What do you think?
Rate this book
Ukraine in the Crossfire
Ukraine is embroiled in a bloody civil war. Both sides stand accused of collaborating with
fascists, of committing war crimes, of serving foreign interests. This proxy-war between
Russia and the West was accompanied by a fierce information war. This book separates fact
from fiction with extensive and reliable documentation. While remaining critical of Russia and
the Donbass rebellion, De Ploeg demonstrates that many of the recent disasters can be
traced to Ukrainian ultranationalists, pro-western political elites and their European and
North-American backers.
Ukraine in the Crossfire tackles the importance of ultranationalist violence during and after
the EuroMaidan movement, and documents how many of these groups are heirs to former
nazi-collaborators. It shows how the Ukrainian state has seized on the ultranationalist
war-rhetoric to serve its own agenda, clamping down on civil liberties on a scale
unprecedented since Ukrainian independence. De Ploeg argues that Kiev itself has been the
biggest obstacle to peace in Donbass, with multiple leaks suggesting that US officials are
pushing for a pro-war line in Ukraine. With the nation´s eyes turned towards Russia, the EU
and IMF have successfully pressured Ukraine into adopting far-reaching austerity programs,
while oligarchic looting of state assets and massive tax-avoidance facilitated by western
states continue unabated.
De Ploeg documents the local roots of the Donbass rebellion, the overwhelming popularity of
Crimea's secession, and shows that support for Ukraine's pro-western turn remains far from
unanimous, with large swathes of Ukraine's Russophone population opting out of the political
process. Nevertheless, De Ploeg argues, the pro-Western and pro-Russian camps are often
neoliberal, authoritarian, nationalist and heavily dependent on foreign support.
In a wider exploration of Russo-Western relations, he examines similarities between the
contemporary Russian state and its NATO counterparts, showing how the two power blocs
have collaborated in some of their worst violent excesses. A far cry from civilizational or
ideological clashes, De Ploeg argues that the current tensions flow from NATO´s military
dominance and aggressive posture, both globally and within eastern Europe, where Russia
seeks to preserve the status-quo.
Packed with shocking facts, deftly moving from the local to the international, from the
historical to the recent; De Ploeg connects the dots.
fascists, of committing war crimes, of serving foreign interests. This proxy-war between
Russia and the West was accompanied by a fierce information war. This book separates fact
from fiction with extensive and reliable documentation. While remaining critical of Russia and
the Donbass rebellion, De Ploeg demonstrates that many of the recent disasters can be
traced to Ukrainian ultranationalists, pro-western political elites and their European and
North-American backers.
Ukraine in the Crossfire tackles the importance of ultranationalist violence during and after
the EuroMaidan movement, and documents how many of these groups are heirs to former
nazi-collaborators. It shows how the Ukrainian state has seized on the ultranationalist
war-rhetoric to serve its own agenda, clamping down on civil liberties on a scale
unprecedented since Ukrainian independence. De Ploeg argues that Kiev itself has been the
biggest obstacle to peace in Donbass, with multiple leaks suggesting that US officials are
pushing for a pro-war line in Ukraine. With the nation´s eyes turned towards Russia, the EU
and IMF have successfully pressured Ukraine into adopting far-reaching austerity programs,
while oligarchic looting of state assets and massive tax-avoidance facilitated by western
states continue unabated.
De Ploeg documents the local roots of the Donbass rebellion, the overwhelming popularity of
Crimea's secession, and shows that support for Ukraine's pro-western turn remains far from
unanimous, with large swathes of Ukraine's Russophone population opting out of the political
process. Nevertheless, De Ploeg argues, the pro-Western and pro-Russian camps are often
neoliberal, authoritarian, nationalist and heavily dependent on foreign support.
In a wider exploration of Russo-Western relations, he examines similarities between the
contemporary Russian state and its NATO counterparts, showing how the two power blocs
have collaborated in some of their worst violent excesses. A far cry from civilizational or
ideological clashes, De Ploeg argues that the current tensions flow from NATO´s military
dominance and aggressive posture, both globally and within eastern Europe, where Russia
seeks to preserve the status-quo.
Packed with shocking facts, deftly moving from the local to the international, from the
historical to the recent; De Ploeg connects the dots.
355 pages, Kindle Edition
First published March 1, 2016
6 people are currently reading
233 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
April 27, 2022
A 2013 “Gallup poll found that nearly twice as many Ukrainians considered NATO a threat rather than offering protection.” “One third of Ukrainians described the culmination of Maidan (2014) as a ‘coup d’etat’.”
One of Ukraine President Yanukovich’s fatal mistakes was passing anti-protest laws (because of thrown bricks and Molotov cocktails by protestors) which were quickly dubbed “the dictator laws”. Two weeks later he repealed those laws but the damage was done, “the Maidan movement had already taken on a quasi-military form” with 42 squadrons. All 234 protestors were released and given amnesty. Then comes the massacre of the “heavenly hundred” protestors for which Yanukovych is blamed and removed from power in the coup of 2014.
University of Toronto however studied that massacre closely and concluded: “This mass killing was a false flag operation, which was organized and conducted by elements of the Maidan leadership and concealed armed groups in order to win the asymmetric conflict during the ‘Euromaidan’ and seize power in Ukraine.” Oops, definitely not what (not-a-historian) Anne Appelbaum wants you to know. Also, two Maidan protestors confessed to having shot policemen during the massacre. The UN tried to investigate and found much of the evidence destroyed. An Estonian foreign minister said, “there’s a stronger and stronger understanding that behind snipers it was not Yanukovych, it was somebody from the new coalition.” Note that if you choose to ignore this evidence of a coup, then know that impeachment of Yanukovych was still a direct violation of the constitution which demanded a ¾ majority vote and review by Ukraine’s constitutional court. The US media tells us Lenin’s statues were toppled over in Ukraine in 2014, but not that many were covered in Nazi symbols.
After 1991, Ukraine’s independence revealed a great cost as Ukraine’s economy shrank 60%; in contrast, during the US Great Depression the US economy only shrunk 30%. Yanukovych wins “free and fair elections in 2010.” He replaced the disliked pro-western Yushchenko (who 4.7% of Ukrainians trusted) as President. George “Soros’s International Renaissance Foundation (IRF) invested nearly $110 million in Ukraine between 2004 and 2014.” It was found that Russia was spending a million dollars on internet trolls but then others discovered that the US does the same thing with Operation Earnest Voice, only its budget was $200 million dollars. A National Endowment for Democracy founder said, “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.” “Soros publicly offered to invest $1 billion in Ukraine himself, in order to persuade Western governments to increase their backing of the post-Maidan regime.”
“Not only did Western states fund the Maidan uprising, many officials also participated in the rallies at Maidan.” Victoria Nuland, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State was there at the Maidan not only encouraging the movement against the democratically elected President publicly, but actually handing out cookies. I envision written in the icing, “Coups are Cool”, “We’ve Got Your Back: at Least our Snipers do” and the crowd favorite: “Russia Lied to You, the Nazis lied to You, Now it’s the USA’s Turn”. Reagan told Ukrainian Stetko (who had personally overseen the slaughter of 7,000 Jews in Lviv): “Your struggle is our struggle, your dream is our dream.” No anti-Semitic backlash for that seemingly anti-Semitic comment but funny how if Reagan had just added the words, “Free Palestine”, there sure would have been. The CEO of Stratfor (the top US private intelligence corporation) said provocatively that Maidan, “truly was the most blatant coup in history.”
Ukraine is one of the poorer countries of the world. 65% of Crimean citizens are ethnic Russian. History clearly shows that the “accession of Crimea into the Ukrainian state itself had been quite arbitrary.” Crimea had been part of Russia for 170 years and part of Ukraine for more like 170 months, so Russia’s interest the Crimea was not hard to understand. “The vast number of Crimeans had already indicated a desire to join Russia.” “One year after Crimea was reunified with Russia, 85% of Crimeans indicated that the peninsula was headed in the right direction compared to 22% when Crimea was part of Ukraine in 2013”. A Washington Post Donbass poll showed 65.6% majority in favor of independence. Ukrainians have referred to citizens of the Donbass as filth, pests and the plague. The London Review of Books wrote that even moderate liberals couldn’t wait to get rid of the Donbass residents and the author often heard from liberals (not nationalists), “All the bad people in one place why not kill them all?” Nazi occupation taught Ukrainians that leadership need not be the only evil as long as you have “a mood of passive compliance, apathy, (and) the willingness to look the other way.”
US liberals on Facebook love to pretend Ukraine is a democracy, yet Ukraine passed legislation in 2016 after the coup, banning officials from criticizing the government (google Reuters 3/1/16 article from Kiev by Alexandra Prentice, "Ukraine bans officials from criticizing government"). A formerly pro-Maidan journalist who dared call for Ukrainians to resist the draft was arrested and jailed for treason. Here’s the commander of the Ukrainian Azov battalion talking, “The historic mission of our nation in this critical moment is to lead the White Races of the world in a final crusade for their survival.” “In May 2016, half of Ukrainians still wanted friendly relations with Russia, including open borders.” There’s more: “By December 2016, a UN-sponsored survey found that since the Maidan, only four percent of Ukrainians saw improvement in the human rights situation.” The US led coup simply was a failure for the Ukrainian people.
A former member of the Right Sector wrote that there is “genuine fear of speaking out against the rise of neo-Nazis, government repression and the war in the Donbass.” None of this stuff is talked about in the Western media – why? US liberals who see only Putin as the devil will never tell you that in 1979, of 35 countries that routinely used torture, “26 were clients of the United States.” Or in 2016, the report “The Future of the Army” stated we should prepare to lose hundreds of thousands of troops with Russia listed as the potential enemy. Since reading Durrenmatt’s 1953 play “An Angel Comes to Babylon” in college, I’ve always wondered if Jesus came back, who would kill him first. I’ve always assumed it would be the Church (which due to Jesus’s return suddenly lost its authority) or some Mark David Chapman narcissist-sociopath looking for cheap fame, but now I can see the US military or the CIA taking him out because their motto for decades seems to have been, “Never tolerate the threat of a good example.” The US withdraws from the ABM treaty and develops low-yield nuclear weapons which Putin says is “destroying the system of international security.” To the US, compromise is the US doing what it wants and the other side accepting it. The US is allowed to have security but not Russia?
Let’s look at the public morals in the United States. The Gallup poll found that half of US are fine with war crimes committed against citizens of our sovereign nations. Wait, it gets more pathetic than that: “30 percent of Republican voters and 19 percent of Democratic voters supported bombing Agrabah, a fictional country in the Disney movie Aladdin.” What’s next in the US? Bombing the Shire or Hogwarts? Those of us who still read, know that a 2013 Gallup poll of the world found that the greatest threat to world peace was not Russia, but the US, which has tried to overthrow more than 50 governments since WWII (most democratically elected). Under Putin public debt went from 89% to 12% of GDP. This is partly why an authoritarian leader like Putin still gets a 83% approval rating (higher than Trump or Biden). US favorite Yeltsin shrank the economy 26% (the US Great Depression shrunk 30%). In the post-WWII global south, western powers accounted for 79% of all military interventions versus 6% for “communist” interventions. That renders comedic the Cold War Myth #1: communists are first hell bent on world domination.
Peter Baker wrote in the New York Times, “Obama is focused on isolating Putin’s Russia by cutting off its political ties to the outside world, and effectively making it a pariah state.” According to qualifications of the Bible, the US would make a prime example of a bad Samaritan.
No US liberal will mention that in 2014, Ukraine’s President asked Putin for Russian military intervention (to restore order) and Putin did NOT do it. Only the Crimea was annexed. If Putin was pure evil, and a war monger, why not invade the Ukraine after officially being asked by its de jure President? Such questions liberals won’t ask but progressives know they must. US liberals presently salivating for sanctions on Russia today also won’t mention that the top expert on sanctions, Robert A. Pape found that sanctions are “more likely to enhance the nationalist legitimacy of rulers than undermine it.” He found out of 115 historical sanctions, only 4% were successful. Newsflash: sanctions historically turn the people against the imposers of the sanctions. No US liberal will also tell you of the leaked phone call between Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador where together they pick the interim government of the Ukraine – faux democracy in action. If only more US citizens knew that Gorbachev said to Baker, “You say NATO is not directed at us, therefore we propose to join NATO.” Baker was aghast refusing by saying cryptically “Pan-European security is a dream.” WTF does that even mean? It seems NATO solely exists to unfairly keep exactly one sovereign nation from ever being a success.
Finally, this book takes on Atlantic Magazine’s paid alarmist, Anne Applebaum, the faux-historian adored by US liberals and conservatives alike for her endless foaming rants on Russia. Her husband is Radoslaw Sikorski of the Eastern Partnership Initiative, whose job is to suck monies from the former Soviet satellites into European hands as to deprive only Russia. De Ploeg on page 308 takes apart Applebaum’s false arguments and “complete” distortions which pass at Atlantic Magazine as gospel. Anne Applebaum is also on the Board of Directors of the US-funded National Endowment for Democracy which (as whose founder earlier in this review said) does the moral shady work the CIA used to do behind closed doors. Her job is to brainwash fellow humans by intentionally hiding the full story, and she and her hubby are paid well to knowingly send truth seekers down the wrong path.
Did the US led coup of 2014 make Ukraine better for Ukrainians? “A March 2017 Gallup poll found that nearly half of Ukrainians (46%) experienced times in the past year ‘when they did not have enough money for food for themselves of their families – the highest figure Gallup had ever recorded for the Ukraine’.” 42% of Ukrainians said they were suffering. This 2017 book ends with the author forecasting, “the most optimistic short-term scenario for Ukraine to be stable nationalist and authoritarian rule.” Funny how the vast majority of Facebook posts today instead suggests that Ukraine is a fountain of democracy and not at all authoritarian. This book was wonderful to read; it’s hard to navigate corporate media propaganda while instead looking, like Jack Webb, for “Just the facts, Ma’am.”
This book is the best antidote I’ve read so far to endless one-sided Ukrainian flag waving today by those US liberals who strangely don't also dream of waving a Palestinian or Yemeni flag for exactly the same reason. War crimes are war crimes, no matter who (Putin, Saudi Arabia, Israel or the US) is doing them. Excellent important book, which I’d highly recommend to any hardcore truth seeker and I still have two more Ukraine books to review.
One of Ukraine President Yanukovich’s fatal mistakes was passing anti-protest laws (because of thrown bricks and Molotov cocktails by protestors) which were quickly dubbed “the dictator laws”. Two weeks later he repealed those laws but the damage was done, “the Maidan movement had already taken on a quasi-military form” with 42 squadrons. All 234 protestors were released and given amnesty. Then comes the massacre of the “heavenly hundred” protestors for which Yanukovych is blamed and removed from power in the coup of 2014.
