably.

Apart from the completely stale and mildly comical set of stereotypical characters, a stupid plot ripped of from an overindulgence in too many carefully scripted NATO exercises with a triumphant kinetic-heavy attack Thursday in time for ENDEX Friday morning, glaring omissions as if a NATO-Russia conflict would only take place in the Eastern part of the Baltic ... the story also suffers from a completely cramped 'dumbing down' and pandering to the lowest common denominator and a toolshed full of axes to grind with the UK political establishment. The only surprise is that apparently ther has been a ghost writer / editor brought into play - don't put this one on your resume.

All in all tremendously sad as the message and warning is both timely and unfortunately relevant. But if Putin moves against the Baltics it will be much more murky, long winded and hard to rally against. That plot has been played out in Chechnya, Georgia, Crimea, Ukraine, Syria(?) - and triumphant kinetic readiness is but one of the arrows we will need in our arsenal to counter it.

[Mancman · Rating 2 out of 5]

I picked this up as a makeweight in a multi purchase discount. I was intrigued by the subject matter, and in that regard it didn't disappoint.
However, occasionally you read books which genuinely make you realise that it's more difficult to write than you first think. This book is one of those.
Whilst the subject matter and storyline are riveting, the execution leaves a lot to be desired.
I'm sure the details and procedures are captured impeccably, but the book lacks warmth to make it really engaging.
There are attempts to build characters, but they all feel like 2D cardboard cutouts.
To say the author has an axe to grind about declining defence spending could be a slight understatement.
I'm not sure that I could recommend this as a read to anyone, unless you're really into military procedure.
All the tension built throughout the book dissipates suddenly in the last few pages. A real anticlimax in my view.

[Russell Whiting · Rating 1 out of 5]

Rather than being military fiction, this is basically a 400 page rant against politicians and against the cuts the author feels the armed forces have been forced to make since 2010. There are more mentions of the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review in this book than there were in Parliament.

Every politician (except the female US President) is shown to be weak, self-centred and ignorant of military strategy, while every soldier is salt of the earth, just who want in place when things kick off. The book builds to what would have been an interesting crescendo but then has a inexplicable and disappointing ending. The main fault of the book is that it was clearly written to demonstrate how David Cameron and Hilary Clinton would face war with Russia in 2017. The main problem is that neither of those two are actually around.

[James · Rating 2 out of 5]

Not really my usual cup of tea but boredom compels one to do strange things.

The title of the book pretty much lays it all out and there are not many surprises to be had. It seemed to be on the madder side of things to put it gently and does not really address the loss of confidence many will have in a military after the debacles of 2000s. That of course could be very unfair and I expect the author would point to the politicians first and foremost.

The best part of the book for me was the totally withering contempt the author has for David Cameron as a deeply ineffectual PM. Just shows you can have the oddest things in common with people.

[Paul Conder · Rating 3 out of 5]

One of the key premises of this book is that we are repeating the 1930s appeasement of Hitler and depression era run down of military equipment without regard to an aggressive Putin led Russia.

History repeats for those that don't learn the lesson.

But this book it's self is an example of history repeating - and is not as well written as Gen Sir John Hacketts 1979 The Third World War (and its follow up The Untold Story).

The book has a fatalism that overpowers the 'important warning' (according to blurbs).

Worth a read, but get it from a library because you won't bother to read it again.

[Paul · Rating 2 out of 5]

Gratuitously making fun of well known figures and constantly moralising how we need to spend more money on the military. Not sure how to rate this as a book of fiction meant as didactic device aimed at the politicians. As a novel it's awful and I wish the narrator just stayed in the war room and at high altitude over the battlefield instead of introducing individual characters. It's an interesting scenario and doesn't really need the bond novel treatment (although Putin makes a better villain than many seen in fiction).

[Vasil Kolev · Rating 1 out of 5]

Extremely fucking horrible. The author has no idea how to write, everything is cookie-cutter, from the generals to everyone else, bland, overly-verbose with crappy filler. I understand the author is pissed nobody has listened to him about what he thinks is a great threat, but the book seems a pretty good explanation why.

[В'ячеслав Омельченко · Rating 4 out of 5]

Альтернативно-історичні "Втрачені перемоги" від заступника командувача ОЗС НАТО в Європі, британського генерала сера Річарда Ширреффа. Він застав лише початок нашої кризи (березень), потім пішов у відставку, але, гадаю, дещо з "кухні" уявляв більше за авторів штибу Кленсі. Звісно це не "захопливий трилер", російські персонажі переважно "токени" а-ля голова ФСБ Лаврентій Павлович Меркулов. Це така собі балтійська війна (почалося в Україні, за пару-трійку днів пробили коридор в Крим, з допомоги від НАТО авіапатрулі та інструктори) де перша частина книги це привід до критики знайомого Ширреффу стану справ в НАТО який тягне за собою фактичну небоєздатність Альянсу (під питанням навіть стаття 5 про взаємну оборону), а друга - сякий такий спосіб вийти з неї майже переможно (доволі ходульний, де захоплений Калінінград і ОМП обмінюють на Бплтію, а Путіну влаштовують авіакатастрофу). Оскільки основна мішень критики НАТО то росіяни виглядають переконливою загрозою, можливо переконливішою ніж на ділі. Загалом в книзі є цікаві моменти, але читання своєрідне.

[Serhii Pliaka · Rating 3 out of 5]

Задум автора можна було б реалізувати оповіданням або максимум повістю. Як на рівень роману, то книга не дотягує. Майстерність автора лише в описі того, що він добре знає - діалоги на військову тематику. Хоча і там також є повторення одного і того ж у різних розділах. Ставлю 3 зірочки.

[Ian · Rating 3 out of 5]

A bit too technical and peppered with lots of military terms and abbreviations that don't really add that much to the narrative. The characters aren't particularly strong but this novel doesn't really operate at the level of the individual - it's more about high-level military strategy and Government policies.

I understand that it was written after the retirement of the author from senior-level Army and NATO service and is an attempt, through the medium of fiction, to alert western governments to the dangers posed by Russia to the rest of the world - something he was frustratingly unable to achieve whilst he was in post.

It's so sad that his 2017 prediction of the Russian incision into Ukraine has come to pass - let's hope that his fictional account of the assault into the Balkan States remains just fictional.

[Stephen Boiko · Rating 5 out of 5]

War with Russia lays out a plausible and startling case of the potential peril ahead. NATO is no more or less than the nations which make up the alliance.

[Artem]

It didn't go like in the book.

[Chris James · Rating 3 out of 5]

Thrilling idea ruined by poor editing and editorial choices

The Russian president decides to take advantage of perceived NATO weakness and reclaim the Baltic States by force, this summer, for our entertainment. But what should have been a terrific and terrifying military story rarely finds its feet and seldom comes alive. In the few places where the action, characterisation and the author’s clearly in-depth knowledge of all things military do come together, the impetus is soon lost in endless meetings and descriptions of plans just before the characters carry those plans out.
Most of the time, I felt as though I was reading a first or second draft manuscript. There were some structural problems, e.g. a British RN character gets a lot of page time and is built up well, but then the subsequent naval battle involving that character is told entirely from the Russian point of view. In addition, there were story-time gaps of several weeks where we are left to suppose that not much was going on, and the “end” of the conflict was given obliquely and in a wholly unsatisfactory manner.
Apart from these story problems, typographical errors abounded. To give a few examples: page 73, line 13, “of” should be “out”; page 102, in line 5 we have “non citizens” while in line 9 this becomes “non-citizens”; on page 122 we have “Article 5” which on the next page becomes “Article Five”; on page 203, line 11, “days” is missing an apostrophe; and on page 420 our heroes walk into a field of barley which, after a fire-fight, by page 424 has become a field of corn. Additionally, in many places the same words (e.g. “began”, “ensure”) were used in consecutive sentences, which is indicative of lazy or no editing. I mention these things because they did take me out of the story and, once again, give the lie to the claim that traditional publishing houses are somehow “gatekeepers of quality” in popular fiction. If an independent author published a book with these mistakes, he or she would get flayed alive. It should be no different for companies like Hodder & Stoughton when they put out sub-standard products such as this novel – and invariably charge more money than independent authors.
In addition, a few aspects of the story came across as a cop-out. This war is scheduled to begin this May, so when the author was writing it, the outcome of last year’s US Presidential election was not known. Instead of calling it for either Clinton or the feeble-minded simpleton who did win, we get a fictitious president with the improbable name of Lynne Turner Dillon. Similarly, instead of either sticking with Cameron or naming his successor, the author also decides on a fictitious British PM, called Spencer. This did a huge disservice to the author’s efforts to create a believable scenario – which in many other places he succeeded. I would have found the story using actual public figures more enjoyable, even if they were the wrong choices (e.g. Clinton) than the awkward fudge for which the author and his editor opted.
In summary, this is a good attempt to tell a wholly believable story of Russian aggression. But the exceptional novel that this book could have been only appears here and there, and the text is seriously undermined by poor editing.

