What do you think?
Rate this book
The Showman: The Inside Story of the Invasion That Shook the World and Made a Leader of Zelensky
‘This book offers a front row seat to history as it is being made’ ANNE APPLEBAUM'This is the Zelensky book we’ve been waiting for’ CATHERINE BELTON'An elegant account of the invasion’s first year as seen by those in the very eye of the storm' DAILY TELEGRAPH A BEST BOOK OF 2024 – NEXT YEAR’S TOP READS BOOKS TO LOOK OUT FOR IN 2024 A BOOK OF THE MONTH JANUARY’S BEST BOOKSWRITTEN WITH UNPRECEDENTED ACCESS, THIS IS THE FIRST INSIDE, INTIMATE ACCOUNT OF THE RUSSIAN INVASION OF UKRAINE FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF PRESIDENT ZELENSKY AND HIS TEAM.Based on four years of reporting; extensive travels with President Zelensky to the front; and dozens of interviews with him, his wife, his friends and enemies, his advisers, ministers and military commanders, The Showman tells an intimate and eye-opening story of the President’s evolution from a slapstick actor to a symbol of resilience, revealing how he managed to rally the world’s democracies behind his cause.Clear-eyed about the President’s early failures as a peacemaker and his willingness to silence political dissent, the book offers a complex picture of a man struggling to break what he sees as a historical cycle of oppression that began generations before he was born. Even as the war drags on, Zelensky lays out his vision for its future course and, through his actions, demonstrates his strategy for countering the Russians and keeping the West on his side. The result is a riveting, up-close picture of the invasion as experienced by its number one target and improbable hero.The Showman, as a work of eyewitness journalism, provides an essential perspective on the war defining our age. As a study in leadership and human resolve, its appeal is timeless and universal.
505 pages, Hardcover
Published January 23, 2024
615 people are currently reading
6231 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 301 reviews
Read
November 2, 2023What the blurbs don't tell you: Simon Shuster has been consistently peddling Russian propaganda about Ukraine and got every single thing wrong in his reporting.
He has been consistently trying to whitewash Russia and deny its aggressive intent, from claiming that "No, Russia Will Not Intervene in Ukraine" (c) on Feb 25, 2014, when Russian soldiers in unmarked uniforms were already seizing control of Crimea, to this little gem on February 9, 2022, two weeks before the full-scale invasion:
Meanwhile, he has been repeating all the classics of the Russian propaganda lies that helped to pave the way for the invasion, from painting Ukraine as a Nazi state ("Right-wing thugs are hijacking Ukraine's liberal uprising" (c)) to claiming that "Many Ukrainians Want Russia to Invade" (c).
He also shows all the cultural sensitivity of a clam, because of course he does. Here's him ridiculing Ukrainian national anthem, because even a Russian who has spent most of his life living abroad can still harbor all the typical Russian chauvinist beliefs: "That is Ukraine's national anthem, which is called, "Ukraine has not yet perished." No, not quite yet". (The anthem actually goes "Ukraine's glory and freedom have not perished," but peddlers of Russian propaganda seldom stoop to actually verifying their facts.)
The list could go on and on.
So, you know, it might be worth taking his book with a bucketful of salt (or avoiding it altogether).
He has been consistently trying to whitewash Russia and deny its aggressive intent, from claiming that "No, Russia Will Not Intervene in Ukraine" (c) on Feb 25, 2014, when Russian soldiers in unmarked uniforms were already seizing control of Crimea, to this little gem on February 9, 2022, two weeks before the full-scale invasion:
SCOOP A Kremlin insider admitted to me that the goal of massing troops is not to invade Ukraine. It is to "put a lot of fear" into the West, "to present a threat of such massive consequences that it forces everyone on that side to agree."
Meanwhile, he has been repeating all the classics of the Russian propaganda lies that helped to pave the way for the invasion, from painting Ukraine as a Nazi state ("Right-wing thugs are hijacking Ukraine's liberal uprising" (c)) to claiming that "Many Ukrainians Want Russia to Invade" (c).
He also shows all the cultural sensitivity of a clam, because of course he does. Here's him ridiculing Ukrainian national anthem, because even a Russian who has spent most of his life living abroad can still harbor all the typical Russian chauvinist beliefs: "That is Ukraine's national anthem, which is called, "Ukraine has not yet perished." No, not quite yet". (The anthem actually goes "Ukraine's glory and freedom have not perished," but peddlers of Russian propaganda seldom stoop to actually verifying their facts.)
The list could go on and on.
So, you know, it might be worth taking his book with a bucketful of salt (or avoiding it altogether).
December 11, 2023
Before reading The Showman by Simon Shuster, I came across various social media posts which portrayed Shuster as a Russian asset. After finishing the book, I can confirm that if he is a Russian asset, then he is terrible at it.
The Showman chronicles the rise of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky mostly centered on his time at war with Russia but also on his transition from actor to politician. Shuster makes all of this feel rather personal. He met with nearly everyone in the book for interviews and he is often willing to say what he thinks about what he witnesses. I am not kidding about the Russian asset part. Shuster is willing to examine the good and bad parts of all of his characters with the exception of Putin. Let there be no mistake, Shuster thinks what Russia is doing is criminal and the atrocities all go back to Putin.
However, no one will confuse this as a puff piece praising Zelensky as a saint and fearless warrior. There are numerous places where Shuster points out his mistakes, miscalculations, and a worry about who Zelensky might become when this is all said and done. Zelensky is human after all and is learning to be a politician under the worst of circumstances. This doesn't mean he gets a free pass from the press, though.
The story tells itself but Shuster's voice enhances the book and makes it feel like a conversation. I pictured myself sitting at a bar hearing about all of this from an old friend who just came back from overseas. I highly recommend it.
(This book was provided as an advance copy by Netgalley and William Morrow.)
The Showman chronicles the rise of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky mostly centered on his time at war with Russia but also on his transition from actor to politician. Shuster makes all of this feel rather personal. He met with nearly everyone in the book for interviews and he is often willing to say what he thinks about what he witnesses. I am not kidding about the Russian asset part. Shuster is willing to examine the good and bad parts of all of his characters with the exception of Putin. Let there be no mistake, Shuster thinks what Russia is doing is criminal and the atrocities all go back to Putin.
However, no one will confuse this as a puff piece praising Zelensky as a saint and fearless warrior. There are numerous places where Shuster points out his mistakes, miscalculations, and a worry about who Zelensky might become when this is all said and done. Zelensky is human after all and is learning to be a politician under the worst of circumstances. This doesn't mean he gets a free pass from the press, though.
The story tells itself but Shuster's voice enhances the book and makes it feel like a conversation. I pictured myself sitting at a bar hearing about all of this from an old friend who just came back from overseas. I highly recommend it.
(This book was provided as an advance copy by Netgalley and William Morrow.)
January 9, 2024
Few things to consider about the author (Семен, moscow-born propaganda tool and genocide enabler).
In 2014 alone, Simon Shuster:
1) denied the possibility of a russian invasion;
2) claimed that many Ukrainians would have welcomed it;
3) suggested that Ukraine was heading for a "civil war" on the day russia invaded;
4) told to accept the reality of annexation. A literal agent
In 2014 alone, Simon Shuster:
1) denied the possibility of a russian invasion;
2) claimed that many Ukrainians would have welcomed it;
3) suggested that Ukraine was heading for a "civil war" on the day russia invaded;
4) told to accept the reality of annexation. A literal agent
December 17, 2023
Author is famous in spreading controversial and manipulative information about Ukrainians and their fighting against russian aggression. And now he wrote a book just to make a money on the war, continuing to repeat a high quality russian disinformation.
August 21, 2024
THE SHOWMAN: INSIDE THE INVASION THAT SHOOK THE WORLD AND MADE A LEADER OF VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY is an engaging, interview-based look from a person who had direct access to the Ukrainian leader.
Going back and forth around the Russian war on Ukraine that started in February 2022, THE SHOWMAN documents the first year of the fighting through the processes behind the curtains, namely the political decisions of Zelensky with his entourage and Putin. The story is not straightforward, sometimes veering off to the years before the invasion. One doesn't have to be an expert on Ukraine to catch up with Russian-Ukrainian relations after the collapse of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, the book has no new information for those who have been watching the news and making their own conclusions: aside from the author's interviews with Zelensky, newspaper articles constitute the book's basis. Neither THE SHOWMAN contains any revelations - for me, Olena Zelenska's story was the only one informative - nor is the author's position unique in some way.
If I had read this book before Lucian Kim's Putin's Revenge: Why Russia Invaded Ukraine, I would have liked it more. However, when choosing between a journalistic investigation and an academic, deep research, I'd rather go for research.
Going back and forth around the Russian war on Ukraine that started in February 2022, THE SHOWMAN documents the first year of the fighting through the processes behind the curtains, namely the political decisions of Zelensky with his entourage and Putin. The story is not straightforward, sometimes veering off to the years before the invasion. One doesn't have to be an expert on Ukraine to catch up with Russian-Ukrainian relations after the collapse of the Soviet Union. On the other hand, the book has no new information for those who have been watching the news and making their own conclusions: aside from the author's interviews with Zelensky, newspaper articles constitute the book's basis. Neither THE SHOWMAN contains any revelations - for me, Olena Zelenska's story was the only one informative - nor is the author's position unique in some way.