University of Toronto however studied that massacre closely and concluded: “This mass killing was a false flag operation, which was organized and conducted by elements of the Maidan leadership and concealed armed groups in order to win the asymmetric conflict during the ‘Euromaidan’ and seize power in Ukraine.” Oops, definitely not what (not-a-historian) Anne Appelbaum wants you to know. Also, two Maidan protestors confessed to having shot policemen during the massacre. The UN tried to investigate and found much of the evidence destroyed. An Estonian foreign minister said, “there’s a stronger and stronger understanding that behind snipers it was not Yanukovych, it was somebody from the new coalition.” Note that if you choose to ignore this evidence of a coup, then know that impeachment of Yanukovych was still a direct violation of the constitution which demanded a ¾ majority vote and review by Ukraine’s constitutional court. The US media tells us Lenin’s statues were toppled over in Ukraine in 2014, but not that many were covered in Nazi symbols.
After 1991, Ukraine’s independence revealed a great cost as Ukraine’s economy shrank 60%; in contrast, during the US Great Depression the US economy only shrunk 30%. Yanukovych wins “free and fair elections in 2010.” He replaced the disliked pro-western Yushchenko (who 4.7% of Ukrainians trusted) as President. George “Soros’s International Renaissance Foundation (IRF) invested nearly $110 million in Ukraine between 2004 and 2014.” It was found that Russia was spending a million dollars on internet trolls but then others discovered that the US does the same thing with Operation Earnest Voice, only its budget was $200 million dollars. A National Endowment for Democracy founder said, “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.” “Soros publicly offered to invest $1 billion in Ukraine himself, in order to persuade Western governments to increase their backing of the post-Maidan regime.”
“Not only did Western states fund the Maidan uprising, many officials also participated in the rallies at Maidan.” Victoria Nuland, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State was there at the Maidan not only encouraging the movement against the democratically elected President publicly, but actually handing out cookies. I envision written in the icing, “Coups are Cool”, “We’ve Got Your Back: at Least our Snipers do” and the crowd favorite: “Russia Lied to You, the Nazis lied to You, Now it’s the USA’s Turn”. Reagan told Ukrainian Stetko (who had personally overseen the slaughter of 7,000 Jews in Lviv): “Your struggle is our struggle, your dream is our dream.” No anti-Semitic backlash for that seemingly anti-Semitic comment but funny how if Reagan had just added the words, “Free Palestine”, there sure would have been. The CEO of Stratfor (the top US private intelligence corporation) said provocatively that Maidan, “truly was the most blatant coup in history.”
Ukraine is one of the poorer countries of the world. 65% of Crimean citizens are ethnic Russian. History clearly shows that the “accession of Crimea into the Ukrainian state itself had been quite arbitrary.” Crimea had been part of Russia for 170 years and part of Ukraine for more like 170 months, so Russia’s interest the Crimea was not hard to understand. “The vast number of Crimeans had already indicated a desire to join Russia.” “One year after Crimea was reunified with Russia, 85% of Crimeans indicated that the peninsula was headed in the right direction compared to 22% when Crimea was part of Ukraine in 2013”. A Washington Post Donbass poll showed 65.6% majority in favor of independence. Ukrainians have referred to citizens of the Donbass as filth, pests and the plague. The London Review of Books wrote that even moderate liberals couldn’t wait to get rid of the Donbass residents and the author often heard from liberals (not nationalists), “All the bad people in one place why not kill them all?” Nazi occupation taught Ukrainians that leadership need not be the only evil as long as you have “a mood of passive compliance, apathy, (and) the willingness to look the other way.”
US liberals on Facebook love to pretend Ukraine is a democracy, yet Ukraine passed legislation in 2016 after the coup, banning officials from criticizing the government (google Reuters 3/1/16 article from Kiev by Alexandra Prentice, "Ukraine bans officials from criticizing government"). A formerly pro-Maidan journalist who dared call for Ukrainians to resist the draft was arrested and jailed for treason. Here’s the commander of the Ukrainian Azov battalion talking, “The historic mission of our nation in this critical moment is to lead the White Races of the world in a final crusade for their survival.” “In May 2016, half of Ukrainians still wanted friendly relations with Russia, including open borders.” There’s more: “By December 2016, a UN-sponsored survey found that since the Maidan, only four percent of Ukrainians saw improvement in the human rights situation.” The US led coup simply was a failure for the Ukrainian people.
A former member of the Right Sector wrote that there is “genuine fear of speaking out against the rise of neo-Nazis, government repression and the war in the Donbass.” None of this stuff is talked about in the Western media – why? US liberals who see only Putin as the devil will never tell you that in 1979, of 35 countries that routinely used torture, “26 were clients of the United States.” Or in 2016, the report “The Future of the Army” stated we should prepare to lose hundreds of thousands of troops with Russia listed as the potential enemy. Since reading Durrenmatt’s 1953 play “An Angel Comes to Babylon” in college, I’ve always wondered if Jesus came back, who would kill him first. I’ve always assumed it would be the Church (which due to Jesus’s return suddenly lost its authority) or some Mark David Chapman narcissist-sociopath looking for cheap fame, but now I can see the US military or the CIA taking him out because their motto for decades seems to have been, “Never tolerate the threat of a good example.” The US withdraws from the ABM treaty and develops low-yield nuclear weapons which Putin says is “destroying the system of international security.” To the US, compromise is the US doing what it wants and the other side accepting it. The US is allowed to have security but not Russia?
Let’s look at the public morals in the United States. The Gallup poll found that half of US are fine with war crimes committed against citizens of our sovereign nations. Wait, it gets more pathetic than that: “30 percent of Republican voters and 19 percent of Democratic voters supported bombing Agrabah, a fictional country in the Disney movie Aladdin.” What’s next in the US? Bombing the Shire or Hogwarts? Those of us who still read, know that a 2013 Gallup poll of the world found that the greatest threat to world peace was not Russia, but the US, which has tried to overthrow more than 50 governments since WWII (most democratically elected). Under Putin public debt went from 89% to 12% of GDP. This is partly why an authoritarian leader like Putin still gets a 83% approval rating (higher than Trump or Biden). US favorite Yeltsin shrank the economy 26% (the US Great Depression shrunk 30%). In the post-WWII global south, western powers accounted for 79% of all military interventions versus 6% for “communist” interventions. That renders comedic the Cold War Myth #1: communists are first hell bent on world domination.
Peter Baker wrote in the New York Times, “Obama is focused on isolating Putin’s Russia by cutting off its political ties to the outside world, and effectively making it a pariah state.” According to qualifications of the Bible, the US would make a prime example of a bad Samaritan.
No US liberal will mention that in 2014, Ukraine’s President asked Putin for Russian military intervention (to restore order) and Putin did NOT do it. Only the Crimea was annexed. If Putin was pure evil, and a war monger, why not invade the Ukraine after officially being asked by its de jure President? Such questions liberals won’t ask but progressives know they must. US liberals presently salivating for sanctions on Russia today also won’t mention that the top expert on sanctions, Robert A. Pape found that sanctions are “more likely to enhance the nationalist legitimacy of rulers than undermine it.” He found out of 115 historical sanctions, only 4% were successful. Newsflash: sanctions historically turn the people against the imposers of the sanctions. No US liberal will also tell you of the leaked phone call between Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador where together they pick the interim government of the Ukraine – faux democracy in action. If only more US citizens knew that Gorbachev said to Baker, “You say NATO is not directed at us, therefore we propose to join NATO.” Baker was aghast refusing by saying cryptically “Pan-European security is a dream.” WTF does that even mean? It seems NATO solely exists to unfairly keep exactly one sovereign nation from ever being a success.
