What do you think?
Rate this book
The Lost Peace: How the West Failed to Prevent a Second Cold War
The end of the Cold War was an opportunity – our inability to seize it has led to today’s renewed era of great power competition
1989 heralded a unique prospect for an enduring global peace, as harsh ideological divisions and conflicts began to be resolved. Now, three decades on, that peace has been lost. With war in Ukraine and increasing tensions between China, Russia, and the West, great power politics once again dominates the world stage. But could it have been different?
Richard Sakwa shows how the years before the first mass invasion of Ukraine represented a hiatus in conflict rather than a lasting accord – and how, since then, we have been in a ‘Second Cold War’. Tracing the mistakes on both sides that led to the current crisis, Sakwa considers the resurgence of China and Russia and the disruptions and ambitions of the liberal order that opened up catastrophic new lines of conflict.
This is a vital, strongly-argued account of how the world lost its chance at peace, and instead saw the return of war in Europe, global rivalries, and nuclear brinkmanship.
1989 heralded a unique prospect for an enduring global peace, as harsh ideological divisions and conflicts began to be resolved. Now, three decades on, that peace has been lost. With war in Ukraine and increasing tensions between China, Russia, and the West, great power politics once again dominates the world stage. But could it have been different?
Richard Sakwa shows how the years before the first mass invasion of Ukraine represented a hiatus in conflict rather than a lasting accord – and how, since then, we have been in a ‘Second Cold War’. Tracing the mistakes on both sides that led to the current crisis, Sakwa considers the resurgence of China and Russia and the disruptions and ambitions of the liberal order that opened up catastrophic new lines of conflict.
This is a vital, strongly-argued account of how the world lost its chance at peace, and instead saw the return of war in Europe, global rivalries, and nuclear brinkmanship.
448 pages, Hardcover
Published November 28, 2023
19 people are currently reading
212 people want to read
About the author
Richard Sakwa
56 books41 followersRichard Sakwa (born 1953) is Professor of Russian and European politics at the University of Kent. He writes books about Russian and Eastern European communist and post-communist politics.
Sakwa is currently Professor of Russian and European politics at the University of Kent. From 2001 to 2007 he was also the head of the University's Politics and International Relations department. He has published on Soviet, Russian and post-communist affairs, and has written and edited several books and articles on the subject.
Sakwa was also a participant of Valdai Discussion Club, an Associate Fellow of the Russia and Eurasia Programme at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, a member of the Advisory Boards of the Institute of Law and Public Policy in Moscow and a member of Academy of Learned Societies for the Social Sciences.
Sakwa is currently Professor of Russian and European politics at the University of Kent. From 2001 to 2007 he was also the head of the University's Politics and International Relations department. He has published on Soviet, Russian and post-communist affairs, and has written and edited several books and articles on the subject.
Sakwa was also a participant of Valdai Discussion Club, an Associate Fellow of the Russia and Eurasia Programme at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, a member of the Advisory Boards of the Institute of Law and Public Policy in Moscow and a member of Academy of Learned Societies for the Social Sciences.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
December 27, 2023
(The English review is placed beneath the Russian one)
У нас материнская плата
Церемониальная дата
Чтобы уберечься от НАТО
Положите каждому в постель солдата
И мы будем ходить строем
Всех остальных уроем
И всем собором такое построим
Что каждый поневоле станет героем
Очередная попытка свалить всю вину за начало военного конфликта между Россией и Украиной на США и НАТО. Однако в отличие от похожей книги «How the West Brought War to Ukraine», автор этой книги прямо не обвиняет США в развязывании войны в Украине, а действует более мягко, не так откровенно или агрессивно. Автор этой книги подталкивает самого читателя к выводу, что это США и Запад виноваты в том, что произошло в Украине, начиная с 2014 года. Даже если предположить, что автор специально рассматривает политику США и НАТО в отдельности, не касаясь действий России и Украины, я всё равно считаю, что автор пытается навязать фальшивых прокремлевский дискурс. Чтобы прийти к такому выводу можно даже не читать книгу, а посмотреть биографическую справку автора на сайте goodreads, где мы находим следующие слова: «Sakwa was also a participant of Valdai Discussion Club, an Associate Fellow of the Russia and Eurasia Programme at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, a member of the Advisory Boards of the Institute of Law and Public Policy in Moscow and a member of Academy of Learned Societies for the Social Sciences». Автор является не просто «очередным иностранцем» изучающем Россию, а иностранцем, которому оказывают тёплый приём в Кремле. Если бы автор изучал Россию абсолютно непредвзято, его просто бы не пригласили в такое провластное учреждение как Valdai Discussion Club.
Уже в начале книги мы находим знакомые слова типичного представителя realpolitik как George Kennan, которого цитирует как автор этой книги, так и автор вышеназванной книги «How the West Brought War to Ukraine»:
<…> expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era. Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the Cold War to East – West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking.
Я уже писал в рецензии к книге «How the West Brought War to Ukraine», что демократия в России перестала развиваться не из-за расширения НАТО, а из-за того, что к власти в России после 1991 года пришли не демократы, а бывшие коммунистические партработники. Да, были даны некоторые свободы и даже были попытки построить демократическое общество, но Ельцин и его команда ограничивались лишь небольшими изменениями, оставив без изменений саму основу коммунистического режима – безотчётную народу верховную власть. Власть можно было тогда критиковать, но только эта критика имела минимальное значение. Сколько было написано о нечестности залоговых аукционов, о приватизации, о коррупции и пр., но все эти сообщения в СМИ не вели к каким-то существенным политическим изменениям. Как говорится, «собака лает, караван идёт».
Рассматривая военный конфликт в Косово и участие НАТО в нём, автор делает удивительный вывод:
It undermined the claim that NATO was a purely defensive security alliance and raised fears in Moscow that Russia could one day be the object of similar high- handed behaviour. The Kosovo campaign was a critical turning point in Russia’s relations with the West.
Нечто подобное я встречаю в каждой книге, в которой автор пытается оправдать действия Владимира Путина, говоря, что НАТО представляет военную угрозу для России, которая занимает второе место по владению ядерных ракет. Автор на полном серьёзе пытается убедить читателя, что НАТО может начать войну с Россией. Хочется спросить: из-за чего? Т.е. ради чего НАТО решит устроить «ядерную зиму»? Я так и не понял. В любом случаи, рассматривать военный конфликт в Косово как предтече возможного военного противостояния НАТО с Россией, кажется мне ошибочным.
Cold War I was far from a golden age of diplomacy, but at least a certain etiquette was observed and proprieties respected. By contrast, Cold War II is accompanied by sharp denunciations, sanctions and corrosive propaganda campaigns, which are typically portrayed as the exposure of misinformation, fake news and disinformation.
Тут автору стоило бы задаться вопрос, а действительно ли Россия видит в США и НАТО врага? Если согласиться с этим выводом, то, как быть с тем фактом, что российская элита, зарабатывая деньги в России, инвестирует их не в саму Россию, а в Запад? Говоря про период Холодной Войны, автор почему-то не замечает, что советская элита не могла отправлять своих детей учиться, жить и работать на Запад, что их жёны не путешествовали по Западным странам и что в целом, столько недвижимости не было куплено русскими на Западе. Сегодня даже главные российские пропагандисты имеют недвижимость в странах западной Европы, несмотря на каждодневное описание этих стран как враждебных и недружественно настроенных к России. Тем не менее, это не мешает политической элите, включая пропагандистов, проводить там время и покупать яхты и недвижимость. Сей факт как-то не очень согласуется с видением автора о якобы начавшейся Холодной войне 2.0. Но что же тогда автор пытается донести до западного читателя в таком случаи? Да то, что ему сказали российские чиновники на том самом Валдае, куда дружественные к Кремлю иностранцы ездили каждый год. Так что не стоит удивляться, что далее автор повторяет всю туже сказку про главный приз, который пытался получить Запад, отобрав его у России, т.е. за что и идёт война сегодня – за Украину. Следующие цитаты это отлично показывают.
Carl Gershman, the president of NED, was disarmingly open about his regime-change ambitions, admitting in September 2013 that Ukraine was ‘the biggest prize’. What the CIA had earlier tried to achieve by subversion was now done overtly.
Instead of coups, regime-change operations were conducted within the framework of what later came to be known as ‘colour revolutions’. Russia claimed that the NED was involved in the overthrow of the Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovych, in February 2014.
Собственно, это те тезисы, которые можно услышать на российском ТВ. Главным тут является смещение ответственности с России на США и НАТО. Но мне больше всего понравилась следующая цитата и фраза «democratic internationalism», которая должна показать, что развитие демократии в мире не является позитивным действием. Другими словами, следующая цитата, с моей точки зрения, оправдывает существование деспотизма в мире. Точнее, это автор оправдывает отказ бороться за демократию. Но именно отсутствие демократии в России и Белоруссии и привели к тому, что началась полномасштабная война.
Moscow and Beijing no longer propound communism, but they do condemn democratic internationalism.
Последняя цитата, после которой становится очевиден посыл автора, его позиция, образ видения ситуации и вообще, все, что можно сказать об этом авторе.
The neo-revisionist stance from 2012 assumed that the demand for status and equality would have to be asserted rather than negotiated. The Kosovo precedent and the perceived breakdown of European security provoked the annexation of Crimea in March 2014. Moscow argued that the February ‘coup’, the change of regime in Kiev and the flight of Yanukovych, created an ‘extreme situation’ allowing Crimea to exercise the right of self-determination that could no longer be exercised within Ukraine’s constitutional framework. More broadly, the Charter system, to which Russia repeatedly appealed as the unique source of authority in international politics, appeared unable to provide a framework for the deepening European security dilemma.
Проблема с этим утверждением в том, что аннексия Крыма объяснялась российскими властями не расширением НАТО и не отстранением Януковича от власти, а исключительно исправлением «исторической несправедливости» согласно которому Крым незаконном и/или несправедливо был передан Украине. Российские власти не сказали Украине, что Крым был отобран из-за Евромайдана. Было чётко проговорено, что Крым был забран вследствие того что он «исторически» принадлежит России. Так что не стоит автору лукавить, оправдывая действия России расширением НАТО, вмешательством США в дела Украины, поддержкой Евромайдана и пр.
Последнее что я хочу отметить по поводу этой книги, это что автор следит за словами. Сколько я не пытался, но я так и не нашёл в книге откровенной поддержки России или прямого обвинения США и НАТО в том, что произошло в Украине в 2014 и 2022. Автор играет роль "непредвзятого аналитика", однако сам дух книги говорит об обратном.
