What do you think?
Rate this book
Between Two Fires: Truth, Ambition, and Compromise in Putin's Russia
From a leading journalist in Moscow and correspondent for The New Yorker, a groundbreaking portrait of modern Russia and the inner struggles of the people who sustain Vladimir Putin's rule
In this rich and novelistic tour of contemporary Russia, Joshua Yaffa introduces readers to some of the country's most remarkable figures--from politicians and entrepreneurs to artists and historians--who have built their careers and constructed their identities in the shadow of the Putin system. Torn between their own ambitions and the omnipresent demands of the state, each walks an individual path of compromise. Some muster cunning and cynicism to extract all manner of benefits and privileges from those in power. Others, finding themselves to be less adept, are left broken and demoralized. What binds them together is the tangled web of dilemmas and contradictions they face.
Between Two Fires chronicles the lives of a number of strivers who understand that their dreams are best--or only--realized through varying degrees of cooperation with the Russian government. With sensitivity and depth, Yaffa profiles the director of the country's main television channel, an Orthodox priest at war with the church hierarchy, a Chechen humanitarian who turns a blind eye to persecutions, and many others. The result is an intimate and probing portrait of a nation that is much discussed yet little understood. By showing how citizens shape their lives around the demands of a capricious and frequently repressive state--as often by choice as under threat of force--Yaffa offers urgent lessons about the true nature of modern authoritarianism.
In this rich and novelistic tour of contemporary Russia, Joshua Yaffa introduces readers to some of the country's most remarkable figures--from politicians and entrepreneurs to artists and historians--who have built their careers and constructed their identities in the shadow of the Putin system. Torn between their own ambitions and the omnipresent demands of the state, each walks an individual path of compromise. Some muster cunning and cynicism to extract all manner of benefits and privileges from those in power. Others, finding themselves to be less adept, are left broken and demoralized. What binds them together is the tangled web of dilemmas and contradictions they face.
Between Two Fires chronicles the lives of a number of strivers who understand that their dreams are best--or only--realized through varying degrees of cooperation with the Russian government. With sensitivity and depth, Yaffa profiles the director of the country's main television channel, an Orthodox priest at war with the church hierarchy, a Chechen humanitarian who turns a blind eye to persecutions, and many others. The result is an intimate and probing portrait of a nation that is much discussed yet little understood. By showing how citizens shape their lives around the demands of a capricious and frequently repressive state--as often by choice as under threat of force--Yaffa offers urgent lessons about the true nature of modern authoritarianism.
Paperback
First published January 14, 2020
About the author
Joshua Yaffa
3 books57 followersJoshua Yaffa is a correspondent for The New Yorker in Moscow. For his work in Russia, he has been named a fellow at New America, a recipient of the American Academy’s Berlin Prize, and a finalist for the Livingston Award.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 170 reviews
March 16, 2022
The title comes from the Russian saying mezhdu dvukh ognyei “between two fires” meaning “stuck in the middle of two opposing forces bigger than yourself”. The author’s premise is this is where Russians find themselves and it leads to a particular personality, one that accepts as normal the compromising and adjusting between an authoritarian reality and the desire to be your authentic self. Thus, people become comfortable accepting their state determined roles, even adopting that role as their mission in life. Of course, they do game the system when they can, and feel a little individuality when they do. There is also an odd sort of freedom in having your public work and behavior defined for you. You do not have to explain your actions. Everyone is in the same boat. Yaffa profiles Russians in different circumstances to show how each adapts to the state while striving to maintain some independence. He interviews them as well as friends and associates. Yaffa is a correspondent for The New Yorker in Moscow and has spent many years in Russia. My notes follow.
Yaffa begins with Konstantin Ernst who is the CEO of Channel One, an important Russian state television channel that reaches the entire country. A self-proclaimed statist he fell in line using the channel to boost Boris Yeltsin and then to take Putin from public obscurity to wide recognition with the image of a great leader. Ernst is excellent at his job, both in terms of his media skills and in his loyalty to Putin. His shows target the audience’s emotions including patriotism and the sense of a collective Russian people with shared memories, purpose and fate. Shaping public opinion works by starting with what people already believe and fitting it to the politically desired belief. It is effective. Most of the world believes Russian separatists shot down a Malaysian airliner in 2014. A poll a year later showed only 5% of Russians believed that. When earlier that year Ukrainians protested against president Yanukovych who had done an about face and sought close ties to Russia, Channel One depicted them as Nazis. A month later Russia was invading Crimea. Ernst is comfortable in his job and justifies it in part saying all major news networks be they CNN or the BBC put forward the news that the country’s powers deem acceptable. He says truth is subjective. A couple of days ago, March 14, a TV editor held up a sign on a live Russian newscast on Channel One. It said “Stop the war. Don't believe the propaganda. Here they are lying to you.” She is facing 15 years in jail.
Heda Saratova collected information on Russian atrocities in Chechnya during the Second Chechen War that began in 1999. She navigated the streets of devastated towns patrolled by Russian troops at great personal danger meeting with witnesses and Chechen fighters. She hid tapes and reports crossing Russian checkpoints, delivering them to journalists in a neighboring territory. Putin adopted a policy of “Chechenization” giving a Chechen warlord freedom in internal affairs in exchange for controlling rebels and maintaining loyalty to Russia. Kidnappings, torture and killings remained commonplace but now were done to preserve the power of Ramzan Kadyrov who succeeded his father. In 2009 Kadyrov had an activist friend of Saratova’s kidnapped and killed. The danger wasn’t just to oneself. Kadyrov threatened one’s entire family. Saratova decided she could help best by not challenging authorities and confining her activities to those that would be acceptable to Kadyrov. Soon she was issuing statements praising Kadyrov, defending him and worst of all calling out her former human rights colleagues putting them in danger. She now had status, influence, money and new possibilities for her children and consoled herself in the small ways she could help.
Father Pavel Adelgeim was a Russian Orthodox priest. He is an example of the fate awaiting the clergy and church officials who step out of line with the Church’s position which is strictly aligned to Putin’s. An autocratic state and an autocratic church use each other. Adelgeim was very devout and outspoken calling the church-state relationship a “wily alliance”. He said the church should forgive Pussy Riot when in 2012 the punk group demonstrated against Putin in Moscow’s Cathedral of Christ the Savior, angering church hierarchy. Adelgeim mostly wrote on theological matters and had a small following but continued to call out the church-state alignment. For his persistent dissent he lost his position as pastor of his small church and eventually any meaningful position. In the end he was stabbed to death. Although the attacker was declared insane, to some it looked like a premeditated murder perhaps orchestrated by the archbishop who had it in for Adelgeim. He was an irritant that just wouldn’t go away. The profile is an example in a piece that describes how the Russian Orthodox Church has become a political as well as religious organization. Today as Orthodox churches condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Russian Orthodox Church alone stands fast with Putin.
Oleg Zubkov grew up poor in Russia and moved to Crimea where he followed his heart and established a zoo. His prize possessions were his lions which he would hug and caress. A native Russian in a part of Ukraine where Russians made up more than half the population, he supported the Russian takeover of Crimea in 2014. He thought it would make things better. Ukraine had paid little attention to Crimea and services had suffered. But what he got instead was a self-serving authoritarian hierarchy. Who prospered depended on who knew who and who could help those in power. Zubkof became critical of the new government and soon he and his zoo were found to be in violation of laws and regulations. He would be called into court, fined and generally harassed. Far worse was the treatment of the Tatars in Crimea. The Tatars had been there since the thirteenth century. Catherine the Great took over Crimea in 1783. Most Tatars had been forcibly relocated by the Soviets to Central Asia in 1944, but many had since returned to Crimea and in 2014 comprised ten percent of the population. Soon after the Russians retook Crimea, young male Tatars were rounded up, arrested, disappeared, or tortured and killed. The Tatars had been very critical of the Russian takeover.
Yaffa visited Perm 36 which had been a brutal prison camp under the Soviets. He interviewed former inmates, guards and the founders of a museum that presented exhibits of the camp’s history. The museum had few restrictions in the 1990s, but by 2014 was under tight control. The Putin administration said it had been used to house fascists like those Putin accused the Ukrainians of being. Perhaps, but it housed many political dissidents too. Putin has chosen to downplay oppression in the Soviet Union’s history. Soviet history has to be a worthy predecessor to the greatness of Russia under Putin. Any discussion about oppression in the past invariably leads to one about oppression in the present and thus has to be avoided. Keeping the museum open in any meaningful way means walking a fine line between presenting history as it happened and as the state wants it. The museum cannot be seen as offering past oppression as a lesson for present day Russia. Here again we find the typical compromise made by people dealing with the administration. They can shut the museum or they can present the government line along with some carefully chosen historical facts. As one interviewee notes “There are no clear borders between civil and political activity”. Just as Zubkof found out in Crimea.
Elizaveta Glinka was a doctor in Russia who dedicated herself to helping the sick and injured without resources. Her work was personal. She focused on children in need. She treated homeless people in Moscow. She comforted the dying. Having learned about hospices in the US she returned to Russia to establish a hospice there. She built up a reputation and established an organization to fund her work. She tried to avoid politics, difficult to do in Russia. She joined the Kremlin’s human rights council. War was raging in Syria and then it broke out in Ukraine in 2014. She would get government support for missions to both and was able to help a number of children get treatment for injuries. Without government money and transportation, her efforts would have been very limited. But she was also used by Putin to create a humanitarian persona. She appeared with Putin to receive awards and by doing so burnished an image he was crafting of the caring compassionate leader. Activists criticized her for lending support to Putin who fomented these wars. She would say she didn’t understand politics but she was a pretty savvy operator in all other respects. Her compromise, as with the others Yaffa profiles, found her caught in the middle. She died in a plane crash on her way to Syria in December 2015.