Finally, this book takes on Atlantic Magazine’s paid alarmist, Anne Applebaum, the faux-historian adored by US liberals and conservatives alike for her endless foaming rants on Russia. Her husband is Radoslaw Sikorski of the Eastern Partnership Initiative, whose job is to suck monies from the former Soviet satellites into European hands as to deprive only Russia. De Ploeg on page 308 takes apart Applebaum’s false arguments and “complete” distortions which pass at Atlantic Magazine as gospel. Anne Applebaum is also on the Board of Directors of the US-funded National Endowment for Democracy which (as whose founder earlier in this review said) does the moral shady work the CIA used to do behind closed doors. Her job is to brainwash fellow humans by intentionally hiding the full story, and she and her hubby are paid well to knowingly send truth seekers down the wrong path.
Did the US led coup of 2014 make Ukraine better for Ukrainians? “A March 2017 Gallup poll found that nearly half of Ukrainians (46%) experienced times in the past year ‘when they did not have enough money for food for themselves of their families – the highest figure Gallup had ever recorded for the Ukraine’.” 42% of Ukrainians said they were suffering. This 2017 book ends with the author forecasting, “the most optimistic short-term scenario for Ukraine to be stable nationalist and authoritarian rule.” Funny how the vast majority of Facebook posts today instead suggests that Ukraine is a fountain of democracy and not at all authoritarian. This book was wonderful to read; it’s hard to navigate corporate media propaganda while instead looking, like Jack Webb, for “Just the facts, Ma’am.”
This book is the best antidote I’ve read so far to endless one-sided Ukrainian flag waving today by those US liberals who strangely don't also dream of waving a Palestinian or Yemeni flag for exactly the same reason. War crimes are war crimes, no matter who (Putin, Saudi Arabia, Israel or the US) is doing them. Excellent important book, which I’d highly recommend to any hardcore truth seeker and I still have two more Ukraine books to review.
April 28, 2022
A few years old, but nonetheless pretty indispensable for understanding the crisis in Ukraine. Balanced, well-researched and persuasive. Could've done with another round or two of editing.
March 24, 2022
Wasn't a big fan of the first few chapters, which seemed a bit like a haphazard collection of facts. Shortly after that though, the writer seems to have gotten into the topic and gave a very extensive, well-researched summary of the Ukraine conflict and, quite importantly, the US, EU and Russian role in it.
May 16, 2022
An extensively researched, worth-reading book to understand current crisis in Ukraine. A bonus point for the author's neutral stance for approaching the situations from different angles, providing readers objective view without bias.
July 30, 2023
I can't even talk about Ukraine with anyone because the propaganda surrounding it has been so heavy and effective, so it was great to read a carefully researched, well-cited book that lays out the facts: Ukraine's US-backed government is infiltrated with ultra-nationalists and neo-Nazis and they are supported by the center-right which holds power. The center-right that holds power has passed many actually far-right laws like outlawing far-left parties, destroying labor laws, banning speach criticizing the war, de-listing Russian as an official language, and they openly dehumanize Eastern Ukrainians by calling them bugs. Maidan was coup from the far-right that killed protestors in false flag operations. There was genocide happening by the Ukrainian military in the east before Russia invaded, etc. The US supported all these things and continues to do so, and the war-hungry Ukrainian regime could not exist without US support.
I recommend this book to anyone who feels like they are taking crazy pills when everyone and their brother is parroting Russophobic, Western media talking points to them any time Ukraine is brought up. It's hard to recommend to anyone else, though, because as another reviewer mentioned, it could have used another round or two of editing to tighten the structure and find some of those numerous typos. Unfortunately, I feel like anyone who is skeptical of the facts in this book might use those to dismiss the content.
Despite those weaknesses, I'd love to read another book from the author covering the same topic from 2017 through today. It is a truly valuable analysis of the Ukrainian conflict from a left perspective, all collected in one place for you with a great bibliography.
I recommend this book to anyone who feels like they are taking crazy pills when everyone and their brother is parroting Russophobic, Western media talking points to them any time Ukraine is brought up. It's hard to recommend to anyone else, though, because as another reviewer mentioned, it could have used another round or two of editing to tighten the structure and find some of those numerous typos. Unfortunately, I feel like anyone who is skeptical of the facts in this book might use those to dismiss the content.
Despite those weaknesses, I'd love to read another book from the author covering the same topic from 2017 through today. It is a truly valuable analysis of the Ukrainian conflict from a left perspective, all collected in one place for you with a great bibliography.
September 14, 2023
A detailed account of the crisis in Ukraine with meticulous citations. The author provides relevant context right from the second World War. Not only does the book go into the politics of it all but also explores the economic interests of the US, Western Europe and Russia. The reader also gets a brief overview of the US geopolitics in relation to Europe since the Cold-War.
A must-read for anyone looking for nuance and a detailed framework to view the war.
A must-read for anyone looking for nuance and a detailed framework to view the war.
April 24, 2021
A good insight to this conflict.
February 24, 2024
(The English review is placed beneath the Russian one)
Тщетно ищет ум
Как найти ответ,
Слыша белый шум,
Видя жёлтый цвет,
Но из мрачных дум
Выведет на свет
И воздаст по делам:
Тем, кто встал за царя –
Красоту и фавор,
Тем, кто против и зря –
Клевету и позор.
Всем воздаст по делам
Жёлто-белая мгла.
Эту книгу я могу посоветовать только одной группе людей – тем, кто занимается разоблачением российской пропаганды. Да, перед нами ещё один хорошо замаскированный путинский нарратив российско-украинского конфликта.
Касаемо книги нужно отметить, что книга довольно убедительно написана. В книге постоянно встречаются ссылки то на какой-либо отчет, то на книгу, то на статью в иностранной газете или журнале. Поэтому с этой точки зрения автор сработал мастерски. Но почему это именно пропаганда? Потому что в книге в негативном свете выставляется только одна Украина, а про Россию и её действия автор не говорит ни слово. Для тех читателей кто прочитал на тему нынешнего украино-российского конфликта лишь пару книг, такая книга покажется убедительной. Но я прочитал десятки книг и поэтому я могу уловить не всегда очевидный тон всей книги, который ясно показывает, что целью автора является не поиск истины, а убеждение читателя. Вот в этой книге автор не только всю вину возлагает на Украину и Западные страны, но делает это в очень агрессивной форме. Я хочу сказать, что сам стиль книги очень агрессивный. Автор книги выступает не в качестве исследователя, а в качестве прокурора, обвиняя Украину и её союзников во всем, в чём только можно. Именно поэтому и возникает ощущение, что автор занимается пропагандой, а не демонстрацией обнаруженных им фактов.