If I had read this book before Lucian Kim's Putin's Revenge: Why Russia Invaded Ukraine, I would have liked it more. However, when choosing between a journalistic investigation and an academic, deep research, I'd rather go for research.
June 15, 2025
Почну з дісклеймера - бачив рев'ю Ярослави Стріхи на англомовне видання, де вона доволі сильно розмотує радше автора і його позицію по російсько-українській війні, ніж цю книгу. Я ж в цій книзі якогось сентименту до рф не побачив, як і спроб подати все в ключі "не все так однозначно" чи відбилити/очорнити самого Зеленського.
Книга, як неважко здогадатись з назви, оповідає шлях ставновлення Зеленського від коміка до президента воюючої країни. Саймон Шустер, журналіст Time, який доволі багато часу і матеріалів присвятив російько-українським відносинам і безпосередньо війні, намагається дати об'єктивну і щиру картину того, як Зеленський формувався як особистість, як став популярним, як згодом став президентом, та як зрештою потрапив на війну.
На мою думку книга доволі збалансована і свою основну задачу виконує добре - по її прочитанню справді формується цільна, хай і дещо спрощена, картина шляху Зеленського, розвитку і змін його характеру. При цьому Шустер не ліпить з нього героя в сяюючих обладунках, натомість цілком дозволяє собі акцентувати увагу на його прорахунках і сумнівних рішеннях. В той же час і не захоплюється його критикою, радше відсторонено вказує на якісь дискусійні моменти і йде далі. Інакше кажучи, автору, наскільки це можливо в такій ангажованій і емоційній темі, вдається триматись русла об'єктивної подачі. І в цьому, як на мене, один з основних факторів цінності цього тексту. Другий фактор - це близькість автора до самого президента та його оточення, і відповідно щирість і особистісний, людяний підхід у висвітленні цієї історії.
Щодо технічної сторони книги - написано добре й цікаво, видання Чорної гори дуже хороше. Друга частина подекуди відчувалась дещо більш змазаною, фрагментарною і можливо трохи водянистою, відчуття цільності і тяглості оповіді трохи притупилося, але не до критичного, то ж загального враження не змінило, читалось легко протягом всієї книги. Ще подекуди бракувало мап чи ілюстративного матеріалу, мені здається тут його набрати було б не так складно і воно було б дуже доречно до історії, але й це радше особисте побажання. Щодо фактологічних неточностей, бачив було якесь відповідне обговорення в Reddit, але не заглиблювався. Особисто помітив лише одну технічну неточність - оповідаючи про потоплення крейсера "Москва" автор пише, що його уразили дві торпеди, в той час як насправді топили його протикорабельні ракети.
В цілому ж і суттєва і технічна частина книги залишили по собі хороше враження, то ж я можу лише рекомендувати "Шоумена" як хороший і доволі збалансований (хай і не вичерпний) огляд постаті Зеленського до і в перший рік війни, еволюції його особистості та ситуації навколо. Думаю буде цікава як симпатикам поточного президента, так і його критикам.
Книга, як неважко здогадатись з назви, оповідає шлях ставновлення Зеленського від коміка до президента воюючої країни. Саймон Шустер, журналіст Time, який доволі багато часу і матеріалів присвятив російько-українським відносинам і безпосередньо війні, намагається дати об'єктивну і щиру картину того, як Зеленський формувався як особистість, як став популярним, як згодом став президентом, та як зрештою потрапив на війну.
На мою думку книга доволі збалансована і свою основну задачу виконує добре - по її прочитанню справді формується цільна, хай і дещо спрощена, картина шляху Зеленського, розвитку і змін його характеру. При цьому Шустер не ліпить з нього героя в сяюючих обладунках, натомість цілком дозволяє собі акцентувати увагу на його прорахунках і сумнівних рішеннях. В той же час і не захоплюється його критикою, радше відсторонено вказує на якісь дискусійні моменти і йде далі. Інакше кажучи, автору, наскільки це можливо в такій ангажованій і емоційній темі, вдається триматись русла об'єктивної подачі. І в цьому, як на мене, один з основних факторів цінності цього тексту. Другий фактор - це близькість автора до самого президента та його оточення, і відповідно щирість і особистісний, людяний підхід у висвітленні цієї історії.
Щодо технічної сторони книги - написано добре й цікаво, видання Чорної гори дуже хороше. Друга частина подекуди відчувалась дещо більш змазаною, фрагментарною і можливо трохи водянистою, відчуття цільності і тяглості оповіді трохи притупилося, але не до критичного, то ж загального враження не змінило, читалось легко протягом всієї книги. Ще подекуди бракувало мап чи ілюстративного матеріалу, мені здається тут його набрати було б не так складно і воно було б дуже доречно до історії, але й це радше особисте побажання. Щодо фактологічних неточностей, бачив було якесь відповідне обговорення в Reddit, але не заглиблювався. Особисто помітив лише одну технічну неточність - оповідаючи про потоплення крейсера "Москва" автор пише, що його уразили дві торпеди, в той час як насправді топили його протикорабельні ракети.
В цілому ж і суттєва і технічна частина книги залишили по собі хороше враження, то ж я можу лише рекомендувати "Шоумена" як хороший і доволі збалансований (хай і не вичерпний) огляд постаті Зеленського до і в перший рік війни, еволюції його особистості та ситуації навколо. Думаю буде цікава як симпатикам поточного президента, так і його критикам.
February 9, 2024
Sorry that I haven’t gotten back to people who have commented on my reviews yet; I promise I will do so soon! I’ve just been going through some stuff… but I’ll keep that to myself and try to make this review decent.
I really enjoyed this biography. Shuster began with a “blank slate” regarding President Zelensky, using approximately three years of personal interviews with the subject and those closest to him to cultivate an evenhanded final portrait of Ukraine’s “celebrity” president. The image I walked away with was one of a charismatic, empathetic and adroit wartime leader (I used quotations in for blank slate in reference to one of the earlier chapters).
I am certain that those alleging that Shuster is somehow “pro-Russia” and a “Putin apologist” did not actually read this book. I would not ordinarily announce such a strong statement as a matter of fact, but I truly am bewildered by these claims. I am all for differing viewpoints and taste, but to me, this goes beyond divergence of opinion and appears hostile.
If you do hold this view, then I really would like to hear specific passages in which Russian forces are portrayed as “the good guys”, and where any justification of the invasion is made (I’m not referring to quotes made by Russian officials or Putin himself, but rather quotes by the author that one would suggest supports the Kremlin line).
One of my absolute favorite former political science professors is Ukrainian/Belorussian, and while I have not had the opportunity to discuss this book with him as of yet, I feel as though he would back Shuster’s consensus. I think a lot of media coverage of Zelensky has anointed him as a deity of some sort, which may be the impetus for the beliefs that the writing is biased.
I understand the media’s take, and I explicitly feel as though the author does, too. He repeatedly circles back to Zelensky’s gift for entertaining, boosting the spirits of strangers through his knack for comedy – then explains how this gift allowed him to blossom into an inspiring, humble leader who captured the hearts of the Ukrainian electorate and the western world at large with his empathy and sincerity. The only real “criticism” seemed to be that Zelensky was naïve, unprepared, and a bit too optimistic.
This is often said of many leaders who express the opinion that they can implement a lot of change while in office, whether they have no prior political experience like Zelensky, or enough, but are still quite young and idealistic – like Barack Obama. I hardly see it as an insult, but rather a truthful observation, which ends up to be quite unfortunate, of course, because a few years in, and these once optimistic young leaders have become hardened by the realities of political pettiness.
As for the charge that he and his wife Olena were estranged or unhappy, he only really points out that Olena was not thrilled about her husband’s sudden decision to throw his hat into the political arena. Upon elaborating on the extreme security measures the President and First Lady are forced to undertake during wartime – resulting in a long period of separation (not by their choice, but by the invasion itself) – one could easily see how even the best marriage would be strained by such uncompromising circumstances.
He does fully acknowledge by the book’s end, however, that the couple has gotten a better grip of their roles within the context of the war, and that in 2024, have presented the most united and strongest front to date.
I really enjoyed learning all of the intricate details – despite how heartbreaking many of them were – of life for Zelensky after Russia’s invasion. I also enjoyed how the author wasn’t afraid to explore insecurities and minor flaws of Zelensky’s (without portraying him as incompetent).
The book started with a panicked entertainer-turned-politician in disbelief over what was occurring in his beloved country (whom many feared would immediately capitulate to Russia’s demands) who, by the end, emerged as a resolute, respected leader, willing to do more for his country than any of his modern-day counterparts.
I do wish it had been slightly longer and had covered through 2023, because I really enjoyed the coverage. Rounded up to 4.5 stars.
I really enjoyed this biography. Shuster began with a “blank slate” regarding President Zelensky, using approximately three years of personal interviews with the subject and those closest to him to cultivate an evenhanded final portrait of Ukraine’s “celebrity” president. The image I walked away with was one of a charismatic, empathetic and adroit wartime leader (I used quotations in for blank slate in reference to one of the earlier chapters).
I am certain that those alleging that Shuster is somehow “pro-Russia” and a “Putin apologist” did not actually read this book. I would not ordinarily announce such a strong statement as a matter of fact, but I truly am bewildered by these claims. I am all for differing viewpoints and taste, but to me, this goes beyond divergence of opinion and appears hostile.
If you do hold this view, then I really would like to hear specific passages in which Russian forces are portrayed as “the good guys”, and where any justification of the invasion is made (I’m not referring to quotes made by Russian officials or Putin himself, but rather quotes by the author that one would suggest supports the Kremlin line).
One of my absolute favorite former political science professors is Ukrainian/Belorussian, and while I have not had the opportunity to discuss this book with him as of yet, I feel as though he would back Shuster’s consensus. I think a lot of media coverage of Zelensky has anointed him as a deity of some sort, which may be the impetus for the beliefs that the writing is biased.
I understand the media’s take, and I explicitly feel as though the author does, too. He repeatedly circles back to Zelensky’s gift for entertaining, boosting the spirits of strangers through his knack for comedy – then explains how this gift allowed him to blossom into an inspiring, humble leader who captured the hearts of the Ukrainian electorate and the western world at large with his empathy and sincerity. The only real “criticism” seemed to be that Zelensky was naïve, unprepared, and a bit too optimistic.
This is often said of many leaders who express the opinion that they can implement a lot of change while in office, whether they have no prior political experience like Zelensky, or enough, but are still quite young and idealistic – like Barack Obama. I hardly see it as an insult, but rather a truthful observation, which ends up to be quite unfortunate, of course, because a few years in, and these once optimistic young leaders have become hardened by the realities of political pettiness.
As for the charge that he and his wife Olena were estranged or unhappy, he only really points out that Olena was not thrilled about her husband’s sudden decision to throw his hat into the political arena. Upon elaborating on the extreme security measures the President and First Lady are forced to undertake during wartime – resulting in a long period of separation (not by their choice, but by the invasion itself) – one could easily see how even the best marriage would be strained by such uncompromising circumstances.
He does fully acknowledge by the book’s end, however, that the couple has gotten a better grip of their roles within the context of the war, and that in 2024, have presented the most united and strongest front to date.
I really enjoyed learning all of the intricate details – despite how heartbreaking many of them were – of life for Zelensky after Russia’s invasion. I also enjoyed how the author wasn’t afraid to explore insecurities and minor flaws of Zelensky’s (without portraying him as incompetent).
The book started with a panicked entertainer-turned-politician in disbelief over what was occurring in his beloved country (whom many feared would immediately capitulate to Russia’s demands) who, by the end, emerged as a resolute, respected leader, willing to do more for his country than any of his modern-day counterparts.
I do wish it had been slightly longer and had covered through 2023, because I really enjoyed the coverage. Rounded up to 4.5 stars.
July 13, 2024
Šī ir vērtīga grāmata par vēsturi, kura notiek tagad - par šausmīgo krievijas karu Ukrainā. Par līderi, kurš dod cerību un ticību Ukrainai.
Ieskats un fakti, par to kas ir Ukrainas prezidents Volodymyr Zelenskyy - no komiķa par prezidentu. Par vienu mūslaiku ievērojamākajiem cilvēkiem.
Žurnālists Simon Shuster ir tuvu Zeļenskim, viņa ģimenei un viņa cilvēkiem - sarunas, intervijas, vērojumi. Perosnīgs un izzinošs ieskats notikumos un vēsturē, cilvēku spēkā, ticībā un nebeidzamā drosmē aizstāvēt savu valsti no ļaunuma.
Nekas vēl nav beidzies. Bet es ticu - Ukraina uzvarēs!
Слава Україні! 🇺🇦
Ieskats un fakti, par to kas ir Ukrainas prezidents Volodymyr Zelenskyy - no komiķa par prezidentu. Par vienu mūslaiku ievērojamākajiem cilvēkiem.
Žurnālists Simon Shuster ir tuvu Zeļenskim, viņa ģimenei un viņa cilvēkiem - sarunas, intervijas, vērojumi. Perosnīgs un izzinošs ieskats notikumos un vēsturē, cilvēku spēkā, ticībā un nebeidzamā drosmē aizstāvēt savu valsti no ļaunuma.
Nekas vēl nav beidzies. Bet es ticu - Ukraina uzvarēs!
Слава Україні! 🇺🇦
February 12, 2024
As the war grinds on in Ukraine, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson remains adamant that he will not bring to the House floor for a vote a bi-partisan bill negotiated by Democratic and Republican senators that would provide aid to Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, and funds to deal with the crisis at our southern border. It seems that Donald Trump has instructed the Speaker on how to proceed with the legislation because if it passed it would provide President Biden a political victory during our election season. The fact that Ukraine is slowly running out of munitions and weapons has no impact on the MAGA world as its goal is to re-elect former President Trump and the consequences be damned. Vladimir Putin sits in the Kremlin with that cheshire smile on his face laughing on the inside as he observes the political chaos in Congress and believes that anything that would return Trump to the White House would benefit Russia. The result is that he will drag the war of attrition out further in the hope of achieving that goal.
Meanwhile, frustration in Kyiv, NATO headquarters, European capitals, and Washington is reaching new heights as the Biden administration tries to cull a deal. The man responsible for leading the Ukrainian people, President Volodymyr Zelensky tries his best to convince House and Senate members of the crisis that will ensue in Europe and the threats it will create should Russia prevail. Zelensky is the key figure in the process and is the subject of Time magazine correspondent Simon Shuster’s new book THE SHOWMAN: THE INSIDE STORY OF THE INVASION THAT SHOOK THE WORLD AND MADE A LEADER OUT OF VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY which provides in intimate detail the story of Zelensky’s evolution from a professional comedian to a symbol of Ukrainian resistance to the Russian invasion of February 24, 2022 and how he has tried to rally western democracies to support his cause and bring about Russia’s defeat in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.
There are a number of important books concerning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Ukrainian history. Most recent are those by Yaroslav Hrytsak, Serhii Plokhy, Owen Matthews, Joshua Yaffa, Paul D’Anieri, Christopher M. Smith, Jade McGlynn, Luke Harding, and Christopher Miller. All are excellent monographs, but Shuster’s biography brings the life and actions of President Zelensky into greater focus than other authors.
Shuster offers an unparalleled look at what Zelensky, his wife Olena Zelenskaya, his two children, and the Ukrainian people experienced as the war drew closer, and the actual invasion and its consequences. Shuster zeroes in on Zelensky’s decision making, tactics to try and invigorate and reassure the Ukrainian people, and the impact of the strategic approach taken by the Ukrainian military leadership. All aspects of the war are explored with many insights and airtight analysis.
Shuster does well in describing Zelensky’s rise from being an entertainer to a successful politician. Among the important points he makes focuses on the characteristics and talents of the comedic world and the entertainment business that Zelensky developed over the years and how he employed them in his transition to politics. Many of the individuals who worked with him in his production company would find themselves as part of his “inner governing circle” once he assumed the presidency of Ukraine.
There are a number of interesting points that Shuster offers in dealing with Zelensky’s approach to Putin, the preparation of the domestic population for war, and the outbreak of war itself. For a long time Zelinsky was under the delusion that he could deal with Putin on a one to one basis. He believed once he sat down with him he could rely on his personal persuasive talents to come to agreements with the former KGB operative. This reflects Zelensky’s naivete when it came to Putin. I am certain that Zelensky was completely aware of Putin’s Pan Slavic beliefs, his mantra that Ukraine was part of Russia, not a separate country, and a modus operandi employing “little green men” in eastern Ukraine, Crimea. Zelensky did get his face to face with Putin and negotiations in 2019 which in the end were a failure. Prisoner swaps were agreed to but on issues of substance dating back to the Orange Revolution of 2014 there was no progress. Putin was inflexible, arguing there were no Russian troops in the Donbas region so Zelensky’s goal of Russian troop withdrawal before any elections could take place was a non-starter.
Zelensky firmly believed that war could be avoided and did his best to prevent a furtherance of a conflict that began in 2014. He refused to accept American intelligence that the war was imminent. He was overly careful in making war preparations fearing he would scare the Ukrainian people, would harm the domestic economy as Ukraine was dependent upon Russia for gas and oil and a significant amount of investment would be lost, and lastly, it would send the wrong message to Putin fostering an invasion. Nationalists in the Ukrainian parliament opposed Zelinsky’s stance arguing he was selling out to the Russians.
Shuster is correct in that Putin was a spy who believed in subterfuge as opposed to direct combat. A prime example is Putin’s relationship with Viktor Medvedchuk, a Ukrainian media billionaire who was Zelensky’s main political opponent. Medvedchuk’s relationship went back decades with Putin attending his wedding and was the godfather to his daughter. In reality Medvedchuk, a member of parliament, was Putin’s surrogate whose media empire attacked Zelensky repeatedly, particularly over his Covid vaccine policies as Putin’s “Trojan Horse.” As Zelensky’s popularity declined in 2019 and 2020 and Medvedchuk’s political party made gains in parliament, Putin came to believe that he could achieve his takeover of Ukraine by democratic means once his surrogate replaced Zelensky. This was not to be as Zelensky confiscated Medvedchuk’s assets which Shuster argues pushed Putin toward invasion and restore what he termed the “historical unity” between Russia and Ukraine.