[Des Pemberton · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was Gen (Retd) Shirreff wrapping a possible scenario around a rant about UK defence spending/cuts. The UK defence intelligence community, since the early 1990s, has downplayed the threat from Russia, thinking while Trident deters the Russians, UK should only prepare itself for low-intensity conflicts. Why else would UK invest most of the Royal Navy's budget on two massive aircraft carriers that would not last very long against a sophisticated foe? Anyone mentioning a Russian threat was classified as a Cold War dinosaur; there again, anyone wanting to investigate new threats (without a committee of very clever people pontificating) also had a hard time: a week or so after 9/11 I wanted to put some of my team to investigating Afghanistan and was told that that country was of no interest to UK (I then got reprimanded for calling the bloke a stupid c***).

The scenario of what NATO would do if Russia/Soviet Union made a limited grab of a NATO member's real estate is as old as the hills: I remember in the late 1960s the question being asked whether NATO would go to World War 3 if the Soviets advanced a few kilometres into West Germany and became the new owners of the Volkswagen factory in Wolfsburg, near the Inner German Border. I can't remember what the solution was, except someone asking how much Mercedes/ Opel/ Taunus (Ford)/ Auto Union et al had to pay the Soviets to get rid of the competition.

I enjoyed the rant, er ... sorry, story. He should have made more use of footnotes, as explaining what an abbreviation or acronym meant every time, slowed an otherwise quite rapid moving story. I read George Orwell's 1984 in the 1970s, and managed to read this book a few months before May 2017, when the action starts; how this book will seem in 2018 onwards is questionable, especially as the new (actual 2017) POTUS appears to be more of a loose cannon (and entertaining) than General Shirreff's President Dillon.

[Thomas Otto · Rating 5 out of 5]

When this book appeared first in 2017 or 2018, many reviewers criticised it for bad literary style, cartoon-like characters, too much bashing of the military spending deficit of the U.K. and some other reasons.
I would like to break the ice for this book in this review.
Certainly, a retired General is not a born fiction writer, soldiers tend to communicate terse and efficient, and UK soldiers probably with a stiff upper lip. Nevertheless, I have read worse prose than Shirreffs, and let's be honest , also the grand master of techno fiction, Tom Clancy, is not a great literary author. His novels are not successes for the language, but for the action-packed content.

That left apart, I found that Shirreff has n amazing foresight. He essentially predicted what is playing out in Ukraine in these days, all he got wrong is the country. In his novel, the coastal strip of Ukraine is occupied in a matter of days, and then the attention shifts north to the Baltic States. The "president" of the Russian Federation orders to occupy these after some false flag actions. Since NATO had not reinforced them over internal debates, the occupation is a matter of days. Only then, resistance forces put up a fight which costs the Russian army forces it has to withdraw from elsewhere, and what looked like an easy "special intervention" tuns out to be a bite too big to swallow.
Some politicians are nicely portrayed: The Russian president is unmistakably V. V. Putin, and the first British PM is D. Cameron, very proud on how much money he was bale to save on the defense budget.
The book makes a good effort to describe the diplomacy torments at work in NATO, it has some nice character pictures of a few politicians and their advisors (both on the Russian and British side). The military part is a bit far-fetched, but not more than in any T.C.M.S.N. (Tom Clancy Military Superhero Novel).
I recommend this book as an essential read in these war times in Ukraine !

[Sora Fon · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read Shirreff's book when it came out, having seen the review by Shashank Joshi (FT, May 20, 2016) ("the book reserves its greatest venom not for Moscow but for 'semi-pacifist' politicians in London and Berlin who, in Shirreff's view, are moral pygmies in the face of impending doom. The characters are but flimsy vessels to drive this point home in a thousand ways.")

As others have suggested, the book was written in novel form to give freedom to imagination, to allow Shirreff to castigate the politicians who ignored his pleas to strengthen Nato, to raise defence spending to the promised 2%. That what came to pass is not far from what he predicted should allow one to forgive his mediocre draftsmanship.

Here's what Shirreff has to say in today's (15 April 2022) Times letters:

Sir,

It is clear that no ceasefire deal will end the war. After Russia's defeat in the battle of Kyiv it might be expedient for Putin to focus on Donbas but his intention of eliminating Ukraine and incorporating it into the Russian empire remains. Thereafter it will be the turn of other former Soviet republics. Before the battle in the east there is a window of opportunity, which if seized could give the Ukrainians another resounding victory. To achieve this Ukraine needs the means to target Russian armoured formations: attack aircraft, long-range precision systems (artillery and missiles), anti-aircraft missile systems, as well as the tanks and other armour for offensive land manoeuvres.