Another attempt to blame the United States and NATO for the outbreak of the military conflict between Russia and Ukraine. However, unlike a similar book "How the West Brought War to Ukraine," the author of this book does not directly accuse the U.S. of unleashing war in Ukraine but acts more gently, not so blatantly or aggressively. The author of this book pushes the reader to the conclusion that it was the US and the West who are to blame for what has happened in Ukraine since 2014. Even if we assume that the author is specifically looking at U.S. and NATO policy in isolation, without touching on the actions of Russia and Ukraine, I still believe that the author is trying to impose a fake pro-Kremlin discourse. To come to this conclusion, one does not even have to read the book but look at the author's biographical note on Goodreads, where we find the following words: «Sakwa was also a participant of Valdai Discussion Club, an Associate Fellow of the Russia and Eurasia Programme at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, a member of the Advisory Boards of the Institute of Law and Public Policy in Moscow and a member of Academy of Learned Societies for the Social Sciences». The author is not just "another foreigner" studying Russia, but a foreigner who has been given a warm welcome in the Kremlin. If the author had studied Russia with an open mind, he would not have been invited to such a pro-governmental institution as the Valdai Discussion Club.
Already at the beginning of the book, we find familiar words of a typical representative of "realpolitik" as George Kennan, who is quoted by both the author of this book and the author of the above-mentioned book "How the West Brought War to Ukraine":
<…> expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era. Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the Cold War to East – West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking.
I have already written in my review of the book "How the West Brought War to Ukraine" that democracy in Russia stopped developing not because of NATO expansion but because of the fact that not democrats but former communist party workers came to power in Russia after 1991. Yes, some freedoms were given, and there were even attempts to build a democratic society, but Yeltsin and his team limited themselves to only minor changes, leaving unchanged the very basis of the communist regime - the unaccountable supreme power. Power could be criticized then, but only this criticism had minimal value. How much was written about the unfairness of bail auctions, privatization, corruption, etc., but all these media reports did not lead to any significant political changes. As they say, "The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on".
Examining the military conflict in Kosovo and NATO's involvement in it, the author draws a surprising conclusion:
It undermined the claim that NATO was a purely defensive security alliance and raised fears in Moscow that Russia could one day be the object of similar high- handed behaviour. The Kosovo campaign was a critical turning point in Russia’s relations with the West.
I see something like this in every book in which the author tries to justify Vladimir Putin's actions by saying that NATO is a military threat to Russia, which is second in possession of nuclear missiles. The author is seriously trying to convince the reader that NATO could start a war with Russia. I would like to ask: because of what? I.e., for what reason does NATO decide to organize a "nuclear winter"? I never understood. In any case, to consider the military conflict in Kosovo as a precursor to a possible military confrontation between NATO and Russia seems to me erroneous.
Cold War I was far from a golden age of diplomacy, but at least a certain etiquette was observed and proprieties respected. By contrast, Cold War II is accompanied by sharp denunciations, sanctions and corrosive propaganda campaigns, which are typically portrayed as the exposure of misinformation, fake news and disinformation.
Here, the author should ask himself whether Russia really sees the United States and NATO as an enemy. If we agree with this conclusion, what about the fact that the Russian elite, earning money in Russia, invests it not in Russia itself but in the West? Speaking about the Cold War period, the author somehow fails to notice that the Soviet elite could not send their children to study, live, and work in the West, that their wives did not travel to Western countries, and that, in general, so much real estate was not bought by Russians in the West. Today, even the main Russian propagandists have real estate in Western European countries, despite the daily description of these countries as hostile and unfriendly to Russia. Nevertheless, this does not prevent the political elite, including propagandists, from spending time there and buying yachts and real estate. This fact is somehow not very consistent with the author's vision of the allegedly started Cold War 2.0. But then, what is the author trying to convey to the Western reader in such a case? Just what he was told by Russian officials at the very Valdai, where Kremlin-friendly foreigners went every year. So we should not be surprised that the author repeats the same fairy tale about the main prize - that the West tried to get by taking it away from Russia, i.e., what the war is being fought over today - Ukraine. The following quotes show it perfectly.
Carl Gershman, the president of NED, was disarmingly open about his regime-change ambitions, admitting in September 2013 that Ukraine was ‘the biggest prize’. What the CIA had earlier tried to achieve by subversion was now done overtly.
Instead of coups, regime-change operations were conducted within the framework of what later came to be known as ‘colour revolutions’. Russia claimed that the NED was involved in the overthrow of the Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovych, in February 2014.
In fact, these are the theses that can be heard on Russian TV. The main thing here is the shift of responsibility from Russia to the U.S. and NATO. But I liked the following quote and the phrase "democratic internationalism" the most, which should show that the development of democracy in the world is not a positive action. In other words, the following quote, in my view, justifies the existence of despotism in the world. More precisely, it is the author who justifies the refusal to fight for democracy. But it was the lack of democracy in Russia and Belarus that led to a full-scale war.
Moscow and Beijing no longer propound communism, but they do condemn democratic internationalism.
The last quote, after which the author's message, his position, way of seeing the situation, and, in general, everything that can be said about this author becomes obvious.
The neo-revisionist stance from 2012 assumed that the demand for status and equality would have to be asserted rather than negotiated. The Kosovo precedent and the perceived breakdown of European security provoked the annexation of Crimea in March 2014. Moscow argued that the February ‘coup’, the change of regime in Kiev and the flight of Yanukovych, created an ‘extreme situation’ allowing Crimea to exercise the right of self-determination that could no longer be exercised within Ukraine’s constitutional framework. More broadly, the Charter system, to which Russia repeatedly appealed as the unique source of authority in international politics, appeared unable to provide a framework for the deepening European security dilemma.
The problem with this claim is that the Russian authorities did not explain the annexation of Crimea by NATO expansion or by removing Yanukovych from power but solely by correcting a "historical injustice" according to which Crimea was illegally and/or unjustly given to Ukraine. The Russian authorities did not tell Ukraine that Crimea was taken away because of Euromaidan. It was clearly stated that Crimea was taken because it "historically" belonged to Russia. So the author should not be deceitful, justifying Russia's actions by NATO expansion, U.S. interference in Ukraine's affairs, support for Euromaidan, etc.
The last thing I want to say about this book is that the author is careful with his words. As much as I tried, I never found in the book an outright support of Russia or a direct accusation of the U.S. and NATO for what happened in Ukraine in 2014 and 2022. The author plays the role of an "unbiased analyst," but the very spirit of the book says otherwise.
У нас материнская плата
Церемониальная дата
Чтобы уберечься от НАТО
Положите каждому в постель солдата
И мы будем ходить строем
Всех остальных уроем
И всем собором такое построим
Что каждый поневоле станет героем
Очередная попытка свалить всю вину за начало военного конфликта между Россией и Украиной на США и НАТО. Однако в отличие от похожей книги «How the West Brought War to Ukraine», автор этой книги прямо не обвиняет США в развязывании войны в Украине, а действует более мягко, не так откровенно или агрессивно. Автор этой книги подталкивает самого читателя к выводу, что это США и Запад виноваты в том, что произошло в Украине, начиная с 2014 года. Даже если предположить, что автор специально рассматривает политику США и НАТО в отдельности, не касаясь действий России и Украины, я всё равно считаю, что автор пытается навязать фальшивых прокремлевский дискурс. Чтобы прийти к такому выводу можно даже не читать книгу, а посмотреть биографическую справку автора на сайте goodreads, где мы находим следующие слова: «Sakwa was also a participant of Valdai Discussion Club, an Associate Fellow of the Russia and Eurasia Programme at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, a member of the Advisory Boards of the Institute of Law and Public Policy in Moscow and a member of Academy of Learned Societies for the Social Sciences». Автор является не просто «очередным иностранцем» изучающем Россию, а иностранцем, которому оказывают тёплый приём в Кремле. Если бы автор изучал Россию абсолютно непредвзято, его просто бы не пригласили в такое провластное учреждение как Valdai Discussion Club.
Уже в начале книги мы находим знакомые слова типичного представителя realpolitik как George Kennan, которого цитирует как автор этой книги, так и автор вышеназванной книги «How the West Brought War to Ukraine»:
<…> expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era. Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the Cold War to East – West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking.
Я уже писал в рецензии к книге «How the West Brought War to Ukraine», что демократия в России перестала развиваться не из-за расширения НАТО, а из-за того, что к власти в России после 1991 года пришли не демократы, а бывшие коммунистические партработники. Да, были даны некоторые свободы и даже были попытки построить демократическое общество, но Ельцин и его команда ограничивались лишь небольшими изменениями, оставив без изменений саму основу коммунистического режима – безотчётную народу верховную власть. Власть можно было тогда критиковать, но только эта критика имела минимальное значение. Сколько было написано о нечестности залоговых аукционов, о приватизации, о коррупции и пр., но все эти сообщения в СМИ не вели к каким-то существенным политическим изменениям. Как говорится, «собака лает, караван идёт».
Рассматривая военный конфликт в Косово и участие НАТО в нём, автор делает удивительный вывод:
It undermined the claim that NATO was a purely defensive security alliance and raised fears in Moscow that Russia could one day be the object of similar high- handed behaviour. The Kosovo campaign was a critical turning point in Russia’s relations with the West.
Нечто подобное я встречаю в каждой книге, в которой автор пытается оправдать действия Владимира Путина, говоря, что НАТО представляет военную угрозу для России, которая занимает второе место по владению ядерных ракет. Автор на полном серьёзе пытается убедить читателя, что НАТО может начать войну с Россией. Хочется спросить: из-за чего? Т.е. ради чего НАТО решит устроить «ядерную зиму»? Я так и не понял. В любом случаи, рассматривать военный конфликт в Косово как предтече возможного военного противостояния НАТО с Россией, кажется мне ошибочным.
Cold War I was far from a golden age of diplomacy, but at least a certain etiquette was observed and proprieties respected. By contrast, Cold War II is accompanied by sharp denunciations, sanctions and corrosive propaganda campaigns, which are typically portrayed as the exposure of misinformation, fake news and disinformation.
Тут автору стоило бы задаться вопрос, а действительно ли Россия видит в США и НАТО врага? Если согласиться с этим выводом, то, как быть с тем фактом, что российская элита, зарабатывая деньги в России, инвестирует их не в саму Россию, а в Запад? Говоря про период Холодной Войны, автор почему-то не замечает, что советская элита не могла отправлять своих детей учиться, жить и работать на Запад, что их жёны не путешествовали по Западным странам и что в целом, столько недвижимости не было куплено русскими на Западе. Сегодня даже главные российские пропагандисты имеют недвижимость в странах западной Европы, несмотря на каждодневное описание этих стран как враждебных и недружественно настроенных к России. Тем не менее, это не мешает политической элите, включая пропагандистов, проводить там время и покупать яхты и недвижимость. Сей факт как-то не очень согласуется с видением автора о якобы начавшейся Холодной войне 2.0. Но что же тогда автор пытается донести до западного читателя в таком случаи? Да то, что ему сказали российские чиновники на том самом Валдае, куда дружественные к Кремлю иностранцы ездили каждый год. Так что не стоит удивляться, что далее автор повторяет всю туже сказку про главный приз, который пытался получить Запад, отобрав его у России, т.е. за что и идёт война сегодня – за Украину. Следующие цитаты это отлично показывают.
Carl Gershman, the president of NED, was disarmingly open about his regime-change ambitions, admitting in September 2013 that Ukraine was ‘the biggest prize’. What the CIA had earlier tried to achieve by subversion was now done overtly.
Instead of coups, regime-change operations were conducted within the framework of what later came to be known as ‘colour revolutions’. Russia claimed that the NED was involved in the overthrow of the Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovych, in February 2014.
Собственно, это те тезисы, которые можно услышать на российском ТВ. Главным тут является смещение ответственности с России на США и НАТО. Но мне больше всего понравилась следующая цитата и фраза «democratic internationalism», которая должна показать, что развитие демократии в мире не является позитивным действием. Другими словами, следующая цитата, с моей точки зрения, оправдывает существование деспотизма в мире. Точнее, это автор оправдывает отказ бороться за демократию. Но именно отсутствие демократии в России и Белоруссии и привели к тому, что началась полномасштабная война.
Moscow and Beijing no longer propound communism, but they do condemn democratic internationalism.
Последняя цитата, после которой становится очевиден посыл автора, его позиция, образ видения ситуации и вообще, все, что можно сказать об этом авторе.
The neo-revisionist stance from 2012 assumed that the demand for status and equality would have to be asserted rather than negotiated. The Kosovo precedent and the perceived breakdown of European security provoked the annexation of Crimea in March 2014. Moscow argued that the February ‘coup’, the change of regime in Kiev and the flight of Yanukovych, created an ‘extreme situation’ allowing Crimea to exercise the right of self-determination that could no longer be exercised within Ukraine’s constitutional framework. More broadly, the Charter system, to which Russia repeatedly appealed as the unique source of authority in international politics, appeared unable to provide a framework for the deepening European security dilemma.
Проблема с этим утверждением в том, что аннексия Крыма объяснялась российскими властями не расширением НАТО и не отстранением Януковича от власти, а исключительно исправлением «исторической несправедливости» согласно которому Крым незаконном и/или несправедливо был передан Украине. Российские власти не сказали Украине, что Крым был отобран из-за Евромайдана. Было чётко проговорено, что Крым был забран вследствие того что он «исторически» принадлежит России. Так что не стоит автору лукавить, оправдывая действия России расширением НАТО, вмешательством США в дела Украины, поддержкой Евромайдана и пр.
Последнее что я хочу отметить по поводу этой книги, это что автор следит за словами. Сколько я не пытался, но я так и не нашёл в книге откровенной поддержки России или прямого обвинения США и НАТО в том, что произошло в Украине в 2014 и 2022. Автор играет роль "непредвзятого аналитика", однако сам дух книги говорит об обратном.
Another attempt to blame the United States and NATO for the outbreak of the military conflict between Russia and Ukraine. However, unlike a similar book "How the West Brought War to Ukraine," the author of this book does not directly accuse the U.S. of unleashing war in Ukraine but acts more gently, not so blatantly or aggressively. The author of this book pushes the reader to the conclusion that it was the US and the West who are to blame for what has happened in Ukraine since 2014. Even if we assume that the author is specifically looking at U.S. and NATO policy in isolation, without touching on the actions of Russia and Ukraine, I still believe that the author is trying to impose a fake pro-Kremlin discourse. To come to this conclusion, one does not even have to read the book but look at the author's biographical note on Goodreads, where we find the following words: «Sakwa was also a participant of Valdai Discussion Club, an Associate Fellow of the Russia and Eurasia Programme at the Royal Institute of International Affairs, a member of the Advisory Boards of the Institute of Law and Public Policy in Moscow and a member of Academy of Learned Societies for the Social Sciences». The author is not just "another foreigner" studying Russia, but a foreigner who has been given a warm welcome in the Kremlin. If the author had studied Russia with an open mind, he would not have been invited to such a pro-governmental institution as the Valdai Discussion Club.
Already at the beginning of the book, we find familiar words of a typical representative of "realpolitik" as George Kennan, who is quoted by both the author of this book and the author of the above-mentioned book "How the West Brought War to Ukraine":
<…> expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era. Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the Cold War to East – West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking.
I have already written in my review of the book "How the West Brought War to Ukraine" that democracy in Russia stopped developing not because of NATO expansion but because of the fact that not democrats but former communist party workers came to power in Russia after 1991. Yes, some freedoms were given, and there were even attempts to build a democratic society, but Yeltsin and his team limited themselves to only minor changes, leaving unchanged the very basis of the communist regime - the unaccountable supreme power. Power could be criticized then, but only this criticism had minimal value. How much was written about the unfairness of bail auctions, privatization, corruption, etc., but all these media reports did not lead to any significant political changes. As they say, "The dogs bark, but the caravan moves on".
Examining the military conflict in Kosovo and NATO's involvement in it, the author draws a surprising conclusion:
It undermined the claim that NATO was a purely defensive security alliance and raised fears in Moscow that Russia could one day be the object of similar high- handed behaviour. The Kosovo campaign was a critical turning point in Russia’s relations with the West.
I see something like this in every book in which the author tries to justify Vladimir Putin's actions by saying that NATO is a military threat to Russia, which is second in possession of nuclear missiles. The author is seriously trying to convince the reader that NATO could start a war with Russia. I would like to ask: because of what? I.e., for what reason does NATO decide to organize a "nuclear winter"? I never understood. In any case, to consider the military conflict in Kosovo as a precursor to a possible military confrontation between NATO and Russia seems to me erroneous.
Cold War I was far from a golden age of diplomacy, but at least a certain etiquette was observed and proprieties respected. By contrast, Cold War II is accompanied by sharp denunciations, sanctions and corrosive propaganda campaigns, which are typically portrayed as the exposure of misinformation, fake news and disinformation.
Here, the author should ask himself whether Russia really sees the United States and NATO as an enemy. If we agree with this conclusion, what about the fact that the Russian elite, earning money in Russia, invests it not in Russia itself but in the West? Speaking about the Cold War period, the author somehow fails to notice that the Soviet elite could not send their children to study, live, and work in the West, that their wives did not travel to Western countries, and that, in general, so much real estate was not bought by Russians in the West. Today, even the main Russian propagandists have real estate in Western European countries, despite the daily description of these countries as hostile and unfriendly to Russia. Nevertheless, this does not prevent the political elite, including propagandists, from spending time there and buying yachts and real estate. This fact is somehow not very consistent with the author's vision of the allegedly started Cold War 2.0. But then, what is the author trying to convey to the Western reader in such a case? Just what he was told by Russian officials at the very Valdai, where Kremlin-friendly foreigners went every year. So we should not be surprised that the author repeats the same fairy tale about the main prize - that the West tried to get by taking it away from Russia, i.e., what the war is being fought over today - Ukraine. The following quotes show it perfectly.
Carl Gershman, the president of NED, was disarmingly open about his regime-change ambitions, admitting in September 2013 that Ukraine was ‘the biggest prize’. What the CIA had earlier tried to achieve by subversion was now done overtly.
Instead of coups, regime-change operations were conducted within the framework of what later came to be known as ‘colour revolutions’. Russia claimed that the NED was involved in the overthrow of the Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovych, in February 2014.
In fact, these are the theses that can be heard on Russian TV. The main thing here is the shift of responsibility from Russia to the U.S. and NATO. But I liked the following quote and the phrase "democratic internationalism" the most, which should show that the development of democracy in the world is not a positive action. In other words, the following quote, in my view, justifies the existence of despotism in the world. More precisely, it is the author who justifies the refusal to fight for democracy. But it was the lack of democracy in Russia and Belarus that led to a full-scale war.
Moscow and Beijing no longer propound communism, but they do condemn democratic internationalism.
The last quote, after which the author's message, his position, way of seeing the situation, and, in general, everything that can be said about this author becomes obvious.
The neo-revisionist stance from 2012 assumed that the demand for status and equality would have to be asserted rather than negotiated. The Kosovo precedent and the perceived breakdown of European security provoked the annexation of Crimea in March 2014. Moscow argued that the February ‘coup’, the change of regime in Kiev and the flight of Yanukovych, created an ‘extreme situation’ allowing Crimea to exercise the right of self-determination that could no longer be exercised within Ukraine’s constitutional framework. More broadly, the Charter system, to which Russia repeatedly appealed as the unique source of authority in international politics, appeared unable to provide a framework for the deepening European security dilemma.
The problem with this claim is that the Russian authorities did not explain the annexation of Crimea by NATO expansion or by removing Yanukovych from power but solely by correcting a "historical injustice" according to which Crimea was illegally and/or unjustly given to Ukraine. The Russian authorities did not tell Ukraine that Crimea was taken away because of Euromaidan. It was clearly stated that Crimea was taken because it "historically" belonged to Russia. So the author should not be deceitful, justifying Russia's actions by NATO expansion, U.S. interference in Ukraine's affairs, support for Euromaidan, etc.
The last thing I want to say about this book is that the author is careful with his words. As much as I tried, I never found in the book an outright support of Russia or a direct accusation of the U.S. and NATO for what happened in Ukraine in 2014 and 2022. The author plays the role of an "unbiased analyst," but the very spirit of the book says otherwise.
December 20, 2025
I’ll admit I had higher hopes for this book, as its argument felt repetitive, overly-complex and at times apologist.
While there is a good mix of history and analysis of present affairs, I felt there was a prevalent apologist narrative which sought to legitimise many of the Russian expansionist moves in recent years, especially vis a vis Ukraine. While the core argument of American overreach in the aftermath of the Cold War is sound, I wasn’t overly convinced by the wider argument.
That being said, the sections which focused on China, India and the Global South were often very strong. Overall not really sure this book achieved its aims but did at times offer prescient analysis.
While there is a good mix of history and analysis of present affairs, I felt there was a prevalent apologist narrative which sought to legitimise many of the Russian expansionist moves in recent years, especially vis a vis Ukraine. While the core argument of American overreach in the aftermath of the Cold War is sound, I wasn’t overly convinced by the wider argument.
That being said, the sections which focused on China, India and the Global South were often very strong. Overall not really sure this book achieved its aims but did at times offer prescient analysis.
June 14, 2024
Excellent book about how situation actually went for a worse after the fall of Berlin Wall and USSR desintegration.
Dont get me wrong , some things that took place were extraordinary but as history shows they were just a breeze at the base of humongous sh*tstorm, forgive my French, that marked the end of Cold War and entering into so called end-of-history period.
I will not go into details about the book, it needs to be read. What I can say is that author, although fully aware of the situation and actions of the Western alliance, he is still very much biased towards the Western coalition. This is felt in statements like West was not listening, but everyone else overreacted etc. May sound petty but words are words - thing is that everyone overreacted. Also author is not looking favourably towards political realist movement but he is pretty ready to state that in New World Order there just was not place for Russia and China (which is very political realist approach if you ask me). Then that constant talk how China is true-born contender and Russia is just a country that could have done better by saying yeah, my time is gone - same as Germany and Japan post WW2.
And this is where narration falls apart in a way (but again what to expect, it is not that bias will ever leave Western authors on the subject - patriotism is patriotism and that is commendable).
Why does the narration fail in this case you may ask? Well in Vae Victis approach to Soviet Union and later Russia (not that this made any difference for UK for example) West decided to simply ignore any protest and/or comment coming from it. Because why would they? Russia was caught in economic quagmire (unfortunately organized by Western economists), political turmoil (that constant talk about democratic institutions set by Yeltsin who used tanks to attack Parliament that did not agree with his decisions) and was left for all means and purposes to die out.
To draw parallels between Germany and Japan at the end of WW2 is ridiculous - these countries were supported by West for a simple reason to prevent they establish or stregthen their links with USSR. This is why they were brought up from the ashes but under occupation authorities (very, very important thing)!
Better comparison is attitude of the West towards Germany post WW1 - because this is how USSR/Russia was seen at the end of Cold War. Things got worse and worse until the point when Russia started opposing West openly. Ridicuolous level of sanctions from the start of second decade of 21st century, with cascade effect on everyone in any way linked to Russia had single purpose - complete isolation and destruction, of state and people mind you. As author states sanctions were just piled up - nothing was stated as a condition to remove them. Whatever Russia did would have same end result - it was treated as a defeated opponent and whatever it was told it should just need to say ... say nothing, just do it. Author constantly mentions this as Russian narrative and imagined danger, but lets be honest his was how Russia was treated. As West confirmed during 2022/23, plans of division of Russia were in place for a long time in those "brilliant", sharp think tanks that create West's foreign policy. Again not a narrative but by indices a plan in progress. And who does author and West see as source of truth about Russian intentions? Neighboring countries - because you know neighboring countries never have worst possible views of their neighbor, LOL! Just because they share lots of history, of course there will be grudges and mistrust.
I have to admit I was constantly wondering what brought such a belligerent stand from the West. And reason is that Russia openly decided to oppose it, in favour of Russian national interest. All of this maelstrom just because country said wait the minute? And to be honest, weren't it for the pandemic and show of force and demonization of anyone not fully obeying, merciless and absolute to the bone, my view would be completely different. But then you start wondering - if this is how native populace is treated.... there is no hope for foreigners West does not like.
Sad fact is that for anyone resisting West there was no place in the world at all - regime had to change. There was never talk, dialogue, it was West's way or the highway. Dont believe me? Well, just look at Nuland's statements, lack of any diplomatic approach from the West during the Ukraine crisis (not to mention Merkel's and Holland's statements that Minsk agreements, for which they further sanctioned Russia mind you, were just a smoke-screen). I mean, imagine level of zealotry to say this openly, in the middle of the bloody conflict? Is there any other way of completely burning the bridges with the other side? One has to wonder if there are - in the international politic arena - any differences between current ideological block and Soviet block of old times (as it was portrayed during Cold War). Freedom for state internal politics? Yeah, right - do refer to the Georgian foreign-agent-law. Highly opposed by West where every country already has this type of law. But again this is for them not for the subordinates.
And then West (led by US) made a big mistake and started thr same thing with China.
What started as period of great promise ended with rise of self righteousness, high moral of West who started seeing itself as only power in the world that has right to do anything of the purpose, they were the only ones who knew how to lead the entire world to better tomorrow. With all talk about diversity, system ended up very closed and very monolithic and not diverse at all - it was expected to have full economic, political and military subservience of all the vassal countries - only approach to be accepted. Any resistance was treated as a call for a complete destruction and crushing of non-compliant elements. Reasons - they will vary. What was OK for one will be doom of other, but everything is OK because West's actions are through these weird decsions justified and this (righteousness of Western alliance) is the only parameter to judge things by. Crusade was in full sway.....
And how magnificiently this backfired. All elements proclaimed to be necessary links between nations [so they can prosper] were in this crazy crusader attitude used to pressure non compliant states without any de-escalation mechanisms, just more pressure, more punishment.
For all means and purposes period between 1990 and 2014 seem to be an aberration not a rule. People may share some values but they definitely do not want to be put under pressure in order to match some template set by someone living far away and not being in touch with local society.
Hopefully world is now going back on track to more natural organization, sovereign countries given freedom to make their way in the world, and make their own alliances and decisions without being pushed around by powers to be, using UN as coordinating body, role it was intended for. For some this might seem as anarchy but this is natural order of things. This will balance the international relations. Are there risks? Of course, but these risks are much lower than having self-righteouss, moralistic and highly destructive force without any control sowing chaos around. Will this help countries currently under domination of the West. I would not hold my breath, even if there is a way it borders with impossible. And given the trends vice will tighten to keep everyone in line. But rest will be given chance to develop and with time who knows, more free world will finally emerge.
Excellent book, reads like a map trajectory to the cliff leading to abbyss. Hopefully we all learn to fly.
Highly recommended.
Dont get me wrong , some things that took place were extraordinary but as history shows they were just a breeze at the base of humongous sh*tstorm, forgive my French, that marked the end of Cold War and entering into so called end-of-history period.
I will not go into details about the book, it needs to be read. What I can say is that author, although fully aware of the situation and actions of the Western alliance, he is still very much biased towards the Western coalition. This is felt in statements like West was not listening, but everyone else overreacted etc. May sound petty but words are words - thing is that everyone overreacted. Also author is not looking favourably towards political realist movement but he is pretty ready to state that in New World Order there just was not place for Russia and China (which is very political realist approach if you ask me). Then that constant talk how China is true-born contender and Russia is just a country that could have done better by saying yeah, my time is gone - same as Germany and Japan post WW2.
And this is where narration falls apart in a way (but again what to expect, it is not that bias will ever leave Western authors on the subject - patriotism is patriotism and that is commendable).
Why does the narration fail in this case you may ask? Well in Vae Victis approach to Soviet Union and later Russia (not that this made any difference for UK for example) West decided to simply ignore any protest and/or comment coming from it. Because why would they? Russia was caught in economic quagmire (unfortunately organized by Western economists), political turmoil (that constant talk about democratic institutions set by Yeltsin who used tanks to attack Parliament that did not agree with his decisions) and was left for all means and purposes to die out.
To draw parallels between Germany and Japan at the end of WW2 is ridiculous - these countries were supported by West for a simple reason to prevent they establish or stregthen their links with USSR. This is why they were brought up from the ashes but under occupation authorities (very, very important thing)!
Better comparison is attitude of the West towards Germany post WW1 - because this is how USSR/Russia was seen at the end of Cold War. Things got worse and worse until the point when Russia started opposing West openly. Ridicuolous level of sanctions from the start of second decade of 21st century, with cascade effect on everyone in any way linked to Russia had single purpose - complete isolation and destruction, of state and people mind you. As author states sanctions were just piled up - nothing was stated as a condition to remove them. Whatever Russia did would have same end result - it was treated as a defeated opponent and whatever it was told it should just need to say ... say nothing, just do it. Author constantly mentions this as Russian narrative and imagined danger, but lets be honest his was how Russia was treated. As West confirmed during 2022/23, plans of division of Russia were in place for a long time in those "brilliant", sharp think tanks that create West's foreign policy. Again not a narrative but by indices a plan in progress. And who does author and West see as source of truth about Russian intentions? Neighboring countries - because you know neighboring countries never have worst possible views of their neighbor, LOL! Just because they share lots of history, of course there will be grudges and mistrust.
I have to admit I was constantly wondering what brought such a belligerent stand from the West. And reason is that Russia openly decided to oppose it, in favour of Russian national interest. All of this maelstrom just because country said wait the minute? And to be honest, weren't it for the pandemic and show of force and demonization of anyone not fully obeying, merciless and absolute to the bone, my view would be completely different. But then you start wondering - if this is how native populace is treated.... there is no hope for foreigners West does not like.
Sad fact is that for anyone resisting West there was no place in the world at all - regime had to change. There was never talk, dialogue, it was West's way or the highway. Dont believe me? Well, just look at Nuland's statements, lack of any diplomatic approach from the West during the Ukraine crisis (not to mention Merkel's and Holland's statements that Minsk agreements, for which they further sanctioned Russia mind you, were just a smoke-screen). I mean, imagine level of zealotry to say this openly, in the middle of the bloody conflict? Is there any other way of completely burning the bridges with the other side? One has to wonder if there are - in the international politic arena - any differences between current ideological block and Soviet block of old times (as it was portrayed during Cold War). Freedom for state internal politics? Yeah, right - do refer to the Georgian foreign-agent-law. Highly opposed by West where every country already has this type of law. But again this is for them not for the subordinates.
And then West (led by US) made a big mistake and started thr same thing with China.
What started as period of great promise ended with rise of self righteousness, high moral of West who started seeing itself as only power in the world that has right to do anything of the purpose, they were the only ones who knew how to lead the entire world to better tomorrow. With all talk about diversity, system ended up very closed and very monolithic and not diverse at all - it was expected to have full economic, political and military subservience of all the vassal countries - only approach to be accepted. Any resistance was treated as a call for a complete destruction and crushing of non-compliant elements. Reasons - they will vary. What was OK for one will be doom of other, but everything is OK because West's actions are through these weird decsions justified and this (righteousness of Western alliance) is the only parameter to judge things by. Crusade was in full sway.....
And how magnificiently this backfired. All elements proclaimed to be necessary links between nations [so they can prosper] were in this crazy crusader attitude used to pressure non compliant states without any de-escalation mechanisms, just more pressure, more punishment.
For all means and purposes period between 1990 and 2014 seem to be an aberration not a rule. People may share some values but they definitely do not want to be put under pressure in order to match some template set by someone living far away and not being in touch with local society.
Hopefully world is now going back on track to more natural organization, sovereign countries given freedom to make their way in the world, and make their own alliances and decisions without being pushed around by powers to be, using UN as coordinating body, role it was intended for. For some this might seem as anarchy but this is natural order of things. This will balance the international relations. Are there risks? Of course, but these risks are much lower than having self-righteouss, moralistic and highly destructive force without any control sowing chaos around. Will this help countries currently under domination of the West. I would not hold my breath, even if there is a way it borders with impossible. And given the trends vice will tighten to keep everyone in line. But rest will be given chance to develop and with time who knows, more free world will finally emerge.
Excellent book, reads like a map trajectory to the cliff leading to abbyss. Hopefully we all learn to fly.
Highly recommended.
October 3, 2023
this book hasn't been on anyone radar, but i think it'll be a book with considerable influence in the future....
.......
The Lost Peace is a superb book. Sakwa explains in learned detail how the West – especially the United States – pursued policies after the first Cold War ended that tragically led to a second Cold War, which has no end in sight.
John Mearsheimer
The Lost Peace offers a long-awaited nuanced analysis of the multilayered crisis in which the world finds itself. Sakwa's sharp and meticulous interpretation will help all those who look for solutions ahead.
Marlene Laruelle, author of Is Russia Fascist?
A masterly account of the decisions that, over the last quarter century, have plunged the world into a new crisis. Must reading for concerned citizens in North America and Europe.
Jack F. Matlock, Jr., Former U.S. Ambassador to the USSR and author of Superpower Illusions
August 4, 2025
OK, nice overview for someone who wants to understand better the area. Thesis is OK, the writing sometimes all over the place but overall a good read .
May 23, 2024
Looks at the international organizations of the Cold War and how they failed to transform or were manipulated in such a way that set the conditions for a second Cold War. Introduced a concept I had not heard before; sovereign internationalism.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews