What do you think?
Rate this book
Din Rusia, cu sange
Au crezut că se aflau la adăpost printre dealurile înverzite ale Angliei, dar se înșelau. Unul câte unul, membri ai oligarhiei ruse, disidenți și gangsteri care fugiseră în Marea Britanie atunci când Vladimir Putin a preluat puterea, au fost găsiți morți în condiții suspecte. La fel și avocații lor britanici. Mai mult, autoritățile britanice au închis fiecare anchetă, doar pentru a face pe plac Kremlinului. Volumul dezvăluie, în premieră, modul în care Rusia și‑a perfecționat arta și știința asasinatelor în afara țării – în vreme ce spionii occidentali urmăreau cu groază cum guvernele lor nu reușeau să se protejeze în fața amenințărilor. Pe baza unei vaste
comori constituite din documente nepublicate, dovezi aruncate de către poliție și interviuri cu sute de surse din interior, această investigație mondială dezvăluie una dintre cele mai importante și îngrozitoare povești geopolitice ale vremii noastre.
comori constituite din documente nepublicate, dovezi aruncate de către poliție și interviuri cu sute de surse din interior, această investigație mondială dezvăluie una dintre cele mai importante și îngrozitoare povești geopolitice ale vremii noastre.
368 pages, Paperback
First published November 19, 2019
322 people are currently reading
4802 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 283 reviews
May 1, 2021
A book of lies and omissions and guesswork and scaremongering and 'alternative facts', to put it mildly.
It jumps right in on how to scare people with the oh-so-deadly 'military grade' poison 'Novichok' that doesn't really kill people (unless used in very certain situations) and that has been produced in the EU (Surprise! Wow! What did they need it for? Why did the EU think it prudent to produce it?). Anyway, Medici would have laughed their heads and knickers off! Reportedly, they had much better track records.
Not a single proof-based statement. Lots of 'The spies at Langley replied that yes, they did indeed suspect another assassination had slipped through Scotland Yard’s dragnet.' stuff instead. Which doesn't qualify as proof.
Not a word of Donetsk and Luhansk regions holding a legal referendum. The word 'referendum' isn't even used in this so called book. Lying by omission?
Not a word of Unkrainian government being illegally and by force and with arms removed by nationalistically oriented people (*eyeroll* whom Victoria Nuland conveniently fed with cookies, *eyeroll*). I'm not kidding, there are lots of photos of her doing precisely that in the middle of Kiev. What the fuck was she doing in Kiev? A bit too far from the country where she is legally a representative of anything?
How come that you can protest violently and in an armed way against the government in Kiev and in Syria but you can't in Lugansk or in Catalonia? How come that you can rebel against the legal government but you can't rebel against the illegal one? Duplicitous much?
PS.
Disclaimer1: I'm part Jewish so I can joke about anything Israel-related.
Disclaimer2: I really love Jewish culture and I use it just as a prime example of an ethnicity historically blamed for about any and every thing possible (and sometimes impossible). I feel Russia is quickly on the way to become the next most internationally offended on the basis of some half-assed ethnic grudges country of the world.
I've devised a very simple and effective nationalism/ lithmus test. You take any book on any nation (in this case, 'Russia', 'Russian') and replace every single ref to this nationality, citizenship etc with 'Israel', 'Jew', 'Jewish. See what happens. If you feel uncomfortable with the end result, (like 'oh, this is uncalled for/I just went overboard!') then yes, this book is a nationalistic, ethnophobic (or even racist) piece of something that Hitler might've been proud of copenning.
Q:
... Vladimir Putin made his intentions toward the men he had released clear.
“Traitors will kick the bucket,” he announced on state television. “Trust me. These people betrayed their friends, their brothers in arms. Whatever they got in exchange for it, those thirty pieces of silver they were given, they will choke on them.” (c)Actually, that seems to be libel. There never was any such interview. Or at least, I wasn't able to locate it. The 'good journalist' doesn't provide the reader with any specific references. OK, not libel but extremely bad mistranslation of words taken out of context. From here: https://ria.ru/20101216/309464976.html.
In Russian that doesn't mean that someone chokes to death on something but rather someone experiencing discomfort. Basically, in this interview, Putin doesn't say “Traitors will kick the bucket,” but rather states that Russian forces don't kill traitors preferring to wait until 'They will 'die their own/natural death':
- 'Kicking the bucket' means that death is imminent and can come either naturally or from being killed. If you say someone will kick the bucket you say they will die. Likely sooner than later. <= RIA: Putin did NOT say this.
- 'Own/Natural death' will come for everyone of us but maybe in 100 years, so promising someone that they will die a natural death means actually that you promise they will live as long a life as is biologically possible for them. Ie: they won't be killed. <= RIA: Puting said THIS.
Also, choking on smth is another incorrect translation:
- In English, the perception is skewed to meaning that the object would be likely choking to death.
- In Russian that's mostly about experiencing discomfort in their throat. No finality is assigned to it in Russian: whether you would or wouldn't die from that stuff that's bothering your throat is not linguistically specified.
So, that's a mistranslation of the worst kind: where info gets an 180 degree spin. LOL!
Q:
A fortnight later, Young strode into the lawyer’s central London office and closed the door.
“I’ve been robbing banks all over Europe,” he said matter-of-factly. (c) Ah-huh. And this is the guy that is supposed to be some sort of superfixer? Doesn't sound very savvy, does he?
Q:
Litvinenko ... He was excited, and he thought...
Litvinenko sized up the small man in an instant. 'He’s doing everything he can to seem open and likable, he thought to himself, but it’s all for show.'
Zakayev ... he felt like he was in a spy movie...
Berezovsky thought... (c) The author(s) must have hired some really good medium(s) to find out what private ideas people might have thought and how they felt at certain points.
Q:
Putin had seen his boss buffeted by the turbulent city council, and now he felt the sting of parliamentary scrutiny himself. Democracy, he learned, just gets in the way. (c) Did they interview him to get that info? Or did they just assign him these thoughts?
Q:
She made him a mixture of manganese and warm water, an old Russian remedy for food poisoning, but it came straight back up. (c) Ewww. It's SUPPOSED to come up, it's not a 'remedy', it's taken internally just as an emetic. And a very toxic one, at that.
Q:
Moussavi knew all about Berezovsky, the notorious Russian oligarch who had made a vast fortune buying up state assets at rock-bottom prices under the country’s increasingly drunken president, Boris Yeltsin, and had siphoned much of it offshore to buy himself lavish properties and yachts all over Europe. (c) Yeah, right. So, Yeltsin was siphoning the Russian assets to line some pockets and still they blame Putin. Maybe the 'West' shouldn't have meddled with Yeltsin's elections? Huh? Innovative much?
It jumps right in on how to scare people with the oh-so-deadly 'military grade' poison 'Novichok' that doesn't really kill people (unless used in very certain situations) and that has been produced in the EU (Surprise! Wow! What did they need it for? Why did the EU think it prudent to produce it?). Anyway, Medici would have laughed their heads and knickers off! Reportedly, they had much better track records.
Not a single proof-based statement. Lots of 'The spies at Langley replied that yes, they did indeed suspect another assassination had slipped through Scotland Yard’s dragnet.' stuff instead. Which doesn't qualify as proof.
Not a word of Donetsk and Luhansk regions holding a legal referendum. The word 'referendum' isn't even used in this so called book. Lying by omission?
Not a word of Unkrainian government being illegally and by force and with arms removed by nationalistically oriented people (*eyeroll* whom Victoria Nuland conveniently fed with cookies, *eyeroll*). I'm not kidding, there are lots of photos of her doing precisely that in the middle of Kiev. What the fuck was she doing in Kiev? A bit too far from the country where she is legally a representative of anything?
How come that you can protest violently and in an armed way against the government in Kiev and in Syria but you can't in Lugansk or in Catalonia? How come that you can rebel against the legal government but you can't rebel against the illegal one? Duplicitous much?
PS.
Disclaimer1: I'm part Jewish so I can joke about anything Israel-related.
Disclaimer2: I really love Jewish culture and I use it just as a prime example of an ethnicity historically blamed for about any and every thing possible (and sometimes impossible). I feel Russia is quickly on the way to become the next most internationally offended on the basis of some half-assed ethnic grudges country of the world.
I've devised a very simple and effective nationalism/ lithmus test. You take any book on any nation (in this case, 'Russia', 'Russian') and replace every single ref to this nationality, citizenship etc with 'Israel', 'Jew', 'Jewish. See what happens. If you feel uncomfortable with the end result, (like 'oh, this is uncalled for/I just went overboard!') then yes, this book is a nationalistic, ethnophobic (or even racist) piece of something that Hitler might've been proud of copenning.
Q:
... Vladimir Putin made his intentions toward the men he had released clear.
“Traitors will kick the bucket,” he announced on state television. “Trust me. These people betrayed their friends, their brothers in arms. Whatever they got in exchange for it, those thirty pieces of silver they were given, they will choke on them.” (c)
In Russian that doesn't mean that someone chokes to death on something but rather someone experiencing discomfort. Basically, in this interview, Putin doesn't say “Traitors will kick the bucket,” but rather states that Russian forces don't kill traitors preferring to wait until 'They will 'die their own/natural death':
- 'Kicking the bucket' means that death is imminent and can come either naturally or from being killed. If you say someone will kick the bucket you say they will die. Likely sooner than later. <= RIA: Putin did NOT say this.