Next Yaffa explores the arts in Russia. State money is required to put on major plays or produce major films in Russia. In the early 2000s some freedom was allowed producers and directors but in the late 2010s control was tightened. Yaffa profiles the director Kirill Srebrenica who veiled criticism of repression in the current government by depicting it in analogous situations in his productions. In 2017 he was arrested for stealing state funds approved for his operations. The illegality was a technicality that is in place for everyone receiving state money. Paying bills with state funds means the recipient receives them well after the service is provided. To pay a vendor who demands payment now the state funds must be converted, a technically illegal act but done all the time. The law is enforced only when the government wants to arrest someone. Just one of the many ways the state controls its citizens. Serebrennikov had attempted to please his liberal minded anti-Putin audience while seeming to not be criticizing the Putin administration. His compromise worked for a while, but in the year prior to Putin’s 2018 election, the government lost its tolerance. He was arrested and in 2020 convicted and given a suspended sentence. The government apparently thought he had learned his lesson.
The capriciousness of the Putin government makes it difficult to navigate between one’s personal goals and the government’s. Yaffa describes the situation as of 2020 when the book was published: “As the Putin system enters its late-stage geriatric phase, becoming ever more clumsy and paranoid in response to its declining faculties, it appears destined to turn increasingly rigid and coercive.” As opposition leader Alexei Navalny who is now in jail put it “I understand that these are very difficult times, when people have to decide for themselves the limits of what is permissible…And I don’t mean only careerists, but decent people who are doing good, and see that in the present conditions they can’t make do without cooperating with the regime. The whole problem is locating the border between compromise and conformism.” What would I do if I was in their situation?
On a side note, Yaffa also pointed out some things pertinent to the current invasion of Ukraine. On New Year’s Eve 1999 Boris Yeltsin transferred the presidency to Vladimir Putin. That night Putin flew to Chechnya. Chechnya had declared its independence in 1991 following the fall of the Soviet Union. He handed out some awards to the Russian soldiers fighting to take back control of Chechnya. Putin addressed them, shown on Russian national television. He said the war was “not just about defending the honor and dignity of the country”, it was “about putting an end to the disintegration of Russia”. Given the recent events in Ukraine it is telling that this was his message on the first day of his presidency. The shelling and bombing of Grozny and other towns in Chechnya into rubble parallels what Putin is doing today in Ukraine. Yaffa also points out that the takeover of Crimea in 2014 had buttressed Putin’s popularity appealing to Russian nationalism. But that focus soon faded as domestic issues such as real wages, housing and endemic corruption again became major concerns for people caught in a declining economy. Attacking Ukraine is a way for Putin to deflect people’s attention from domestic concerns.
Yaffa begins with Konstantin Ernst who is the CEO of Channel One, an important Russian state television channel that reaches the entire country. A self-proclaimed statist he fell in line using the channel to boost Boris Yeltsin and then to take Putin from public obscurity to wide recognition with the image of a great leader. Ernst is excellent at his job, both in terms of his media skills and in his loyalty to Putin. His shows target the audience’s emotions including patriotism and the sense of a collective Russian people with shared memories, purpose and fate. Shaping public opinion works by starting with what people already believe and fitting it to the politically desired belief. It is effective. Most of the world believes Russian separatists shot down a Malaysian airliner in 2014. A poll a year later showed only 5% of Russians believed that. When earlier that year Ukrainians protested against president Yanukovych who had done an about face and sought close ties to Russia, Channel One depicted them as Nazis. A month later Russia was invading Crimea. Ernst is comfortable in his job and justifies it in part saying all major news networks be they CNN or the BBC put forward the news that the country’s powers deem acceptable. He says truth is subjective. A couple of days ago, March 14, a TV editor held up a sign on a live Russian newscast on Channel One. It said “Stop the war. Don't believe the propaganda. Here they are lying to you.” She is facing 15 years in jail.
Heda Saratova collected information on Russian atrocities in Chechnya during the Second Chechen War that began in 1999. She navigated the streets of devastated towns patrolled by Russian troops at great personal danger meeting with witnesses and Chechen fighters. She hid tapes and reports crossing Russian checkpoints, delivering them to journalists in a neighboring territory. Putin adopted a policy of “Chechenization” giving a Chechen warlord freedom in internal affairs in exchange for controlling rebels and maintaining loyalty to Russia. Kidnappings, torture and killings remained commonplace but now were done to preserve the power of Ramzan Kadyrov who succeeded his father. In 2009 Kadyrov had an activist friend of Saratova’s kidnapped and killed. The danger wasn’t just to oneself. Kadyrov threatened one’s entire family. Saratova decided she could help best by not challenging authorities and confining her activities to those that would be acceptable to Kadyrov. Soon she was issuing statements praising Kadyrov, defending him and worst of all calling out her former human rights colleagues putting them in danger. She now had status, influence, money and new possibilities for her children and consoled herself in the small ways she could help.
Father Pavel Adelgeim was a Russian Orthodox priest. He is an example of the fate awaiting the clergy and church officials who step out of line with the Church’s position which is strictly aligned to Putin’s. An autocratic state and an autocratic church use each other. Adelgeim was very devout and outspoken calling the church-state relationship a “wily alliance”. He said the church should forgive Pussy Riot when in 2012 the punk group demonstrated against Putin in Moscow’s Cathedral of Christ the Savior, angering church hierarchy. Adelgeim mostly wrote on theological matters and had a small following but continued to call out the church-state alignment. For his persistent dissent he lost his position as pastor of his small church and eventually any meaningful position. In the end he was stabbed to death. Although the attacker was declared insane, to some it looked like a premeditated murder perhaps orchestrated by the archbishop who had it in for Adelgeim. He was an irritant that just wouldn’t go away. The profile is an example in a piece that describes how the Russian Orthodox Church has become a political as well as religious organization. Today as Orthodox churches condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Russian Orthodox Church alone stands fast with Putin.
Oleg Zubkov grew up poor in Russia and moved to Crimea where he followed his heart and established a zoo. His prize possessions were his lions which he would hug and caress. A native Russian in a part of Ukraine where Russians made up more than half the population, he supported the Russian takeover of Crimea in 2014. He thought it would make things better. Ukraine had paid little attention to Crimea and services had suffered. But what he got instead was a self-serving authoritarian hierarchy. Who prospered depended on who knew who and who could help those in power. Zubkof became critical of the new government and soon he and his zoo were found to be in violation of laws and regulations. He would be called into court, fined and generally harassed. Far worse was the treatment of the Tatars in Crimea. The Tatars had been there since the thirteenth century. Catherine the Great took over Crimea in 1783. Most Tatars had been forcibly relocated by the Soviets to Central Asia in 1944, but many had since returned to Crimea and in 2014 comprised ten percent of the population. Soon after the Russians retook Crimea, young male Tatars were rounded up, arrested, disappeared, or tortured and killed. The Tatars had been very critical of the Russian takeover.
Yaffa visited Perm 36 which had been a brutal prison camp under the Soviets. He interviewed former inmates, guards and the founders of a museum that presented exhibits of the camp’s history. The museum had few restrictions in the 1990s, but by 2014 was under tight control. The Putin administration said it had been used to house fascists like those Putin accused the Ukrainians of being. Perhaps, but it housed many political dissidents too. Putin has chosen to downplay oppression in the Soviet Union’s history. Soviet history has to be a worthy predecessor to the greatness of Russia under Putin. Any discussion about oppression in the past invariably leads to one about oppression in the present and thus has to be avoided. Keeping the museum open in any meaningful way means walking a fine line between presenting history as it happened and as the state wants it. The museum cannot be seen as offering past oppression as a lesson for present day Russia. Here again we find the typical compromise made by people dealing with the administration. They can shut the museum or they can present the government line along with some carefully chosen historical facts. As one interviewee notes “There are no clear borders between civil and political activity”. Just as Zubkof found out in Crimea.
Elizaveta Glinka was a doctor in Russia who dedicated herself to helping the sick and injured without resources. Her work was personal. She focused on children in need. She treated homeless people in Moscow. She comforted the dying. Having learned about hospices in the US she returned to Russia to establish a hospice there. She built up a reputation and established an organization to fund her work. She tried to avoid politics, difficult to do in Russia. She joined the Kremlin’s human rights council. War was raging in Syria and then it broke out in Ukraine in 2014. She would get government support for missions to both and was able to help a number of children get treatment for injuries. Without government money and transportation, her efforts would have been very limited. But she was also used by Putin to create a humanitarian persona. She appeared with Putin to receive awards and by doing so burnished an image he was crafting of the caring compassionate leader. Activists criticized her for lending support to Putin who fomented these wars. She would say she didn’t understand politics but she was a pretty savvy operator in all other respects. Her compromise, as with the others Yaffa profiles, found her caught in the middle. She died in a plane crash on her way to Syria in December 2015.
Next Yaffa explores the arts in Russia. State money is required to put on major plays or produce major films in Russia. In the early 2000s some freedom was allowed producers and directors but in the late 2010s control was tightened. Yaffa profiles the director Kirill Srebrenica who veiled criticism of repression in the current government by depicting it in analogous situations in his productions. In 2017 he was arrested for stealing state funds approved for his operations. The illegality was a technicality that is in place for everyone receiving state money. Paying bills with state funds means the recipient receives them well after the service is provided. To pay a vendor who demands payment now the state funds must be converted, a technically illegal act but done all the time. The law is enforced only when the government wants to arrest someone. Just one of the many ways the state controls its citizens. Serebrennikov had attempted to please his liberal minded anti-Putin audience while seeming to not be criticizing the Putin administration. His compromise worked for a while, but in the year prior to Putin’s 2018 election, the government lost its tolerance. He was arrested and in 2020 convicted and given a suspended sentence. The government apparently thought he had learned his lesson.
The capriciousness of the Putin government makes it difficult to navigate between one’s personal goals and the government’s. Yaffa describes the situation as of 2020 when the book was published: “As the Putin system enters its late-stage geriatric phase, becoming ever more clumsy and paranoid in response to its declining faculties, it appears destined to turn increasingly rigid and coercive.” As opposition leader Alexei Navalny who is now in jail put it “I understand that these are very difficult times, when people have to decide for themselves the limits of what is permissible…And I don’t mean only careerists, but decent people who are doing good, and see that in the present conditions they can’t make do without cooperating with the regime. The whole problem is locating the border between compromise and conformism.” What would I do if I was in their situation?