Many wonder why Ukraine was able to push back the invasion within a few weeks. The key was the battle for Kyiv which was the most significant combat in Europe since World War II. Others have reflected on the idea that Russia relied on maps that dated to 1989, the fact that troops and certain commanders did not receive their orders until two days before the invasion, the Russian military did not train enough for the type of resistance it came upon, etc. But the keys as Shuster points out were the purchase of Bayraktars drones from Turkey which were successful against the long Russian columns of tanks, artillery, and other equipment and supplies. The appointment of Major-General Valery Zaluzhny as commander of Ukrainian forces as unlike senior Ukrainian officers he was not trained in the Soviet model of warfare, and he implemented a more offensive approach toward the Russians in the east. Now they could fire back, something they had been restrained from doing before Zaluzhny took command. Lastly, American satellite intelligence proved a boon to Ukrainian defense and offensive actions.
Shuster describes the atrocities of Bucha in intimate detail, the key battle for Mariupol, the siege at the Azovstal Steel works and the fighting in Kyiv suburbs. He describes a leader who seemed to find himself and employ his communication talents once the invasion began. He kept pushing for American and European weaponry which in large part was successful as the war ground on. One of the key elements for war on Putin’s part was the weakening of NATO and blocking Ukrainian membership in the alliance. Putin’s goals backfired as Ukrainian military needs were met by the west. Kyiv gave up old Soviet military weapons and systems and integrated NATO equipment into its military arsenal. The more weapons that arrived and with the training of Ukrainian forces by NATO, more and more they became a western force. Further, to Putin’s anger, Finland and Sweden joined NATO increasing NATO’s presence on its 900 mile border with Finland. Putin’s response was vindictive bombing of civilians and threats of nuclear war.
Shuster has not produced a work of hagiography as is seen by his commentary on prewar policies and digs around the corrupt oligarchs in Zelensky’s orbit. Despite this THE SHOWMAN is a portrait of a brave, inspirational, and bold leader who did not shy away from danger, visiting troops and combat areas to share in some way what his people were experiencing. Shuster, who has been reporting from Kyiv since 2009, relies a great deal on interviews with the most important players in the Ukrainian drama. He would interview Zelensky in 2019 as a presidential candidate and was able to become part of his inner circle and shadow him for the first year of the war. He points to Zelensky’s limited experience as a statesman who was able to gain the trust and support from the West employing “incessant repetition” of his demands through rhetoric, his personality, and commitment to his cause. Zelensky did resort to highhandedness at times which Shuster blames on the exigency of war, not any drive toward autocracy.
Zelensky’s transformation into a wartime leader was not predictable and he evolved turning the conflict into one the West would take ownership of. The problem is that as the war continues it seems the West might be losing interest, or “Ukraine fatigue,” as the Republican Congress threatens further military aid, and Donald Trump may appear on the horizon as President which would play into Putin’s hands. This fear was reaffirmed this weakened at a Trump political rally as the ex-president pontificated on NATO warning members that if they didn’t pay enough dues he would not honor Article Five of the NATO charter. He further stated that if that were the case he would encourage Putin to do “as he damned well pleased” and even encouraged the Russian autocrat to invade westward. In the interim the conflict is pretty much frozen on the battlefield as both sides fight for limited territory. The problem is should Ukraine run out of certain weapons by spring it could lead to negotiations where Putin achieves most of his demands or obtains out and out military victory and the end of a free Ukraine.
Meanwhile, frustration in Kyiv, NATO headquarters, European capitals, and Washington is reaching new heights as the Biden administration tries to cull a deal. The man responsible for leading the Ukrainian people, President Volodymyr Zelensky tries his best to convince House and Senate members of the crisis that will ensue in Europe and the threats it will create should Russia prevail. Zelensky is the key figure in the process and is the subject of Time magazine correspondent Simon Shuster’s new book THE SHOWMAN: THE INSIDE STORY OF THE INVASION THAT SHOOK THE WORLD AND MADE A LEADER OUT OF VOLODYMYR ZELENSKY which provides in intimate detail the story of Zelensky’s evolution from a professional comedian to a symbol of Ukrainian resistance to the Russian invasion of February 24, 2022 and how he has tried to rally western democracies to support his cause and bring about Russia’s defeat in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.
There are a number of important books concerning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Ukrainian history. Most recent are those by Yaroslav Hrytsak, Serhii Plokhy, Owen Matthews, Joshua Yaffa, Paul D’Anieri, Christopher M. Smith, Jade McGlynn, Luke Harding, and Christopher Miller. All are excellent monographs, but Shuster’s biography brings the life and actions of President Zelensky into greater focus than other authors.
Shuster offers an unparalleled look at what Zelensky, his wife Olena Zelenskaya, his two children, and the Ukrainian people experienced as the war drew closer, and the actual invasion and its consequences. Shuster zeroes in on Zelensky’s decision making, tactics to try and invigorate and reassure the Ukrainian people, and the impact of the strategic approach taken by the Ukrainian military leadership. All aspects of the war are explored with many insights and airtight analysis.
Shuster does well in describing Zelensky’s rise from being an entertainer to a successful politician. Among the important points he makes focuses on the characteristics and talents of the comedic world and the entertainment business that Zelensky developed over the years and how he employed them in his transition to politics. Many of the individuals who worked with him in his production company would find themselves as part of his “inner governing circle” once he assumed the presidency of Ukraine.
There are a number of interesting points that Shuster offers in dealing with Zelensky’s approach to Putin, the preparation of the domestic population for war, and the outbreak of war itself. For a long time Zelinsky was under the delusion that he could deal with Putin on a one to one basis. He believed once he sat down with him he could rely on his personal persuasive talents to come to agreements with the former KGB operative. This reflects Zelensky’s naivete when it came to Putin. I am certain that Zelensky was completely aware of Putin’s Pan Slavic beliefs, his mantra that Ukraine was part of Russia, not a separate country, and a modus operandi employing “little green men” in eastern Ukraine, Crimea. Zelensky did get his face to face with Putin and negotiations in 2019 which in the end were a failure. Prisoner swaps were agreed to but on issues of substance dating back to the Orange Revolution of 2014 there was no progress. Putin was inflexible, arguing there were no Russian troops in the Donbas region so Zelensky’s goal of Russian troop withdrawal before any elections could take place was a non-starter.
Zelensky firmly believed that war could be avoided and did his best to prevent a furtherance of a conflict that began in 2014. He refused to accept American intelligence that the war was imminent. He was overly careful in making war preparations fearing he would scare the Ukrainian people, would harm the domestic economy as Ukraine was dependent upon Russia for gas and oil and a significant amount of investment would be lost, and lastly, it would send the wrong message to Putin fostering an invasion. Nationalists in the Ukrainian parliament opposed Zelinsky’s stance arguing he was selling out to the Russians.
Shuster is correct in that Putin was a spy who believed in subterfuge as opposed to direct combat. A prime example is Putin’s relationship with Viktor Medvedchuk, a Ukrainian media billionaire who was Zelensky’s main political opponent. Medvedchuk’s relationship went back decades with Putin attending his wedding and was the godfather to his daughter. In reality Medvedchuk, a member of parliament, was Putin’s surrogate whose media empire attacked Zelensky repeatedly, particularly over his Covid vaccine policies as Putin’s “Trojan Horse.” As Zelensky’s popularity declined in 2019 and 2020 and Medvedchuk’s political party made gains in parliament, Putin came to believe that he could achieve his takeover of Ukraine by democratic means once his surrogate replaced Zelensky. This was not to be as Zelensky confiscated Medvedchuk’s assets which Shuster argues pushed Putin toward invasion and restore what he termed the “historical unity” between Russia and Ukraine.
Many wonder why Ukraine was able to push back the invasion within a few weeks. The key was the battle for Kyiv which was the most significant combat in Europe since World War II. Others have reflected on the idea that Russia relied on maps that dated to 1989, the fact that troops and certain commanders did not receive their orders until two days before the invasion, the Russian military did not train enough for the type of resistance it came upon, etc. But the keys as Shuster points out were the purchase of Bayraktars drones from Turkey which were successful against the long Russian columns of tanks, artillery, and other equipment and supplies. The appointment of Major-General Valery Zaluzhny as commander of Ukrainian forces as unlike senior Ukrainian officers he was not trained in the Soviet model of warfare, and he implemented a more offensive approach toward the Russians in the east. Now they could fire back, something they had been restrained from doing before Zaluzhny took command. Lastly, American satellite intelligence proved a boon to Ukrainian defense and offensive actions.
Shuster describes the atrocities of Bucha in intimate detail, the key battle for Mariupol, the siege at the Azovstal Steel works and the fighting in Kyiv suburbs. He describes a leader who seemed to find himself and employ his communication talents once the invasion began. He kept pushing for American and European weaponry which in large part was successful as the war ground on. One of the key elements for war on Putin’s part was the weakening of NATO and blocking Ukrainian membership in the alliance. Putin’s goals backfired as Ukrainian military needs were met by the west. Kyiv gave up old Soviet military weapons and systems and integrated NATO equipment into its military arsenal. The more weapons that arrived and with the training of Ukrainian forces by NATO, more and more they became a western force. Further, to Putin’s anger, Finland and Sweden joined NATO increasing NATO’s presence on its 900 mile border with Finland. Putin’s response was vindictive bombing of civilians and threats of nuclear war.
Shuster has not produced a work of hagiography as is seen by his commentary on prewar policies and digs around the corrupt oligarchs in Zelensky’s orbit. Despite this THE SHOWMAN is a portrait of a brave, inspirational, and bold leader who did not shy away from danger, visiting troops and combat areas to share in some way what his people were experiencing. Shuster, who has been reporting from Kyiv since 2009, relies a great deal on interviews with the most important players in the Ukrainian drama. He would interview Zelensky in 2019 as a presidential candidate and was able to become part of his inner circle and shadow him for the first year of the war. He points to Zelensky’s limited experience as a statesman who was able to gain the trust and support from the West employing “incessant repetition” of his demands through rhetoric, his personality, and commitment to his cause. Zelensky did resort to highhandedness at times which Shuster blames on the exigency of war, not any drive toward autocracy.
Zelensky’s transformation into a wartime leader was not predictable and he evolved turning the conflict into one the West would take ownership of. The problem is that as the war continues it seems the West might be losing interest, or “Ukraine fatigue,” as the Republican Congress threatens further military aid, and Donald Trump may appear on the horizon as President which would play into Putin’s hands. This fear was reaffirmed this weakened at a Trump political rally as the ex-president pontificated on NATO warning members that if they didn’t pay enough dues he would not honor Article Five of the NATO charter. He further stated that if that were the case he would encourage Putin to do “as he damned well pleased” and even encouraged the Russian autocrat to invade westward. In the interim the conflict is pretty much frozen on the battlefield as both sides fight for limited territory. The problem is should Ukraine run out of certain weapons by spring it could lead to negotiations where Putin achieves most of his demands or obtains out and out military victory and the end of a free Ukraine.
March 21, 2024
Solid book from a Western journalist with unique level of expertise and access. I'm Ukrainian and most of what the author wrote correlates well with my understanding of events and personalities.
My only concern is that the timeline might be a bit confusing for those who have zero knowledge of Ukraine recent history. Otherwise - well written and quite thorough.
My only concern is that the timeline might be a bit confusing for those who have zero knowledge of Ukraine recent history. Otherwise - well written and quite thorough.
February 23, 2024
Addressing the obvious first; the numerous one star reviews and accusation that the author is a Russian shill. Well, basic literacy skills will confirm the absurdness of this claim.
If you need more evidence, then a cursory glance at the one star reviews, all left by people with cryllic names and exactly 1 Goodreads review should suffice.
The information war is alive and well.
On the book itself, I found it to be a most insightful look at Zelinskyys unorthodox rise to power.
The author does an excellent job in charting his path from a successful and beloved domestic comedian to an internationally recognised symbol of defiance against an imperialistic madman.
I also found it pretty fascinating to relive the key moments of the first 18 months of the invasion, only this time with a lot more details from behind the scenes.
The frantic events on Bankova St. on week 1 being particularly memorable and tense; A city about to be encircled, frantic diplomatic meetings, panicked citizens collecting Kalashnikovs at town halls, a President and his aides filming now iconic messages to the nation via iPhone, defence plans made from a Kyiv bunker and the infamous airborne assault at Hostomel airport.
Having followed the war since the opening day, you often forget the pace at which it moved; the key moments and battles, the countless atrocities that were reported on briefly and then replaced the next day with fresh horror.
Shuster does a superb job of documenting it all.
I hope to read part two of this story, and that it has the outcome the majority of the world are looking for.
If you need more evidence, then a cursory glance at the one star reviews, all left by people with cryllic names and exactly 1 Goodreads review should suffice.
The information war is alive and well.
On the book itself, I found it to be a most insightful look at Zelinskyys unorthodox rise to power.
The author does an excellent job in charting his path from a successful and beloved domestic comedian to an internationally recognised symbol of defiance against an imperialistic madman.
I also found it pretty fascinating to relive the key moments of the first 18 months of the invasion, only this time with a lot more details from behind the scenes.
The frantic events on Bankova St. on week 1 being particularly memorable and tense; A city about to be encircled, frantic diplomatic meetings, panicked citizens collecting Kalashnikovs at town halls, a President and his aides filming now iconic messages to the nation via iPhone, defence plans made from a Kyiv bunker and the infamous airborne assault at Hostomel airport.
Having followed the war since the opening day, you often forget the pace at which it moved; the key moments and battles, the countless atrocities that were reported on briefly and then replaced the next day with fresh horror.
Shuster does a superb job of documenting it all.
I hope to read part two of this story, and that it has the outcome the majority of the world are looking for.
January 27, 2024
Pictures of Kyiv under attack looks not accurate and I had a different experience. Chronology probably correct, but accents and comments misleading. I can judge only as a regular civilian, but how can I trust “exclusive” content from this book than? Book contains a lot of author personal opinion that makes it pure political commentary, not reliable source to form opinion
March 13, 2024
Important read to understand the current world a bit better. See him a lot on the news when it comes to him as a war president. But the really interesting parts of the book were about Zelensky and hos actions in regards to the internal politics during the war.
Recommend
Recommend
February 11, 2024
Oof. Time will not be kind to this book, nor to Shuster's reporting on Zelenskyy.
June 20, 2025
4,5⭐️
#ebook
На Саймона важко було впливати і розказувати як писати, і не дивно, що після виходу книги команда «боневтіка» розлючена. І тут не та потужна потужність, яку видає фоліо. А все чітко як є і було. Люди, яким спочатку «pohui” або «proebalі» керують далі, тому «пожинаємо» наслідки.
#ebook
На Саймона важко було впливати і розказувати як писати, і не дивно, що після виходу книги команда «боневтіка» розлючена. І тут не та потужна потужність, яку видає фоліо. А все чітко як є і було. Люди, яким спочатку «pohui” або «proebalі» керують далі, тому «пожинаємо» наслідки.
March 26, 2024
THE SHOWMAN gives some background on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and details the Russian invasion of his country. I should have paid more attention to the subtitle because I expected the book to give more of Zelensky’s story than it did. I still liked gaining insight into this determined world leader and the struggles his country faces.
January 13, 2025
Skirtingai nei kelios jau parašytos knygos apie Rusijos atviros invazijos į Ukrainą etapą nuo 2022, ši tarsi orientuota į Zelenskio biografiją. Autorius ganėtinai pabrėžtinai akcentuoja Zelenskio klaidas ir ypatingai ankstyvąją biografiją: tada paskaičius apie autorių galai susiveda kartu. Nors turėjo priėjimą prie Zelenskio ir jo šeimos net karo metu ne kartą jis yra kartojęs rusijai naudingus naratyvus bei propagavęs "real-politik". Tai ar rekomenduoju? Gal savišvietai ir taip, bet daugėja įdomesnių knygų, kur savo druskos ir nebūtina barstyti.
November 5, 2024
this was rlly interesting. i feel like it had a lot of nuanced analysis and opinions which i appreciated. rlly interesting but it was def an unusual pick for me so i think i had a hard time staying engaged. i finally understand how a comedian became president tho which is something i’ve always been a bit curious about lol
March 19, 2025
Really liked this book, I learned a lot from it.
June 18, 2024
I follow a lot of X (nee "Twitter") feeds regarding the Russo-Ukrainian War, I had seen so much derogatory on this book that I felt I would avoid it entirely and maybe even everything from the pen of author Simon Shuster.
There is thread out there tackling facts related in book along with ad hominin attacks:
All that aside, I found it the most detailed insider account of how Ukraine lurches forward while being assailed by Russia. This includes an overview of the direct communications with defenders in the Azovstal steel plant. It feels like Zelensky's biography is an enlightening example of the connection to and difficulty in separated from Soviet times and thought. There is also a lot on the complicated dynamic with much-respected Zaluzhnyi.
There is thread out there tackling facts related in book along with ad hominin attacks:
Shuster, he's definitely a tool. Born in russia, writes russian propaganda...
All that aside, I found it the most detailed insider account of how Ukraine lurches forward while being assailed by Russia. This includes an overview of the direct communications with defenders in the Azovstal steel plant. It feels like Zelensky's biography is an enlightening example of the connection to and difficulty in separated from Soviet times and thought. There is also a lot on the complicated dynamic with much-respected Zaluzhnyi.
December 25, 2024
A really compelling account of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the wider events of Zelensky’s presidency. It was interesting to see a first hand, insider look into the political dynamics and to see how the Ukrainians responded to the invasion in real time.
I particularly enjoyed the flashbacks to Zelensky’s earlier career and how these informed his rise to power and subsequent actions during the conflict. I also liked that this didn’t become a piece of hero-worship, which some have fallen guilty of since the invasion; where serious questions were raised about Zelensky’s democratic backsliding and powers under martial law, the author didn’t shy away from them.
Overall probably the best account of the invasion so far in a crowded field, and a great way to round off my 2024 reading.
I particularly enjoyed the flashbacks to Zelensky’s earlier career and how these informed his rise to power and subsequent actions during the conflict. I also liked that this didn’t become a piece of hero-worship, which some have fallen guilty of since the invasion; where serious questions were raised about Zelensky’s democratic backsliding and powers under martial law, the author didn’t shy away from them.
Overall probably the best account of the invasion so far in a crowded field, and a great way to round off my 2024 reading.
September 20, 2024
I hesitated reading books about Volodymyr Zelensky. I wasn’t sure the authors were close enough to Zelensky or knew him well to write his biography. Simon Shuster is different as he interviewed Zelensky, his wife Olena and many people in their close circle and the Ukrainian government to write about the President of Ukraine during the first year of the Big War. The book is exceptionally well written and far from glorifying Zelensky. I highly recommend.
February 18, 2024
🌟 4.5 stars! 🌟
Similar to what another reviewer shared, the social media chatter surrounding this book had me expecting to read a piece of pro-Russian propaganda. What I found, however, was a balanced, conversational, incredibly thoughtful piece of reporting. If Simon Shuster is trying to advance the Russian agenda, then he REALLY needs a new job.
Given an almost unparalleled level of access to Ukrainian President Voldomyr Zelensky and senior members of the Ukrainian government during the first year(ish) of Russia's unjustified invasion, Shuster managed to make me feel like I was there living the events with him. He captured the sense of (almost) camaraderie felt in the government bunker in the days immediately post-invasion, the devastation of the war crimes committed in Bucha, and the subtle but unmistakeable changes seen in Zelensky and others as months of war chipped away at a nation's collective sense of humanity. The Showman is one of the more well-sourced books I've ever read (and I read a ton of non-fiction). This level of access to the key players in such a seismic world event is remarkable, and I think the fact that Zelensky's team trusted Shuster with this responsibility is indicative of their confidence in his impartiality.
This level of access means that Shuster is able to write about Ukraine's war effort from a lens that few others have. At times, this means that he shows moments that would typically be kept from public view. Conflict between government officials, crises of conscience among leaders, serious doubts about strategy, and egos growing faster than seats at the table can accommodate happen in every nation, whether or not a reporter is there to write about it. Shuster is clear-eyed about the challenges Ukraine will face in the years ahead, but he is also very obviously hopeful for the nation.
It is clear that Shuster believes Russian President Vladimir Putin is a war criminal with little sense of moral conscience. It is also clear that he sees Ukraine's path to victory as challenging and Zelensky as a leader experiencing growing pains as he moves from a TV star to a world leader. These are dialectics that seem hard for many folks to hold during a time of such intense political strife, but I believe that becoming comfortable with them is essential to creating a sustainable democracy (whether that be in Ukraine, the US, or elsewhere).
If you're someone who knows a lot about the war in Ukraine, someone who knows very little, or someone who thinks "I really wish I understood that better," The Showman by Simon Shuster is an excellent, interesting place to start! And, if you're someone who is compelled to ignore this book due to claims of the author being a Russian asset, I urge you to read it with an open mind instead. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
(Thanks to William Morrow and Netgalley for the advance copy of this book!)
Similar to what another reviewer shared, the social media chatter surrounding this book had me expecting to read a piece of pro-Russian propaganda. What I found, however, was a balanced, conversational, incredibly thoughtful piece of reporting. If Simon Shuster is trying to advance the Russian agenda, then he REALLY needs a new job.
Given an almost unparalleled level of access to Ukrainian President Voldomyr Zelensky and senior members of the Ukrainian government during the first year(ish) of Russia's unjustified invasion, Shuster managed to make me feel like I was there living the events with him. He captured the sense of (almost) camaraderie felt in the government bunker in the days immediately post-invasion, the devastation of the war crimes committed in Bucha, and the subtle but unmistakeable changes seen in Zelensky and others as months of war chipped away at a nation's collective sense of humanity. The Showman is one of the more well-sourced books I've ever read (and I read a ton of non-fiction). This level of access to the key players in such a seismic world event is remarkable, and I think the fact that Zelensky's team trusted Shuster with this responsibility is indicative of their confidence in his impartiality.
This level of access means that Shuster is able to write about Ukraine's war effort from a lens that few others have. At times, this means that he shows moments that would typically be kept from public view. Conflict between government officials, crises of conscience among leaders, serious doubts about strategy, and egos growing faster than seats at the table can accommodate happen in every nation, whether or not a reporter is there to write about it. Shuster is clear-eyed about the challenges Ukraine will face in the years ahead, but he is also very obviously hopeful for the nation.
It is clear that Shuster believes Russian President Vladimir Putin is a war criminal with little sense of moral conscience. It is also clear that he sees Ukraine's path to victory as challenging and Zelensky as a leader experiencing growing pains as he moves from a TV star to a world leader. These are dialectics that seem hard for many folks to hold during a time of such intense political strife, but I believe that becoming comfortable with them is essential to creating a sustainable democracy (whether that be in Ukraine, the US, or elsewhere).
If you're someone who knows a lot about the war in Ukraine, someone who knows very little, or someone who thinks "I really wish I understood that better," The Showman by Simon Shuster is an excellent, interesting place to start! And, if you're someone who is compelled to ignore this book due to claims of the author being a Russian asset, I urge you to read it with an open mind instead. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.
(Thanks to William Morrow and Netgalley for the advance copy of this book!)
February 13, 2024
Clearly, Shuster has concerns about Zelensky. They centre on Zalensky's continued use of martial law and his rivalry with his commander-in-chief Gen. Valery Zaluzhny towards the end of the book (Zalushny has now been removed from his post on Feb 8,2024). But Shuster fails to point to any alternative. Is he endorsing military rule? Surely the military should always be subordinate to the politicians, even if politicians are not military experts?
Ultimately, this is a well-written, fast paced account of Zalensky's entry into politics & the first two years of the war. The side-car seat writing is breathtakingly good at times. But Shuster's underlining argument is at best unclear, at worse sensationalist. This might work in a weekly news publication like Time, but it leaves readers looking for a more in depth analysis feeling stranded.
Ultimately, this is a well-written, fast paced account of Zalensky's entry into politics & the first two years of the war. The side-car seat writing is breathtakingly good at times. But Shuster's underlining argument is at best unclear, at worse sensationalist. This might work in a weekly news publication like Time, but it leaves readers looking for a more in depth analysis feeling stranded.
March 8, 2024
This book is exactly the biography you want - it is majorly contemporary and follows, in some cases minute-by-minute, Zelenksy's moves, decisions and actions during the war, especially at the outbreak. It still covers the President's past and upbringing as well as his days in comedy and how his Presidential ambitions were born. Shuster writes this book from a position of knowledge, both as he was with the President during most of the events he reports on but also because of the extensive interviews and conversations he has had with the people at the heart of the Ukrainian Government. He is very well connected, very well informed and it is a genuinely fascinating, eye-opening and in-depth story of the most turbulent of recent events in Europe. Every page is captivating and Shuster has done a great job of telling the story.
August 2, 2024
Brilliantly written biography of Zelensky. Apparently there is a lot of controversy surrounding the author Simon Shuster, which I should have researched beforehand . But just purely based on my own experience reading Shuster's work, I don't see these accusations reflected in the biography. Rather I find it poignant, insightful, well-researched, and balanced. It is neither praising Zelensky nor overly critical of him. It is valid to feel differently about this book and author, and I am open to change my mind.
February 5, 2024
The name of the book has it all, good name. The book is a rather accurate and politically correct chronology of the war with a very few insider insights I was hoping for. The author is not fond of Telemarathon yet the book feels like part of the PR strategy. The reader keen on Ukrainian politics could read through the discreet anecdotes and recognize the flaws of the showmen administration. However for an outsider it may seem like the author praises Zelenskyy.
lost-interest
March 10, 2024 (The English review is placed beneath the Russian one)
Два раза пытался прочитать эту книгу, но, в конце концов, пришёл к пониманию, что лично для меня смысла в этом не было. На что я рассчитывал? Получить внутренний инсайд чего-то, что доселе я не знал о российско-украинском конфликте? Не думаю, что у автора имелись такие возможности. Всё же такие книги хорошо смотрятся много лет позже, когда огонь войны потушен, т.е. когда чуть схлынут эмоции и можно будет более-менее объективно дать оценку всем участникам этой драмы (если кто к тому моменту выживет, конечно). Сегодня же позиция «посередине», раздражает как одних, так и других.
Я потерял интерес к книге, когда автор начал утверждать (намекать) что Зеленский делал всё возможное, чтобы война не случилась. Ну, как вам сказать, на самом деле это не совсем так.
One might have concluded from this introduction that Zelensky had taken the side of the revolutionary leaders. But his next appeal was aimed at them. Among their first decisions had to do with the language he was speaking. After taking power the previous week, they decided to repeal the law Yanukovych had enacted to make Russian an official language in eastern Ukraine. That decision, Zelensky said, would only stoke divisions in the country at a time when it needed to stay united. “In the east, in Crimea, if people want to speak in Russian, lay off of them,” he told the leaders of the uprising. “Leave them alone. Give them the legal right to speak in Russian. Language will never divide our homeland. I have Jewish blood, I speak in Russian, and I’m a citizen of Ukraine. I love this country, and I don’t want to be part of another country.”
With the annexation of Crimea, Putin had used questions of language and ethnicity as pretexts for the use of military force. Zelensky saw the hollowness of that excuse for violence, because he knew there were no threats to his rights as a Russian-speaker in Ukraine, certainly none that might require any intervention from the Kremlin. In the third part of his speech, Zelensky pleaded with Putin to stop. “Dear Vladimir Vladimirovich, do not allow yourself even to hint at a military conflict. Russia and Ukraine, we really are brotherly nations,” he said. “We are one color. We have the same blood. We all understand each other, regardless of language.” Then he stuttered and hesitated for a moment before setting aside his pride. “If you need it, I can beg you on my knees,” he said to Putin. “But please, don’t put our people on their knees.”
<…>
But Zelensky never abandoned the belief that his fame as an actor could help him as a peacemaker. Having learned to make Russians laugh, he thought he could also make them listen.
Не знаю, чем руководствовался Зеленский или чем руководствовались украинские политики (возможно, думали, что Путин не решится на полномасштабное вторжение), но есть факты, которые противоречат данному взгляду автора.
Вот первый момент, который я взял из книги «Putin and the Return of History How the Kremlin Rekindled the Cold War»:
The initial period of friendly contact between Putin and Zelensky ended in December 2019, when the two presidents met with French and German leaders in Paris to review the implementation of the Minsk agreements. If the Kremlin had taken Zelensky for a pliant ingenu, it was to be disappointed. He demanded the reinstatement of Ukraine’s full control of the state border before any elections in Donetsk and Luhansk and pressed for the 1.5 million Ukrainians displaced from their homes by the fighting to be given the right to vote. At the concluding press conference, Zelensky shook his head as Putin rejected his demands, smiling ruefully and even appearing to giggle as Putin called for the ‘democratic rights’ of ‘the Russian‐speaking population’ of Ukraine to be respected. Zelensky’s public show of disrespect, himself a ‘Russian-speaking Ukrainian’ given a mandate by the majority of Ukraine’s ‘Russian-speaking population’, infuriated Putin. The two men have not met again.
Второй момент я взял из книги «Democracy, Populism and Neoliberalism in Ukraine On the Fringes of the Virtual and the Real»:
Considered alongside the governmental program of mass privatization, which Zelensky said in March 2021 would go on no matter what (Economic Pravda, 2021), his desire to nationalize the property of sanctioned Ukrainian citizens looks to many like political reprisal rather than a righting of past injustice. Among the first to be sanctioned by the NSDC were two parliamentary deputies from the Opposition Platform “For Life” (OPZZh) — Victor Medvedchuk and Taras Kozak, as well as members of their families. Three oppositional television channels controlled by these politicians were shut down (Olearchuk, 2021). Reporters Without Borders considered this “an abuse of the government’s power to impose sanctions that could lead to an increase in partisan tension” and demanded that Ukraine “respect its international obligations” (RSF, 2021);
Victor Medvedchuk и его пророссийские телеканалы были в Украине, конечно, агентами Кремля, но если Зеленский, как хочет показать автор, стремился сделать всё возможное чтобы предотвратить военный конфликт, тогда зачем он сделал ровно противоположное? Наивно думать, что после атаки на главного агента Кремля отношения между двумя странами улучшились бы, не так ли? Дело не в том, правильно ли это было решение со стороны Зеленского или нет, дело в том, что это противоречит тому, что хочет внушить Simon Shuster. Это не значит, что Зеленский хотел войны или что он готовился к ней. Парадокс всей этой истории именно в том, что не был выбран ни мирный путь с подписанием Минских соглашений ни военный, с рытьём окоп, минированием всего и вся и подготовкой целых городов и сёл к полной эвакуации. Был выбран, так сказать, русский вариант, вариант «русский авось».
В общем, я нашёл книгу необъективной, но разве книга могла быть другой? Наверно нет, не могла.
I tried to read this book twice but finally realized that it didn't make sense to me personally. What was I hoping for? To get an insider's view of something I didn't know before about the Russian-Ukrainian conflict? I don't think the author had such possibilities. All the same, such books look good many years later, when the fire of war has been extinguished, i.e., when emotions subside, and it will be possible to give a more or less objective assessment of all participants in this drama (if anyone survives by then, of course). Today, the "in the middle" position irritates both some and others.
I lost interest in the book when the author started claiming (hinting) that Zelensky was doing everything he could to keep the war from happening. Well, how can I tell you, it's not really true.
One might have concluded from this introduction that Zelensky had taken the side of the revolutionary leaders. But his next appeal was aimed at them. Among their first decisions had to do with the language he was speaking. After taking power the previous week, they decided to repeal the law Yanukovych had enacted to make Russian an official language in eastern Ukraine. That decision, Zelensky said, would only stoke divisions in the country at a time when it needed to stay united. “In the east, in Crimea, if people want to speak in Russian, lay off of them,” he told the leaders of the uprising. “Leave them alone. Give them the legal right to speak in Russian. Language will never divide our homeland. I have Jewish blood, I speak in Russian, and I’m a citizen of Ukraine. I love this country, and I don’t want to be part of another country.”
With the annexation of Crimea, Putin had used questions of language and ethnicity as pretexts for the use of military force. Zelensky saw the hollowness of that excuse for violence, because he knew there were no threats to his rights as a Russian-speaker in Ukraine, certainly none that might require any intervention from the Kremlin. In the third part of his speech, Zelensky pleaded with Putin to stop. “Dear Vladimir Vladimirovich, do not allow yourself even to hint at a military conflict. Russia and Ukraine, we really are brotherly nations,” he said. “We are one color. We have the same blood. We all understand each other, regardless of language.” Then he stuttered and hesitated for a moment before setting aside his pride. “If you need it, I can beg you on my knees,” he said to Putin. “But please, don’t put our people on their knees.”
<…>
But Zelensky never abandoned the belief that his fame as an actor could help him as a peacemaker. Having learned to make Russians laugh, he thought he could also make them listen.
I don't know what Zelensky was guided by or what Ukrainian politicians were guided by (perhaps they thought Putin would not dare to launch a full-scale invasion), but some facts contradict this author's view.
Here's the first point I took from the book "Putin and the Return of History How the Kremlin Rekindled the Cold War":
The initial period of friendly contact between Putin and Zelensky ended in December 2019, when the two presidents met with French and German leaders in Paris to review the implementation of the Minsk agreements. If the Kremlin had taken Zelensky for a pliant ingenu, it was to be disappointed. He demanded the reinstatement of Ukraine’s full control of the state border before any elections in Donetsk and Luhansk and pressed for the 1.5 million Ukrainians displaced from their homes by the fighting to be given the right to vote. At the concluding press conference, Zelensky shook his head as Putin rejected his demands, smiling ruefully and even appearing to giggle as Putin called for the ‘democratic rights’ of ‘the Russian‐speaking population’ of Ukraine to be respected. Zelensky’s public show of disrespect, himself a ‘Russian-speaking Ukrainian’ given a mandate by the majority of Ukraine’s ‘Russian-speaking population’, infuriated Putin. The two men have not met again.
The second point I took from the book "Populism and Neoliberalism in Ukraine On the Fringes of the Virtual and the Real":
Considered alongside the governmental program of mass privatization, which Zelensky said in March 2021 would go on no matter what (Economic Pravda, 2021), his desire to nationalize the property of sanctioned Ukrainian citizens looks to many like political reprisal rather than a righting of past injustice. Among the first to be sanctioned by the NSDC were two parliamentary deputies from the Opposition Platform “For Life” (OPZZh) — Victor Medvedchuk and Taras Kozak, as well as members of their families. Three oppositional television channels controlled by these politicians were shut down (Olearchuk, 2021). Reporters Without Borders considered this “an abuse of the government’s power to impose sanctions that could lead to an increase in partisan tension” and demanded that Ukraine “respect its international obligations” (RSF, 2021);
Victor Medvedchuk and his pro-Russian TV channels were certainly agents of the Kremlin in Ukraine, but if Zelensky, as the author wants to show, was trying to do everything possible to prevent a military conflict, then why did he do exactly the opposite? It's naive to think that relations between the two countries would have improved after an attack on the Kremlin's chief agent, isn't it? The point is not whether it was the right decision on Zelensky's part or not; the point is that it contradicts what Simon Shuster wants to indicate. This does not mean that Zelensky wanted war or that he was preparing for it. The paradox of this whole story is precisely that neither the peaceful way with the signing of the Minsk agreements nor the military way, with digging trenches, mining everything and everything, and preparing entire towns and villages for complete evacuation, was chosen. The Russian option was chosen, so to speak, the "Russian avos" option.
Overall, I found the book biased, but could the book have been any different? Probably not, it couldn't.
Два раза пытался прочитать эту книгу, но, в конце концов, пришёл к пониманию, что лично для меня смысла в этом не было. На что я рассчитывал? Получить внутренний инсайд чего-то, что доселе я не знал о российско-украинском конфликте? Не думаю, что у автора имелись такие возможности. Всё же такие книги хорошо смотрятся много лет позже, когда огонь войны потушен, т.е. когда чуть схлынут эмоции и можно будет более-менее объективно дать оценку всем участникам этой драмы (если кто к тому моменту выживет, конечно). Сегодня же позиция «посередине», раздражает как одних, так и других.
Я потерял интерес к книге, когда автор начал утверждать (намекать) что Зеленский делал всё возможное, чтобы война не случилась. Ну, как вам сказать, на самом деле это не совсем так.
One might have concluded from this introduction that Zelensky had taken the side of the revolutionary leaders. But his next appeal was aimed at them. Among their first decisions had to do with the language he was speaking. After taking power the previous week, they decided to repeal the law Yanukovych had enacted to make Russian an official language in eastern Ukraine. That decision, Zelensky said, would only stoke divisions in the country at a time when it needed to stay united. “In the east, in Crimea, if people want to speak in Russian, lay off of them,” he told the leaders of the uprising. “Leave them alone. Give them the legal right to speak in Russian. Language will never divide our homeland. I have Jewish blood, I speak in Russian, and I’m a citizen of Ukraine. I love this country, and I don’t want to be part of another country.”
With the annexation of Crimea, Putin had used questions of language and ethnicity as pretexts for the use of military force. Zelensky saw the hollowness of that excuse for violence, because he knew there were no threats to his rights as a Russian-speaker in Ukraine, certainly none that might require any intervention from the Kremlin. In the third part of his speech, Zelensky pleaded with Putin to stop. “Dear Vladimir Vladimirovich, do not allow yourself even to hint at a military conflict. Russia and Ukraine, we really are brotherly nations,” he said. “We are one color. We have the same blood. We all understand each other, regardless of language.” Then he stuttered and hesitated for a moment before setting aside his pride. “If you need it, I can beg you on my knees,” he said to Putin. “But please, don’t put our people on their knees.”
<…>
But Zelensky never abandoned the belief that his fame as an actor could help him as a peacemaker. Having learned to make Russians laugh, he thought he could also make them listen.
Не знаю, чем руководствовался Зеленский или чем руководствовались украинские политики (возможно, думали, что Путин не решится на полномасштабное вторжение), но есть факты, которые противоречат данному взгляду автора.
Вот первый момент, который я взял из книги «Putin and the Return of History How the Kremlin Rekindled the Cold War»:
The initial period of friendly contact between Putin and Zelensky ended in December 2019, when the two presidents met with French and German leaders in Paris to review the implementation of the Minsk agreements. If the Kremlin had taken Zelensky for a pliant ingenu, it was to be disappointed. He demanded the reinstatement of Ukraine’s full control of the state border before any elections in Donetsk and Luhansk and pressed for the 1.5 million Ukrainians displaced from their homes by the fighting to be given the right to vote. At the concluding press conference, Zelensky shook his head as Putin rejected his demands, smiling ruefully and even appearing to giggle as Putin called for the ‘democratic rights’ of ‘the Russian‐speaking population’ of Ukraine to be respected. Zelensky’s public show of disrespect, himself a ‘Russian-speaking Ukrainian’ given a mandate by the majority of Ukraine’s ‘Russian-speaking population’, infuriated Putin. The two men have not met again.
Второй момент я взял из книги «Democracy, Populism and Neoliberalism in Ukraine On the Fringes of the Virtual and the Real»:
Considered alongside the governmental program of mass privatization, which Zelensky said in March 2021 would go on no matter what (Economic Pravda, 2021), his desire to nationalize the property of sanctioned Ukrainian citizens looks to many like political reprisal rather than a righting of past injustice. Among the first to be sanctioned by the NSDC were two parliamentary deputies from the Opposition Platform “For Life” (OPZZh) — Victor Medvedchuk and Taras Kozak, as well as members of their families. Three oppositional television channels controlled by these politicians were shut down (Olearchuk, 2021). Reporters Without Borders considered this “an abuse of the government’s power to impose sanctions that could lead to an increase in partisan tension” and demanded that Ukraine “respect its international obligations” (RSF, 2021);
Victor Medvedchuk и его пророссийские телеканалы были в Украине, конечно, агентами Кремля, но если Зеленский, как хочет показать автор, стремился сделать всё возможное чтобы предотвратить военный конфликт, тогда зачем он сделал ровно противоположное? Наивно думать, что после атаки на главного агента Кремля отношения между двумя странами улучшились бы, не так ли? Дело не в том, правильно ли это было решение со стороны Зеленского или нет, дело в том, что это противоречит тому, что хочет внушить Simon Shuster. Это не значит, что Зеленский хотел войны или что он готовился к ней. Парадокс всей этой истории именно в том, что не был выбран ни мирный путь с подписанием Минских соглашений ни военный, с рытьём окоп, минированием всего и вся и подготовкой целых городов и сёл к полной эвакуации. Был выбран, так сказать, русский вариант, вариант «русский авось».
В общем, я нашёл книгу необъективной, но разве книга могла быть другой? Наверно нет, не могла.
I tried to read this book twice but finally realized that it didn't make sense to me personally. What was I hoping for? To get an insider's view of something I didn't know before about the Russian-Ukrainian conflict? I don't think the author had such possibilities. All the same, such books look good many years later, when the fire of war has been extinguished, i.e., when emotions subside, and it will be possible to give a more or less objective assessment of all participants in this drama (if anyone survives by then, of course). Today, the "in the middle" position irritates both some and others.
I lost interest in the book when the author started claiming (hinting) that Zelensky was doing everything he could to keep the war from happening. Well, how can I tell you, it's not really true.
One might have concluded from this introduction that Zelensky had taken the side of the revolutionary leaders. But his next appeal was aimed at them. Among their first decisions had to do with the language he was speaking. After taking power the previous week, they decided to repeal the law Yanukovych had enacted to make Russian an official language in eastern Ukraine. That decision, Zelensky said, would only stoke divisions in the country at a time when it needed to stay united. “In the east, in Crimea, if people want to speak in Russian, lay off of them,” he told the leaders of the uprising. “Leave them alone. Give them the legal right to speak in Russian. Language will never divide our homeland. I have Jewish blood, I speak in Russian, and I’m a citizen of Ukraine. I love this country, and I don’t want to be part of another country.”
With the annexation of Crimea, Putin had used questions of language and ethnicity as pretexts for the use of military force. Zelensky saw the hollowness of that excuse for violence, because he knew there were no threats to his rights as a Russian-speaker in Ukraine, certainly none that might require any intervention from the Kremlin. In the third part of his speech, Zelensky pleaded with Putin to stop. “Dear Vladimir Vladimirovich, do not allow yourself even to hint at a military conflict. Russia and Ukraine, we really are brotherly nations,” he said. “We are one color. We have the same blood. We all understand each other, regardless of language.” Then he stuttered and hesitated for a moment before setting aside his pride. “If you need it, I can beg you on my knees,” he said to Putin. “But please, don’t put our people on their knees.”
<…>
But Zelensky never abandoned the belief that his fame as an actor could help him as a peacemaker. Having learned to make Russians laugh, he thought he could also make them listen.
I don't know what Zelensky was guided by or what Ukrainian politicians were guided by (perhaps they thought Putin would not dare to launch a full-scale invasion), but some facts contradict this author's view.
Here's the first point I took from the book "Putin and the Return of History How the Kremlin Rekindled the Cold War":
The initial period of friendly contact between Putin and Zelensky ended in December 2019, when the two presidents met with French and German leaders in Paris to review the implementation of the Minsk agreements. If the Kremlin had taken Zelensky for a pliant ingenu, it was to be disappointed. He demanded the reinstatement of Ukraine’s full control of the state border before any elections in Donetsk and Luhansk and pressed for the 1.5 million Ukrainians displaced from their homes by the fighting to be given the right to vote. At the concluding press conference, Zelensky shook his head as Putin rejected his demands, smiling ruefully and even appearing to giggle as Putin called for the ‘democratic rights’ of ‘the Russian‐speaking population’ of Ukraine to be respected. Zelensky’s public show of disrespect, himself a ‘Russian-speaking Ukrainian’ given a mandate by the majority of Ukraine’s ‘Russian-speaking population’, infuriated Putin. The two men have not met again.
The second point I took from the book "Populism and Neoliberalism in Ukraine On the Fringes of the Virtual and the Real":
Considered alongside the governmental program of mass privatization, which Zelensky said in March 2021 would go on no matter what (Economic Pravda, 2021), his desire to nationalize the property of sanctioned Ukrainian citizens looks to many like political reprisal rather than a righting of past injustice. Among the first to be sanctioned by the NSDC were two parliamentary deputies from the Opposition Platform “For Life” (OPZZh) — Victor Medvedchuk and Taras Kozak, as well as members of their families. Three oppositional television channels controlled by these politicians were shut down (Olearchuk, 2021). Reporters Without Borders considered this “an abuse of the government’s power to impose sanctions that could lead to an increase in partisan tension” and demanded that Ukraine “respect its international obligations” (RSF, 2021);
Victor Medvedchuk and his pro-Russian TV channels were certainly agents of the Kremlin in Ukraine, but if Zelensky, as the author wants to show, was trying to do everything possible to prevent a military conflict, then why did he do exactly the opposite? It's naive to think that relations between the two countries would have improved after an attack on the Kremlin's chief agent, isn't it? The point is not whether it was the right decision on Zelensky's part or not; the point is that it contradicts what Simon Shuster wants to indicate. This does not mean that Zelensky wanted war or that he was preparing for it. The paradox of this whole story is precisely that neither the peaceful way with the signing of the Minsk agreements nor the military way, with digging trenches, mining everything and everything, and preparing entire towns and villages for complete evacuation, was chosen. The Russian option was chosen, so to speak, the "Russian avos" option.
Overall, I found the book biased, but could the book have been any different? Probably not, it couldn't.
January 8, 2025
While certainly not comprehensive and with an inherent danger of bias because of the ongoing war, nevertheless an informative and interesting read on Zelensky and his introduction into politics and war.
It is especially fascinating how his skills as a showman have translated directly into vital skills for influencing public opinion and support surrounding the war effort.
It is especially fascinating how his skills as a showman have translated directly into vital skills for influencing public opinion and support surrounding the war effort.
June 9, 2025
Not going to lie, some of the historical aspects of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine went right over my head, but i still learned so much! My favorite parts were the ones focused on Zelenskyy and how he grew into a successful wartime leader. His dedication to Ukraine and its people is truly admirable.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 301 reviews