- 'Own/Natural death' will come for everyone of us but maybe in 100 years, so promising someone that they will die a natural death means actually that you promise they will live as long a life as is biologically possible for them. Ie: they won't be killed. <= RIA: Puting said THIS.
Also, choking on smth is another incorrect translation:
- In English, the perception is skewed to meaning that the object would be likely choking to death.
- In Russian that's mostly about experiencing discomfort in their throat. No finality is assigned to it in Russian: whether you would or wouldn't die from that stuff that's bothering your throat is not linguistically specified.
So, that's a mistranslation of the worst kind: where info gets an 180 degree spin. LOL!
Q:
A fortnight later, Young strode into the lawyer’s central London office and closed the door.
“I’ve been robbing banks all over Europe,” he said matter-of-factly. (c) Ah-huh. And this is the guy that is supposed to be some sort of superfixer? Doesn't sound very savvy, does he?
Q:
Litvinenko ... He was excited, and he thought...
Litvinenko sized up the small man in an instant. 'He’s doing everything he can to seem open and likable, he thought to himself, but it’s all for show.'
Zakayev ... he felt like he was in a spy movie...
Berezovsky thought... (c) The author(s) must have hired some really good medium(s) to find out what private ideas people might have thought and how they felt at certain points.
Q:
Putin had seen his boss buffeted by the turbulent city council, and now he felt the sting of parliamentary scrutiny himself. Democracy, he learned, just gets in the way. (c) Did they interview him to get that info? Or did they just assign him these thoughts?
Q:
She made him a mixture of manganese and warm water, an old Russian remedy for food poisoning, but it came straight back up. (c) Ewww. It's SUPPOSED to come up, it's not a 'remedy', it's taken internally just as an emetic. And a very toxic one, at that.
Q:
Moussavi knew all about Berezovsky, the notorious Russian oligarch who had made a vast fortune buying up state assets at rock-bottom prices under the country’s increasingly drunken president, Boris Yeltsin, and had siphoned much of it offshore to buy himself lavish properties and yachts all over Europe. (c) Yeah, right. So, Yeltsin was siphoning the Russian assets to line some pockets and still they blame Putin. Maybe the 'West' shouldn't have meddled with Yeltsin's elections? Huh? Innovative much?
November 30, 2019
Absolutely terrifying. It is chilling to know how far Putin will go to silence his critics, but the real danger is the British and US governments allowing it and covering it up because they buy oil from Russia or need Putin’s help with Iran and Syria.
Thank god for journalists like Heidi Blake. Pray for her safety and I thank her for her courage and I hope this book results in justice for those who spoke out about Putin.
Thank god for journalists like Heidi Blake. Pray for her safety and I thank her for her courage and I hope this book results in justice for those who spoke out about Putin.
August 2, 2023
What a coincidence. Recently picked up 3 books from local Charity shop all related to theme of spying. One on Guy Burgess. One on Klaus Fuchs ( lent to my dad) and this one on essentially Putin and Berezovsky and the trail of mysterious related deaths. Must be a Sleeper cell in my village.
Coincidence goes further as we had booked to see the play in London ‘Patriots’ with Tom Hollander some months ago. The play is based on…wait for it…the relationship between Putin and Berezovsky. I was half way through this book before last weeks show and the play stuck pretty close to the story.
Essentially the book is by a BuzzFeed investigations editor Heidi Blake. It is written like the BuzzFeed articles that pop onto phone. Fast paced with lashings of graphic descriptions and hyperbole:
‘The London square was still and cold when the body fell, dropping silently through the moonlight and landing with a thud.’
‘Rain was spreading like a fresh bruise across the London sky …’
The Oligarchs that purportedly put Putin into power are mysteriously removed as are any ‘traitors.’ The book starts with the case of Sergei Skripal and his daughter being poisoned by Novichok in Salisbury and then goes back in time. Recounting how those associated with Berezovsky meet largely unexplained deaths. Most falling from high buildings or throwing themselves in front of trains or having heart attacks.
The British Government appears to dance around the edges in investigations as they need Putins help with other Global events. Teresa May as Home Secretary only agreeing to an inquest on Litvinenko after the murder of another Russian on British soil.
A rollicking read overall. I smiled watching the end of the play. Berezovsky here hangs himself. But tells the ghost of Litvinenko to take his mobile phone downstairs so there will be a question mark on his death. Not many question marks on any of the deaths really.
Coincidence goes further as we had booked to see the play in London ‘Patriots’ with Tom Hollander some months ago. The play is based on…wait for it…the relationship between Putin and Berezovsky. I was half way through this book before last weeks show and the play stuck pretty close to the story.
Essentially the book is by a BuzzFeed investigations editor Heidi Blake. It is written like the BuzzFeed articles that pop onto phone. Fast paced with lashings of graphic descriptions and hyperbole:
‘The London square was still and cold when the body fell, dropping silently through the moonlight and landing with a thud.’
‘Rain was spreading like a fresh bruise across the London sky …’
The Oligarchs that purportedly put Putin into power are mysteriously removed as are any ‘traitors.’ The book starts with the case of Sergei Skripal and his daughter being poisoned by Novichok in Salisbury and then goes back in time. Recounting how those associated with Berezovsky meet largely unexplained deaths. Most falling from high buildings or throwing themselves in front of trains or having heart attacks.
The British Government appears to dance around the edges in investigations as they need Putins help with other Global events. Teresa May as Home Secretary only agreeing to an inquest on Litvinenko after the murder of another Russian on British soil.
A rollicking read overall. I smiled watching the end of the play. Berezovsky here hangs himself. But tells the ghost of Litvinenko to take his mobile phone downstairs so there will be a question mark on his death. Not many question marks on any of the deaths really.
September 30, 2019
(I received an ARC of this in a Goodreads giveaway and appreciate the opportunity to review this title and give my thoughts on it.)
A deep dive into the dirty world of Russia's seemingly relentless campaign to wipe out perceived enemies of the state, "From Russia with Blood," will definitely make you question whether a true relationship with Russia is possible under Vladimir Putin.
In worrying prose that betrays an almost complete lack of conviction on the part of many Western nations, Heidi Blake takes readers on a journey to demonstrate how Putin has created and performed a highly organized program to eliminate anyone who is a threat to his power, while western nations in Europe and the U.S do little to stop or condemn it until it is much too late. In the wake of all the news concerning the 2016 hacking attempts by Russia in the presidential election, this book will only further make you mistrust everything coming out of that country. If you were already negatively inclined toward Putin, nothing here will make you change that opinion in the slightest. If anything, it will only make you fear that worse is yet to come from him.
Compulsively readable and laid out in a manner that made it at times more like a thriller novel or some of the best episodes from the former TV series Homeland, this is a truly engrossing bit of sad but true history and a call to action that we would be wise to heed as soon as possible!
A deep dive into the dirty world of Russia's seemingly relentless campaign to wipe out perceived enemies of the state, "From Russia with Blood," will definitely make you question whether a true relationship with Russia is possible under Vladimir Putin.
In worrying prose that betrays an almost complete lack of conviction on the part of many Western nations, Heidi Blake takes readers on a journey to demonstrate how Putin has created and performed a highly organized program to eliminate anyone who is a threat to his power, while western nations in Europe and the U.S do little to stop or condemn it until it is much too late. In the wake of all the news concerning the 2016 hacking attempts by Russia in the presidential election, this book will only further make you mistrust everything coming out of that country. If you were already negatively inclined toward Putin, nothing here will make you change that opinion in the slightest. If anything, it will only make you fear that worse is yet to come from him.
Compulsively readable and laid out in a manner that made it at times more like a thriller novel or some of the best episodes from the former TV series Homeland, this is a truly engrossing bit of sad but true history and a call to action that we would be wise to heed as soon as possible!
May 28, 2020
So here's the thing.
Do I believe Russia has an assassination program to go after those who have turned on the government or that Putin deems traitors? Yes.
Do I believe the UK government neglected to investigate many suspicious Russian deaths on its soil? Yes.
Does this book prove both of those things? No.
I was really looking forward to this book. It's a fascinating topic, especially given Russia's activities in the past few years. The problem is that this book doesn't have any sources. It reads like a long news article that happens to have a bibliography (that only includes 11 books). It doesn't have any footnotes or endnotes; there are no citations. The forward mentions the book is based on an investigation done by BuzzFeed news in 2017. It goes on to note that details in the book are based on documents, digital evidence, interviews, and recollections of those interviews. But we don't get to see any of those documents or transcripts. If I had known this was all based off a BuzzFeed investigation, I'm not going to lie, I might have skipped this one.
The writing itself is fine, and it was easy read to get through in the two days I spent with it. The book is a bit all over the place, and the majority of it is also not on the alleged assassination program, but on the defectors themselves, with much of the focus on Berezovsky and his "fixer," Scot Young. There are numerous instances where after a suspicious death, the "Russia Watchers" in the UK call their U.S. counterparts, who tell them yes, this was (or was likely) a Russian plot. The way this scenario played out over and over again made me roll my eyes. I wish more time had been spent on unraveling what happened in the cases where the UK government did admit a death or attack could be blamed on Russia, such as the Skripals. Perhaps more on the investigations themselves. And it would have been nice to see some of the documents that were reviewed in the Litvinenko inquest, since per one of the last chapters, they exist and are available. Instead we got pictures of Scot Young's crime scene. ::shrug::
I guess after reading this I mostly feel disappointed. I was hoping for a better understanding of how Russia identifies those that end up on its hit list and how they fulfill those death sentences, and instead got insight into Berezovsky and his circle of friends. Most of them likely were killed at the direction of the Kremlin, but this book does nothing to prove it.
Do I believe Russia has an assassination program to go after those who have turned on the government or that Putin deems traitors? Yes.
Do I believe the UK government neglected to investigate many suspicious Russian deaths on its soil? Yes.
Does this book prove both of those things? No.
I was really looking forward to this book. It's a fascinating topic, especially given Russia's activities in the past few years. The problem is that this book doesn't have any sources. It reads like a long news article that happens to have a bibliography (that only includes 11 books). It doesn't have any footnotes or endnotes; there are no citations. The forward mentions the book is based on an investigation done by BuzzFeed news in 2017. It goes on to note that details in the book are based on documents, digital evidence, interviews, and recollections of those interviews. But we don't get to see any of those documents or transcripts. If I had known this was all based off a BuzzFeed investigation, I'm not going to lie, I might have skipped this one.
The writing itself is fine, and it was easy read to get through in the two days I spent with it. The book is a bit all over the place, and the majority of it is also not on the alleged assassination program, but on the defectors themselves, with much of the focus on Berezovsky and his "fixer," Scot Young. There are numerous instances where after a suspicious death, the "Russia Watchers" in the UK call their U.S. counterparts, who tell them yes, this was (or was likely) a Russian plot. The way this scenario played out over and over again made me roll my eyes. I wish more time had been spent on unraveling what happened in the cases where the UK government did admit a death or attack could be blamed on Russia, such as the Skripals. Perhaps more on the investigations themselves. And it would have been nice to see some of the documents that were reviewed in the Litvinenko inquest, since per one of the last chapters, they exist and are available. Instead we got pictures of Scot Young's crime scene. ::shrug::
I guess after reading this I mostly feel disappointed. I was hoping for a better understanding of how Russia identifies those that end up on its hit list and how they fulfill those death sentences, and instead got insight into Berezovsky and his circle of friends. Most of them likely were killed at the direction of the Kremlin, but this book does nothing to prove it.
January 18, 2020
Well, this just wasn't very good. The author begins with a hypothesis; Britain was complicit in the assassination of several oligarchs and their associates on its own soil, and fits every piece of 'evidence' to suit this view. It's not exactly unsurprising given the book's title that there is an agenda at play here and a particular point of view being put across but I didn't quite expect it to be so overt and unsubstantiated. I expected several pages of sources to follow the end of the main 'narrative' but was greeted only by a bibliography citing a paltry eleven 'sources.' Eleven. Even speeches which would be on the public record by figures such as the Prime Minister are quoted without any reference so it goes without saying that most of what appears on the pages of this book is pure conjecture. There are many allusions to 'the spies at MI6' saying XY & Z and 'the spies at Langley' apparently countering with 'it was Russia wot done it' without an inkling of how the author came about this information.
There is little evidence presented here to actually suggest the British government allowed Russia to carry out extrajudicial assassinations as it pleased just because the British economy relies on Russian money. Apart from that this is what the author thinks happened. Most of the events are simply recounted here in a rather sensationalist fashion with no more elucidating information than could be gained from a Wikipedia search or from anyone who has watched the news over the last fifteen years. Given the sketchy provenance of the source information seeming to come from the inner circle of a notorious band of criminals and frauds it takes a lot to believe the author when she states 'if what the businessman said was true it would mean...' Take everything in this book with a bucketful of salt.
There is little evidence presented here to actually suggest the British government allowed Russia to carry out extrajudicial assassinations as it pleased just because the British economy relies on Russian money. Apart from that this is what the author thinks happened. Most of the events are simply recounted here in a rather sensationalist fashion with no more elucidating information than could be gained from a Wikipedia search or from anyone who has watched the news over the last fifteen years. Given the sketchy provenance of the source information seeming to come from the inner circle of a notorious band of criminals and frauds it takes a lot to believe the author when she states 'if what the businessman said was true it would mean...' Take everything in this book with a bucketful of salt.
November 27, 2019
Excellent book. Very interesting, consuming. Hard to put the book down. Although I remember some of this in the news it is most shocking when the events of all the assassinations are put together in one story, one time line and directed by one person. More shocking is the muted response from leaders of the west when these crimes are carried out in their country, and the west's monetary involvement with Putin's Russia that affects political decisions. Not just because of the information in this book but that added to everything else Putin is involved in should leave no doubt that you can't work with him. He is an enemy, the most dangerous man in the world, and he has been brilliant in the war he is waging on the west. I know this is old school but I think back on the Munich Agreement of 1938, and how appeasement didn't work then, and it isn't working now. I do recommend this book.
January 28, 2022
An interesting expose of Putin’s assassination campaign in the West, offering a history of the targeted killings of Russian dissidents in the UK.
This book also provides a damning indictment of the UK government’s strategy of appeasement, showing how the government repeatedly pressured the police to drop investigations into unusual deaths, even in the face of opposition from the Americans and our own MI5/6.
Overall, a book which I think provides an insight into the state of play between Russia and the West in our current times, and how espionage often comes crashing into the real world with little warning.
This book also provides a damning indictment of the UK government’s strategy of appeasement, showing how the government repeatedly pressured the police to drop investigations into unusual deaths, even in the face of opposition from the Americans and our own MI5/6.
Overall, a book which I think provides an insight into the state of play between Russia and the West in our current times, and how espionage often comes crashing into the real world with little warning.
July 7, 2023
Quick and informative read for both laypersons and those of us who have studied Russia for a while. Blake does a nice job of making the individuals she and others reported on appear both sympathetic and despicable at the same time, and to me, that's the best kind of reporting. Warts and all, as the British say. Truly terrifying, however, at how far the wool was pulled over the eyes of Western nations by Putin and his cronies since his ascension to power. Good read, would recommend.
May 22, 2022
4.0 Stars
This was a compelling piece of narrative nonfiction. I'm uncertain if the claims discussed in this book have been properly proven, but as a story, it's incredibly compelling. I have no doubt the Kermlin is capable of everything claimed here, but I wish more of the narrative could be publicly verified. Regardless, this was a gripping read.
This was a compelling piece of narrative nonfiction. I'm uncertain if the claims discussed in this book have been properly proven, but as a story, it's incredibly compelling. I have no doubt the Kermlin is capable of everything claimed here, but I wish more of the narrative could be publicly verified. Regardless, this was a gripping read.
February 19, 2021
"nigdzie Putin nie likwiduje swoich wrogów tak energicznie - i bezkarnie - jak w Wielkiej Brytanii"*
Pierwsza myśl, która przyszła mi do głowy po przeczytaniu Krwawych pozdrowień z Rosji, była taka, że w dzisiejszych dziwnych czasach, kiedy wszystko jest płynne tylko dwie rzeczy pozostają niezmienne: Putin za sterami Rosji i jego zamordystyczne, nieznoszące cienia krytyki metody sprawowania władzy. Drugą myślą było to, że właśnie skończyłem czytać cholernie dobry reportaż, i dawno żadna książka tak mocno mnie nie wciągnęła i nie pozostawiła po sobie tak mocnych wrażeń.
Wydawcy często w przypadku reportaży takich jak Krwawe podrwienia, lubią mamić czytelnika pisząc: "czyta się jak najlepszy thriller" albo "mrożąca krew z żyłach historia" ale zazwyczaj nie jest to prawda, bo owszem, możemy trafić na książkę interesującą, ale czy przewracamy kartki z wypiekami na twarzy? No nie, jednak w przypadku Krwawych pozdrowień właśnie tak jest, tę książkę, mimo, że jest to non - fiction jedynie delikatnie zbeletryzowane, czyta się jak powieść Toma Clancy'ego.
No dobrze ale o czym Krwawe pozdrowienia właściwie są? W największym skrócie można by napisać, że jest to po prostu reportaż o tym jak Putin, przy milczącym przyzwoleniu kolejnych przywódców wolnego świata, eliminował dysydentów zbiegłych z Rosji do Wielkiej Brytanii, ale to byłoby o wiele za mało, bo Heidi Blake daje czytelnikom bardzo szeroki kontekst tych wydarzeń i to właśnie ten kontekst, skakanie co i rusz w rosyjskie lata dziewięćdziesiąte, jest kluczowy dla zrozumienia dlaczego Litwinienko, Bierezowski i wielu innych, w tym osoby wplątane w rosyjskie porachunki przypadkowo, musiało zginąć i dlaczego przez tak wiele lat te zabójstwa były zamiatane pod dywan.
Oczywiście zdaję sobie sprawę, że osoby zainteresowane historią najnowszą mogą stwierdzić, że wszystko to już gdzieś czytały i generalnie nie ma się czym podniecać, jednak moim zdaniem jest to pozycja niezwykła również dlatego, że autorka ma niezwykłą zdolność do opowiadania prosto i ze swadą skomplikowanych i pozornie nudnych historii, tak je układając, że zamieniają się w pasjonującą opowieść szpiegowską.
Bardzo polecam.
*s. 27
(za możliwość lektury dziękuję Klubowi Recenzenta portalu nakanapie.pl)
Pierwsza myśl, która przyszła mi do głowy po przeczytaniu Krwawych pozdrowień z Rosji, była taka, że w dzisiejszych dziwnych czasach, kiedy wszystko jest płynne tylko dwie rzeczy pozostają niezmienne: Putin za sterami Rosji i jego zamordystyczne, nieznoszące cienia krytyki metody sprawowania władzy. Drugą myślą było to, że właśnie skończyłem czytać cholernie dobry reportaż, i dawno żadna książka tak mocno mnie nie wciągnęła i nie pozostawiła po sobie tak mocnych wrażeń.
Wydawcy często w przypadku reportaży takich jak Krwawe podrwienia, lubią mamić czytelnika pisząc: "czyta się jak najlepszy thriller" albo "mrożąca krew z żyłach historia" ale zazwyczaj nie jest to prawda, bo owszem, możemy trafić na książkę interesującą, ale czy przewracamy kartki z wypiekami na twarzy? No nie, jednak w przypadku Krwawych pozdrowień właśnie tak jest, tę książkę, mimo, że jest to non - fiction jedynie delikatnie zbeletryzowane, czyta się jak powieść Toma Clancy'ego.
No dobrze ale o czym Krwawe pozdrowienia właściwie są? W największym skrócie można by napisać, że jest to po prostu reportaż o tym jak Putin, przy milczącym przyzwoleniu kolejnych przywódców wolnego świata, eliminował dysydentów zbiegłych z Rosji do Wielkiej Brytanii, ale to byłoby o wiele za mało, bo Heidi Blake daje czytelnikom bardzo szeroki kontekst tych wydarzeń i to właśnie ten kontekst, skakanie co i rusz w rosyjskie lata dziewięćdziesiąte, jest kluczowy dla zrozumienia dlaczego Litwinienko, Bierezowski i wielu innych, w tym osoby wplątane w rosyjskie porachunki przypadkowo, musiało zginąć i dlaczego przez tak wiele lat te zabójstwa były zamiatane pod dywan.
Oczywiście zdaję sobie sprawę, że osoby zainteresowane historią najnowszą mogą stwierdzić, że wszystko to już gdzieś czytały i generalnie nie ma się czym podniecać, jednak moim zdaniem jest to pozycja niezwykła również dlatego, że autorka ma niezwykłą zdolność do opowiadania prosto i ze swadą skomplikowanych i pozornie nudnych historii, tak je układając, że zamieniają się w pasjonującą opowieść szpiegowską.
Bardzo polecam.
*s. 27
(za możliwość lektury dziękuję Klubowi Recenzenta portalu nakanapie.pl)
January 16, 2020
Finished: 15.01.2020
Genre: non-fictiopn
Rating: D-
#ReadNonFictionYear
Conclusion:
If you want REAL investigative journalism
read Luke Harding
A Very Expensive Poison
If you want to read a REAL Putin scholar
read Dr. Fiona Hill
Mr Putin: Operative in the Kremlin
Honest opinion? This book was a waste of time.
"old news" ...if you have been reading the newspapers
since 2000!
I can’t imagine this as a page turner, except when I was turning
a dozen pages at a time hoping it would get better.
Genre: non-fictiopn
Rating: D-
#ReadNonFictionYear
Conclusion:
If you want REAL investigative journalism
read Luke Harding
A Very Expensive Poison
If you want to read a REAL Putin scholar
read Dr. Fiona Hill
Mr Putin: Operative in the Kremlin
Honest opinion? This book was a waste of time.
"old news" ...if you have been reading the newspapers
since 2000!
I can’t imagine this as a page turner, except when I was turning
a dozen pages at a time hoping it would get better.
December 30, 2019
This is a sobering look at the lengths Vladimir Putin will go to in order to torture and murder anyone who opposes his iron fist over Russia and the former Soviet republics. Heidi Blake focuses particularly on the oligarchs who took refuge in the UK once Putin took over from Yeltsin. They thought they had put in a grey man who could be easily manipulated, just like Yeltsin, but right from the get-go, Putin showed that he was in charge and would go to any lengths to keep power and wealth to himself. This included staging terrorist attacks against Russians so he could attack Chechnya and make Chechens an enemy people could focus on. The bombing of apartment blocks in Buynaksk, Moscow and Volgodonsk was a PR stunt by the FSG (secret service) to bolster Putin's approval ratings right before the 1999 election. The terrorist attack at the Moscow theatre and the Beslan school siege were all orchestrated by the FSG to manipulate public sympathies and keep Putin in charge as the strong man.
These are all side-stories though. The oligarchs who thought they would hold power after installing Putin to replace Yeltsin fled, mostly to the UK, because the law there was very lax when it came to investigating fraud and theft on the magnitude that these oligarchs had carried out as the Soviet Union crumbled. In fact, the UK welcomed their money and investments.
These men lived in high style and were welcomed into the upper echelons of society but they were also funding groups that were fighting for democracy -- not for an end goal of democracy, but in hopes that it would erode Putin's power. For example, they channeled money into the various colour revolutions -- the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, the Rose Revolution in Georgia in the hopes of getting a sweet deal afterwards with the new government. When it didn't work out for them, they'd work against those same groups.
But over the years, Putin orchestrated the assassination of each one of them, often in full view and with little investigation (and often outright cover-up) on the part of the British.
While the CIA was much more adept at keeping defectors safe, the US was not immune to assassinations either, although it was rare.
A compelling and sickening read. Kudos to Heidi Blake and Buzzfeed for what they've been able to do.
These are all side-stories though. The oligarchs who thought they would hold power after installing Putin to replace Yeltsin fled, mostly to the UK, because the law there was very lax when it came to investigating fraud and theft on the magnitude that these oligarchs had carried out as the Soviet Union crumbled. In fact, the UK welcomed their money and investments.
These men lived in high style and were welcomed into the upper echelons of society but they were also funding groups that were fighting for democracy -- not for an end goal of democracy, but in hopes that it would erode Putin's power. For example, they channeled money into the various colour revolutions -- the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, the Rose Revolution in Georgia in the hopes of getting a sweet deal afterwards with the new government. When it didn't work out for them, they'd work against those same groups.
But over the years, Putin orchestrated the assassination of each one of them, often in full view and with little investigation (and often outright cover-up) on the part of the British.
While the CIA was much more adept at keeping defectors safe, the US was not immune to assassinations either, although it was rare.
A compelling and sickening read. Kudos to Heidi Blake and Buzzfeed for what they've been able to do.
January 19, 2023
Not a review this time, just some observations.
1) Yes, everyone (and their grandma) knows that Putin is a murderous thug. The real villains of this work are the UK and US governments that allowed him to conduct his campaign of murders in the interests of poorly conceived Realpolitik.
2) Yes, I know Realpolitik is a thing and that nations and governments don't base their actions on morality but on state interests. I accept that. But if what this book says is true, than the UK government was beyond incompetent in pursuing their interests, dancing to Russia's tune and not gaining anything in return.
3) Sacrificing your citizens and assets for the greater good is morally dubious. Sacrificng them for no gain is downright stupid.
4) MI5, MI6, Scotland Yard seem to be beyond incompetent when they can't count on James Bond and Sherlock Holmes to solve their cases for them.
5) CIA and FBI are no better.
6) Contrary to what Scotland Yard would have you think, it's really hard to commit suicide by stabbing oneself repeatedly. In the back. With two different knives.
7) It's Langley not Longlee, dammit.
8) I didn't know how exactly Putin came to power, that was interesting.
9) The Georgian angle was also interesting.
10) While it by no means excuses what Putin and his thugs did, most of the killed people were no saints. And most of them were beyond dumb. Really? You're paranoid that you're being followed and that there will be a assassination attempt on you and you ditch your protection detail and fly for two weeks to Paris to meet your your mistress?
The ending line sums it up best - that the Western governments gave Putin waaaay too much leeway in return for illusory hopes of Russia becoming a civilized partner. Now, seeing how all the good relations with Russia went out in flames with the start of Ukraine War, I'm even more disgusted how many people were sacrificed in order to appease this tyrant.
1) Yes, everyone (and their grandma) knows that Putin is a murderous thug. The real villains of this work are the UK and US governments that allowed him to conduct his campaign of murders in the interests of poorly conceived Realpolitik.
2) Yes, I know Realpolitik is a thing and that nations and governments don't base their actions on morality but on state interests. I accept that. But if what this book says is true, than the UK government was beyond incompetent in pursuing their interests, dancing to Russia's tune and not gaining anything in return.
3) Sacrificing your citizens and assets for the greater good is morally dubious. Sacrificng them for no gain is downright stupid.
4) MI5, MI6, Scotland Yard seem to be beyond incompetent when they can't count on James Bond and Sherlock Holmes to solve their cases for them.
5) CIA and FBI are no better.
6) Contrary to what Scotland Yard would have you think, it's really hard to commit suicide by stabbing oneself repeatedly. In the back. With two different knives.
7) It's Langley not Longlee, dammit.
8) I didn't know how exactly Putin came to power, that was interesting.
9) The Georgian angle was also interesting.
10) While it by no means excuses what Putin and his thugs did, most of the killed people were no saints. And most of them were beyond dumb. Really? You're paranoid that you're being followed and that there will be a assassination attempt on you and you ditch your protection detail and fly for two weeks to Paris to meet your your mistress?
The ending line sums it up best - that the Western governments gave Putin waaaay too much leeway in return for illusory hopes of Russia becoming a civilized partner. Now, seeing how all the good relations with Russia went out in flames with the start of Ukraine War, I'm even more disgusted how many people were sacrificed in order to appease this tyrant.
October 7, 2020
It sure is a very interesting topic. And it is hard to deny that Putin was at least responsible for some assassinations such as Litvinenko. But I have trouble trust this book. If I knew right away that it was written from journalist from Buzzfeed I wouldn't have bought it because Buzzfeed is pretty much propaganda website.
It is pretty well written. Reads like a thriller so I sure give a point for it. But while it is interesting that all of them ended up dying a lot of them are pretty far fetched and didn't really have any evidence. It was well done in listing all the events that have been on the news. Otherwise I took most of it as speculations that were still pretty entertaining.
It is pretty well written. Reads like a thriller so I sure give a point for it. But while it is interesting that all of them ended up dying a lot of them are pretty far fetched and didn't really have any evidence. It was well done in listing all the events that have been on the news. Otherwise I took most of it as speculations that were still pretty entertaining.
December 22, 2019
It was slightly terrifying to read the extent to which Putin can go to silence his critics. The second half of the book, especially when people started dying of mysterious causes, felt like reading a fiction. Very well-writen.
December 31, 2019
I read a lot of espionage/history books and this is probably the best. Thoroughly researched by a 2018 Pulitzer Prize finalist, she had me on pins and needles throughout. It describes the slow, meticulous, deliberate walk of Putin into the Presidency and his transforming of his ministry into a personal, powerful, corrupt legion. Scores of once inner circle oligarchs and ex Russian spies lose favorite status and flee to the UK for protection and a place to hide. And with complicency of Downing Street (thank you Tony Blair and David Cameron) these men are assassinated one by one. Over many years as they are killed off they work with US Intelligence because the UK refuses to even investigate but rule all of these deaths as suicide, accidents or natural causes. Russia has developed chemicals that kill and can’t be traced, chemicals that alter ones state of mind to induce suicide, and of course we now know about polonium, which was used to kill Alexander Litvinenko in 2006. On the eve of the Justice Department’s scheduled meeting, Nov. 2015, with the architect of Putin’ media empire, he is killed in his hotel room, just blocks from the White House. Even in the US this is ruled by a federal prosecutor as an accident (oh, yes, he beat himself about the head and back). “Agents close to the case knew the FBI was sitting on a secret report containing high-level intelligence from Moscow that directly contradicted the offical finding that he had died by accident." Clearly Putin has pawns embedded in powerful places in the US, it would be naive to think otherwise. For years Putin has ordered assassinations in the UK, and without punishment or repercussion, he is emboldened to also kill in the US.
February 21, 2022
Pros:
1. Author certainly can write and lead reader through her thoughts process. I think she could be quite skilled fiction novels writer. If you enjoy action fiction novels you will enjoy this book.
2. Chosen topic is interesting and if it was properly examined it would be a fascinating read. It needs to be kept in mind that sensitivity and confidentiality of the matter makes it almost impossible to describe it in a reliable, unbiased way.
3. Considering above, author's bravery to touch this topic needs to be praised.
Cons:
1. The minimal bibliography (which I reviewed in details) and lack of any reliable sources' description, makes this book lack credibility and falls significantly under a level of scrutiny of any savvy nonfiction reader.
2. It felt like reading collection of well assembled newspaper articles with predefined thesis that needs to be proven.
3. Generally speaking, authors who "sit on the high horse" and tries to teach readers proper (in their mind) moral compass don't sit well with me. Just personal preference.
Overall, this is skillfully written, headlines based journalism with unclear sources and minimal bibliography, aspiring to be a good nonfiction literature.
1. Author certainly can write and lead reader through her thoughts process. I think she could be quite skilled fiction novels writer. If you enjoy action fiction novels you will enjoy this book.
2. Chosen topic is interesting and if it was properly examined it would be a fascinating read. It needs to be kept in mind that sensitivity and confidentiality of the matter makes it almost impossible to describe it in a reliable, unbiased way.
3. Considering above, author's bravery to touch this topic needs to be praised.
Cons:
1. The minimal bibliography (which I reviewed in details) and lack of any reliable sources' description, makes this book lack credibility and falls significantly under a level of scrutiny of any savvy nonfiction reader.
2. It felt like reading collection of well assembled newspaper articles with predefined thesis that needs to be proven.
3. Generally speaking, authors who "sit on the high horse" and tries to teach readers proper (in their mind) moral compass don't sit well with me. Just personal preference.
Overall, this is skillfully written, headlines based journalism with unclear sources and minimal bibliography, aspiring to be a good nonfiction literature.
November 18, 2023
(The English review is placed beneath the Russian one)
Выключатель квадратен – он похож на портрет
Того доброго дяди, который принес нам свет.
Я только часть его – производитель щелчка.
Ведь это он управляет лампочкой...
Снаружи он гладок, снаружи – квадрат.
И только в недрах стены – грандиозный аппарат,
Миллионы электронов, скрытых от глаз.
Именно здесь осуществляется власть.
Книга написана (читается) как триллер и, наверно, поэтому она столь популярна на Западе. Тем не менее, я постоянно задавался вопросом: откуда у автора настолько подробная информация о жизни российских олигархов в Великобритании? Это особенно сильно заметно в том месте (книги), где автор описывает частную вечеринку в честь дня рождения Березовского, которая была воссоздана в таких деталях, что невольно задумываешься, а не является ли автор личным биографом Березовского. Собственно, именно это и создаёт ощущение, что перед нами не политическая литература, а художественное произведение. Если взглянуть на другие книги о путинской России, то в них никогда не встречается такое детальное описание что думал или сказал тот или иной человек в приватной обстановке. Поэтому такой художественный подход автора резко снижает доверие ко всей книге, точнее в той части, где автор описывает события, происходившие с Березовским, членами российской мафии (бандитами) и пр. участниками тех событий. Однако тут стоит отметить, что книга состоит из двух составных частей. Первая составная часть, это описание событий, которые происходили с Березовским и неким господином Young. Описывая события на территории Великобритании, автор, использует литературно-художественный стиль, из-за чего книга так сильно напоминает художественную литературу, описывает, кто что подумал и кто что сказал. Вторая составляющая книги, это описание значимых событий случившихся в путинское правление, как то: взрывы домов в Москве, захват заложников в Норд-Осте, убийство Политковской, убийство Литвиненко, отравление украинского президента Ющенко и так далее. Тут представлена информация, которая появлялась множество раз в СМИ и которую можно встретить в любой книге о Путине и путинской России. Итак, получается, что автор разбавила новостные события, связанные с Россией или происходившие на территории России, с очень детализированными историями, изображёнными в духе триллера, которые происходили с Березовским или российскими олигархами (бандитами), что имели место на территории Великобритании. Другими словами, перед нами смесь триллера и новостных сводок.
Если к описанию крупных событий, что были связаны с Россией, как например, убийство Литвиненко или отравление Ющенко, у меня претензий нет, ибо подобное описание с соответствующими выводами я встречал в каждой книге о путинской России, то вот к описанию жизни Березовского в Лондоне, у меня претензии есть. Во-первых, я абсолютно не понимаю, кто такой господин Young, с которого начинается книга, и чьи события из жизни автор упоминает на всём протяжении книги. Возможно, на Западе он являлся значимой фигурой, но в России о нём никто и ничего не знает. Поэтому мне было абсолютно не интересно читать, кто он, что и как он приобрёл в Лондоне и пр. Российских олигархов, так же как российских бандитов и коррупционеров, которые обогатились в период правления Ельцина и Путина, не счесть, так почему же меня должен интересовать конкретно этот человек? Я даже больше скажу: сам Борис Березовский не очень меня интересует. Автор рисует Березовского чуть ли не как серого кардинала Кремля, который в одиночку навязал Путина всей стране. Однако на самом деле роман Ельцина с силовыми структурами, т.е. построение хороших отношений с бывшими работниками КГБ, начался ещё в начале 1990 года, когда Ельцин понял, что только на силовые структуры он и может рассчитывать, если хочет удержаться у власти. Так что у меня есть большие сомнения в том, что именно Березовский привёл Путина во власть. Причины, почему Путин стал президентом, стоит искать в ближайшем ельцинском окружении, включая отношение Ельцина к силовикам (его доверие к ним). Березовский, возможно, сыграл свою роль в приходе Путина к власти, но не главную и не решающую.
В целом, книга на самом деле мало что говорит о Путине, кроме известных событий, что произошли в России с начала правления Путина. Книга скорее посвящена Березовскому и как он пытался бороться с Путиным из-за рубежа. Другими словами, книга о Березовском, а не о Путине. Путина читатель встретит в этой книге не очень то и часто. Да и в целом у меня создалось впечатление, что Путин изображён в книге как некий фатум, который посылает на своих врагов проклятия принявших форму наёмных убийц. Однако в тот период, способности Березовского хоть как-то повлиять на события в России, были минимальными. Как мы теперь видим из 2023 года, созданная Ельциным система могла выдержать намного более сильные потрясения, нежели устные угрозы бывшего олигарха из Великобритании. Другими словами, с моей точки зрения, Березовский не представлял для Кремля большую угрозу, скорее даже наоборот, Березовский был идеальным козлом отпущения. В итоге книга воспринимается, как малоценная информация о частной жизни Березовского и его друзей и знакомых за рубежом и их борьбе с Путиным. Какая в этом ценность для читателей, я не совсем понимаю.
The book is written (reads) like a thriller, and that is probably why it is so popular in the West. Nevertheless, I kept wondering: where did the author get such detailed information about the life of Russian oligarchs in the UK? This is especially evident in the part (of the book) where the author describes Berezovsky's private birthday party, which was recreated in such detail that one can't help but wonder if the author is Berezovsky's personal biographer. In fact, this is what makes it feel like a work of fiction rather than political literature. If you look at other books about Putin's Russia, you will never find such a detailed description of what this or that person thought or said in private. Therefore, such a creative approach of the author sharply reduces the credibility of the whole book, more precisely in the part where the author describes the events that took place with Berezovsky, members of the Russian mafia (gangsters), and other participants of those events. However, it is worth noting that the book consists of two parts. The first part is a description of the events that took place with Berezovsky and a certain Mr Young. Describing the events on the territory of Great Britain, the author uses a literary-fiction style, which makes the book so much like fiction, describing who thought what and who said what. The second component of the book is a description of significant events that occurred during Putin's reign, such as the bombing of houses in Moscow, the hostage-taking in Nord-Ost, the murder of Politkovskaya, the murder of Litvinenko, the poisoning of Ukrainian President Yushchenko, and so on. Here is information that has appeared many times in the media and can be found in any book about Putin and Putin's Russia. So, it turns out that the author has diluted news events related to Russia or that took place on the territory of Russia with very detailed stories, depicted in the spirit of a thriller, that took place with Berezovsky or Russian oligarchs (gangsters) that took place on the territory of Great Britain. In other words, it is a mixture of thriller and news reports.
If to the description of major events that were connected with Russia, such as the murder of Litvinenko or the poisoning of Yushchenko, I have no complaints because such a description with appropriate conclusions I met in every book about Putin's Russia, but to the description of Berezovsky's life in London, I have complaints. Firstly, I do not understand who Mr Young is, with whom the book begins, and whose life events the author mentions throughout the book. Perhaps he was a significant figure in the West, but in Russia, nobody knew anything about him. Therefore, I was not interested in reading who he was, what and how he had acquired in London, and so on. There are as many Russian oligarchs as there are Russian gangsters and corrupt officials who enriched themselves during Yeltsin's and Putin's reign, so why should I be interested in this particular person? I'll even say more: Boris Berezovsky himself doesn't interest me much. The author paints Berezovsky almost as a grey cardinal of the Kremlin who single-handedly imposed Putin on the whole country. In reality, however, Yeltsin's love affair with the security services, i.e., building good relations with former KGB officers, began in early 1990, when Yeltsin realized that the security services were the only ones he could count on if he wanted to stay in power. So, I have great doubts that it was Berezovsky who brought Putin to power. The reasons why Putin became president should be looked for in Yeltsin's inner circle, including Yeltsin's attitude to the siloviki (his trust in them). Berezovsky may have played a role in Putin's rise to power, but not a major or decisive one.
Overall, the book doesn't really say much about Putin other than the famous events that have happened in Russia since the beginning of Putin's reign. The book is more about Berezovsky and how he tried to fight Putin from abroad. In other words, the book is about Berezovsky, not Putin. The reader will not meet Putin very often in this book. In general, I got the impression that Putin is portrayed in the book as a kind of fate that sends curses on his enemies that take the form of hired assassins. At that time, however, Berezovsky's ability to influence events in Russia in any way was minimal. As we now see in 2023, the system Yeltsin created could withstand far greater upheaval than the verbal threats of a former oligarch from Britain. In other words, from my point of view, Berezovsky did not pose much of a threat to the Kremlin, rather the opposite, i.e., Berezovsky was the perfect scapegoat. As a result, the book is perceived as little valuable information about the private lives of Berezovsky and his friends and acquaintances abroad and their struggle with Putin. What value it has for readers, I don't quite understand.
Выключатель квадратен – он похож на портрет
Того доброго дяди, который принес нам свет.
Я только часть его – производитель щелчка.
Ведь это он управляет лампочкой...
Снаружи он гладок, снаружи – квадрат.
И только в недрах стены – грандиозный аппарат,
Миллионы электронов, скрытых от глаз.
Именно здесь осуществляется власть.
Книга написана (читается) как триллер и, наверно, поэтому она столь популярна на Западе. Тем не менее, я постоянно задавался вопросом: откуда у автора настолько подробная информация о жизни российских олигархов в Великобритании? Это особенно сильно заметно в том месте (книги), где автор описывает частную вечеринку в честь дня рождения Березовского, которая была воссоздана в таких деталях, что невольно задумываешься, а не является ли автор личным биографом Березовского. Собственно, именно это и создаёт ощущение, что перед нами не политическая литература, а художественное произведение. Если взглянуть на другие книги о путинской России, то в них никогда не встречается такое детальное описание что думал или сказал тот или иной человек в приватной обстановке. Поэтому такой художественный подход автора резко снижает доверие ко всей книге, точнее в той части, где автор описывает события, происходившие с Березовским, членами российской мафии (бандитами) и пр. участниками тех событий. Однако тут стоит отметить, что книга состоит из двух составных частей. Первая составная часть, это описание событий, которые происходили с Березовским и неким господином Young. Описывая события на территории Великобритании, автор, использует литературно-художественный стиль, из-за чего книга так сильно напоминает художественную литературу, описывает, кто что подумал и кто что сказал. Вторая составляющая книги, это описание значимых событий случившихся в путинское правление, как то: взрывы домов в Москве, захват заложников в Норд-Осте, убийство Политковской, убийство Литвиненко, отравление украинского президента Ющенко и так далее. Тут представлена информация, которая появлялась множество раз в СМИ и которую можно встретить в любой книге о Путине и путинской России. Итак, получается, что автор разбавила новостные события, связанные с Россией или происходившие на территории России, с очень детализированными историями, изображёнными в духе триллера, которые происходили с Березовским или российскими олигархами (бандитами), что имели место на территории Великобритании. Другими словами, перед нами смесь триллера и новостных сводок.
Если к описанию крупных событий, что были связаны с Россией, как например, убийство Литвиненко или отравление Ющенко, у меня претензий нет, ибо подобное описание с соответствующими выводами я встречал в каждой книге о путинской России, то вот к описанию жизни Березовского в Лондоне, у меня претензии есть. Во-первых, я абсолютно не понимаю, кто такой господин Young, с которого начинается книга, и чьи события из жизни автор упоминает на всём протяжении книги. Возможно, на Западе он являлся значимой фигурой, но в России о нём никто и ничего не знает. Поэтому мне было абсолютно не интересно читать, кто он, что и как он приобрёл в Лондоне и пр. Российских олигархов, так же как российских бандитов и коррупционеров, которые обогатились в период правления Ельцина и Путина, не счесть, так почему же меня должен интересовать конкретно этот человек? Я даже больше скажу: сам Борис Березовский не очень меня интересует. Автор рисует Березовского чуть ли не как серого кардинала Кремля, который в одиночку навязал Путина всей стране. Однако на самом деле роман Ельцина с силовыми структурами, т.е. построение хороших отношений с бывшими работниками КГБ, начался ещё в начале 1990 года, когда Ельцин понял, что только на силовые структуры он и может рассчитывать, если хочет удержаться у власти. Так что у меня есть большие сомнения в том, что именно Березовский привёл Путина во власть. Причины, почему Путин стал президентом, стоит искать в ближайшем ельцинском окружении, включая отношение Ельцина к силовикам (его доверие к ним). Березовский, возможно, сыграл свою роль в приходе Путина к власти, но не главную и не решающую.
В целом, книга на самом деле мало что говорит о Путине, кроме известных событий, что произошли в России с начала правления Путина. Книга скорее посвящена Березовскому и как он пытался бороться с Путиным из-за рубежа. Другими словами, книга о Березовском, а не о Путине. Путина читатель встретит в этой книге не очень то и часто. Да и в целом у меня создалось впечатление, что Путин изображён в книге как некий фатум, который посылает на своих врагов проклятия принявших форму наёмных убийц. Однако в тот период, способности Березовского хоть как-то повлиять на события в России, были минимальными. Как мы теперь видим из 2023 года, созданная Ельциным система могла выдержать намного более сильные потрясения, нежели устные угрозы бывшего олигарха из Великобритании. Другими словами, с моей точки зрения, Березовский не представлял для Кремля большую угрозу, скорее даже наоборот, Березовский был идеальным козлом отпущения. В итоге книга воспринимается, как малоценная информация о частной жизни Березовского и его друзей и знакомых за рубежом и их борьбе с Путиным. Какая в этом ценность для читателей, я не совсем понимаю.
The book is written (reads) like a thriller, and that is probably why it is so popular in the West. Nevertheless, I kept wondering: where did the author get such detailed information about the life of Russian oligarchs in the UK? This is especially evident in the part (of the book) where the author describes Berezovsky's private birthday party, which was recreated in such detail that one can't help but wonder if the author is Berezovsky's personal biographer. In fact, this is what makes it feel like a work of fiction rather than political literature. If you look at other books about Putin's Russia, you will never find such a detailed description of what this or that person thought or said in private. Therefore, such a creative approach of the author sharply reduces the credibility of the whole book, more precisely in the part where the author describes the events that took place with Berezovsky, members of the Russian mafia (gangsters), and other participants of those events. However, it is worth noting that the book consists of two parts. The first part is a description of the events that took place with Berezovsky and a certain Mr Young. Describing the events on the territory of Great Britain, the author uses a literary-fiction style, which makes the book so much like fiction, describing who thought what and who said what. The second component of the book is a description of significant events that occurred during Putin's reign, such as the bombing of houses in Moscow, the hostage-taking in Nord-Ost, the murder of Politkovskaya, the murder of Litvinenko, the poisoning of Ukrainian President Yushchenko, and so on. Here is information that has appeared many times in the media and can be found in any book about Putin and Putin's Russia. So, it turns out that the author has diluted news events related to Russia or that took place on the territory of Russia with very detailed stories, depicted in the spirit of a thriller, that took place with Berezovsky or Russian oligarchs (gangsters) that took place on the territory of Great Britain. In other words, it is a mixture of thriller and news reports.
If to the description of major events that were connected with Russia, such as the murder of Litvinenko or the poisoning of Yushchenko, I have no complaints because such a description with appropriate conclusions I met in every book about Putin's Russia, but to the description of Berezovsky's life in London, I have complaints. Firstly, I do not understand who Mr Young is, with whom the book begins, and whose life events the author mentions throughout the book. Perhaps he was a significant figure in the West, but in Russia, nobody knew anything about him. Therefore, I was not interested in reading who he was, what and how he had acquired in London, and so on. There are as many Russian oligarchs as there are Russian gangsters and corrupt officials who enriched themselves during Yeltsin's and Putin's reign, so why should I be interested in this particular person? I'll even say more: Boris Berezovsky himself doesn't interest me much. The author paints Berezovsky almost as a grey cardinal of the Kremlin who single-handedly imposed Putin on the whole country. In reality, however, Yeltsin's love affair with the security services, i.e., building good relations with former KGB officers, began in early 1990, when Yeltsin realized that the security services were the only ones he could count on if he wanted to stay in power. So, I have great doubts that it was Berezovsky who brought Putin to power. The reasons why Putin became president should be looked for in Yeltsin's inner circle, including Yeltsin's attitude to the siloviki (his trust in them). Berezovsky may have played a role in Putin's rise to power, but not a major or decisive one.
Overall, the book doesn't really say much about Putin other than the famous events that have happened in Russia since the beginning of Putin's reign. The book is more about Berezovsky and how he tried to fight Putin from abroad. In other words, the book is about Berezovsky, not Putin. The reader will not meet Putin very often in this book. In general, I got the impression that Putin is portrayed in the book as a kind of fate that sends curses on his enemies that take the form of hired assassins. At that time, however, Berezovsky's ability to influence events in Russia in any way was minimal. As we now see in 2023, the system Yeltsin created could withstand far greater upheaval than the verbal threats of a former oligarch from Britain. In other words, from my point of view, Berezovsky did not pose much of a threat to the Kremlin, rather the opposite, i.e., Berezovsky was the perfect scapegoat. As a result, the book is perceived as little valuable information about the private lives of Berezovsky and his friends and acquaintances abroad and their struggle with Putin. What value it has for readers, I don't quite understand.
April 7, 2022
Viihdyttävä mutta toisteinen. Isoin ongelma on, kuten muutkin ovat todenneet, että todisteet puuttuvat. Heti alussa tuli fiilis, että hetkinen, mihin tämä perustuu, nyt todisteita pöytään.
En yhtään epäile, etteikö Putin olisi murhauttanut isoa määrää loikkareita ja heidän kätyreitään ja etteivätkö brittipäättäjät ja -viranomaiset olisi kääntäneet katsettaan muualle, kun murhat ovat tapahtuneet. Tällä teoksella ei vain ole voimaa todistaa sitä. Jos tiedot ovat peräisin toisilta oligarkeilta, voiko heihin luottaa? Ja onko heitä enää jäljellä todistamassa? Onko Blake dramatisoinut kohtaukset mielikuvituksensa mukaan, vai onko joku elossa oleva pystynyt kuvailemaan hänelle kaiken?
En osaa myöskään hirveästi tuntea myötätuntoa käsittämättömän rikkaita oligarkkeja ja heidän bisneskumppaneitaan kohtaan. Tuntuu oudolta, että heitä pitäisi kovasti sympatiseerata. Joo, kukaan ei ansaitse tulla salamurhatuksi, mutta ei kukaan ansaitse miljardeissa kieriskelyäkään. Omaisuus on aina revitty muiden selkänahasta. Ökyrikkaiden hiilijalanjälki on posketonta luokkaa. En tajua, miksi sikarikkaus esitetään neutraalina ja otetaan annettuna, vaikka sen vaikutukset kyllä tiedetään.
Kapitalismi oikeutetaan sillä, että promillesta ihmisiä voi tulla satumaisen rikkaita ja porukka haluaa uskoa, että itse onnistuu pääsemään siihen yhteen promilleen. Mikään ei oikeuta isoja tuloeroja tai sairasta rikkautta, varsinkaan ryöväily toisten kärsiessä hätää. Eli yritettiin vetää vääristä naruista.
Tuli kyllä itsellekin mieleen, uskaltaako enää syödä tai juoda mitään, varsinkin, jos on brittilässä käymässä. Jos vaikka myrkytykseen käytetty, kertaalleen tiskattu poloniumkannu sattuu seuraavaksi omalle kohdalle. No, huomiseen mennessä varmaan unohtuu.
En yhtään epäile, etteikö Putin olisi murhauttanut isoa määrää loikkareita ja heidän kätyreitään ja etteivätkö brittipäättäjät ja -viranomaiset olisi kääntäneet katsettaan muualle, kun murhat ovat tapahtuneet. Tällä teoksella ei vain ole voimaa todistaa sitä. Jos tiedot ovat peräisin toisilta oligarkeilta, voiko heihin luottaa? Ja onko heitä enää jäljellä todistamassa? Onko Blake dramatisoinut kohtaukset mielikuvituksensa mukaan, vai onko joku elossa oleva pystynyt kuvailemaan hänelle kaiken?
En osaa myöskään hirveästi tuntea myötätuntoa käsittämättömän rikkaita oligarkkeja ja heidän bisneskumppaneitaan kohtaan. Tuntuu oudolta, että heitä pitäisi kovasti sympatiseerata. Joo, kukaan ei ansaitse tulla salamurhatuksi, mutta ei kukaan ansaitse miljardeissa kieriskelyäkään. Omaisuus on aina revitty muiden selkänahasta. Ökyrikkaiden hiilijalanjälki on posketonta luokkaa. En tajua, miksi sikarikkaus esitetään neutraalina ja otetaan annettuna, vaikka sen vaikutukset kyllä tiedetään.
Kapitalismi oikeutetaan sillä, että promillesta ihmisiä voi tulla satumaisen rikkaita ja porukka haluaa uskoa, että itse onnistuu pääsemään siihen yhteen promilleen. Mikään ei oikeuta isoja tuloeroja tai sairasta rikkautta, varsinkaan ryöväily toisten kärsiessä hätää. Eli yritettiin vetää vääristä naruista.
Tuli kyllä itsellekin mieleen, uskaltaako enää syödä tai juoda mitään, varsinkin, jos on brittilässä käymässä. Jos vaikka myrkytykseen käytetty, kertaalleen tiskattu poloniumkannu sattuu seuraavaksi omalle kohdalle. No, huomiseen mennessä varmaan unohtuu.
April 17, 2020
It's taken me a while to decide how I wanted to approach this review. As a longtime Russia-watcher, I felt the book far oversimplified a murky, mafia-filled political world into a battle royal between Putin and Berezovsky, ignoring people and events that didn't fit this master narrative (like Khodorkovsky's second trial and how much of a thorn in Putin's side he was and still is). As Buzzfeed journalism, it also fails to cite its sources in any useful way. It also suggests that key people in the UK failed to act due to Russian pressure.
For all its shortcomings, though, Blake is a great writer, and the book is engaging as a true crime narrative. The book may help chip away the strongman veneer that many people still buy into when it comes to Putin, revealing the network of corruption and crime that placed him in power. It puts faces to the names in news articles, revealing the grieving family members and stunned neighbors left in the wake of these assassinations. It should, perhaps, be read in conjunction with other sources on Putin's Russia.
Thanks to the publishers and NetGalley for a digital ARC for the purpose of an unbiased review.
For all its shortcomings, though, Blake is a great writer, and the book is engaging as a true crime narrative. The book may help chip away the strongman veneer that many people still buy into when it comes to Putin, revealing the network of corruption and crime that placed him in power. It puts faces to the names in news articles, revealing the grieving family members and stunned neighbors left in the wake of these assassinations. It should, perhaps, be read in conjunction with other sources on Putin's Russia.
Thanks to the publishers and NetGalley for a digital ARC for the purpose of an unbiased review.
January 24, 2021
Sillon tällöin ikkunoista sattumanvaraisesti tippuvat, sydänkohtauksia saavat ja itsensä veitsellä surmaavat venäläiset oligarkit ja heidän kaverinsa ovat toimineet itsellänikin jonkin vitsin pohjana, mutta Tappolista etenee tasaisena virtana läpi kaikki nämä miehet, ja muutamat naiset, jotka tämän globaalin jahdin kohteena ovat olleet. Jos edes puolet tapahtuneesta on totta, elämme todella pelottavien voimien naapurissa.