Nato should cast aside irrelevant distinctions between "offensive" and "defensive" lethal aid, recall that the best form of defence is attack and provide that support immediately. In parallel, Nato must be prepared for the worst case: war with Russia. This requires a fundamental mindset change and a commitment to credible immediate and long-term deterrence, which we have yet to see from Nato.

General Sir Richard Shirreff
Former deputy supreme allied commander Europe

[John A. Hopkins · Rating 2 out of 5]

To start off, I think the writing is not as bad as some below have suggested. There is an attempt to add a bit of depth to the main characters, the various character groups give a reasonably variety of viewpoints and the settings are reasonably well pulled together. However, this book has several problems:

1. The constant harping on about defence cuts in the UK is incredibly irritating. Practically every character introduced, from the Army Captain, the Russian president, NATO staffers, the PM, the US President etc. etc. complains about it. The author (IMO) has a point that cuts have gone too far, but the repetitive nature of the whining is a major flaw.
2. I read this on Kindle - the war 'starts' at around 95% and then the book ends. That's it. Not sure if he ran out of interest having got point 1 off his chest, or perhaps he didn't want to get into the detail of the next phase and development of the war. Having got through the politics I was disappointed how the story just stopped.
3. The President is a bit of a lazy, poor caricature of Putin as a Bond villain.
4. The descriptions of the weapons are dry and too long. In addition, it seems the author was desperate to not risk confusing lay-readers so there are a lot of acronyms used, then spelt out immediately afterwards which jars sometimes.
5. Whilst the author obviously knows more about the military than I ever will, I found one plot point too ridiculous to accept - the new aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth is sent to a warzone without its aircraft. I understand artistic license but that for me went too far – I do not believe a £3 billion ship would be put in harm’s way without adequate defence.

[Jeff Jones · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although this book has an overall 3.5 star rating, there are a lot of pretty damning 1 star reviews, which if read in isolation would stop any sane person parting with their money. Luckily there are also some very positive reviews meaning this is very much a Marmite book - you either love it or hate it. Got to say that having read it in 4 days flat, I absolutely loved it, which is perhaps a strange thing to say given the subject matter.

Yes, there are a lot of valid points in some of the negative reviews, not least the ones about underdeveloped characters and the fact that an endless tide of defence cuts have left the UK Armed Services too weak to play a leading role in Nato, something the author repeats on a number of occasions. As a former senior military officer it is obviously and understandably a subject close to his heart. It is also as the book's tag line suggests - an urgent warning given the dangerous world we now live in.

His extensive knowledge and experience give the book a healthy dose of authenticity and I found it both a fascinating and worrying read.

For me, the only reason I didn't give it a 5 star rating notwithstanding the comments above, is because I felt the ending was somewhat rushed and unsatisfying.

That said I thoroughly enjoyed it and would heartily recommend it to fans of Hackett's The Third World War published in the 1980's I believe.

[WIlliam Gerrard]

When I first purchased this book I thought it would be a work of non-fiction, but instead I discovered it was actually fiction. The author, a former Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe, was, in his employment, well-used to war-gaming scenarios with, in particular, Russia. This book, aimed at the general public, introduces many real aspects of NATO and is about a potential imminent future conflict with Russia. The thrills of the well-built characters as they journey through a potential MAD (Mutually-Assured destruction) Nuclear scenario, set in the Baltics, makes the novel a real fast page-turner. I was surprised by the often negative light the author holds NATO in, with its often complicated command structure and this book must have been written with real-life experience. It makes me wonder about shedding defence force budgets and what problems we actually would face were a potential conflict with Russia in Europe actually break out (which of course if you include Ukraine it actually has). In light of the potential Brexit vote in the UK, I think that this book shows the potential value of unity and the necessity of an international alliance in defeating dangerous foes. An excellent read.

[Joseph · Rating 3 out of 5]

A decent read. I had read General Sir John Hackett's books "The Third World War: August 1985" and "The Third World War: The Untold Story" back in the 1980s. Dry, but very good books on what could possibly happen if the Cold War got hot and the Soviets rolled through Germany.
So, of course, I decided to read General Sir Richard Shirreff's book, "War With Russia". He was Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe. Instead of the Soviets/Warsaw Pact forces invading Western Europe, this book used the actual Russian invasion & occupation of Ukraine's Crimea as the back story. The Russian's seeing The U.S. and NATO's weakness in aiding Ukraine decided to break NATO by destabilizing and invading the former Soviet Republics (now NATO members) in the Baltics.
I liked the in-depth discussion of the current military and political situation in Europe and the very real possibility of Russia pushing further west by political and military force. Some of the story telling was lacking, but that is not why I read the book. If you are interested in the current situation in Europe, especially the implications of the Russian annexation of Crimea, then I recommend this book.