On a side note, Yaffa also pointed out some things pertinent to the current invasion of Ukraine. On New Year’s Eve 1999 Boris Yeltsin transferred the presidency to Vladimir Putin. That night Putin flew to Chechnya. Chechnya had declared its independence in 1991 following the fall of the Soviet Union. He handed out some awards to the Russian soldiers fighting to take back control of Chechnya. Putin addressed them, shown on Russian national television. He said the war was “not just about defending the honor and dignity of the country”, it was “about putting an end to the disintegration of Russia”. Given the recent events in Ukraine it is telling that this was his message on the first day of his presidency. The shelling and bombing of Grozny and other towns in Chechnya into rubble parallels what Putin is doing today in Ukraine. Yaffa also points out that the takeover of Crimea in 2014 had buttressed Putin’s popularity appealing to Russian nationalism. But that focus soon faded as domestic issues such as real wages, housing and endemic corruption again became major concerns for people caught in a declining economy. Attacking Ukraine is a way for Putin to deflect people’s attention from domestic concerns.
October 1, 2019
Russia has always been a mystery. How is it that Russians put up with so much, and come back for more? From their perspective, this is largely the way life is, and it is the West that is perverse. In Joshua Yaffa’s Between Two Fires, Russians have improvised a Darwinian adaptation to dictatorship. They have developed what he calls wiliness that helps them survive and sometimes even thrive.
The book is a collection of personality profiles, very long, magazine-length stories of people with public images. They are from all walks of life, from a wild animal farm owner in Crimea to a theater producer/director, to a freethinking (ie. conservative) Orthodox priest, to a saintly doctor whose devotes her life to rescuing injured children from war zones. She has plenty to choose from.
Yaffa is an American who was always fascinated with Russia. He moved there and became a reporter. This has given him massive privilege in the form of contacting people out of the blue, interviewing them, following up, and networking with people they talk about. Not something mere mortals get to do, pretty much ever. The result is intimate portraits, featuring mistakes, tragedies, near misses, and sometimes even resounding success. It’s all about the compromises and adaptations everyone in the book is forced to make to survive. He traveled far and wide, from Moscow and St. Petersburg to the Gulag and Siberia and down to the Black Sea to meet and befriend these people.
Life in Russia is full of traps. This is because the state oversees (and arbitrarily regulates) almost everything. It rigs the rules to allow itself to stop, incarcerate or remove anyone, for any reason, rational or not. A cultural icon was arrested on many charges, including pocketing money intended for a performance of A Midsummer Night’s Dream that never took place. Presenting the court with newspaper articles and rave reviews from the performance, he was told that newspaper articles do not prove the play was actually performed. This is the kind of conundrum that pretty much everyone in the book faces. They go with the flow, find sponsors to influence their enemies, use bribes, expose – or at least threaten to expose – bribes, and wait patiently. Fewer are sent to the Gulag these days, but there is a chapter featuring some men who survived to talk about it.
A lot of lives have been influenced by the invasion of Ukraine. It has upended millions of plans, hurt business and split families. Some who welcomed Russia as a distinct improvement now rue the day. Ukraine was corrupt, but Russian administration (and particularly justice) is as crazy as fiction can get. The state of war and the international embargo have not helped.
The administration of Ramzan Kadyrov in Chechnya is also chilling. Survival there deserves a medal, as Yaffa shows with a woman who is managing to pull it off, playing people off against each other, while keeping a relatively clean profile toward the lord and master in Grozny.
Even though nearly three quarters of the economy is driven by the central government (up from a third before Putin), Russia is not really socialism personified. Kleptocracy would be more accurate. Their positions are everything, and they can see all too clearly what would happen if they fell out of favor. Those in power owe their wealth to the government and their relationship to it, and they quickly obey every order that comes down to them. Doesn’t matter how many lives they shatter. They know exactly what would happen if they fell from grace.
It is a very tense and tight web, and everyone has to walk on eggshells. It’s a way of life Russians have become accustomed to since the era of the tsars 300 years ago. There is even a word for it: prisposoblenets – someone who contorts to fit the demands of the times.
Even at the street level, Russians have adapted. They refuse to pull over for screaming ambulances, because they know the rich bribe ambulance drivers to take them across town like super-taxis beating the all-day traffic jams. They know perfectly well not to trust the media, that they can see for themselves is lying or avoiding anything not pro-Putin, and that their elections are rigged by simply refusing to register non-compromised candidates who qualify. Foreign charities have been closed down because Putin insists any group taking donations and grants is directed by their state – because that’s how he runs Russia.
And precisely because no one can trust the media, Yaffa’s book offers deep background and insight totally unavailable to the person on the street. If you read Between Two Fires, you will know more about what’s going on in Russia today than most Russians do.
David Wineberg
The book is a collection of personality profiles, very long, magazine-length stories of people with public images. They are from all walks of life, from a wild animal farm owner in Crimea to a theater producer/director, to a freethinking (ie. conservative) Orthodox priest, to a saintly doctor whose devotes her life to rescuing injured children from war zones. She has plenty to choose from.
Yaffa is an American who was always fascinated with Russia. He moved there and became a reporter. This has given him massive privilege in the form of contacting people out of the blue, interviewing them, following up, and networking with people they talk about. Not something mere mortals get to do, pretty much ever. The result is intimate portraits, featuring mistakes, tragedies, near misses, and sometimes even resounding success. It’s all about the compromises and adaptations everyone in the book is forced to make to survive. He traveled far and wide, from Moscow and St. Petersburg to the Gulag and Siberia and down to the Black Sea to meet and befriend these people.
Life in Russia is full of traps. This is because the state oversees (and arbitrarily regulates) almost everything. It rigs the rules to allow itself to stop, incarcerate or remove anyone, for any reason, rational or not. A cultural icon was arrested on many charges, including pocketing money intended for a performance of A Midsummer Night’s Dream that never took place. Presenting the court with newspaper articles and rave reviews from the performance, he was told that newspaper articles do not prove the play was actually performed. This is the kind of conundrum that pretty much everyone in the book faces. They go with the flow, find sponsors to influence their enemies, use bribes, expose – or at least threaten to expose – bribes, and wait patiently. Fewer are sent to the Gulag these days, but there is a chapter featuring some men who survived to talk about it.
A lot of lives have been influenced by the invasion of Ukraine. It has upended millions of plans, hurt business and split families. Some who welcomed Russia as a distinct improvement now rue the day. Ukraine was corrupt, but Russian administration (and particularly justice) is as crazy as fiction can get. The state of war and the international embargo have not helped.
The administration of Ramzan Kadyrov in Chechnya is also chilling. Survival there deserves a medal, as Yaffa shows with a woman who is managing to pull it off, playing people off against each other, while keeping a relatively clean profile toward the lord and master in Grozny.
Even though nearly three quarters of the economy is driven by the central government (up from a third before Putin), Russia is not really socialism personified. Kleptocracy would be more accurate. Their positions are everything, and they can see all too clearly what would happen if they fell out of favor. Those in power owe their wealth to the government and their relationship to it, and they quickly obey every order that comes down to them. Doesn’t matter how many lives they shatter. They know exactly what would happen if they fell from grace.
It is a very tense and tight web, and everyone has to walk on eggshells. It’s a way of life Russians have become accustomed to since the era of the tsars 300 years ago. There is even a word for it: prisposoblenets – someone who contorts to fit the demands of the times.
Even at the street level, Russians have adapted. They refuse to pull over for screaming ambulances, because they know the rich bribe ambulance drivers to take them across town like super-taxis beating the all-day traffic jams. They know perfectly well not to trust the media, that they can see for themselves is lying or avoiding anything not pro-Putin, and that their elections are rigged by simply refusing to register non-compromised candidates who qualify. Foreign charities have been closed down because Putin insists any group taking donations and grants is directed by their state – because that’s how he runs Russia.
And precisely because no one can trust the media, Yaffa’s book offers deep background and insight totally unavailable to the person on the street. If you read Between Two Fires, you will know more about what’s going on in Russia today than most Russians do.
David Wineberg
January 7, 2020
I was swept away by the complex portraits of conflicted individuals facing compelling conflicts that make up this book. The author has clearly spent a great deal of time interacting with most of the subjects he details, and with close associates of those he was unable to meet. It was a breath of fresh air to read humanizing accounts of Russians navigating challenges in their politics and culture, really viewed from a much different angle than what we've seen in American news over the past several years. From religion to art to warfare, terrorism, and humanitarian work, the book is filled with insights into a spectrum of issues faced by Russians across various walks of life. It's a tremendous read for anyone interested in a more detailed look into contemporary Russian life, and an eye-opening introduction to individuals who have faced dilemmas that may have startling relevance for our own lives, whether in politics or business or media.
April 13, 2022
4.2 stars
به این سوال پاسخ دهید؟
اگر شما به عنوان یک کُنشگر حقوق بشر در یک منطقه جنگی باشید و نجات جان انسانها و کودکان، منوط به استفاده از امکانات مالی و سخت افزاری کشور مهاجم باشد، آیا اقدامی برای نجات کودکان انجام می دهید در حالیکه می دانید آن کشور مهاجم از اقدام بشردوستانه شما به نفع خودش استفاده خواهد کرد و با تبلیغات رسانه ای، این گونه القاء می کند که اوست که امکانات را برای نجات کودکان بیگناه تدارک دیده و از این طریق بخواهد وجه تجاوزکارانه خود را تلطیف کند؟
این کتاب به بررسی وضعیت انسان عصر حاضر در روسیه فعلی می پردازد... چه رئیس جمهور آن و چه شهروند عادی آن
یک بررسی جامعه شناسانه از روند تغییر اجتماعی و مقایسه آن با قبل از ۱۹۹۱ و بعد از آن
نویسنده به نقل از یک جامعه شناس برجسته به نام "یوری لوادا" مفهومی تحت عنوان انسان " سَیّاس" را مطرح می کند... انسان فریبکار
او می گوید در حکومت های توتالیتر یا نیمه دیکتاتوری همانند شوروی یا روسیه، شهروندان که تمایل به تغییر و اقدام انقلابی برای سرنگونی ندارند، دست به اقدام فریبکارانه می زنند... یعنی اینکه خودشان را فریب می دهند و به خود می قبولانند که این نظام یک نظام کارامد است.... علت این اقدام سَیّاسانه و فریبکارانه در این است که شهروندان یا به جهت ترس و یا به دلیل منفعتی که از همین نظام ناکارامد، به دست می آورند تمایلی به سرنگونی آن ندارند....
در این نظام سیاسی هم دولت و هم شهروند در یک موقعیت دوگانه ناشی از فریبکاری و انتفاع دوطرفه قرار دارند
بسیاری از طرفداران حقوق بشر که باید، تیغ قلمشان، خون حکومت توتالیتر را بریزد با آن دولت هم دستی محسوس یا نامحسوسی پیدا می کنند و این بهانه را هم دارند که اگر اقدام شدید علیه دولت کنند، دولت تمام امکانات و بودجه انها را کنسل می کند یا آنها را به اتهامات واهی روانه زندان می کند به خاطر همین، اگرچه از سیستم انتقاد می کنند اما به طور خودخواسته می دانند که پایشان را نباید از گلیمشان درازتر کنند و خط قرمز های نظام توتالیتر را نباید رد کنند در عوض از منافعی هم بهره مند می شوند این منافع یا شخصی یا در یک حالت انسانی می تواند عمومی باشد مثل مورد خانم الیزاوتا گلینکا که از امکانات دولت روسیه برای نجات کودکان در جنگ اکراین در ۲۰۱۴ استفاده می کرد درحالیکه ارتش روسیه ، خود تحریک کننده شورشیان شرق اکراین بود
به این سوال پاسخ دهید؟
اگر شما به عنوان یک کُنشگر حقوق بشر در یک منطقه جنگی باشید و نجات جان انسانها و کودکان، منوط به استفاده از امکانات مالی و سخت افزاری کشور مهاجم باشد، آیا اقدامی برای نجات کودکان انجام می دهید در حالیکه می دانید آن کشور مهاجم از اقدام بشردوستانه شما به نفع خودش استفاده خواهد کرد و با تبلیغات رسانه ای، این گونه القاء می کند که اوست که امکانات را برای نجات کودکان بیگناه تدارک دیده و از این طریق بخواهد وجه تجاوزکارانه خود را تلطیف کند؟
این کتاب به بررسی وضعیت انسان عصر حاضر در روسیه فعلی می پردازد... چه رئیس جمهور آن و چه شهروند عادی آن
یک بررسی جامعه شناسانه از روند تغییر اجتماعی و مقایسه آن با قبل از ۱۹۹۱ و بعد از آن
نویسنده به نقل از یک جامعه شناس برجسته به نام "یوری لوادا" مفهومی تحت عنوان انسان " سَیّاس" را مطرح می کند... انسان فریبکار
او می گوید در حکومت های توتالیتر یا نیمه دیکتاتوری همانند شوروی یا روسیه، شهروندان که تمایل به تغییر و اقدام انقلابی برای سرنگونی ندارند، دست به اقدام فریبکارانه می زنند... یعنی اینکه خودشان را فریب می دهند و به خود می قبولانند که این نظام یک نظام کارامد است.... علت این اقدام سَیّاسانه و فریبکارانه در این است که شهروندان یا به جهت ترس و یا به دلیل منفعتی که از همین نظام ناکارامد، به دست می آورند تمایلی به سرنگونی آن ندارند....
در این نظام سیاسی هم دولت و هم شهروند در یک موقعیت دوگانه ناشی از فریبکاری و انتفاع دوطرفه قرار دارند
بسیاری از طرفداران حقوق بشر که باید، تیغ قلمشان، خون حکومت توتالیتر را بریزد با آن دولت هم دستی محسوس یا نامحسوسی پیدا می کنند و این بهانه را هم دارند که اگر اقدام شدید علیه دولت کنند، دولت تمام امکانات و بودجه انها را کنسل می کند یا آنها را به اتهامات واهی روانه زندان می کند به خاطر همین، اگرچه از سیستم انتقاد می کنند اما به طور خودخواسته می دانند که پایشان را نباید از گلیمشان درازتر کنند و خط قرمز های نظام توتالیتر را نباید رد کنند در عوض از منافعی هم بهره مند می شوند این منافع یا شخصی یا در یک حالت انسانی می تواند عمومی باشد مثل مورد خانم الیزاوتا گلینکا که از امکانات دولت روسیه برای نجات کودکان در جنگ اکراین در ۲۰۱۴ استفاده می کرد درحالیکه ارتش روسیه ، خود تحریک کننده شورشیان شرق اکراین بود
January 28, 2020
Few phrases are more common in the popular media that those exhorting individuals to “make a difference”, “contribute to society”, and other ways to “achieve something” while “helping others” at the same time. If you hear messages like this too frequently, it is easy to get a little cynical. It is hard to make a real impact. It is hard to really contribute to helping others. It is hard to both strive towards individually motivated accomplishment and self-fulfillment while at the same time succeeding in going outside of oneself and working on the behalf of others. These sentiments are enduringly popular in the self-help tradition but difficult to find in practice. Despite youthful intentions, the tendency to accommodate oneself to the exigencies of real life is clear and the threat of “selling out” is well understood.
But we all like to think that self-fulfillment and helping others are possible and not mutually exclusive.
Now imagine that one thinks of these ideas in a totalitarian state, which controls most resources and exerts near complete influence on the ability of individuals to pursue their dreams and their more specific initiatives. Suppose that you are in Putin’s Russia and you want to pursue your dreams and help the needy and make a difference. Don’t forget the long history of totalitarian rule in the USSR, which brought us the GULAG and the KGB (now FSB). There is a temptation to consider the choice as one between staging a protest on principle and ending up in jail (or worse) or else acquiescing in tyranny. Many might wish to leave and go to the West, but more may wish to stay in the country they have grown up in and with the family and friends they know. The world cannot be divided neatly between government bureaucrats and police on the one side and a few noble protesters. Where is everybody else? What about people who have principle and think and yet do not wish to directly confront the state and all the costs that doing so will bring them? Where are they?
Journalist Joshua Yaffa writes about these people in “Between Two Fires”. He introduces the idea that there is such a thing as public opinion in Russia and that the people think hard and carefully about their situations. He introduces this by relating the notion of “The Wily Man” as a archetype of modern Russian society. He then proceeds through a series of chapters that present some of the many problems facing Russia (and in the news in the US), focusing each chapter around one or two key individuals who find themselves trying to accomplish something in the face of extremely trying circumstances, torn between their strong individual perspectives and values and the demands of the newly strengthened Russian state and all that goes with it.
The subjects of the book are not caricatures but come across as real people. They Include: a leader of Russian media, an activists in Chechnya, a dissident Orthodox clergyman, a physician helping the homeless and children injured in the Donbas war, and others. All of them thread a path between political and social extremes where mistakes can be very costly and where the standard of appropriate and safe behavior is constantly changing. Mr. Yaffa does not pull punches in illuminating their choices and their positions.
While each chapter is well developed and rich in details and themes, the parts of the book fit together nicely and I felt little sense of excess repetition or overkill. All of the cases were interesting. Yaffa provides his own perspective, of course, but it is measured and reasonable. The writing is superb. There are a few maps but few pictures. It is worth the effort to look these individuals up on the web and see more of their stories and their pictures.
I enjoyed the book and did not want it to end. I highly recommend it.
But we all like to think that self-fulfillment and helping others are possible and not mutually exclusive.
Now imagine that one thinks of these ideas in a totalitarian state, which controls most resources and exerts near complete influence on the ability of individuals to pursue their dreams and their more specific initiatives. Suppose that you are in Putin’s Russia and you want to pursue your dreams and help the needy and make a difference. Don’t forget the long history of totalitarian rule in the USSR, which brought us the GULAG and the KGB (now FSB). There is a temptation to consider the choice as one between staging a protest on principle and ending up in jail (or worse) or else acquiescing in tyranny. Many might wish to leave and go to the West, but more may wish to stay in the country they have grown up in and with the family and friends they know. The world cannot be divided neatly between government bureaucrats and police on the one side and a few noble protesters. Where is everybody else? What about people who have principle and think and yet do not wish to directly confront the state and all the costs that doing so will bring them? Where are they?
Journalist Joshua Yaffa writes about these people in “Between Two Fires”. He introduces the idea that there is such a thing as public opinion in Russia and that the people think hard and carefully about their situations. He introduces this by relating the notion of “The Wily Man” as a archetype of modern Russian society. He then proceeds through a series of chapters that present some of the many problems facing Russia (and in the news in the US), focusing each chapter around one or two key individuals who find themselves trying to accomplish something in the face of extremely trying circumstances, torn between their strong individual perspectives and values and the demands of the newly strengthened Russian state and all that goes with it.
The subjects of the book are not caricatures but come across as real people. They Include: a leader of Russian media, an activists in Chechnya, a dissident Orthodox clergyman, a physician helping the homeless and children injured in the Donbas war, and others. All of them thread a path between political and social extremes where mistakes can be very costly and where the standard of appropriate and safe behavior is constantly changing. Mr. Yaffa does not pull punches in illuminating their choices and their positions.
While each chapter is well developed and rich in details and themes, the parts of the book fit together nicely and I felt little sense of excess repetition or overkill. All of the cases were interesting. Yaffa provides his own perspective, of course, but it is measured and reasonable. The writing is superb. There are a few maps but few pictures. It is worth the effort to look these individuals up on the web and see more of their stories and their pictures.
I enjoyed the book and did not want it to end. I highly recommend it.
March 26, 2023
Joshua Yaffa - Entre dois Fogos. Verdade, Ambição e Compromisso na Rússia de Putin
Conta-nos a história recente da Rússia de Putin na terceira pessoa de: Konstantin Ernest, o mestre de cerimónia; Heda Saratova “Aqui há Dragões” e a luta pela sobrevivência; Pavel Adelgeim “O último sacerdote livre”; Oleg Zubkov “O Rei do Bando”; Sergei Kovalev activista de direitos humanos e ocupante do “Campo de Perm-36”; Elizaveta Glinka e os movimentos humanitários – “A ajuda Justa”; Kirill Serebrennikov encenador, agentes cultural e o teatro experimental.
Das várias abordagens que tenho lido sobre a Rússia recente, e sobre o “aparente” paradoxo de uma sociedade que subjugada durante 75 anos por um regime de opressão e mentira, perante a possibilidade de “se libertar”, opta por se manter num regime onde a verdade e o respeito pelos valores individuais está longe do nosso conceito de democracia, este livro, dizia, é de entre o que que conheço, o que aborda este paradoxo de forma mais abrangente e isenta.
Falta-lhe talvez uma crítica pertinente ao nosso modo de vida e às nossas verdades, verdades que são nossas e estão longe de ser universais. A verdade é o que podemos fazer com uma mentira, ou como dizia Nietzsche “a verdade é uma ilusão que nos esquecemos de ser uma ilusão”.
Mas mesmo sem essa crítica ao nosso modo “ocidental” de pensar, a forma como Joshua Yaffa aborda as clivagens entre essa sociedade oriental e o mundo que sentimos como representado no nosso ocidente, usando aqueles sete personagens da vida russa permite-nos vislumbrar o que se passa do outro lado da cortina e compreender que as nossas certezas são relativas, sendo apenas uma forma de ver um mundo cada vez mais complexo e perigoso.
Francis Fukuyama achava que a democracia, o liberalismo e a globalização eram o fim da história. Ao pensar desta forma achava que a história podia ter um fim. Não tem! Aquilo que FF achava ser o fim da história é apenas o início de uma nova etapa, e se estivermos atentos já podemos ler nos dias de hoje este a desabrochar quando os líderes da Rússia, China e outros acólitos (Índia, Brasil, etc), surgem a reclamar uma nova ordem mundial. Uma nova ordem política, social, económica que seguramente não vai passar pela sua ou pela minha defesa. Alguém ungido do dom da representatividade vai determinar o que é bom para nós. Eu e Você vamos desaparecer e vamos ser substituídos por um Nós, frio, impessoal e indefinido o suficiente para que os novos senhores do mundo possam ditar as leis. As suas necessidades, as suas regras, as suas leis.
Quando FF achava que a democracia, o liberalismo e a globalização era o fim da história, apenas acreditava num mito. A sustentabilidade é um mito. Só o caos é sustentável. Os sistemas sociais, bem como a política, enquanto ferramenta de actuação da sociedade, estão em permanente mudança. Para onde se dirigem não sabemos, só podemos dizer que se nada mudar, nada ficará igual.
Joshua Yaffa neste magnifico livro mostra-nos parte de um outro mundo e da mudança que se avizinha. Um mundo onde as verdades são diferentes das nossas. Um mundo dicotómico e sem espessura como os seus ícones. Um mundo dividido em dois campos, um mundo perigoso, um mundo de adversários.
Conta-nos a história recente da Rússia de Putin na terceira pessoa de: Konstantin Ernest, o mestre de cerimónia; Heda Saratova “Aqui há Dragões” e a luta pela sobrevivência; Pavel Adelgeim “O último sacerdote livre”; Oleg Zubkov “O Rei do Bando”; Sergei Kovalev activista de direitos humanos e ocupante do “Campo de Perm-36”; Elizaveta Glinka e os movimentos humanitários – “A ajuda Justa”; Kirill Serebrennikov encenador, agentes cultural e o teatro experimental.
Das várias abordagens que tenho lido sobre a Rússia recente, e sobre o “aparente” paradoxo de uma sociedade que subjugada durante 75 anos por um regime de opressão e mentira, perante a possibilidade de “se libertar”, opta por se manter num regime onde a verdade e o respeito pelos valores individuais está longe do nosso conceito de democracia, este livro, dizia, é de entre o que que conheço, o que aborda este paradoxo de forma mais abrangente e isenta.
Falta-lhe talvez uma crítica pertinente ao nosso modo de vida e às nossas verdades, verdades que são nossas e estão longe de ser universais. A verdade é o que podemos fazer com uma mentira, ou como dizia Nietzsche “a verdade é uma ilusão que nos esquecemos de ser uma ilusão”.
Mas mesmo sem essa crítica ao nosso modo “ocidental” de pensar, a forma como Joshua Yaffa aborda as clivagens entre essa sociedade oriental e o mundo que sentimos como representado no nosso ocidente, usando aqueles sete personagens da vida russa permite-nos vislumbrar o que se passa do outro lado da cortina e compreender que as nossas certezas são relativas, sendo apenas uma forma de ver um mundo cada vez mais complexo e perigoso.
Francis Fukuyama achava que a democracia, o liberalismo e a globalização eram o fim da história. Ao pensar desta forma achava que a história podia ter um fim. Não tem! Aquilo que FF achava ser o fim da história é apenas o início de uma nova etapa, e se estivermos atentos já podemos ler nos dias de hoje este a desabrochar quando os líderes da Rússia, China e outros acólitos (Índia, Brasil, etc), surgem a reclamar uma nova ordem mundial. Uma nova ordem política, social, económica que seguramente não vai passar pela sua ou pela minha defesa. Alguém ungido do dom da representatividade vai determinar o que é bom para nós. Eu e Você vamos desaparecer e vamos ser substituídos por um Nós, frio, impessoal e indefinido o suficiente para que os novos senhores do mundo possam ditar as leis. As suas necessidades, as suas regras, as suas leis.
Quando FF achava que a democracia, o liberalismo e a globalização era o fim da história, apenas acreditava num mito. A sustentabilidade é um mito. Só o caos é sustentável. Os sistemas sociais, bem como a política, enquanto ferramenta de actuação da sociedade, estão em permanente mudança. Para onde se dirigem não sabemos, só podemos dizer que se nada mudar, nada ficará igual.
Joshua Yaffa neste magnifico livro mostra-nos parte de um outro mundo e da mudança que se avizinha. Um mundo onde as verdades são diferentes das nossas. Um mundo dicotómico e sem espessura como os seus ícones. Um mundo dividido em dois campos, um mundo perigoso, um mundo de adversários.
March 21, 2021
The rife complexities of trying to exist within the moral ambiguities of Putin’s Russia are explored.
A producer, a director, a charity organizer, a museum official are all examined for their delicate dance between altruism and complicity with the State.
No easy answers, everyone is compromised, and the moral landmarks become hazy if not opaque.
Should be required reading for anyone who imagines they’d be a heroic voice against state injustice.
Two quotes from other Russian reading are relevant here.
“No honest man survived Stalin.”
And Lenin’s question, “what is to be done?”
A producer, a director, a charity organizer, a museum official are all examined for their delicate dance between altruism and complicity with the State.
No easy answers, everyone is compromised, and the moral landmarks become hazy if not opaque.
Should be required reading for anyone who imagines they’d be a heroic voice against state injustice.
Two quotes from other Russian reading are relevant here.
“No honest man survived Stalin.”
And Lenin’s question, “what is to be done?”
December 28, 2022
Fascinating 17-hour audiobook. As with most audiobooks, my mind tended to wander, so a book in hand may have allowed more mental wanderings. But I give it 5 stars for its broad scope and its many topics. My understanding of modern Russia is much better now, up to the year of the Epilogue, 2019.
The author covered some history of Crimea and Putin's invasion of Ukraine in 2014. But I wonder what he has to say about the war in 2022. I will look for some interviews.
Recommended to anyone interested in the topic.
The author covered some history of Crimea and Putin's invasion of Ukraine in 2014. But I wonder what he has to say about the war in 2022. I will look for some interviews.
Recommended to anyone interested in the topic.
June 10, 2021
3.5 This has some fascinating insights, and I love the concept -- looking at how and why people in certain areas, like a zookeeper in Crimea, a doctor ferrying children out of the Donbass warzone, and a producer on the state-supported Channel One have adapted to work with Putin's system.
The last chapter was excellent, showing how anything not considered "soft" opposition has been shut down by the Kremlin, including a brief overview of what happened with Navalny. Yaffa also provides some great analysis of the weak spots that have been appearing in Putin's governing and in his popularity ratings. But I guess I wanted more of this as opposed to much longer looks at individuals, which sometimes lost me a bit.
There's one quote from a young man he speaks to in this last chapter, who says he would've voted for Navalny if he'd been allowed on the ballot, but since he wasn't he was considering voting for Putin. Yaffa asks how this can be possible, that he'd like to vote for the person who opposes everything about Putin's system yet would actually vote to keep that system in place. He answers that most important is that things don't get worse. This was such a telling glimpse into one way of thinking going on there.
The book overall is a useful tool for better understanding Russia's current state, and, unless the disruption comes from within, which Yaffa suggests is probably the more potentially successful option than revolution from below, how things are set to go until 2036. (Did you know it was former Soviet cosmonaut and first woman in space Valentina Tereshkova, who's now a parliament member, who proposed the measure to finagle the constitution to keep Putin in place longer, so basically "resetting" his time as president? Somehow in the flurry of news around this I missed that insane detail, but she was obviously put up to it, even if she supports him. She's 84!)
The last chapter was excellent, showing how anything not considered "soft" opposition has been shut down by the Kremlin, including a brief overview of what happened with Navalny. Yaffa also provides some great analysis of the weak spots that have been appearing in Putin's governing and in his popularity ratings. But I guess I wanted more of this as opposed to much longer looks at individuals, which sometimes lost me a bit.
There's one quote from a young man he speaks to in this last chapter, who says he would've voted for Navalny if he'd been allowed on the ballot, but since he wasn't he was considering voting for Putin. Yaffa asks how this can be possible, that he'd like to vote for the person who opposes everything about Putin's system yet would actually vote to keep that system in place. He answers that most important is that things don't get worse. This was such a telling glimpse into one way of thinking going on there.
The book overall is a useful tool for better understanding Russia's current state, and, unless the disruption comes from within, which Yaffa suggests is probably the more potentially successful option than revolution from below, how things are set to go until 2036. (Did you know it was former Soviet cosmonaut and first woman in space Valentina Tereshkova, who's now a parliament member, who proposed the measure to finagle the constitution to keep Putin in place longer, so basically "resetting" his time as president? Somehow in the flurry of news around this I missed that insane detail, but she was obviously put up to it, even if she supports him. She's 84!)
December 13, 2020
I won this book through a giveaway in exchange for an honest review.
Sadly, this was a DNF for me at 30%. I very rarely DNF books, especially when they are sent to me for reviews. But sometimes I just can’t keep on reading. Unfortunately, this was one of those times.
The writing itself wasn’t bad, but the way the book is written makes you fall asleep. Numerous nights went by where I’d wake up an hour after I’d fallen asleep with this book on my chest. I just couldn’t jive with this one.
Sadly, this was a DNF for me at 30%. I very rarely DNF books, especially when they are sent to me for reviews. But sometimes I just can’t keep on reading. Unfortunately, this was one of those times.
The writing itself wasn’t bad, but the way the book is written makes you fall asleep. Numerous nights went by where I’d wake up an hour after I’d fallen asleep with this book on my chest. I just couldn’t jive with this one.
October 19, 2020
More 3.5 stars.
In a steady and uninteresting prose style Yaffa gets across his main points. The collusion of his subjects with the Putin government and its branches, as well as their sometimes unenviable and unavoidable choices, shows that if you're a producer or bringing aid to the most vulnerable you can't get anything done, for long, without official help from bureaucrats who don't know when they'll be removed. (Wisely, Yaffa doesn't spend time on their fate, for they are, in the way this book is built, far more compromised than the people they occasionally assist to get this aid or those supplies delivered. That book is yet to come when Putin is gone and a new Solzhenitsyn, a touchstone of upright behaviour in this book, chronicles the Yeltsin-Putin decades.)
The Wily Man is the main figure underlying the portraits of the regular humans Yaffa spends time with, though they perhaps possess more humanitarian drive than many others in russia or outside it. This figure is the person who navigates the cracks and hurdles that may exist one week and may be replaced the next. The energy expended on casting aside principles to get something positive done and to avoid trouble is, to this reader, exhausting, and so it's not a surprise that every main person in this book falters. There's no way not to, in Putin's russia (as in other places, too).
Worth reading for a view behind the headlines of how (some) russians think and feel and manoeuvre under their current leadership.
In a steady and uninteresting prose style Yaffa gets across his main points. The collusion of his subjects with the Putin government and its branches, as well as their sometimes unenviable and unavoidable choices, shows that if you're a producer or bringing aid to the most vulnerable you can't get anything done, for long, without official help from bureaucrats who don't know when they'll be removed. (Wisely, Yaffa doesn't spend time on their fate, for they are, in the way this book is built, far more compromised than the people they occasionally assist to get this aid or those supplies delivered. That book is yet to come when Putin is gone and a new Solzhenitsyn, a touchstone of upright behaviour in this book, chronicles the Yeltsin-Putin decades.)
The Wily Man is the main figure underlying the portraits of the regular humans Yaffa spends time with, though they perhaps possess more humanitarian drive than many others in russia or outside it. This figure is the person who navigates the cracks and hurdles that may exist one week and may be replaced the next. The energy expended on casting aside principles to get something positive done and to avoid trouble is, to this reader, exhausting, and so it's not a surprise that every main person in this book falters. There's no way not to, in Putin's russia (as in other places, too).
Worth reading for a view behind the headlines of how (some) russians think and feel and manoeuvre under their current leadership.
November 25, 2020
I was on a book panel at an academic conference in November 2020 where I was asked to provide some remarks on this book in conversation with the author. Below are my written notes that I used in that session.
____
Personally:
-This is a book written for the modern time and opens itself to an audience that has no personal relationship with the Soviet Union or memory of it.
-This was the first time I read a book about Russia that had personal relevance to me. The first time an author talked about experiences that reflected my own personal encounters in Russia. I am the same age as the author and my first trip to Russia was also in the early aughts.
-I would be remiss to ignore the fact that the author provides a stunning account of the creation of the Levada Center and its importance not only to the Russian Academy but also to generations of American scholars who have relied on their services to navigate the field and receive critical support for everything from research design to finding respondents. As a sociologist, it’s always exciting to see the contributions of sociologists foregrounded in any narrative like this.
***
Many of the reviews of this book emphasize the choices that people have in Putin’s Russia, which is true, but I think this is not the full story. I believe it is more accurate to say that this book is not just about personal choice but rather about the tension between structure and agency. To my knowledge, there is little in the canon on contemporary Russia that can be thought of in this way. There are a few notable examples like Olga Shevchenko’s work on Crisis and the Everyday in Postsocialist Moscow and Kathryn Hendley’s Everyday Law in Russia, to name a couple. But this book is a singular example that ties some of the greatest hits of Russian politics and current events of the last 20 years to personal histories and deeper cultural and historical frameworks that cut across many areas of social life and allow us to think critically about structure and agency in contemporary Russian society in a meaningful way.
One of the recurring themes of this book is compromise. In each chapter we are taken on a journey exploring an individual story nested in the context of a larger social or political event or set of circumstances. Each of these stories includes a discussion of individual choices and compromise. Of these examples, there was variation in risk, outcome, and benefit of compromise. However, the dependent variable on these outcomes seemed to be power, specifically the power exercised by state structures. Those in power seemed to benefit most from compromise and those who were essential to the maintenance of power, whether it was through pro-Kremlin media, the church, or human rights organizations in Chechnya, often compromised to the detriment of their cause. This is important because it pushes back on the common, essentialized narrative that the state makes puppets of individuals otherwise engaging in noble work, or even regime-resistant work. Instead, “Between Two Fires” shows how those who resist the regime might come to support the regime or at least be complicit in sustaining it, even tacitly, through their own agency. We know this, because even though we are presented with examples of compromise by leaders in media as told through Ernst’s story, Saratova’s human rights activism, and the church, we are also presented with stories of their colleagues who took another path and, for better or worse, were met with different ends. This book shows how, even in an authoritarian state, even in a space where choices appear to be forced, there is still the choice to opt out of playing along or to opt out of resisting. But even opting out of resistance or obedience is a compromise unto itself as we saw with Elizaveta Glinka.
Importantly, this book seems to argue that current regime, and indeed Putinism, is sustained through compromise. This is important as, again, American media and even policymakers use discursive shorthand to create the impression that the Kremlin is the all-powerful, omnipresent thing that controls life and society all levels. Yet, those of us who go there and study there and understand life “on the ground” know that this is not entirely the case. This book adds nuance to popular American notions about the role of state power and helps answer the question of why Putin has maintained his hold power for so long. We see how power, even the power vertical, is not consolidated in a vacuum -- there are many players involved in everything from messaging, to political analysis, to everyday organizations, cultural and religious life. Every player is engaged in their own version of compromise, even Putin himself. In that same vein, we are not often given the glimpses into Putin’s more retail politicking side in popular American media representations of Russian politics. Even though TV appearances are televised nationally, it is important for an American audience to understand that Putin is not some big scary guy, he is not the boogeyman. He holds town hall style discussions during which he is reassuring, and kind and even helpful. This is important to note especially in an age where regimes around the globe are growing increasingly illiberal. What we think of as democratic or undemocratic behavior is ever more fuzzy. It is important to note that what happens under authoritarianism can look familiar to what happens in more liberal political environments and we see evidence of this all over if we are willing to look for it.
In this way, too, “Between two Fires” is a book that makes the familiar strange and also can make strange the familiar. Another common popular American misconception about Russia today also borne of discursive shorthand is that we have somehow returned to the Soviet Union. Between two fires paints a story not of how the Soviet union is still alive and well in Russia today but rather a story about the durability of social structure. It shows how both micro and macro level processes can sustain themselves when it suits those who are either in a position of power and want to maintain it or those who are seeking to game positions of power. This is perhaps captured best in Chapter 4 (pg 194-5) when Perelovich admits that her conflict with Zubkov was both personal and structural. Russia is not the only place where these things happen, Russia just has a distinctive version of it.
____
Personally:
-This is a book written for the modern time and opens itself to an audience that has no personal relationship with the Soviet Union or memory of it.
-This was the first time I read a book about Russia that had personal relevance to me. The first time an author talked about experiences that reflected my own personal encounters in Russia. I am the same age as the author and my first trip to Russia was also in the early aughts.
-I would be remiss to ignore the fact that the author provides a stunning account of the creation of the Levada Center and its importance not only to the Russian Academy but also to generations of American scholars who have relied on their services to navigate the field and receive critical support for everything from research design to finding respondents. As a sociologist, it’s always exciting to see the contributions of sociologists foregrounded in any narrative like this.
***
Many of the reviews of this book emphasize the choices that people have in Putin’s Russia, which is true, but I think this is not the full story. I believe it is more accurate to say that this book is not just about personal choice but rather about the tension between structure and agency. To my knowledge, there is little in the canon on contemporary Russia that can be thought of in this way. There are a few notable examples like Olga Shevchenko’s work on Crisis and the Everyday in Postsocialist Moscow and Kathryn Hendley’s Everyday Law in Russia, to name a couple. But this book is a singular example that ties some of the greatest hits of Russian politics and current events of the last 20 years to personal histories and deeper cultural and historical frameworks that cut across many areas of social life and allow us to think critically about structure and agency in contemporary Russian society in a meaningful way.
One of the recurring themes of this book is compromise. In each chapter we are taken on a journey exploring an individual story nested in the context of a larger social or political event or set of circumstances. Each of these stories includes a discussion of individual choices and compromise. Of these examples, there was variation in risk, outcome, and benefit of compromise. However, the dependent variable on these outcomes seemed to be power, specifically the power exercised by state structures. Those in power seemed to benefit most from compromise and those who were essential to the maintenance of power, whether it was through pro-Kremlin media, the church, or human rights organizations in Chechnya, often compromised to the detriment of their cause. This is important because it pushes back on the common, essentialized narrative that the state makes puppets of individuals otherwise engaging in noble work, or even regime-resistant work. Instead, “Between Two Fires” shows how those who resist the regime might come to support the regime or at least be complicit in sustaining it, even tacitly, through their own agency. We know this, because even though we are presented with examples of compromise by leaders in media as told through Ernst’s story, Saratova’s human rights activism, and the church, we are also presented with stories of their colleagues who took another path and, for better or worse, were met with different ends. This book shows how, even in an authoritarian state, even in a space where choices appear to be forced, there is still the choice to opt out of playing along or to opt out of resisting. But even opting out of resistance or obedience is a compromise unto itself as we saw with Elizaveta Glinka.
Importantly, this book seems to argue that current regime, and indeed Putinism, is sustained through compromise. This is important as, again, American media and even policymakers use discursive shorthand to create the impression that the Kremlin is the all-powerful, omnipresent thing that controls life and society all levels. Yet, those of us who go there and study there and understand life “on the ground” know that this is not entirely the case. This book adds nuance to popular American notions about the role of state power and helps answer the question of why Putin has maintained his hold power for so long. We see how power, even the power vertical, is not consolidated in a vacuum -- there are many players involved in everything from messaging, to political analysis, to everyday organizations, cultural and religious life. Every player is engaged in their own version of compromise, even Putin himself. In that same vein, we are not often given the glimpses into Putin’s more retail politicking side in popular American media representations of Russian politics. Even though TV appearances are televised nationally, it is important for an American audience to understand that Putin is not some big scary guy, he is not the boogeyman. He holds town hall style discussions during which he is reassuring, and kind and even helpful. This is important to note especially in an age where regimes around the globe are growing increasingly illiberal. What we think of as democratic or undemocratic behavior is ever more fuzzy. It is important to note that what happens under authoritarianism can look familiar to what happens in more liberal political environments and we see evidence of this all over if we are willing to look for it.
In this way, too, “Between two Fires” is a book that makes the familiar strange and also can make strange the familiar. Another common popular American misconception about Russia today also borne of discursive shorthand is that we have somehow returned to the Soviet Union. Between two fires paints a story not of how the Soviet union is still alive and well in Russia today but rather a story about the durability of social structure. It shows how both micro and macro level processes can sustain themselves when it suits those who are either in a position of power and want to maintain it or those who are seeking to game positions of power. This is perhaps captured best in Chapter 4 (pg 194-5) when Perelovich admits that her conflict with Zubkov was both personal and structural. Russia is not the only place where these things happen, Russia just has a distinctive version of it.
January 1, 2020
Nancy Pelosi told Donald Trump that with him it all leads back to Putin. In Russia, just about everyone finds that is true in their own lives. Joshua Yaffa, an American journalist, has spent much of the 21st century reporting on Russia, which means reporting on Putin, who came to power in 2000. Between Two Fires explores the lives of the general manager of the most popular television station in Russia, a theater producer, a Chechnyan aid worker, an orthodox priest, a high school student, and others. Yaffa finds that everyone is political in Russia, even those who don't think they are. And to someone who remembers the repression of the Soviet Union, Between Two Fires paints a picture of today's Russia that looks very much like the old days.
October 10, 2020
If you’re interested in modern day Russia, I highly recommend. It was also fascinating to consider how all of us compromise in some ways for many reasons, one of those being the nation state we live in. I knocked a star because each chapter is about a different person, and while I know that was _the point_, it did make it a bit less fluid to read. But still, it’s great, highly recommend.
July 6, 2022
Gazeteci Yaffa'nın bu kitabı, Putin'in yarattığı Rusya'da çok zor kararlar vermek zorunda kalan insanların hikayesini anlatıyor. Bu diktatörlükte hayatta kalabilmek için sistemi nasıl kullanıyorlar, bazen nasıl sistemi yeniyorlar, ama çoğu zaman nasıl yeniliyorlar... Bu insanların hikayesi, artık sonuna yaklaşmakta olan Putin Rusya'sına harika bir ışık tutuyor.
* Yandaş medya nasıl oluştu?
* Sivil toplum nasıl ele geçirildi?
* Kültür-Sanat hayatı nasıl yeniden "yapılandırıldı"?
* Rusya tarihi, Putin'in istekleri doğrusunda nasıl yeniden yazıldı?
* Yerli/milli, beka, kutsal dava gibi kavramlar nasıl sistemin mihenk taşı oldu?
Türkiye ile benzerlikler de kurabileceğiniz bir başyapıt.
* Yandaş medya nasıl oluştu?
* Sivil toplum nasıl ele geçirildi?
* Kültür-Sanat hayatı nasıl yeniden "yapılandırıldı"?
* Rusya tarihi, Putin'in istekleri doğrusunda nasıl yeniden yazıldı?
* Yerli/milli, beka, kutsal dava gibi kavramlar nasıl sistemin mihenk taşı oldu?
Türkiye ile benzerlikler de kurabileceğiniz bir başyapıt.
April 23, 2023
A tad long, but an interesting piece on making compromises within a system. Unlike other pre-Ukraine invasion books, this felt less like it was massively dated.
June 26, 2022
Joshua Yaffa is a foreign correspondent for the New Yorker Magazine and The Economist who has lived in Russia on and off for the past 20 years. His book asks a question which is central to understanding present day Russia, but also much wider than that: how do people live, work and pursue their life’s projects under an increasingly authoritarian regime? Yaffa’s answer - that people compromise, often in ways that depart vastly from their original intentions - is one that is not comforting, but deeply enriches our understanding of what motivates people to get by and live their lives in Putin’s Russia.
The book tells the story of a host of characters who have tried to achieve their life goals during Putin’s presidency. From Konstantin Ernst, the talented director of Channel One with a penchant for the avant-garde who has turned into one of Putin’s central propagandists, to Elizaveta Glinka, the saint-like humanitarian whose refusal to see the bigger political picture led her to whitewash some of the Putin regime’s crimes, these stories often emphasise how people have persevered in spite of a system which has progressively become more closed and narrow-minded.
As Yaffa emphasises, not all of these tales of compromise and ambition are equivalent - the work of the dissenting Orthodox priest Pavel Edelgeim which caused him to be imprisoned, demoted and marginalised, is obviously quite different from Oleg Zubkov who runs a safari park in Crimea and eventually came to regret supporting the peninsula’s annexation in 2014. What they all make us question, however, is whether in an increasingly abhorrent regime people can still do a measure of good for the people around them and society as a whole, or whether this ultimately serves to legitimate and propagate the regime further. The answer isn’t always clear and simple.
Trying to understand modern authoritarianism isn’t as easy a task as it may seem on the face of it. For those of us who live in liberal democracies, we like to tell ourselves that we are immune from such compromises and that we would act differently in such situations. The uncomfortable truth is that we may not be all that different - in fact, it would benefit us if more people considered how we compromise ourselves in the systems of power in our own societies, although they may not appear in the overtly political hierarchy of the Putin regime. This isn’t to say that in the end because everything is compromised, then there’s no inherently “better” regime or system. It’s to say that the work of justifying and defending democracy requires much more effort and understanding than our complacency often affords it.
The notes at the end of Yaffa’s book that while the Putin regime seems stable, it is also subject to the decay and change that have led to political earthquakes in Russia in the past left somewhat of a bitter taste. This book ends before the suppression of Navalny’s opposition movement in 2021 and the Ukraine invasion in 2022 - two events which suggest that Putin’s regime has found the new imperial legitimation that Yaffa felt it had began to lack. The kind of ‘soft authoritarianism’ which allowed some of the characters in the book to live within the confines of the system while pursuing goals not entirely in accordance with it may be now coming to an end. Nevertheless, this book is essential reading for anyone trying to understand what motivates many people in modern day Russia, who are not brainwashed or gullible, but are often simply driven by their human fallibility - their flaws, contradictions, biases, or ambitions.
The book tells the story of a host of characters who have tried to achieve their life goals during Putin’s presidency. From Konstantin Ernst, the talented director of Channel One with a penchant for the avant-garde who has turned into one of Putin’s central propagandists, to Elizaveta Glinka, the saint-like humanitarian whose refusal to see the bigger political picture led her to whitewash some of the Putin regime’s crimes, these stories often emphasise how people have persevered in spite of a system which has progressively become more closed and narrow-minded.
As Yaffa emphasises, not all of these tales of compromise and ambition are equivalent - the work of the dissenting Orthodox priest Pavel Edelgeim which caused him to be imprisoned, demoted and marginalised, is obviously quite different from Oleg Zubkov who runs a safari park in Crimea and eventually came to regret supporting the peninsula’s annexation in 2014. What they all make us question, however, is whether in an increasingly abhorrent regime people can still do a measure of good for the people around them and society as a whole, or whether this ultimately serves to legitimate and propagate the regime further. The answer isn’t always clear and simple.
Trying to understand modern authoritarianism isn’t as easy a task as it may seem on the face of it. For those of us who live in liberal democracies, we like to tell ourselves that we are immune from such compromises and that we would act differently in such situations. The uncomfortable truth is that we may not be all that different - in fact, it would benefit us if more people considered how we compromise ourselves in the systems of power in our own societies, although they may not appear in the overtly political hierarchy of the Putin regime. This isn’t to say that in the end because everything is compromised, then there’s no inherently “better” regime or system. It’s to say that the work of justifying and defending democracy requires much more effort and understanding than our complacency often affords it.
The notes at the end of Yaffa’s book that while the Putin regime seems stable, it is also subject to the decay and change that have led to political earthquakes in Russia in the past left somewhat of a bitter taste. This book ends before the suppression of Navalny’s opposition movement in 2021 and the Ukraine invasion in 2022 - two events which suggest that Putin’s regime has found the new imperial legitimation that Yaffa felt it had began to lack. The kind of ‘soft authoritarianism’ which allowed some of the characters in the book to live within the confines of the system while pursuing goals not entirely in accordance with it may be now coming to an end. Nevertheless, this book is essential reading for anyone trying to understand what motivates many people in modern day Russia, who are not brainwashed or gullible, but are often simply driven by their human fallibility - their flaws, contradictions, biases, or ambitions.
September 6, 2021
I'm glad I finally got around to reading this. Instead of a Russiagate polemic or reheated Cold War leftovers, Between Two Fires presents a series of strongly reported vignettes of people torn by uneasy compromises–and sometimes doublethink, willful ignorance, and hypocrisy–as they try to navigate life in modern Russia. Although most of the book's profiles are not about a typical 9-5 office worker or tradesperson (Yaffa's subjects include human rights workers, clergy, the creative class, and business owners, among others), they do shade in a lot of detail about life and the character of the country. I suspect fans of Peter Pomerantsev's work will find Yaffa's approach to be familiar and of high quality.
I find it difficult to fully articulate the message of the book, but it does a really good job of detailing and meditating on those compromises that must be made to succeed in a society like 21st century Russia, and of exploring its vast moral grey areas.
I find it difficult to fully articulate the message of the book, but it does a really good job of detailing and meditating on those compromises that must be made to succeed in a society like 21st century Russia, and of exploring its vast moral grey areas.
June 30, 2022
Besides Putin, I’d heard of maybe three other people amongst the plethora Joshua Yaffa writes about in Between Two Fires. Yaffa approaches Putin’s Russia through the eyes and actions of various people in a wide range of disciplines like education, religion, medical and hospice, prisoners, arts and theater, and war. The overarching theme is the impact Putin’s regime has on these people and how they deal with the state. It felt like each chapter was a new book except the common theme was Russia and Putin.
Did I like it? Hmm, some, but not overwhelmingly. The last chapter, the epilogue, is the best and parts can be understood without having read any of the other chapters.
This is an indirect story of Putin by focusing on these individuals and how they navigate between their job/ role and the state. It was weird and it took several chapters before I caught on and, even then, each new chapter required sorting out the people and places. Only late in the book did I realize these people were chosen to build an image of today’s Russian.
Intertwined throughout is a portrait of a Russian – termed the Wily Man. This persona learns to live within the system. To accept the role of government and the inevitable pressures and actions it takes. To “roll” with what life offers and to find one’s own way to rebuke the system even if in a small way. Yaffa uses these stories to build and show us that persona.
This book was written prior to Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine but does cover the 2014 annexation of Crimea and the fostering of revolt in the Dombas region. It did provide a Russian perspective on these two regions that I appreciated hearing. The historical connections of these two regions with Russia is much stronger than I previously thought.
Goodreads rating of three and a half stars.
Did I like it? Hmm, some, but not overwhelmingly. The last chapter, the epilogue, is the best and parts can be understood without having read any of the other chapters.
This is an indirect story of Putin by focusing on these individuals and how they navigate between their job/ role and the state. It was weird and it took several chapters before I caught on and, even then, each new chapter required sorting out the people and places. Only late in the book did I realize these people were chosen to build an image of today’s Russian.
Intertwined throughout is a portrait of a Russian – termed the Wily Man. This persona learns to live within the system. To accept the role of government and the inevitable pressures and actions it takes. To “roll” with what life offers and to find one’s own way to rebuke the system even if in a small way. Yaffa uses these stories to build and show us that persona.
This book was written prior to Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine but does cover the 2014 annexation of Crimea and the fostering of revolt in the Dombas region. It did provide a Russian perspective on these two regions that I appreciated hearing. The historical connections of these two regions with Russia is much stronger than I previously thought.
Goodreads rating of three and a half stars.
March 27, 2022
A journalistic work for the current geopolitical times, Between Two Fires is a peep in to Putin’s Russia that Westerns usually only get a glimpse of if anything at all. Joshua Yaffa sets the book up with a prologue that dives into a sociologists research into the collective psyche of the Russian people which has them bargain with whatever political system is in power at the time and their own ambitions. This theme is stretched over the stories of seven unique individuals from around Russia. The reader is introduced to an avande garde director turned propaganda television executive, a humanitarian turned mouth piece and others. Each start their careers with a sense of purpose but they eventually must either join or work with the Soviet and eventually Putin’s governments to gain the acclaim they desire or spread the help they originally believed in.
Yaffa’s interviews and accounts are fair in that he talks to the subjects as well as those who have seen their rise and sometimes fall on all sides of the political spectrum. Yaffa leaves the extrapolations on their moral fibers to his subjects and readers. The stories provide layers of context as it becomes evident that even the facets of life we take for granted for being free from state interference such as religion and art, are succumbed to the wielding of power and influence.
Yaffa’s interviews and accounts are fair in that he talks to the subjects as well as those who have seen their rise and sometimes fall on all sides of the political spectrum. Yaffa leaves the extrapolations on their moral fibers to his subjects and readers. The stories provide layers of context as it becomes evident that even the facets of life we take for granted for being free from state interference such as religion and art, are succumbed to the wielding of power and influence.
March 10, 2022
What is it like living in an authoritarian regime? Like people everywhere, Russians under Putin have morals, careers, dreams, desires, and ambitions. Everyone makes compromises as they live out their lives. But, all of this is vastly more complicated in an authoritarian state. Yaffa introduces us to a group of remarkable Russians who have had to build their careers and construct their identities in the context of a demanding and unpredictable regime. He uses the concept of the "The Wily Man" (developed by the Russian sociologist Yuri Levada) to help us understand this: "After the crash of the Soviet system...the person who rose to the surface was not a fabulously liberated hero, but someone inclined to adapt to what is required of him in order to survive." The Russian wily man "not only tolerates deception, but is willing to be deceived, and even...requires self-deception for the sake of his own self-preservation." The Russians Yaffa profiles include the director of the main TV channel, an Orthodox priest, and a Chechen humanitarian. He looks at their lives in depth to show us how citizens shape their lives under Putin's regime.
June 30, 2025
This took me a second to read but it’s really a good thought-provoking book. I really enjoyed learning about modern-day Russia, plus the philosophical side of the population there. It’s fascinating to learn about how the government there has massively affected people and their attitudes towards their work.
I really liked how each chapter is about a different person. The organization of the book and themes within it could’ve been better but I really enjoyed it overall.
Some quotes in this book got me thinking:
“Is it not morally correct to act unjustly toward a system that is itself deeply unjust?“ (14)
“How can you expect a man who’s warm to understand a man who’s cold?“ (15)
“The whole problem is locating the border between compromise and conformism.“ (316)
I really liked how each chapter is about a different person. The organization of the book and themes within it could’ve been better but I really enjoyed it overall.
Some quotes in this book got me thinking:
“Is it not morally correct to act unjustly toward a system that is itself deeply unjust?“ (14)
“How can you expect a man who’s warm to understand a man who’s cold?“ (15)
“The whole problem is locating the border between compromise and conformism.“ (316)
May 3, 2024
“Between Two Fires” deserves a longer and more thoughtful explanation of why I found it to be spectacular and illuminating, but I’ve put off writing a review because I know I’ll be disappointed in my inability to articulate why I loved this book so much.
I would be thrilled to write something one day that matches what Yaffa has done here. He gives insight into the foreign — in this case the stories of modern Russians and the question of why they have the political system and culture they do - and manages to cut through the political baggage of “great power competition” and “authoritarianism” and drops you in the lives of Russians that don’t seem so foreign to me after all. It’s a book on sociology… or political science? Maybe almost a novel in its vivid characters? In short, it’s like reading a series of excellent magazine profiles that simultaneously teaches you about modern Russia without you knowing you were along for the ride.
An excellent book that shot to the top of my favorites I’ve ever read.
I would be thrilled to write something one day that matches what Yaffa has done here. He gives insight into the foreign — in this case the stories of modern Russians and the question of why they have the political system and culture they do - and manages to cut through the political baggage of “great power competition” and “authoritarianism” and drops you in the lives of Russians that don’t seem so foreign to me after all. It’s a book on sociology… or political science? Maybe almost a novel in its vivid characters? In short, it’s like reading a series of excellent magazine profiles that simultaneously teaches you about modern Russia without you knowing you were along for the ride.
An excellent book that shot to the top of my favorites I’ve ever read.
February 12, 2022
I loved this book and all its portraits of complex, human individuals navigating whether and how much to compromise w the state and political system. The observations on being 体制内 or 体制外 resonate so much w modern Chinese society. Yaffa excels at the journalistic arts of observation and understanding without judgment, while also checking and challenging the things each character says in all the right places.
May 10, 2022
Very helpful insights into life in Russia under the Putin regime. Each chapter focuses on a particular individual and a particular aspect of Russian culture, society, military or humanitarian efforts, and, in everything, the State.
Sadly, no immediate grounds to believe that Putin will be forced to leave or let go anytime soon.
Much discussion of the wily man and how to get by and make compromises with Putin's rule.
Sadly, no immediate grounds to believe that Putin will be forced to leave or let go anytime soon.
Much discussion of the wily man and how to get by and make compromises with Putin's rule.
December 16, 2022
Mutlaka okuyun diye tavsiye edeceğim bir kitap değil, dinlemekten bile sıkıldığım, ama hadi bitireyim diye kütüphaneden tekrar alarak dinlediğim, burda güncellemeyi unuttuğum bir kitap. Putin, günümüz Rusyası, ilişkileri falan üzerine baya birşey okuduğum için artık sıkılıyorum galiba. Nezaketen üç yıldız verdim. Okuyup da çok beğenirseniz neyi kaçırdığımı anlatabilirsiniz.
October 18, 2025
A really thorough cross-section of life in modern Russia, through several case studies and interviews, with a valuable breadth of perspective.
November 19, 2021
An interesting look at the complexities of living, working, and trying to make a difference in Putin's Russia and the compromises people make to do so. The most interesting question the book raised for me is the dilemma people face when deciding whether to work within the system to achieve their noble goals, which often requires supporting and giving credibility to a system they disagree with (but feel powerless to change).
May 11, 2022
This was an interesting look into Russia’s politics, the connection between church and state, human rights, and governmental control over media and the news. The fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of the Putin era made Russia what it is today- a complicated beast.
February 10, 2020
This book is pretty much examples of people in Russia making moral choices or 'compromises' to be able to be able to achieve some goals that are important to them. They're deep dives on specific people and situations, without condemnation or judgement. How do you judge someone for being wilfully blind to be able to save lives (as a doctor or a human rights worker)? How would I do in even attenuated versions of these circumstances?
The epilogue isn't the greatest, it declines to pass judgement (which is fair) but doesn't offer a framework for how to think about those choices and ends pretty abruptly.
Some other stuff - Masha Gessen's "The Future is History" provides context that makes this really pretty rich; as do parts of Lenin's Tomb (specifically the discussion of generational transitions and of the transitions that happened when Novy Mir was first available freely and then what happened a few years later). I think a story that tracked NTV broadcasters / protesters from 2001 when they promised in the rain to the outcomes in this story would be really powerful...
The epilogue isn't the greatest, it declines to pass judgement (which is fair) but doesn't offer a framework for how to think about those choices and ends pretty abruptly.
Some other stuff - Masha Gessen's "The Future is History" provides context that makes this really pretty rich; as do parts of Lenin's Tomb (specifically the discussion of generational transitions and of the transitions that happened when Novy Mir was first available freely and then what happened a few years later). I think a story that tracked NTV broadcasters / protesters from 2001 when they promised in the rain to the outcomes in this story would be really powerful...
Displaying 1 - 30 of 170 reviews