Kirjan sävy on välillä hyvin kertomuskirjamainen, melkein jännärinä luettava, joka toisaalta auttaa sen lukemisessa vaikka välillä uhrien tunnetilaa liiaksi tietokirjan sivuilla kuvataankin. Kerrotuista henkilöistä tulee lukijalle kuin Le Carreen sivuhenkilöitä ilman todellisuuspohjaa.
Kirjan sävy on välillä hyvin kertomuskirjamainen, melkein jännärinä luettava, joka toisaalta auttaa sen lukemisessa vaikka välillä uhrien tunnetilaa liiaksi tietokirjan sivuilla kuvataankin. Kerrotuista henkilöistä tulee lukijalle kuin Le Carreen sivuhenkilöitä ilman todellisuuspohjaa.
March 3, 2022
Overall a Nice book.
Required some additional information regarding the impact of Kremlin in several American and east Asian countries.
Required some additional information regarding the impact of Kremlin in several American and east Asian countries.
March 13, 2023
Bardzo ciekawa pozycja. Napisana trochę jak thriller, przez co świetnie się czyta, natomiast ma się wrażenie, że momentami trochę podkręca to, co zdarzyło się naprawdę. Niemniej jednak godna polecenia🫡
January 30, 2021
Aika kylmäävä kirja, ja Navalnyin myötä mitä ajankohtaisin.
January 1, 2021
Vaikka minulla ei ole minkäänlaista asiantuntijuutta sanoa onko kirjan väittämät pätkänkään verran totta vai pelkkää tuulesta temmattua spekulaatiota, niin tämä menee aivan oivallisesti jonkinlaisena trillerinä. Toki ihan uutisiakin lukemalla voi todeta, että kaukana ollaan demokraattisesta oikeusvaltiosta tuolla Putinin Venäjällä. Russofobia saa minun puolestani olla ja jäädä menneisyyteen, mutta ikinä ei saa tuota itänaapuria unohtaa.
March 14, 2022
https://sarahsdeepdives.blogspot.com/...
I just finished this book last night, and to say I was captivated is an understatement. I remember a lot of the deaths mentioned in these pages, but so many of the details that are discussed here never made news headlines. Furthermore, Blake goes back in history a bit, and talks about how Putin made the shift from KGB to powerbroker in Petersburg, ties with various crime syndicates (and why he formed them). What From Russia With Blood does really well, though, is show how past events impact current events through a more personal lens.
The Moscow Bombings, and the gassing of the theater, the war in Chechnya are all things I’ve heard about in the periphery, but they never really made huge headway in Western media. Blake, however, ties them all to Putin, the dynamics of his power, and then his covert assassination program of expatriates. It's quite a tangled web, and somehow it remains clear throughout, regardless of which thread the author is pulling at the time.
I read this to better understand Putin's power, and how he operates behind the scenes to keep a grip on his empire, as well as how that might inform current events. And while you might be wondering how this, in any way, informs the current situation in Ukraine, it’s important to realize that nothing that is happening is really new. All of this has been done before, and Putin absolutely has some default behavior patterns which you’ll pick up on if you read enough about him. This book does a magnificent job of showing how Putin views the West, and how he keeps an iron fist clamped around the source of his power and authority.
Blake uses declassified texts to weave a narrative of a covert assassination campaign which has been used to tidy up loose ends via people falling out of windows, or being dosed with Novichok, and how the UK government often overlooked this in favor of strengthening Russia/UK ties. While Blake does poo-poo the UK government a bit for how they handled this, I tend to take a bit of a more lenient view of it all, as it must have been an impossible situation for the government at the time. That being said, I'm not a British person, so take that for what it's worth. I'm looking at it from the outside.
There are some weaknesses here. Blake obviously has an agenda and she’s setting out to prove her point. This doesn’t mean she’s wrong on any of this, it just means that sometimes there’s spin. However, the way Blake weaves together events like the fall of the USSR, the rise of organized crime, brutality like what happened in Chechnya and the Moscow Apartment Bombings right when Putin was really solidifying his power is nothing short of captivating, and extremely informative. To see how the man operates is to better understand how he interacts with the world.
What surprised me about this one was how it felt a bit more personal. Blake weaves together interviews, court transcripts, letters, emails and more, giving all of these people their own voices, which is something I think a lot of nonfiction books lack.
I just finished this book last night, and to say I was captivated is an understatement. I remember a lot of the deaths mentioned in these pages, but so many of the details that are discussed here never made news headlines. Furthermore, Blake goes back in history a bit, and talks about how Putin made the shift from KGB to powerbroker in Petersburg, ties with various crime syndicates (and why he formed them). What From Russia With Blood does really well, though, is show how past events impact current events through a more personal lens.
The Moscow Bombings, and the gassing of the theater, the war in Chechnya are all things I’ve heard about in the periphery, but they never really made huge headway in Western media. Blake, however, ties them all to Putin, the dynamics of his power, and then his covert assassination program of expatriates. It's quite a tangled web, and somehow it remains clear throughout, regardless of which thread the author is pulling at the time.
I read this to better understand Putin's power, and how he operates behind the scenes to keep a grip on his empire, as well as how that might inform current events. And while you might be wondering how this, in any way, informs the current situation in Ukraine, it’s important to realize that nothing that is happening is really new. All of this has been done before, and Putin absolutely has some default behavior patterns which you’ll pick up on if you read enough about him. This book does a magnificent job of showing how Putin views the West, and how he keeps an iron fist clamped around the source of his power and authority.
Blake uses declassified texts to weave a narrative of a covert assassination campaign which has been used to tidy up loose ends via people falling out of windows, or being dosed with Novichok, and how the UK government often overlooked this in favor of strengthening Russia/UK ties. While Blake does poo-poo the UK government a bit for how they handled this, I tend to take a bit of a more lenient view of it all, as it must have been an impossible situation for the government at the time. That being said, I'm not a British person, so take that for what it's worth. I'm looking at it from the outside.
There are some weaknesses here. Blake obviously has an agenda and she’s setting out to prove her point. This doesn’t mean she’s wrong on any of this, it just means that sometimes there’s spin. However, the way Blake weaves together events like the fall of the USSR, the rise of organized crime, brutality like what happened in Chechnya and the Moscow Apartment Bombings right when Putin was really solidifying his power is nothing short of captivating, and extremely informative. To see how the man operates is to better understand how he interacts with the world.
What surprised me about this one was how it felt a bit more personal. Blake weaves together interviews, court transcripts, letters, emails and more, giving all of these people their own voices, which is something I think a lot of nonfiction books lack.
November 2, 2022
This is a book about Russia’s political assassinations in the West since Vladimir Putin came to power in 2000, up until its publication in 2019. While a string of oligarchs, dissidents and journalists die in suspicious circumstances, the local police fail to investigate thoroughly, and American and British politicians at the highest level fawn over Putin, welcoming him as the saviour of post-Communist Russia, and facilitate business, particularly in the energy sector.
The first red flag on this book is that its author and investigative team work for Buzzfeed, a news source that has been regularly criticized over its reliability. Then there is the writing style, which crafts almost every sentence into sensationalist clickbait. It’s exciting and keeps you reading, but how much of it is actually true? The content appears to be cobbled together from news reports, with a healthy dose of conjecture. There is no insight into what actually happened in the Kremlin, or any attempt to examine how the new relationship between Russia and the West helped shape twenty-first century geopolitics – a discussion which would be insightful today. Lastly, there are several claims that have long been debunked yet here are presented as fact.
It's always fascinating to read about political intrigues, but this book reads more like a thriller than a clear explanation of what’s going on in the era of modern espionage and terrorism. A little less hyperbole and a little more analysis would give the text the gravitas it needs to be taken seriously.
The first red flag on this book is that its author and investigative team work for Buzzfeed, a news source that has been regularly criticized over its reliability. Then there is the writing style, which crafts almost every sentence into sensationalist clickbait. It’s exciting and keeps you reading, but how much of it is actually true? The content appears to be cobbled together from news reports, with a healthy dose of conjecture. There is no insight into what actually happened in the Kremlin, or any attempt to examine how the new relationship between Russia and the West helped shape twenty-first century geopolitics – a discussion which would be insightful today. Lastly, there are several claims that have long been debunked yet here are presented as fact.
It's always fascinating to read about political intrigues, but this book reads more like a thriller than a clear explanation of what’s going on in the era of modern espionage and terrorism. A little less hyperbole and a little more analysis would give the text the gravitas it needs to be taken seriously.
February 20, 2020
Goodreads Giveaway - First a kudos should go to the Buzzfeed team which did the investigation and reporting necessary for this book. Taking on Russia, apparently, is kind of a dangerous thing to do. The book itself goes a long way to illustrate the profound incompetence of the British government, their legal system, police force, and their intelligence agencies. Citizens of the UK (and the world) should be horrified, not only at Russian brutality, but also the cynical lack of humanity and hubris demonstrated by world leaders in a sycophantic display attempting to "bring Russian back into the fold". Blair, Cameron, May, Obama, Kerry, Clinton, and Trump have all been outsmarted and out maneuvered by Putin - and they were blinded by their own lust for power. On a side note - the less said about the amateurish prose in the book the better. James Patterson's worst ghostwriter would be ashamed of some of the literary flourishes used in this book.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 283 reviews