Обычно в книгах на эту тему авторы предлагают два взгляда. К примеру, авторы пишут, что на востоке Украины действительно были недовольны событиями на Майдане, что там были сильны идеи большей интеграцией с Россией, а не с ЕС, однако люди там не желали воссоединения с Россией (т.е. хотели жить в Украине, а не в России и себя считают украинцами, а не россиянами) также как отрицательно относятся к любому внешнему вмешательству со стороны России, включая военное вмешательство. Т.е. даётся разная информация, демонстрирующая разные точки зрения на этот военный конфликт. В этой книге ничего подобного нет. Автор прямо обвиняет Украину в пролитии крови на востоке страны, умалчивая о действиях России. Если послушать что говорят оппозиционно настроенные к Зеленскому и Порошенко люди, которых преследуют в сегодняшней Украине, вы не найдёте в их речах оправданий действиям России. Эти люди также возлагают на Россию часть вины. Автор этой книги никакую вину на Россию не возлагает. Что это означает? Можно предположить, что, по мнению автора, Россия действует правильно или что она в своём праве.
It would certainly not be the first time since WW2 that Europe and the United States sided with fascism. The US State Department had always seen fascism as compatible with US economic interests.
Уже по одной этой фразе видно, каких именно мнений придерживается автор. Я слышал много обвинений в адрес США и ЕС, но никто не доходил до таких крайностей, как автор этой книги и российские пропагандисты на ТВ. И дело здесь не только в не уважении к тем жертвам, которые понесли европейцы и американцы в борьбе с гитлеровским режимом, но это просто противоречит здравому смыслу. Автор намеренно гиперболизирует ситуацию. Ещё немного и окажется, что США вместе с гитлеровской Германией в 1940 году бомбили Лондон. Но автора это ничуть не смущает, ибо «чем чудовищнее ложь, тем охотнее в неё верят».
We can conclude that there is overwhelming evidence of systematic foreign interference in Ukraine. It is especially revealing, however, to consider these indications in their historical context. William Blum, historian and former US state department official, documented that the United States has successfully overthrown over 40 foreign governments since WW2—most of which were democratically elected.
Как видим, книга ориентирована больше на европейцев, азиатов и арабов чем на граждан США. В данном случаи автор использует антиамериканизм (который силён в Европе), чтобы показать, кто является «истинным» виновником начала военного конфликта. Те люди, кто видят во всём «агентов ЦРУ», конечно же, поверят даже в самую безумную версию. Главной целью автора является убеждение читателей в том, что якобы украинцы не хотели свергать Януковича и не стремились в ЕС и НАТО, что это США всё организовали. Особенно это становится заметно, когда автор начинает упоминать НКО, которые в России были объявлены главными агентами иностранного влияния. А разве это не так? В России не было суда, на котором бы предъявили реальные, а не вымышленные доказательства того, что НКО получали деньги на какую-то противозаконную деятельность, как например, на терроризм. В России НКО занимались защитой прав граждан, а не тренировкой революционеров. Проблема в том, что в нынешней России защита прав граждан расценивается как антигосударственная деятельность, ибо считается, что правительство России имеет право нарушать гражданские права людей проживающих в России и все кто сопротивляются этому, следовательно, подрывают государственность России, т.е. ведут войну против российского государства. Как говорится, «казнить и миловать холопов только мы можем!».
In an interview with the Financial Post in 2012 Oleh Rybachuk, former deputy prime minister for European integration under Yushchenko, stated that: “We now have 150 NGOs in all the major cities … The Orange Revolution was a miracle … We want to do that again and we think we will.’’
<…>
One of them is the New Citizen campaign which, according to the Financial Times, “played a big role in getting the protest up and running’’. Another example is the Stronger Together Campaign, which aims to “ popularize the ideas of European integration and encourage authorities to implement them effectively.’’
<…>
The Kyivpost reports that “Center UA received more than $500,000 in 2012, … 54 percent of which came from Pact Inc., a project funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development. Nearly 36 percent came from Omidyar Network, a foundation established by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar and his wife. Other donors include the International Renaissance Foundation, whose key funder is billionaire George Soros, and the National Endowment for Democracy, funded largely by the U.S. Congress.’’
Приведённые выше цитаты очень хорошо показывают, как действует пропаганда. Что особенного в приведённых мною цитатах? В чём обвиняет автор? В получении денег, так? Но разве написано что эти деньги пошли на революционную деятельность? Нет. Автор просто пишет, что были получены деньги от иностранцев, и они пошли на какую-то деятельность, связанную с укреплением европейской интеграции (popularize the ideas of European integration). Это может быть правдой. К примеру, деньги могли пойти на защиту прав людей пострадавших от действия ОМОНа, но разве это может характеризоваться как подрыв государства или антигосударственная деятельность? Нет. Но идея автора в том, что он говорит «А», но «Б» должен сказать сам читатель, т.е. это читатель должен закончить логическую связь между «получили деньги» и «направили эти деньги на...». Это заключение должен озвучить сам читатель, а не автор. Именно так и работает пропаганда, когда заключение делает не пропагандист, а читатель, но на основе тех данных, которые ему предоставил пропагандист.
The false information was subsequently uncritically reported throughout the Western world. This obviously showed a complete lack of professionalism in Western media, as well as a severe anti-Russian bias. Perhaps most damning, the affair showed that Western government officials were counting on this. As Oliver Boyd-Barrett demonstrated in his book Western Mainstream Media and the Ukraine Crisis: A Study in Conflict Propaganda, mainstream Western media were effectively serving as state propaganda outlets throughout the Ukraine crisis, similar to their conduct in previous conflicts.
Что тут не так? Помните, в самом начале я написал, что когда прочитаешь десятки книг на тему нынешнего российско-украинского конфликта, замечать пропаганду становится проще? В этой цитате автор ссылается на книгу «Western Mainstream Media and the Ukraine Crisis: A Study in Conflict Propaganda», которая является точно такой же пропагандисткой работай какой является и эта книга. Другими словами, один пропагандист ссылается на другого пропагандиста. Это старая тактика, которой пользовался ещё Советский Союз, когда агенты СССР издавали на Западе либо книгу, либо писали статью, а позже в СССР выходила статья в газете «Правда», которая и ссылалась на эту статью на Западе, написанную по заданию советского правительства. Зачем? Чтобы создать иллюзию, что и на Западе есть люди разделяющие мнение СССР. На самом деле это были подкупленные СССР пропагандисты либо прямые агенты Советского Союза. Эта же стратегия используется и в нынешнем российско-украинском конфликте. Эти люди, т.е. жители западных стран которые поддерживают нарратив Путина, издают книги, которые не сильно отличаются друг от друга, поэтому и возникает ощущение, что читаешь как будто одну и ту же книгу с одинаковыми тезисами и одинаковыми обвинениями в адрес Украины и Запада. Это, кстати, очень яркий маркер того, что книга является пропагандой, а не реальным исследованием.
I can recommend this book to only one group of people - who are engaged in exposing Russian propaganda. Yes, we have yet another well-disguised Putin narrative of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict.
Regarding the book, it should be noted that the book is convincingly written. (In the book), there are constant references to a report, a book, or an article in a foreign newspaper or magazine. So, from this point of view, the author has worked masterfully. But why exactly is it propaganda? Because the book presents only Ukraine in a negative light, and the author does not say a word about Russia and its actions. For those readers who have read only a couple of books on the current Ukrainian-Russian conflict, this book will seem convincing. But I have read dozens of books, therefore, I can catch the not-always-obvious tone of the whole book, which clearly shows that the author's goal is not to search for the truth but to convince the reader. In this book, the author not only puts all the blame on Ukraine and Western countries but does it in a very aggressive way. I want to say that the style of the book itself is very aggressive. The author (of the book) acts not as a researcher but as a prosecutor, accusing Ukraine and its allies of everything possible. That is why one gets the feeling that the author is engaged in propaganda rather than demonstrating the facts he has discovered.
Usually, in books on this topic, authors offer two views. For example, the authors write that in the east of Ukraine were really dissatisfied with the events on Maidan, that there were strong ideas of greater integration with Russia, not with the EU, but, people there did not want to reunite with Russia (i.e. they wanted to live in Ukraine, not in Russia and consider themselves Ukrainians, not Russians) as well as have a negative attitude to any external interference from Russia, including military intervention. That is, different information is given, demonstrating different points of view on this military conflict. There is nothing like that in this book. The author directly accuses Ukraine of shedding blood in eastern Ukraine while omitting Russia's actions. If you listen to what people in opposition to Zelensky and Poroshenko, who are being persecuted in today's Ukraine, say, you will not find any excuses for Russia's actions. These people also place some of the blame on Russia. The author of this book does not place any blame on Russia. What does that mean? One might assume that the author thinks Russia is doing the right thing or that it is in the right.
It would certainly not be the first time since WW2 that Europe and the United States sided with fascism. The US State Department had always seen fascism as compatible with US economic interests.
This sentence alone shows what opinions the author holds. I have heard many accusations against the US and the EU, but no one has gone to such extremes as the author of this book and Russian propagandists on TV. And it's not just a matter of not respecting the sacrifices that Europeans and Americans made in the fight against Hitler's regime, but it just goes against common sense. The author deliberately hyperbolizes the situation. A little more, and it will turn out that the U.S., together with Hitler's Germany, bombed London in 1940. But the author is not embarrassed by this because "The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it."
We can conclude that there is overwhelming evidence of systematic foreign interference in Ukraine. It is especially revealing, however, to consider these indications in their historical context. William Blum, historian and former US state department official, documented that the United States has successfully overthrown over 40 foreign governments since WW2—most of which were democratically elected.
As we can see, the book is aimed more at Europeans, Asians, and Arabs than at US citizens. In this case, the author uses anti-Americanism (which is strong in Europe) to show who is the "true" culprit behind the outbreak of the military conflict. Those people who see "CIA agents" in everything will, of course, believe even the craziest version. The main goal (of the author) is to convince readers that Ukrainians did not want to overthrow Yanukovych and did not aspire to the EU and NATO and that it was the USA that organized everything. This becomes especially noticeable when the author starts mentioning NGOs, which in Russia have been declared the main agents of foreign influence. And isn't this the case? There has never been a trial in Russia where real (not fictitious) evidence was presented that NPOs received money for some illegal activity, such as terrorism. In Russia, NGOs were in the defense of citizens' rights, not training revolutionaries. The problem is that in today's Russia, the protection of citizens' rights is regarded as anti-state activity because it is believed that the Russian government has the right to violate the civil rights of people living in Russia and all those who resist this, therefore, undermine the statehood of Russia, i.e., wage war against the Russian state. As they say, "We are the only ones who can execute and pardon our serfs!".
In an interview with the Financial Post in 2012 Oleh Rybachuk, former deputy prime minister for European integration under Yushchenko, stated that: “We now have 150 NGOs in all the major cities … The Orange Revolution was a miracle … We want to do that again and we think we will.’’
<…>
One of them is the New Citizen campaign which, according to the Financial Times, “played a big role in getting the protest up and running’’. Another example is the Stronger Together Campaign, which aims to “ popularize the ideas of European integration and encourage authorities to implement them effectively.’’
<…>
The Kyivpost reports that “Center UA received more than $500,000 in 2012, … 54 percent of which came from Pact Inc., a project funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development. Nearly 36 percent came from Omidyar Network, a foundation established by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar and his wife. Other donors include the International Renaissance Foundation, whose key funder is billionaire George Soros, and the National Endowment for Democracy, funded largely by the U.S. Congress.’’
The above quotes show very well how propaganda works. What is special about the above quotes? What is the author accusing them of? Receiving money, right? But does it say that this money was used for revolutionary activities? No. The author says that money was received from foreigners and was used for some activities related to the strengthening of European integration (popularizing the ideas of European integration). This may be true. For example, the money could have gone to protect the rights of people who suffered from the OMON, but can this be characterized as subversion of the state or anti-state activity? No. But the author's idea is that he says "A" but "B" should be said by the reader himself, i.e., it is the reader who should complete the logical connection between "received money" and "directed this money to...". This conclusion should be voiced by the reader himself, not by the author. This is how propaganda works when it is the reader, not the propagandist, who makes the conclusion but on the basis of the data provided by the propagandist.
The false information was subsequently uncritically reported throughout the Western world. This obviously showed a complete lack of professionalism in Western media, as well as a severe anti-Russian bias. Perhaps most damning, the affair showed that Western government officials were counting on this. As Oliver Boyd-Barrett demonstrated in his book Western Mainstream Media and the Ukraine Crisis: A Study in Conflict Propaganda, mainstream Western media were effectively serving as state propaganda outlets throughout the Ukraine crisis, similar to their conduct in previous conflicts.
What is wrong here? In the beginning, I wrote that when you read dozens of books on the current Russian-Ukrainian conflict, it becomes easier to spot propaganda. In this quote, the author refers to the book "Western Mainstream Media and the Ukraine Crisis: A Study in Conflict Propaganda," which is the same propaganda work that this book does. In other words, one propagandist refers to another propagandist. This is an old tactic used by the Soviet Union when Soviet agents published a book or wrote an article in the West, and later, the USSR published an article in "Pravda," which referred to this article in the West, written at the behest of the Soviet government. Why? In order to create the illusion that there are people in the West who share the opinion of the USSR. In reality, these were propagandists bribed by the USSR or direct agents of the Soviet Union. The same strategy is being used in the current Russian-Ukrainian conflict. These people, i.e., Westerners who support Putin's narrative, publish books that are not very different from each other, which is why it feels as if you are reading the same book with the same theses and the same accusations against Ukraine and the West. This, by the way, is a clear marker of the fact that the book is propaganda, not real research.
Тщетно ищет ум
Как найти ответ,
Слыша белый шум,
Видя жёлтый цвет,
Но из мрачных дум
Выведет на свет
И воздаст по делам:
Тем, кто встал за царя –
Красоту и фавор,
Тем, кто против и зря –
Клевету и позор.
Всем воздаст по делам
Жёлто-белая мгла.
Эту книгу я могу посоветовать только одной группе людей – тем, кто занимается разоблачением российской пропаганды. Да, перед нами ещё один хорошо замаскированный путинский нарратив российско-украинского конфликта.
Касаемо книги нужно отметить, что книга довольно убедительно написана. В книге постоянно встречаются ссылки то на какой-либо отчет, то на книгу, то на статью в иностранной газете или журнале. Поэтому с этой точки зрения автор сработал мастерски. Но почему это именно пропаганда? Потому что в книге в негативном свете выставляется только одна Украина, а про Россию и её действия автор не говорит ни слово. Для тех читателей кто прочитал на тему нынешнего украино-российского конфликта лишь пару книг, такая книга покажется убедительной. Но я прочитал десятки книг и поэтому я могу уловить не всегда очевидный тон всей книги, который ясно показывает, что целью автора является не поиск истины, а убеждение читателя. Вот в этой книге автор не только всю вину возлагает на Украину и Западные страны, но делает это в очень агрессивной форме. Я хочу сказать, что сам стиль книги очень агрессивный. Автор книги выступает не в качестве исследователя, а в качестве прокурора, обвиняя Украину и её союзников во всем, в чём только можно. Именно поэтому и возникает ощущение, что автор занимается пропагандой, а не демонстрацией обнаруженных им фактов.
Обычно в книгах на эту тему авторы предлагают два взгляда. К примеру, авторы пишут, что на востоке Украины действительно были недовольны событиями на Майдане, что там были сильны идеи большей интеграцией с Россией, а не с ЕС, однако люди там не желали воссоединения с Россией (т.е. хотели жить в Украине, а не в России и себя считают украинцами, а не россиянами) также как отрицательно относятся к любому внешнему вмешательству со стороны России, включая военное вмешательство. Т.е. даётся разная информация, демонстрирующая разные точки зрения на этот военный конфликт. В этой книге ничего подобного нет. Автор прямо обвиняет Украину в пролитии крови на востоке страны, умалчивая о действиях России. Если послушать что говорят оппозиционно настроенные к Зеленскому и Порошенко люди, которых преследуют в сегодняшней Украине, вы не найдёте в их речах оправданий действиям России. Эти люди также возлагают на Россию часть вины. Автор этой книги никакую вину на Россию не возлагает. Что это означает? Можно предположить, что, по мнению автора, Россия действует правильно или что она в своём праве.
It would certainly not be the first time since WW2 that Europe and the United States sided with fascism. The US State Department had always seen fascism as compatible with US economic interests.
Уже по одной этой фразе видно, каких именно мнений придерживается автор. Я слышал много обвинений в адрес США и ЕС, но никто не доходил до таких крайностей, как автор этой книги и российские пропагандисты на ТВ. И дело здесь не только в не уважении к тем жертвам, которые понесли европейцы и американцы в борьбе с гитлеровским режимом, но это просто противоречит здравому смыслу. Автор намеренно гиперболизирует ситуацию. Ещё немного и окажется, что США вместе с гитлеровской Германией в 1940 году бомбили Лондон. Но автора это ничуть не смущает, ибо «чем чудовищнее ложь, тем охотнее в неё верят».
We can conclude that there is overwhelming evidence of systematic foreign interference in Ukraine. It is especially revealing, however, to consider these indications in their historical context. William Blum, historian and former US state department official, documented that the United States has successfully overthrown over 40 foreign governments since WW2—most of which were democratically elected.
Как видим, книга ориентирована больше на европейцев, азиатов и арабов чем на граждан США. В данном случаи автор использует антиамериканизм (который силён в Европе), чтобы показать, кто является «истинным» виновником начала военного конфликта. Те люди, кто видят во всём «агентов ЦРУ», конечно же, поверят даже в самую безумную версию. Главной целью автора является убеждение читателей в том, что якобы украинцы не хотели свергать Януковича и не стремились в ЕС и НАТО, что это США всё организовали. Особенно это становится заметно, когда автор начинает упоминать НКО, которые в России были объявлены главными агентами иностранного влияния. А разве это не так? В России не было суда, на котором бы предъявили реальные, а не вымышленные доказательства того, что НКО получали деньги на какую-то противозаконную деятельность, как например, на терроризм. В России НКО занимались защитой прав граждан, а не тренировкой революционеров. Проблема в том, что в нынешней России защита прав граждан расценивается как антигосударственная деятельность, ибо считается, что правительство России имеет право нарушать гражданские права людей проживающих в России и все кто сопротивляются этому, следовательно, подрывают государственность России, т.е. ведут войну против российского государства. Как говорится, «казнить и миловать холопов только мы можем!».
In an interview with the Financial Post in 2012 Oleh Rybachuk, former deputy prime minister for European integration under Yushchenko, stated that: “We now have 150 NGOs in all the major cities … The Orange Revolution was a miracle … We want to do that again and we think we will.’’
<…>
One of them is the New Citizen campaign which, according to the Financial Times, “played a big role in getting the protest up and running’’. Another example is the Stronger Together Campaign, which aims to “ popularize the ideas of European integration and encourage authorities to implement them effectively.’’
<…>
The Kyivpost reports that “Center UA received more than $500,000 in 2012, … 54 percent of which came from Pact Inc., a project funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development. Nearly 36 percent came from Omidyar Network, a foundation established by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar and his wife. Other donors include the International Renaissance Foundation, whose key funder is billionaire George Soros, and the National Endowment for Democracy, funded largely by the U.S. Congress.’’
Приведённые выше цитаты очень хорошо показывают, как действует пропаганда. Что особенного в приведённых мною цитатах? В чём обвиняет автор? В получении денег, так? Но разве написано что эти деньги пошли на революционную деятельность? Нет. Автор просто пишет, что были получены деньги от иностранцев, и они пошли на какую-то деятельность, связанную с укреплением европейской интеграции (popularize the ideas of European integration). Это может быть правдой. К примеру, деньги могли пойти на защиту прав людей пострадавших от действия ОМОНа, но разве это может характеризоваться как подрыв государства или антигосударственная деятельность? Нет. Но идея автора в том, что он говорит «А», но «Б» должен сказать сам читатель, т.е. это читатель должен закончить логическую связь между «получили деньги» и «направили эти деньги на...». Это заключение должен озвучить сам читатель, а не автор. Именно так и работает пропаганда, когда заключение делает не пропагандист, а читатель, но на основе тех данных, которые ему предоставил пропагандист.
The false information was subsequently uncritically reported throughout the Western world. This obviously showed a complete lack of professionalism in Western media, as well as a severe anti-Russian bias. Perhaps most damning, the affair showed that Western government officials were counting on this. As Oliver Boyd-Barrett demonstrated in his book Western Mainstream Media and the Ukraine Crisis: A Study in Conflict Propaganda, mainstream Western media were effectively serving as state propaganda outlets throughout the Ukraine crisis, similar to their conduct in previous conflicts.
Что тут не так? Помните, в самом начале я написал, что когда прочитаешь десятки книг на тему нынешнего российско-украинского конфликта, замечать пропаганду становится проще? В этой цитате автор ссылается на книгу «Western Mainstream Media and the Ukraine Crisis: A Study in Conflict Propaganda», которая является точно такой же пропагандисткой работай какой является и эта книга. Другими словами, один пропагандист ссылается на другого пропагандиста. Это старая тактика, которой пользовался ещё Советский Союз, когда агенты СССР издавали на Западе либо книгу, либо писали статью, а позже в СССР выходила статья в газете «Правда», которая и ссылалась на эту статью на Западе, написанную по заданию советского правительства. Зачем? Чтобы создать иллюзию, что и на Западе есть люди разделяющие мнение СССР. На самом деле это были подкупленные СССР пропагандисты либо прямые агенты Советского Союза. Эта же стратегия используется и в нынешнем российско-украинском конфликте. Эти люди, т.е. жители западных стран которые поддерживают нарратив Путина, издают книги, которые не сильно отличаются друг от друга, поэтому и возникает ощущение, что читаешь как будто одну и ту же книгу с одинаковыми тезисами и одинаковыми обвинениями в адрес Украины и Запада. Это, кстати, очень яркий маркер того, что книга является пропагандой, а не реальным исследованием.
I can recommend this book to only one group of people - who are engaged in exposing Russian propaganda. Yes, we have yet another well-disguised Putin narrative of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict.
Regarding the book, it should be noted that the book is convincingly written. (In the book), there are constant references to a report, a book, or an article in a foreign newspaper or magazine. So, from this point of view, the author has worked masterfully. But why exactly is it propaganda? Because the book presents only Ukraine in a negative light, and the author does not say a word about Russia and its actions. For those readers who have read only a couple of books on the current Ukrainian-Russian conflict, this book will seem convincing. But I have read dozens of books, therefore, I can catch the not-always-obvious tone of the whole book, which clearly shows that the author's goal is not to search for the truth but to convince the reader. In this book, the author not only puts all the blame on Ukraine and Western countries but does it in a very aggressive way. I want to say that the style of the book itself is very aggressive. The author (of the book) acts not as a researcher but as a prosecutor, accusing Ukraine and its allies of everything possible. That is why one gets the feeling that the author is engaged in propaganda rather than demonstrating the facts he has discovered.
Usually, in books on this topic, authors offer two views. For example, the authors write that in the east of Ukraine were really dissatisfied with the events on Maidan, that there were strong ideas of greater integration with Russia, not with the EU, but, people there did not want to reunite with Russia (i.e. they wanted to live in Ukraine, not in Russia and consider themselves Ukrainians, not Russians) as well as have a negative attitude to any external interference from Russia, including military intervention. That is, different information is given, demonstrating different points of view on this military conflict. There is nothing like that in this book. The author directly accuses Ukraine of shedding blood in eastern Ukraine while omitting Russia's actions. If you listen to what people in opposition to Zelensky and Poroshenko, who are being persecuted in today's Ukraine, say, you will not find any excuses for Russia's actions. These people also place some of the blame on Russia. The author of this book does not place any blame on Russia. What does that mean? One might assume that the author thinks Russia is doing the right thing or that it is in the right.
It would certainly not be the first time since WW2 that Europe and the United States sided with fascism. The US State Department had always seen fascism as compatible with US economic interests.
This sentence alone shows what opinions the author holds. I have heard many accusations against the US and the EU, but no one has gone to such extremes as the author of this book and Russian propagandists on TV. And it's not just a matter of not respecting the sacrifices that Europeans and Americans made in the fight against Hitler's regime, but it just goes against common sense. The author deliberately hyperbolizes the situation. A little more, and it will turn out that the U.S., together with Hitler's Germany, bombed London in 1940. But the author is not embarrassed by this because "The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it."
We can conclude that there is overwhelming evidence of systematic foreign interference in Ukraine. It is especially revealing, however, to consider these indications in their historical context. William Blum, historian and former US state department official, documented that the United States has successfully overthrown over 40 foreign governments since WW2—most of which were democratically elected.
As we can see, the book is aimed more at Europeans, Asians, and Arabs than at US citizens. In this case, the author uses anti-Americanism (which is strong in Europe) to show who is the "true" culprit behind the outbreak of the military conflict. Those people who see "CIA agents" in everything will, of course, believe even the craziest version. The main goal (of the author) is to convince readers that Ukrainians did not want to overthrow Yanukovych and did not aspire to the EU and NATO and that it was the USA that organized everything. This becomes especially noticeable when the author starts mentioning NGOs, which in Russia have been declared the main agents of foreign influence. And isn't this the case? There has never been a trial in Russia where real (not fictitious) evidence was presented that NPOs received money for some illegal activity, such as terrorism. In Russia, NGOs were in the defense of citizens' rights, not training revolutionaries. The problem is that in today's Russia, the protection of citizens' rights is regarded as anti-state activity because it is believed that the Russian government has the right to violate the civil rights of people living in Russia and all those who resist this, therefore, undermine the statehood of Russia, i.e., wage war against the Russian state. As they say, "We are the only ones who can execute and pardon our serfs!".
In an interview with the Financial Post in 2012 Oleh Rybachuk, former deputy prime minister for European integration under Yushchenko, stated that: “We now have 150 NGOs in all the major cities … The Orange Revolution was a miracle … We want to do that again and we think we will.’’
<…>
One of them is the New Citizen campaign which, according to the Financial Times, “played a big role in getting the protest up and running’’. Another example is the Stronger Together Campaign, which aims to “ popularize the ideas of European integration and encourage authorities to implement them effectively.’’
<…>
The Kyivpost reports that “Center UA received more than $500,000 in 2012, … 54 percent of which came from Pact Inc., a project funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development. Nearly 36 percent came from Omidyar Network, a foundation established by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar and his wife. Other donors include the International Renaissance Foundation, whose key funder is billionaire George Soros, and the National Endowment for Democracy, funded largely by the U.S. Congress.’’
The above quotes show very well how propaganda works. What is special about the above quotes? What is the author accusing them of? Receiving money, right? But does it say that this money was used for revolutionary activities? No. The author says that money was received from foreigners and was used for some activities related to the strengthening of European integration (popularizing the ideas of European integration). This may be true. For example, the money could have gone to protect the rights of people who suffered from the OMON, but can this be characterized as subversion of the state or anti-state activity? No. But the author's idea is that he says "A" but "B" should be said by the reader himself, i.e., it is the reader who should complete the logical connection between "received money" and "directed this money to...". This conclusion should be voiced by the reader himself, not by the author. This is how propaganda works when it is the reader, not the propagandist, who makes the conclusion but on the basis of the data provided by the propagandist.
The false information was subsequently uncritically reported throughout the Western world. This obviously showed a complete lack of professionalism in Western media, as well as a severe anti-Russian bias. Perhaps most damning, the affair showed that Western government officials were counting on this. As Oliver Boyd-Barrett demonstrated in his book Western Mainstream Media and the Ukraine Crisis: A Study in Conflict Propaganda, mainstream Western media were effectively serving as state propaganda outlets throughout the Ukraine crisis, similar to their conduct in previous conflicts.
What is wrong here? In the beginning, I wrote that when you read dozens of books on the current Russian-Ukrainian conflict, it becomes easier to spot propaganda. In this quote, the author refers to the book "Western Mainstream Media and the Ukraine Crisis: A Study in Conflict Propaganda," which is the same propaganda work that this book does. In other words, one propagandist refers to another propagandist. This is an old tactic used by the Soviet Union when Soviet agents published a book or wrote an article in the West, and later, the USSR published an article in "Pravda," which referred to this article in the West, written at the behest of the Soviet government. Why? In order to create the illusion that there are people in the West who share the opinion of the USSR. In reality, these were propagandists bribed by the USSR or direct agents of the Soviet Union. The same strategy is being used in the current Russian-Ukrainian conflict. These people, i.e., Westerners who support Putin's narrative, publish books that are not very different from each other, which is why it feels as if you are reading the same book with the same theses and the same accusations against Ukraine and the West. This, by the way, is a clear marker of the fact that the book is propaganda, not real research.
September 12, 2023
If you want a real view on Ukraine in and around 2014, this book is for you. Don't expect globalist NATO propaganda, expect something closer to the truth.
January 5, 2024
One of the few best books on the Ukraine conflict that began in 2014 (and I have read over 20 books on the subject). Excellent journalism which successfully challenges common narratives spouted in the west. Not just a great book on this subject, but a great book. Very readable. Well sourced. With on-the-ground reporting.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews