What do you think?
Rate this book
85 Days in Slavyansk
In 2014, the Maydan Revolution in Ukraine installed a new pro-Western government in Kiev. Fearful of the new government, the pro-Russian Donbass region in eastern Ukraine rose up in rebellion. This rebellion initiated the First Donbass War, and the failure of either side to achieve their objectives set the stage for the much larger Second Donbass War in 2022.
"85 Days in Slavyansk" is the only book written by an organizer of the 2014 rebellion that has been translated into English. It features extensive interviews with participants on both the Russian and Ukrainian sides of the war. The book discusses the centuries old roots of the rebellion, the formation of the Donbass People's Militia, the Donbass independence referendums, the ideological motivations of the fighters, the organization of the militia, and the degree of the Russian government's support for the rebellion. The bulk of the text discusses the siege of Slavyansk from April to July 2014. The siege involved the greatest concentration of fighting in the early months of the rebellion.
"85 Days in Slavyansk" is the only book written by an organizer of the 2014 rebellion that has been translated into English. It features extensive interviews with participants on both the Russian and Ukrainian sides of the war. The book discusses the centuries old roots of the rebellion, the formation of the Donbass People's Militia, the Donbass independence referendums, the ideological motivations of the fighters, the organization of the militia, and the degree of the Russian government's support for the rebellion. The bulk of the text discusses the siege of Slavyansk from April to July 2014. The siege involved the greatest concentration of fighting in the early months of the rebellion.
353 pages, Paperback
Published April 27, 2022
29 people are currently reading
223 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
July 17, 2022
This book is an insightful account of the causes and motivations of the Russian Separatists in east Ukraine, as well as a history of the Donbass rebellion in 2014. It is a perspective not often covered in Anglosphere, and for that reason alone is worth a read. The chapters explaining the separatists' political calculus and those speculating on Moscow's thought process are fantastic, whereas the sections detailing the actual mechanics of the fighting are a bit boring. This is worth checking out, especially if you want a short primer on Russia's justifications for the current conflict.
Here are some other thoughts.
- The translation itself seems a bit too literal. It is entirely serviceable and one is never pulled out of the experience however.
- The author's bias is clear and he doesn't make an attempt at objective analysis, which means it is easy to square away with your thoughts.
- Despite the above, it is not very propagandistic. I never felt like the ideology was being laid on too thickly.
- the use of quotes and extracts from other books is a bit annoying, but if you're an Englishlet, you won't have access to these other materials, so it isn't all for nothing.
Here are some other thoughts.
- The translation itself seems a bit too literal. It is entirely serviceable and one is never pulled out of the experience however.
- The author's bias is clear and he doesn't make an attempt at objective analysis, which means it is easy to square away with your thoughts.
- Despite the above, it is not very propagandistic. I never felt like the ideology was being laid on too thickly.
- the use of quotes and extracts from other books is a bit annoying, but if you're an Englishlet, you won't have access to these other materials, so it isn't all for nothing.
May 10, 2022
Purportedly the first Russian account of the inception of the Russo-Ukrainian to be translated into English. Written by a Russian soldier on the frontlines of the initial rebellion (and later full-fledged state-on-state war) in Eastern Ukraine, the account follows the early actions of rebel militias looking to re-establish the so-called New Russia.
Unless you are an Eastern European of Moscow-orient (or a steady consumer of Tucker Carlson's regularly scheduled programming), the account provides a decent counter-perspective to Western coverage of the war. Although a relatively quick read, the book is comprehensive in detail and, similar to Spring-time tank advances, can get bogged down. Nevertheless, it is as close as a Western, non-Russian speaker can get to comprehending the mind of the everyday Russian soldier.
Having spent a not insignificant amount of time in similarly war-torn European countries, the parallels between this war and that of former Yugoslavia are hard to miss. In my view, the difference in viewpoint between that of the West and that of the East boils down to conceptions of nationality and statehood. Questions around these conceptions can be rather complicated and, as we are seeing, can result in unimaginable violence. Whereas the western conception of nationhood is flexible and relatively fluid, a gift of the Enlightenment, that of the European, especially the Eastern European, is dangerously brittle. To really understand this concept, to see the implications of its continuing debate, and to fully feel the mind of someone with this Eastern disposition, one really must undertake the prerequisite study of the age of empires and the outbreak of World War 1.
The Great War, and its even more catastrophic aftermath, was the ironing out of what it meant to be a State and what it meant to be a national of said State. The great question fought then, and now in Ukraine, is this: What defines a nation-state? Perhaps more importantly, who gets to define it? Is a state an area where people share similar language, culture, and history? What if there is a meshing of these within historical borders? What about people who share in language who reside outside of historical borders? Who is eligible to be a member of said nation-state? Are some people more eligible members than others? How should it be decided who has dominion over the state, especially in relation to other already-functioning states around it?
What Westerners often fail to recognize is how lucky they are to not have to face these destructive questions within their own borders (at least anymore). These questions were first being asked and settled by those initially arriving in the New World. The answers are deeply ingrained in the founding documents of Western nations, products of Enlightenment thinkers like Locke, Smith, Paine, Jefferson, Hobbes, Kant, Hume, Franklin and so on. A miracle of unfathomably optimal timing, these questions debated just as a great new nation was being formed in a land not troubled by the bagge of history.
In the East, these questions were indeed asked, but they were being settled with very different dispositions and in the context of tumultuous histories of lengthy duration. Following the fall of the great empires at the conclusion of the World Wars, communism ascended and did away with any idea of individuality or nationhood. It did its best to do away with petty inter-ethnic rivalry as well through enforced collectivation. It can be reasonably argued this was not a diversion from Enlightenment conceptualizations but, rather, an unfortunate overstep of them. When communism collapsed around the same time in both the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, the 20+ states (and hundreds of ethnicities) that emerged from the rubble had to face the questions the rest of Western Europe began ironing out in 1945.
The book of course does not delve into the macro of these questions, but it does provide insight into how the everyday person, in this case the hero-minded soldier, conceptualizes and responds to the micro of them. As a product of so-called Western propoganda, I cannot, however, sympathize with those who resort to aggression to settle them, as do the rebels in the Donbass.
What the soldiers in this book and Western leaders CAN agree on is that Russians and Russo-aligned rebels did kick off the violence (in the East at least), the question just boils down to the justification of it. Worth a read to better round out your understanding of this question on a micro level.
Unless you are an Eastern European of Moscow-orient (or a steady consumer of Tucker Carlson's regularly scheduled programming), the account provides a decent counter-perspective to Western coverage of the war. Although a relatively quick read, the book is comprehensive in detail and, similar to Spring-time tank advances, can get bogged down. Nevertheless, it is as close as a Western, non-Russian speaker can get to comprehending the mind of the everyday Russian soldier.
Having spent a not insignificant amount of time in similarly war-torn European countries, the parallels between this war and that of former Yugoslavia are hard to miss. In my view, the difference in viewpoint between that of the West and that of the East boils down to conceptions of nationality and statehood. Questions around these conceptions can be rather complicated and, as we are seeing, can result in unimaginable violence. Whereas the western conception of nationhood is flexible and relatively fluid, a gift of the Enlightenment, that of the European, especially the Eastern European, is dangerously brittle. To really understand this concept, to see the implications of its continuing debate, and to fully feel the mind of someone with this Eastern disposition, one really must undertake the prerequisite study of the age of empires and the outbreak of World War 1.
The Great War, and its even more catastrophic aftermath, was the ironing out of what it meant to be a State and what it meant to be a national of said State. The great question fought then, and now in Ukraine, is this: What defines a nation-state? Perhaps more importantly, who gets to define it? Is a state an area where people share similar language, culture, and history? What if there is a meshing of these within historical borders? What about people who share in language who reside outside of historical borders? Who is eligible to be a member of said nation-state? Are some people more eligible members than others? How should it be decided who has dominion over the state, especially in relation to other already-functioning states around it?
What Westerners often fail to recognize is how lucky they are to not have to face these destructive questions within their own borders (at least anymore). These questions were first being asked and settled by those initially arriving in the New World. The answers are deeply ingrained in the founding documents of Western nations, products of Enlightenment thinkers like Locke, Smith, Paine, Jefferson, Hobbes, Kant, Hume, Franklin and so on. A miracle of unfathomably optimal timing, these questions debated just as a great new nation was being formed in a land not troubled by the bagge of history.
In the East, these questions were indeed asked, but they were being settled with very different dispositions and in the context of tumultuous histories of lengthy duration. Following the fall of the great empires at the conclusion of the World Wars, communism ascended and did away with any idea of individuality or nationhood. It did its best to do away with petty inter-ethnic rivalry as well through enforced collectivation. It can be reasonably argued this was not a diversion from Enlightenment conceptualizations but, rather, an unfortunate overstep of them. When communism collapsed around the same time in both the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, the 20+ states (and hundreds of ethnicities) that emerged from the rubble had to face the questions the rest of Western Europe began ironing out in 1945.
The book of course does not delve into the macro of these questions, but it does provide insight into how the everyday person, in this case the hero-minded soldier, conceptualizes and responds to the micro of them. As a product of so-called Western propoganda, I cannot, however, sympathize with those who resort to aggression to settle them, as do the rebels in the Donbass.
What the soldiers in this book and Western leaders CAN agree on is that Russians and Russo-aligned rebels did kick off the violence (in the East at least), the question just boils down to the justification of it. Worth a read to better round out your understanding of this question on a micro level.
August 28, 2022
This book interested me in that it shows the Russian perspective and justification for the war in the Donbas. As a Westerner, I am constantly bombarded with pro-Ukrainian propaganda. I found this book to be a good way to counter that and see things from the other side. The truth lies somewhere in the middle.
September 16, 2022
Absolutely foundational in my understanding of the War in Donbass and the ideological background of the more recent Russian invasion of Ukraine. Well-written, not afraid to run contrary to what you see on tv
February 17, 2023
I was excited to read this, but it fell short on a number of axes. TL/DR: This book needed a better editor, because the lack of writing and structure detracts from its excellent depiction of the why and how of the 2014 Donetsk war.
First, the writing is not good. I don't think this is the fault of the translator. I can't say much more about this. The art is simply poor. This infiltrates everything.
Second, the history is not the best either. The author is confused about whether to represent a macro or micro view of the conflict. There are real gems in this book for understanding both the macro and micro level of the conflict, but the writing quality is not good enough at linking these. The result is a stuttering shift between the macro and micro levels throughout the narrative. Most of the book is quotations. This is welcome, on the one hand, because it presents primary sources, but it makes for a confusing overall structure as we move through the timeline. I feel like this could have been edited better, framed into either an anthology structure telling the actual stories on the micro-level, or framed as a macro narrative with fewer quotations and more summarization of the overall flow of the conflict.
What this book does very well is show the internal politics of the Novorossiya movement, though one can't help but notice the constant lionization of Strelkov, who is painted as the savior of Novorossiya, forced to contend with only corrupt and ineffective peers. The point of view of the author trends towards bias here, as it does in a number of other ways. This is understandable, as the author served under Strelkov and fought in Slavyansk, but one can't help but wonder how reliable of an account this is.
The other thing that struck me about this book is the amount of doublethink it contains. Russian politics are "vertical," but Strelkov goes dark and is unable to be recalled after being organized mostly by local authorities. The narrative here is coherent, but the Kremlin is portrayed as being simultaneously all-powerful, and in the dark. "There is no such thing as an ex-GRU," the author says, but Strelkov is also operating without any support from the Russian Federation. Maybe this is an intentional act of hybrid war propaganda in itself, which, if so, is masterfully done.
The book shines in its depiction of the act of combat in the 2014 Donetsk war. The micro-level is exhaustively accounted down to the level of which individual is holding which weapon in which spot on the battlefield. Most engagements are mapped on the street level. The degree to which militiamen armed with usually only small arms can hold off mechanized AFU units is astonishing, and serves as a fantastic reminder of the power of small arms even in the modern day. If you have friends or family who think that the 2nd Amendment is "obsolete," give them this book.
Finally, the most compelling reason to read this book is to understand the motivation and mindset of Russians in Ukraine, and why they are fighting for Risorgimento. This is beautifully depicted on the macro and micro levels. One young man of 19 is said to have traveled to Slavyansk from Kiev after being fined three times for speaking to customers in Russian as he worked as a cashier. Any American who holds a one-sided view of the conflict should consider how people in the United States would react if it were illegal for a cashier in a grocery store to speak to a customer in Spanish. The history of the region is well summarized and contexualizes the conflict in this way also; any American who holds a one-sided view of the conflict should consider how they would feel if Ohio, Tennessee, or Kentucky were carved off from the United States and regarded internationally as entirely distinct historical entities. While, again, this point of view is presented in an openly propagandistic way, it is clearly communicated and well presented.
First, the writing is not good. I don't think this is the fault of the translator. I can't say much more about this. The art is simply poor. This infiltrates everything.
Second, the history is not the best either. The author is confused about whether to represent a macro or micro view of the conflict. There are real gems in this book for understanding both the macro and micro level of the conflict, but the writing quality is not good enough at linking these. The result is a stuttering shift between the macro and micro levels throughout the narrative. Most of the book is quotations. This is welcome, on the one hand, because it presents primary sources, but it makes for a confusing overall structure as we move through the timeline. I feel like this could have been edited better, framed into either an anthology structure telling the actual stories on the micro-level, or framed as a macro narrative with fewer quotations and more summarization of the overall flow of the conflict.
What this book does very well is show the internal politics of the Novorossiya movement, though one can't help but notice the constant lionization of Strelkov, who is painted as the savior of Novorossiya, forced to contend with only corrupt and ineffective peers. The point of view of the author trends towards bias here, as it does in a number of other ways. This is understandable, as the author served under Strelkov and fought in Slavyansk, but one can't help but wonder how reliable of an account this is.
The other thing that struck me about this book is the amount of doublethink it contains. Russian politics are "vertical," but Strelkov goes dark and is unable to be recalled after being organized mostly by local authorities. The narrative here is coherent, but the Kremlin is portrayed as being simultaneously all-powerful, and in the dark. "There is no such thing as an ex-GRU," the author says, but Strelkov is also operating without any support from the Russian Federation. Maybe this is an intentional act of hybrid war propaganda in itself, which, if so, is masterfully done.
The book shines in its depiction of the act of combat in the 2014 Donetsk war. The micro-level is exhaustively accounted down to the level of which individual is holding which weapon in which spot on the battlefield. Most engagements are mapped on the street level. The degree to which militiamen armed with usually only small arms can hold off mechanized AFU units is astonishing, and serves as a fantastic reminder of the power of small arms even in the modern day. If you have friends or family who think that the 2nd Amendment is "obsolete," give them this book.
Finally, the most compelling reason to read this book is to understand the motivation and mindset of Russians in Ukraine, and why they are fighting for Risorgimento. This is beautifully depicted on the macro and micro levels. One young man of 19 is said to have traveled to Slavyansk from Kiev after being fined three times for speaking to customers in Russian as he worked as a cashier. Any American who holds a one-sided view of the conflict should consider how people in the United States would react if it were illegal for a cashier in a grocery store to speak to a customer in Spanish. The history of the region is well summarized and contexualizes the conflict in this way also; any American who holds a one-sided view of the conflict should consider how they would feel if Ohio, Tennessee, or Kentucky were carved off from the United States and regarded internationally as entirely distinct historical entities. While, again, this point of view is presented in an openly propagandistic way, it is clearly communicated and well presented.
October 20, 2022
Probably one of the best books in English about the current conflict in Ukraine and I would recommend anyone interested in the conflict to read it. This book also made me respect Igor Strelkov way more than I did previously
December 19, 2022
It is worth keeping in mind when this reads dry that this was written by a soldier, not an MFA of creative writing! 🤠
That being said - god bless the special operation of 2022.
What was done to Donbass in 2014 cannot be forgiven, nor left unpunished.
That being said - god bless the special operation of 2022.
What was done to Donbass in 2014 cannot be forgiven, nor left unpunished.
June 21, 2022
Reading this Russian account of a key battle in the opening days of the Donbass War has been an interesting experiencing. Throughout the book it was effectively impossible to know how much of what you are reading is true. And that would have been just as much the case if I had been reading a Ukrainian account of the events. In a conflict as contentious as this one, it could be years before we learn the accurate details, and some details may never come to light at all. Between the Western and Russian media I don't have a lot of confidence in the information coming out of Western or Southern Ukraine. Even the many wars of the last century are victims of modern distortions and interpretations. It would come as no surprise that the conflict in Ukraine was victim to similar distortions.
Occasionally I would read accounts and figures which I was confident were not accurate, or did not reflect the truth. But as a casual reader I am not going to undertake the research needed to verify all the facts. I don't plan on learning Ukrainian or Russian and digging through source material. As a consequence, I read the book with a charitable mindset that much of what I read was being relayed as accurately as possible.
In spite of the uncertainty and bias involved, this book is worth the read. As an American I get a very skewed image of the conflict. In the U.S. Russia is the enemy, and is blamed frequently in the media and by the administration for many of our domestic woes. Most of the media coverage of the events in Ukraine is decidedly one sided. 85 days provides a brief account giving an alternative perspective on Russian aims, motivations, and grievances. And for this reason it was helpful. And the author is honest in the closing pages of the book, and states that he is a committed Russian nationalist who wishes to see the neighboring states reclaimed. I appreciate that he made no effort to hide this.
The battlefield accounts take up the majority of the book, and are very interesting to read. I can't say I am much of an expert on tactics or modern warfare, so I cannot offer an informed opinion in this review.
All in all, its worth checking out. I am glad I read it.
Occasionally I would read accounts and figures which I was confident were not accurate, or did not reflect the truth. But as a casual reader I am not going to undertake the research needed to verify all the facts. I don't plan on learning Ukrainian or Russian and digging through source material. As a consequence, I read the book with a charitable mindset that much of what I read was being relayed as accurately as possible.
In spite of the uncertainty and bias involved, this book is worth the read. As an American I get a very skewed image of the conflict. In the U.S. Russia is the enemy, and is blamed frequently in the media and by the administration for many of our domestic woes. Most of the media coverage of the events in Ukraine is decidedly one sided. 85 days provides a brief account giving an alternative perspective on Russian aims, motivations, and grievances. And for this reason it was helpful. And the author is honest in the closing pages of the book, and states that he is a committed Russian nationalist who wishes to see the neighboring states reclaimed. I appreciate that he made no effort to hide this.
The battlefield accounts take up the majority of the book, and are very interesting to read. I can't say I am much of an expert on tactics or modern warfare, so I cannot offer an informed opinion in this review.
All in all, its worth checking out. I am glad I read it.
July 30, 2023
I think that one of the greatest mistakes in 20th century was creation of big multinational states, countries crammed with the nations that actually do not like each other. This was situation in Austria-Hungary, former Yugoslavia but also in myriad states that became independent after fall of USSR, Ukraine being one of them.
What happens in that case is that [original supra] state they were part of needs to be muddied, demonized and fast forgotten, not taking into account everything that same state did for that very nation. So old hatreds boil and old ideologies start to surface and everyone marked as an enemy is to be targeted. As a result states become polarized and when fuse gets lightened everything goes to sewer.
This is what happened in Ukraine - rise of nationalism brought back certain ideologies that just had to find the target, and behold the eternal baddies - Russians. Does it matter that post 1990s Russia is more similar to Tsarist Russia, they are blamed for everything, starting it seems from the Biblical flood.
And as every action triggers the reaction, Russians in the south-east Ukraine started to organize because they realized they will no longer be equal citizens in their own country.
Acquiring the Crimea was definitely an initial strategic requirement. Reason, simple - access to the Black Sea. Idiotic statements of Ukrainian government about Crimea triggered fear of NATO base here, and nobody could allow that. In my opinion, same reason applies when it comes to South Osettia.
Unfortunately this gave confidence to Donetsk and Lugansk rebels to ask for more authonomy because they thought Russia will intervene. And this is where the story starts.
In a manner of 7 samurai, group of volunteers arrives in Donetsk and when selecting the city for their base of operations decision is made to start in Slavyansk. What follows is set of engagements that slowly escalated from small scale engagements to merciless bombardment of Slavyansk and great number of civilian casualties, culminating in armed rebels escaping from the besieged city. Considering that story mentions a lot of characters that are still active in current war, it helps to build the context and backstory of the conflict (and relations between mentioned characters).
While story is told from the Russian perspective, I cannot imagine any modern western author writing book this balanced. Ukrainians are armed opposition here, and all of the information about them in given through pretty neutral reports from the field and less neutral statements Ukrainians gave to press (including resettlement plans when Slavyansk fails or threats of sabotage and terror attacks deep behind rebel positions and Crimea). There are no overtly emotional statements nor demonizations. Author manages, and in my opinion succeeds, to give the picture of the Slavyansk fighting from both warring sides. While describing attrocities in Odessa, author also gives picture of almost schizophrenic government parallel structures in rebel territory (i.e police and governer still working for official Kiev).
Author is also critical of the Russain Federation [lack of] official support for the rebels. I think that Russia wanted to stop after securing the Black Sea access, and their constant hot-cold relation with Ukraine and west allowed them to wait as much as possible to intervene. Today we know, unfortunately by statements of official Germany and France, that none of the agreements with Russia were meant to be followed through. Way was paved towards the war that errupted in 2022.
All of this mayhem is what can be expected in civil war in a country where single nation feels empowered to subdue the other nations present. Encouragment given from the west certainly did not help, it just raised the temperature and escalated things.
To one of the reviewers speaking about west thankfully being homogenic in people structure and not that interested about national identity - take a look at Belgium and imagine if they forbid French as official language, or take a look at France and conflicts along the national lines that are burning down French cities - although most of those people come from Africa they all have French citizenships.
Every country where you have a pot of various nations, also known as multinational countries, is a ticking bomb. You want to destabilize them? Just place various NGOs to awaken old memories and that is it. Ask every multinational, federal type of state east of Italy, Czechoslovakia being the rare example of amicable "divorce". And in general, as for nationalities, all's good and everyone is citizen of the world until help is required - suddenly everyone remembers their embassies (especially Northern Americans).
Current events confirm some of the elements of the story - increasing hatred between opponents (especially Ukrainian hatred towards everything Russian and by the looks of it plan to either resettle population of Donetsk and Lugansk or push them all the way to Russia), Ukrainian employment of mercenaries from NATO countries (US and Poland in particular) and their reliance on terror and assassination tactics (especially use of bombs).
Book also shows how politically motivated border drawing - in case of Ukraine, very creation of its borders in 1920s by Soviet government or drawing nebulous borders by English and French in Middle East - always results in tragedy years later.
Question arises, did Russians had right to rebel? Well, to that I have a following question - how do you feel about Alamo, or Greece fight for independance from Ottoman Empire, Dutch indenpendence war, US independence struggle, Cossacks fighting the Poles (yup, same Ukraine, while was under Poles) and say Baltic states' fights for independence after WW1 or states declaring independence from Yugoslav Federation? I understand that some might say, we are right because we support our cause but they dont have right to do that! In that case hypocrisy is name of the game, that needs to be looked at. And I will stop at that.
Very interesting and exquisitly balanced account of the events. Highly recommended to everyone interested in the history and in Russian-Ukrainian relations and conflicts.
What happens in that case is that [original supra] state they were part of needs to be muddied, demonized and fast forgotten, not taking into account everything that same state did for that very nation. So old hatreds boil and old ideologies start to surface and everyone marked as an enemy is to be targeted. As a result states become polarized and when fuse gets lightened everything goes to sewer.
This is what happened in Ukraine - rise of nationalism brought back certain ideologies that just had to find the target, and behold the eternal baddies - Russians. Does it matter that post 1990s Russia is more similar to Tsarist Russia, they are blamed for everything, starting it seems from the Biblical flood.
And as every action triggers the reaction, Russians in the south-east Ukraine started to organize because they realized they will no longer be equal citizens in their own country.
Acquiring the Crimea was definitely an initial strategic requirement. Reason, simple - access to the Black Sea. Idiotic statements of Ukrainian government about Crimea triggered fear of NATO base here, and nobody could allow that. In my opinion, same reason applies when it comes to South Osettia.
Unfortunately this gave confidence to Donetsk and Lugansk rebels to ask for more authonomy because they thought Russia will intervene. And this is where the story starts.
In a manner of 7 samurai, group of volunteers arrives in Donetsk and when selecting the city for their base of operations decision is made to start in Slavyansk. What follows is set of engagements that slowly escalated from small scale engagements to merciless bombardment of Slavyansk and great number of civilian casualties, culminating in armed rebels escaping from the besieged city. Considering that story mentions a lot of characters that are still active in current war, it helps to build the context and backstory of the conflict (and relations between mentioned characters).
While story is told from the Russian perspective, I cannot imagine any modern western author writing book this balanced. Ukrainians are armed opposition here, and all of the information about them in given through pretty neutral reports from the field and less neutral statements Ukrainians gave to press (including resettlement plans when Slavyansk fails or threats of sabotage and terror attacks deep behind rebel positions and Crimea). There are no overtly emotional statements nor demonizations. Author manages, and in my opinion succeeds, to give the picture of the Slavyansk fighting from both warring sides. While describing attrocities in Odessa, author also gives picture of almost schizophrenic government parallel structures in rebel territory (i.e police and governer still working for official Kiev).
Author is also critical of the Russain Federation [lack of] official support for the rebels. I think that Russia wanted to stop after securing the Black Sea access, and their constant hot-cold relation with Ukraine and west allowed them to wait as much as possible to intervene. Today we know, unfortunately by statements of official Germany and France, that none of the agreements with Russia were meant to be followed through. Way was paved towards the war that errupted in 2022.
All of this mayhem is what can be expected in civil war in a country where single nation feels empowered to subdue the other nations present. Encouragment given from the west certainly did not help, it just raised the temperature and escalated things.
To one of the reviewers speaking about west thankfully being homogenic in people structure and not that interested about national identity - take a look at Belgium and imagine if they forbid French as official language, or take a look at France and conflicts along the national lines that are burning down French cities - although most of those people come from Africa they all have French citizenships.
Every country where you have a pot of various nations, also known as multinational countries, is a ticking bomb. You want to destabilize them? Just place various NGOs to awaken old memories and that is it. Ask every multinational, federal type of state east of Italy, Czechoslovakia being the rare example of amicable "divorce". And in general, as for nationalities, all's good and everyone is citizen of the world until help is required - suddenly everyone remembers their embassies (especially Northern Americans).
Current events confirm some of the elements of the story - increasing hatred between opponents (especially Ukrainian hatred towards everything Russian and by the looks of it plan to either resettle population of Donetsk and Lugansk or push them all the way to Russia), Ukrainian employment of mercenaries from NATO countries (US and Poland in particular) and their reliance on terror and assassination tactics (especially use of bombs).
Book also shows how politically motivated border drawing - in case of Ukraine, very creation of its borders in 1920s by Soviet government or drawing nebulous borders by English and French in Middle East - always results in tragedy years later.
Question arises, did Russians had right to rebel? Well, to that I have a following question - how do you feel about Alamo, or Greece fight for independance from Ottoman Empire, Dutch indenpendence war, US independence struggle, Cossacks fighting the Poles (yup, same Ukraine, while was under Poles) and say Baltic states' fights for independence after WW1 or states declaring independence from Yugoslav Federation? I understand that some might say, we are right because we support our cause but they dont have right to do that! In that case hypocrisy is name of the game, that needs to be looked at. And I will stop at that.
Very interesting and exquisitly balanced account of the events. Highly recommended to everyone interested in the history and in Russian-Ukrainian relations and conflicts.
July 31, 2022
While I don't doubt this book was written with the intent to inspire sympathy for the volunteer fighters of the pre-DPR and pre-LPR militia, I think anyone who reads this book would struggle not to find some sympathy for them.
And I myself find I am more and more disgusted with the uncritical rush to arm and support Ukraine in the latest round of a long running, acrimonious conflict.
The book is little over 400 pages, but large print so quite a quick read.
And I myself find I am more and more disgusted with the uncritical rush to arm and support Ukraine in the latest round of a long running, acrimonious conflict.
The book is little over 400 pages, but large print so quite a quick read.
July 16, 2022
good book if you want to see the other side of the first Donbass war
December 29, 2022
Basically essential reading for understanding where we are today. Author obviously has Russian bias but its not overwhelming.
June 25, 2022
Part war memoir, part history of the Donbass War. Most value of the book, in my opinion, comes from the info about the specifics of how the war started and by whom as well as the interesting perspectives about the views of those in the East & South of Ukraine. They see themselves as Russians, not Ukrainians (the rebels are referred to as Russians throughout the book), they want to be part of Russia, and they expected Russia to intervene almost immediately after start of conflict. Only later, after the events in the book, did Russia intervene in Ukraine. They felt abandoned by Russia, especially after they saw how Russia responded in Crimea.
Read
January 28, 2023Gonna hold off on rating this one. This is somewhat of a firsthand account of the war in the early days, but with a very nationalistic slant. They will claim the militia is just "Russians vs Ukrainians", and at the same time report that the militia is "70% Ukrainians and 30% Russians". This is due to implicit biases I think. The part I found interesting is that a large portion of the nationalists consider themselves "White Russians" (think 1920, white army vs red army), and are tsarists. I cannot wrap my head around why anyone would want to restore a monarchy
December 17, 2023
Good overview of the fighting around Slavyansk in 2014 from the separatist point of view. Gives some insight into the mentality/motivation of the separatists and their general backgrounds. A rarity to see something like this published in English, not to mention being written by an actual participant in the fighting. Also an impressive testament to what sort of impact fog of war and small unit tactics can have against fully fledged military units.
December 21, 2024
Conflicting thoughts. This book is a piece of history, a piece of Russian propaganda, and yet a bizarrely niche piece of literature which happened to slam itself into western conservative hands. Essentially it is a book which recounts the Battle of Slavyansk in Donbas in 2015 from the „rebel” perspective, and I do believe it’s important to read regardless of party affiliation.
August 12, 2022
Hardly impartial, but if one takes the statements against interest, there is much on tactics and corruption on the pro-Russian side. It also offers insight into how the conflict is seen as a civil war by some. A piece to the puzzle of how we got here, but much is missing.
August 19, 2023
It is a good book as it gives an early summary of the differences of opinion between Russia and Donetsk, events in eastern ukraine. It also introduces figures like Motorola aka Arsen Pavlov. However, the feeling that it is a cheap propaganda book never leaves you.
January 11, 2024
Adds a lot of colour to one’s views of the timely conflict. The author states plainly the aspirations and motivations of the first rebels and who actually sent them.
The translation does contain a few noticeable errors, but it doesn’t detract from the overall reading.
The translation does contain a few noticeable errors, but it doesn’t detract from the overall reading.
December 25, 2022
The siege of Slavyansk in the beginning of the Donbass War as told from the Russian perspective. Whether or not Russia is right, they’re lying their ass off, and that’s the problem.
December 9, 2024
First Ukraine Russian war from the perspective of a separatist fighter. On the ground view of the politics involved and in depth view of some of the early battles
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews