“Gilead” is a difficult story to listen to or read because one begins with attachment to its main character but ends with recognition that we are all human which by definition makes us flawed.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Gilead (A Novel)
Author: Marilynne Robinson
Narration by: Jim Jerome
Marilynne Robinson (Author, born in 1943, winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction in 2005. Time magazine lists her among 100 of the most influential people in America.)
As one grows older, Marilynne Robinson’s Gilead reflects on what it is like to be nearer the end than the beginning of life. Some thought is obviously given to Robinson’s title for her book. Considering the fame of Robinson’s writing, one might look up the word Gilead and find it has a biblical meaning as a place of healing and a place of iniquity. Robinson’s point seems that we live in a world of profound moral wrongdoing that is always in the process of healing. One looks back on life and presumes they know Robinson’s reason for writing “Gilead” as a picture of one who tries to be a healer of humanity for our imperfect, sin-burdened lives.
Being a preacher who is also a father, husband, and fellow human being.
“Gilead” is a story of an older husband and father who is heir to generations of preachers in a small mid-western town. The author’s subject is a preacher who is nearing the end of his life. It is about a preacher who lives among people who live in a town populated with educated atheists and deeply serious believers in God and heaven. Putting aside its argument about the value of belief in existence beyond death, it is an entertaining story of a preacher in his 70s. Whether one believes in God or not, Robinson’s story of old age is a reminder of our imperfect lives.
The preacher falls in love twice in his life. His first wife dies in childbirth. The preacher marries a second time, and his new wife bares a son. He loves his life and hopes to raise a son who he hopes will carry on the tradition of a preachers’ life. However, his son seems disinterested in becoming a preacher. The pains of an older life are detailed and show how even a believer in God and good will toward others does not protect one from the faults of human judgement and society.
At this point in the story, one sees the preacher as a good man with a family history that shows his grandfather served in the civil war as a union soldier that fought for the freedom of enslaved Americans. In returning to civilian life, he is guardedly received by his adult son (also a preacher) for his role in the war. One actively served in the Union army while his son polished his credentials as a town preacher. This town preacher appears to disagree with his Preacher father’s decision to fight for racial justice; presumably because of reservations about killing fellow Americans for the cause of racial justice. A tension between the son and the returning father is evident in the way the town preacher buries his father’s gun and disposes of his father’s presumed clothing from the Union army. The town preacher shows a level of judgementalism that hints at unspoken prejudice and an emotional reserve that hides a human flaw; i.e. namely, disbelief in the equality of all human beings.
The remainder of “Gilead” addresses the town preacher’s son who becomes a preacher and is the main character of the book.
The catalyst of the story is a returning son of the preacher’s closest friend of 40 years who is also a preacher in this small Iowa town. The prodigal son is viewed as a “good for nothing” highly intelligent young man who broke many rules in his life in Gilead. He left town in disgrace for having impregnated a local girl without marrying her. In his life away from Iowa, he has a son from an interracial relationship that is revealed to the primary preacher of the author’s story. The prodigal son asks the preacher for his blessing. At first the preacher seems reluctant but eventually offers God’s blessing to the now 40 something man who is leaving town. His initial reservation of offering a blessing shows the limits of the preacher’s character. In the end, the preacher shows the boundlessness of his belief in God and heaven with his compassion for what he seems to view as a lost “boy-man”.
“Gilead” is a difficult story to listen to or read because one begins with attachment to its main character but ends with recognition that we are all human which by definition makes us flawed.
To Mark Galeotti, Putin is a pragmatic ruler who reminds Russians of their history of Tsarist control and leadership. Time will tell whether Russia’s citizens become discontented with war, lost lives, and victims (some of which are Russian Ukrainians) who choose to live in Ukraine.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
A Short History of Russia (How the World’s Largest Country Invented Itself, from the Pagans to Putin)
Author: Mark Galeotti
Narration by: Mark Galeatti
Mark Galeotti (Author, British historian, writer, honorary professor at UCL’s School of East European Studies.)
“A Short History of Russia” notes that Russia has historically felt insecure about its identity as a part of the European community. Galeotti notes Russia has no natural borders and no single ethnic core. Reaching back in history, the author notes the royal history of Russia’s Tsars (men and women who have descended from royalty). The 1917 Russian revolution turned Russia’s monarchy into a communist autocracy that leads to the eventual ascension of Putin. Putin becomes leader of a reconstituted Russia that reminds one of Russia’s Tsars. Galeatti argues Putin’s Russia considers itself part of the European continent despite its Mongol history that profoundly reshaped Russia’s political culture.
Mongols are an East Asian ethnic group which originated in Mongolia and China.
Galeotti argues Russia has always aspired to be a major influence and power in Europe. Their history of centralized authority and territorial expansion is characteristic of Russia’s desire to be a dominant part of European culture. Despite Russia’s cultural intent to be part of Europe, it drives to have its own identity as a continental influencer rather than conforming culture. The rise of communism, and much later, Putin is founded on Russia’s history of hierarchal leadership and cultural belief.
Tsarist Russia.
Galeotti paints a picture of Tsarist Russia that becomes a model for the rise of autocratic communism. Russian Tsars emphasized centralized control of the country. The Tsars were suspicious of citizen influence or control of the country. They set the table for rule from above because of the lack of any civil organization. Russia had a cultural background for the creation of an autocratic state. The effect of that background set the table for Stalin and today’s Vladmir Putin. Stalin establishes his rule through the use of a secret service to assure loyalty to its leader, Joseph Stalin. Stalin uses that secret service to eliminate rivals to his power. In the interregnum between Stalin and Putin, Mikhail Gorbachev attempts to reform the communist party to an openness for change through his personal effort and a home-fore initiative from party leaders, workers, and managers. Gorbachev fails for many reasons; not the least of which is the terrorist and murderous experience of Stalin’s leadership. But, Gorbachov’s is also because of his failure to gain party support and the consequent departure of many states that chose to leave the U.S.S.R.
Gorbachev takes control of the Russian government with the intent of restructuring weaknesses that had grown in the directionless vacuum created by the death of Stalin. Boris Yeltsin interferes with Gorbachev’s effort when he becomes President of the Russian Federation in 1991. Yelsin complicated Gorbachev’s reform by looking to a young KGB officer named Vladimir Putin to join the administration. Yeltsin’s alcoholism compounded growing disorganization of the Russian government. Gorbachev loses control of the communist party and the balance of personal interests between factions of the U.S.S.R., in part, because of Yeltsin’s interference and mismanagement.
Chernobyl nuclear disaster in Ukraine.
Chernobyl becomes a symbol of what is going wrong with centralized government control. Putin’s steely determination reminds Russians of a leader who could stabilize what remained of the Russian empire after the Baltic states and Ukraine left the Union. The ideas of perestroika and glasnost interfered with the U.S.S.R.’s imperialist system of government. However, public discontent with Gorbchev’s rule renewed public interest in Tsarist style control of government like that which is implied, if not recommended by former KBG agent, Vladimir Putin.
Boris Yeltsin (1931-2007, President of Russia 1990-1991.)
Galeotti believes Gorbachev’s perestroika and glasnost recommendations reveal deep structural weaknesses that are magnified by Boris Yeltsin’s incompetence. However, Galeotti argues Putin is not a master strategist nor a villain. Putin is characterized as an opportunist who takes control of Russia in ways that were experienced during Tsarist and later Stalinist rule. He reinstitutes personal networks of government control by rewarding those who comply with his rule while hollowing out leaders and institutions that interfere with his power. Putin makes himself a modern Tsar by governing with a circle of loyalists. Loyalty to Putin is the cornerstone of his governance. Putin manipulates the fragility of Russian bureaucracies meant to improve the lives of Russian citizens while endorsing the greed of the wealthy. Control and loyalty become more important than effectiveness or efficiency. Loyalty to Putin is the mark of value in his administration.
Putin clearly takes the side of autocratic rulers because of his belief in control of circumstances and belief in loyalty to those in charge.
Putin in Syria supports its dictator, Bashar al-Assad, who flees to Russia when deposed.
Bashar al-Assad (Rose to power in Syria in 2000 having inherited his position as Syria’s ruler from his father. As a fellow autocrat, he is fully supported by Putin.)
Galeotti notes Putin is not omnipotent but is a leader whom Russians are familiar with from past history. Centralization of power has been a hallmark of Russia’s growth with a desire for Russia to be identified as a powerful and important part of Europe. To the author, Putin is a pragmatic ruler who reminds Russians of their history of Tsarist control and leadership. Time will tell whether Russia’s citizens become discontented with Putin’s aggression, the Ukrainian war, war’s lost lives, and its victims (many of which are Russian Ukrainians).
The answer to “Has China Won” seems a “no” for the present but Mahbubani makes a credible argument for its continuing growth, prosperity, and success.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Has China Won? (The Chinese Challenge to American Primacy)
Author: Kishore Mahbubani
Narration by: Aaron Abano. P.J Ochlan
Kishore Mahbubani (Author, Singaporean diplomat, and academic who is a permanent representative to the UN.)
“Has China Won” is a controversial political opinion that suggests America is grossly underestimating the growing strength of China that will continue to grow in influence and power in the world. Some may argue Mahbubani overstates China’s strengths and understates its weaknesses. Mahbubani does not deny America’s strengths, its resilience, and peaceful world strategy. However, his underlying inference is that peaceful socialist doctrine will replace democratic capitalism as the “sine quo non” of the future.
There are three general categories of governance in the world. One is communist socialism, two is democratic capitalism, and three is authoritarian despotism. By the end of “Has China Won?”, one is inclined to believe China will grow to be a competitor to America as a socialist communist success just as America has become a democratic capitalist success. Authoritarian despotism will disappear as a system of governance as human education improves. China may surpass America as a superpower in the sense of population but not necessarily as a world influencer. Both systems have discriminatory flaws. China is neither better nor worse as a political entity than America; i.e. both are destined to compete for socio/political influence in the world. Socialist communism will likely grow to be equally influential as democratic capitalism for nation-state governments. Socialist communism is an ideological competitor; i.e., it is as likely to be adopted or rejected as democratic capitalism. In my personal opinion, socialist communism and democratic capitalist governance will survive in some form until their equal or superior is discovered.
American democratic capitalism has made its mistakes.
America cannot deny its international intervention mistakes. Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan are overreaches of America’s belief in democratic capitalism. America fails to understand deep-rooted cultural beliefs, the nationalism of other countries, and the appeal of socialist communist or authoritarian doctrine. In an effort to support national dissidents; America has invaded several countries and chose to abandon their citizens which allowed authoritarians to retake control of their countries. Vietnam remains a socialist communist country. Afghanistan returns to rule by the Taliban. Iraq is a weakened economic nation led by a fragile, technocratic, non-aligned political novice named Aliall-Zaldi.
America’s latest mistake is the bombing of Iran. (A water plant destruction.)
President Trump chooses to bomb Iran and expects Iranians to rally around American democratic capitalism when all that is accomplished is a hardening of authoritarian Iranian Leadership’ beliefs. Many Americans believe Iranian authoritarian leadership will fail. Whether socialist communism or democratic capitalism will replace authoritarianism may only be a matter of time. President Trump’s ham-fisted actions are unlikely to endear democratic capitalism to Iranian citizens. Iran’s future cannot be predicted in the short term, but Iranian authoritarianism seems likely to fail.
The answer to “Has China Won” seems a “no” for the present but Mahbubani makes a credible argument for its continuing growth, prosperity, and success. It depends on China’s history of long-term domestic stability and growing prosperity. Will Xi and his successors continue to improve the economic well-being of the millions of Chinese poor? Can China avoid military conflict with the U.S.? No one knows but many speculate. Will the U.S. finally understand China’s government and what it means to its people. Xi is not America’s enemy; neither is he an ally.
Trofimov argues Ukraine will survive Russia’s invasion and remain a sovereign nation, but it will remain a long struggle. Considering the age of Putin, i.e., he is 73, and growing discontent of some Russian oligarchs, the war may be ended sooner rather than later.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Our Enemies Will Vanish (The Russian Invasion and Ukraine’s War of Independence)
Author: Yaroslav Trofimoy
Narration by: David Furr
Yaroslav Trofimov (Author, Ukrainian-born Italian author and journalist, foreign correspondent.)
“Our Enemies Will Vanish” is a brutal eyewitness account of the beginning of Russia’s invasion and war in Ukraine. Yaroslav Trofimov explains why Putin fails to achieve a takeover and annexation of Ukraine despite having an overwhelming military and economic advantage. Putin had a well provisioned and professional military force. Trofimov’s book is an insightful follow up on Karatnycky’s history of Ukraine’s leadership in “Battleground Ukraine”. Trofimov reminds one of the role Viktor Yanukovchy played in surreptitiously aiding Russia’s takeover of Crimea. Yanukovchy had fled to Russia and was waiting to return to the Presidency of Ukraine when and if Russia won the war. Having read “Battleground…” Ukraine’s resistance owes a debt to former President Yuschenko’s role in reinforcing a pro-Western leaning of Ukraine’s citizens. At the same time, Petro Proshenko (President of Ukraine before Zelensky) is shown to be equally important for having begun the rebuilding of Ukraine’s military.
Frenemies are defined as people who look friendly on the surface but contain underlying rivalry, and distrust.
Trofimov clearly explains why Putin fails to takeover Ukraine. He underestimated the capabilities of Ukrainian resistance. Putin’s predilection for complete control of the invasion created ground action confusion that could not adapt to circumstances of Ukrainian resistance. Russia’s ground forces could not effectively coordinate their actions because of Putin’s insistence on direct command and control. In contrast, the Ukrainian leadership made decisions based on ground circumstances rather than centralized command and control. Putin clearly underestimated Ukraine’s national awakening. The early atrocities of Bucha and Irpin where 400 civilians were murdered and many were imprisoned and tortured are examples of Russia’s brutal tactics. The heavy shelling of Irpin destroyed neighborhoods, homes, and schools. Satellite imagery and eyewitness accounts reinforced Ukraine’s moral and political resolve to defend their country.
Access to drugs for infection are a concern for Ukranian fighters.
Trofimov characterizes Russia’s attack of Mariupol as an attempt to “wipe a city off the face of the earth”. He vivifies the scale of destruction with a view of residential districts that are flattened, civilians are left without food, water, or heat and hospitals, theaters, and shelters are bombed. If one is wounded in combat, Ukrainians have no access to drugs to treat infection. A relatively minor wound could become a death sentence. Nevertheless, Mariupol became a heroic last stand and a symbol of Ukraine’s resolve to remain free of Russian occupation.
The brutality and slaughter of war is clearly brought to a reader/listener’s attention by Trofimov. The atrocity in Bucha occurs early in the Russian invasion. Families hide in basements without heat or electricity. People are shot with their bodies left in the street as Russians begin moving house to house to take food, phones, and whatever they wanted. Men who were captured were interrogated and tortured. Citizens were executed at checkpoints for being suspected of helping local Ukrainians. Door to door killings and summary executions were made on all who were viewed as enemies of Russia. Russian troops were spreading systemic terror to control the population. The immorality of war is brought home in Russia’s Bucha campaign. In Trofimov’s opinion, Bucha is an example of why Putin will fail to remake Ukraine a part of Russia.
Trofimov suggests Zelensky’s wartime leadership became critically important for the survival of Ukraine.
Trofimov argues Zelensky’s personal bravery changed the course of the war. One remembers the video of Zelensky on American TV standing with fellow Ukrainians saying, “we are all here” in Kyiv. He believes Zelensky united Ukrainian society against Putin’s invasion. He rejects evacuation offers, maintains government continuity, and enlists the Western world in resistance to Russia’s invasion. Trofimov feels Zelensky’s leadership became critically important for the survival of Ukraine as an independent nation.
Kraken fighters in Ukraine.
The creation of what becomes known as the Kraken fighters illustrates the ferocity, professionalization, and psychology of volunteer Ukrainian fighters in comparison to Russian conscripts. The Kraken unit’s utilization of urban combat and high-risk operations contribute to many of Ukraine’s territorial reversals of Russian land confiscations. Ukraine’s military competence grows with the Kraken’s successes. Though the Kraken were not the largest Ukrainian warrior group, they were a unit from Kharkiv that motivated frontline fighters.
Mariupol occupation by Russia.
Trofimov does not ignore the territorial gains made by Russia in their invasion of Ukraine. Their early success in Eastern Ukraine is stalled despite their gains. They did capture Mariupol, but it became a symbol of Russia’s brutality that hardened Ukrainian resistance. The Russians capture Severodonetsk and Lysychansk in 2022 and inflict a great deal of damage on Ukrainian infrastructure. However, Trofimov argues these were tactical, not strategic successes. Importantly, Trofimov notes Kyiv is not captured, Ukrainian morale has been maintained, and the West’s support remains strong. He believes Ukraine will ultimately retain its independence.
Ukraine’s fight for independence.
Trofimov argues Ukraine will survive Russia’s invasion and remain a sovereign nation, but it will remain a long struggle. Considering the age of Putin, i.e., he is 73, and growing discontent of some Russian oligarchs, the war may be ended sooner rather than later. Men like Andrey Meinichenko, one of Russia’s richest men, and several others complain about high interest rates and the war’s economic strain on Russia. It is not that they are anti-Putin, but they have economic interests that are being challenged by the war. One wonders how long Putin will last if the Ukraine war continues.
A reader/listener of “Battleground Ukraine” infers Putin will fail because of Russia’s flagging economy and weakening military. The Ukraine war may go on for many more months, but its economic devastation and human deaths will end with Ukraine as a sovereign country, and presumably, a Russia with a different President.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Battleground Ukraine (From Independence to the War with Russia)
Author: Adrian Karatnycky
Narration by: Daniel Henning
Adrian Karatnycky (Author, Ukrainian American political analyst.)
“Battleground Ukraine” is an important history of the transition of Ukraine from being part of the U.S.S.R. to an independent nation-state. The author offers a chronological political history of Ukraine’s drive for independence after glasnost. Karatnycky outlines the achievements and setbacks of three decades and six leadership changes in Ukraine’s Government. He shows nation-building is no easy task for a country that is split between desire for independence and a history of Soviet Union domination.
In researching the qualification of Adrian Karatnycky, one finds he is considered a leading analyst who has written about Ukraine in publications like Foreign Policy, The Wall Street Journal, Foreign Affairs, The Atlantic, and National Review.
Adrian Karatnycky is characterized as a Ukrainian American political analyst, and a democracy advocate for Ukraine. He is a managing partner of a consulting firm representing clients with interests in Ukraine. He co-founded a cultural initiative to promote positive relations between Ukrainians and Jews and has studied Russian Ukrainian’ relations, written a number of articles about Ukrainian human rights, political freedoms, and its development as a civil society. He understands and speaks English and Ukrainian, and presumably Russian.
Leonid Kraychuk (1991-1994, First President of Ukraine)
His book is informative but complicated because of unfamiliarity with most of the six leaders of Ukraine after its separation from the U.S.S.R. The first president of independent Ukraine is Leonid Kravchuk (1991-1994). Kravchuk presided over the breakup and helped establish the independent nation of Ukraine. According to this history, Kravchuk seems reluctant to create a decisive break with the Soviet-era experience. The authoritarian habits of administration led to the blossoming of oligarchic networks in Ukraine that resemble the oligarchs who control the Russian economy under Putin today. The growth of Ukraine as a relatively free capitalist country is sidelined by Kravchuk’s rule. Nevertheless, Kravchuk’s administration appears to have accomplished the break from the U.S.S.R. without civil war.
Leonid Kuchma (1994-2004, Second President of Ukraine.)
The second leader of Ukraine is Leonid Kuchma (1994-2004). The author notes Kuchma accepted the growth and corruption of oligarchs in Ukraine. In some sense, the economy stabilized under Kuchma’s rule while improving ties with Russia and even the West. However, authoritarianism is reinforced by a cadre of oligarchs that corrupt Ukrainian society and enrich themselves while reinforcing attachment to Russia.
Viktor Yushchenko (2005-2010, Third President of Ukraine.)
The third leader is Viktor Yushchenko (2005-2010). In 2004, the Orange Revolution begins in Ukraine with nationwide protests, civil disobedience, and political mobilization against oligarchic rule in Ukraine. Kuchma is replaced by Yushchenko as a result of a Ukrainian Supreme Court ruling that demands a new vote. That vote results in the election of Yushchenko. Yushchenko is characterized by Karatnycky as a pro-Western democrat. He allows Ukraine media to remain free by not repressing its citizens. However, Yushchenko is characterized as a political failure who, at best, creates space for the growth of democracy in Ukraine. Though Crimea is not lost during Yushchenko’s rule because he resisted Russian military expansion, he fails to move his country toward democracy.
Crimea’s annexation by Russia in March 2014.
Russia had a base in Crimea but its role in the invasion and confiscation of Crimean territory expanded with the next Ukrainian President’s administration. At worst, Yushchenko’s political ineptness and weak governance paved the way for a more kleptocratic Ukrainian President named Viktor Yanukovych (2010-2014). As Yushchenko leaves office, Russia lays plans for the invasion of Donbas in 2014.
Viktor Yanukovych (2010-2014, Fourth President of Ukraine.)
Karatnycky views Yanukovych as the latest pro-Russian ruler of Ukraine. Yanukovych uses his position as President to enrich his family and allow Russian intelligence service to infiltrate the Ukrainian government. In the author’s opinion, Yanukovych opened the door to Russian aggression which led Russia to surreptitiously invade Donbas and annex Crimea. Karatnycky infers Putin launches the Donbas incursion as a result of a power vacuum created by Yanukovych who flees Kyiv on February 22, 2014. Crimea is annexed by Russia on February 23, 2014. The Donbas incursion begins in April 2014.
Ukrainian corruption during the Yanukovych presidency.
By a slim margin of 3.5% Yanukovych won the Ukrainian presidency in 2010. He escapes to Russia in February 2014 after ordering a violent crackdown on Ukrainian protesters. Karatnycky’s assessment of Yanukovych is highly negative. He argues Yanukovych centralized Presidential power, weakened independent institutions, persecuted political opponents, and drew the government closer to Putin’s Russia. He defeated Uylia Tymoshenko, a pro-Western leader, who is imprisoned in 2011 during the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. Yanukovych remains in Russia today and is convicted in absentia for treason in aiding Russia during his term in office.
Petro Poroshenko (2014-2019, Fifth President of Ukraine.)
After Russia’s incursion in Donbas, Ukraine elects Petro Poroshenko (2014-2019). Karatnycky suggests Poroshenko recognizes Ukraine’s military has to be rebuilt because of Yanukovych’s neglect. Poroshenko turns to the West for support in the battles occurring in Donbas. His appeal is answered with U.S. and EU backing that secures sanctions against Russia. Ukraine increases NATO cooperation to make Ukraine a frontline for democracy. As a delaying tactic, in Karatnycky’s opinion, ceasefires were agreed to by Poroshenko in order to give Ukraine more time to rebuild its military. In the author’s opinion, Porshenko did not break Ukraine’s oligarchic power, but he secured Western support of Ukraine and rebuilt the army which strengthens Ukraine’s national identity. Karatnycky characterizes Poroshenko’s rule as a true beginning transition of Ukraine from authoritarian to democratic government. However, Kartnycky notes the judicial system and established oligarch’ influence continues to obstruct democratic ideals. Further, Russia’s Donbas battles with Ukraine continue through his administration.
Russia’s Donbas battles with Ukraine continue through Poroshenko’s administration.
Finally, we get to the election of Volodymry Zelensky in 2019. Karatnycky sees Zelensky as a pre-war and wartime President. Zelensky’s successful election is shocking considering the author’s assessment of Poroshenko’s successes in transitioning Ukraine to a world recognized democratic rather than authoritarian government. Zelensky, a comic actor, soundly defeats Poroshenko in the election of 2019. Zelensky appears completely out of his element in becoming President of Ukraine. He struggles with political reform and shows an ineptitude in dealing with political infighting. Karatnycky describes Zelensky as “…well-intentioned but inexperienced naïve in his first two years as President. However, as Russia chooses to invade Ukraine, the wartime Zelensky becomes a unifying national leader. His experience as an actor/comedian makes him a master communicator. Zelensky becomes a wartime decision maker that gathers Western support for the defense of his country. Zelensky overcomes his political shortcomings in the face of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Zelensky manages to unite Ukraine against a much larger enemy despite the economic stagnation of the Ukrainian economy.
Volodymry Zelensky (President of Ukraine 2019-?)
It Karatnycky’s opinion, Ukraine will survive Russia’s invasion and will remain a sovereign country. A reader/listener of “Battleground Ukraine” infers Putin will fail because of Russia’s flagging economy and weakening military. The Ukraine war may go on for many more months, but its economic devastation and human deaths will end with Ukraine as a sovereign country, and presumably, a Russia with a different President.
Hannah Lucinda Smith’s “Hinterlands” is an eye opener for the uniformed but it’s a bit of a slog for non-historians to absorb.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Hinterlands (The New Cold War Brewing at the Peripheries of the West.)
Author: Hannah Lucinda Smith
Narration by: Hannah Lucinda Smith
Hannah Lucinda Smith (Author, British journalist based in Istanbul, Turkey. Published in The Times, The Atlantic, Foreign Policy, and wrote “Erdogan Rising”, presumably about the President of Turkey.
Smith has written a complicated book about what she calls “a new cold war”. It is complicated because most people’s knowledge of some of the territories she writes about like Transnistria, Respublika Srpska, and Nagorno-Karabakh are not known by the general public. Of course, she would not have titled her book “Hinterlands” if it only addresses major nations or organizations like Russia, Turkey, China, the EU, NATO, or the U.S.
Today’s conflicts between Russia/Ukraine and America/Iran may turn into world conflagrations. The same might be said of the following countries that make up Smith’s “Hinterlands”. “Hinterlands” is a reminder that there are other conflicts, less well known, that have the same disastrous potential. Smith identifies six low-visibility conflicts that may rise to the level of the Russia/Ukraine and American/Iran wars or worse. They are as follows:
Nagorno‑Karbala
Nagorno-Karabakh became an independent nation between Azerbaijan and Armenia which is just south of Russia, north of Iran, and between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
Russia, Turkey, and Iran have dogs in Nagorno-Karabakh’s fight. Nagorno-Karabakh is mostly populated by ethnic Armenians who declared independence which is settled by a war that ended in 1994. The conflict is fed by interference from Russia, Turkey, and Iran that have their own agendas for the people who live in this territory. Russia plays the role of peacekeeper while ironically supplying arms to its citizens. Turkey is an ally of Azerbaijan that reluctantly allowed Nagorno/Karabakh’s independence. The author notes Iran has interest in the territory’s independence because of an Azeri ethnic population in Iran that is larger than the Armenian population in Nagorno Karabakh. Nagorno Karbakh’s independence creates a kind of jealousy about its ethnic independence versus a larger Azeri minority in the adjacent country of Iran. Of course, this is confusing because it seems more a concern for Iran’s leadership than Nagorno Karabakh’s independence from Azerbaijan. The threat seems that Iran may worry more about an independence drive by Azeri’s in Iranian territory because of the example set by the Azeri’ Armenians in Azerbaijan.
Respublika Srpska (Northern part of Bosnia and Herzegovina.)
Bosnia (Respublika Srpska)
Having traveled to the former Yugoslavia, the ravages of its dismantling may be seen in pockmarked buildings from battles that occurred during Yugoslavia’s dismantling. As Smith notes, there is a Serbian majority inside Bosnia. It identifies itself as Respublika Srpska (RS). This faction wants independence from Bosnia, but the Bosnia constitution forbids it. Russia supports the RS desire for independence. According to Smith, Russia is simply pursuing its desire to see the weakening of Western Institutions which RS’ independence would engender. The RS leader Milorad Dodik is pushing for a referendum for independence. The U.S. pushes for constitutional reform which in one sense puts U.S. on the fence rather than being for or against independence. Serbia supports RS ambitions. The EU is not unified in an opinion either for or against independence. Turkey supports Bosnia’s RS’ desire because of their Muslim religion and Erdojan’s hope for Putin’s continued economic support of Turkey. This seems resolvable but it has the makings for a hot war if independence is denied by Bosnia’s government. If independence is achieved, the concern will be for the minorities that choose to remain in a newly independent Serbian country. (As noted, this is an example of Smith’s complicated history.)
Kosovo.
Kosovo
The fight for independence is always a potential flashpoint for unrest that can widen into war between internal as well as outside nation-state interference. Outside interference can be based on economic, religious, or strategic interests of outside nation-state powers. Russia, Turkey, and Iran as immediate neighbors may call on any of these reasons to interfere and spark a wider confrontation and consequence in their region of interest.
Transnistria
Transnistria is a little-known de facto breakaway from Moldova that is not recognized by the international community.
Smith explains Transnistria is a region that broke away from Moldova when the USSR collapsed. Smith notes Russia protects its independence as a Russian client territory. She notes Russian troops are stationed in Transnistria while its existence is subsidized by the Russian government. It is a strategic foothold for Russia in their plan to takeover Ukraine. It is a conflict zone that remains a part of the nation of Moldova, under the control of Putin with Transnistria’s own government made up of a president, parliament, and military. It is a potential flashpoint in the Russian/Ukraine war.
Crimea / broader Ukraine conflict
Crimea annexation by Russia from the nation-state of Ukraine.
Crimea remains un unresolved border problem in Smith’s view of Soviet occupation. When the USSR dissolved, Crimea became a part of an independent Ukraine. Smith notes Russia has made immense financial investments in Crimea to lure its citizens to become a part of Putin’s Russia. Obviously, Crimea is a potential conflict in the making because of its former existence as a part of Ukraine. One wonders how Russian influence will affect Crimea’s interest in being a part of Russia or Ukraine in the future.
Turkey–Kurdish regions (Syria/Iraq)
There is concern about the influence of a Kurdish separatist movement that might spread from Syria and Iraq to Turkey.
Turkey has already created a military footprint in Syria and Iraq. Turkey has had several violent conflicts with the PKK, a Kurdish militant group that is classified as a terrorist organization that has caused thousands of deaths and conducted military operations in southeastern Turkey beginning in 2015 and continuing through 2016. That terrorism began long before the election of Erdogan. The Kurds seek their own nation-state, which was proposed back in 1920, after WWI. However, the disparate beliefs of Kurd’ factions make nation building and independence a tough objective to achieve. They allege a wish for autonomy, local democracy, pluralism, and decentralized governance whether living in Syria, Iraq, or Turkey. Of course, they are not the only ethnic group in each of these countries and the PKK’s objectives conflict with existing territorial governments. For various reasons ranging from different Kurdish beliefs to the existence of existing governments, the Kurds remain stateless and a threat to Syria’s, Iraq’s, and Turkey’s governments.
In the end reward is destroyed by the selfishness of each against the other.
Hannah Lucinda Smith’s “Hinterlands” is an eye opener for the uniformed but it’s a bit of a slog for non-historians to absorb.
Torbati believes ordinary Iranians, especially Gen Z women, will change Iran’s history. One is reminded of the Yiddish expression “From your lips to God’s ears” because Torbati’s history of Iran is far from encouraging.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Stolen Revolution (Betrayal and Hope in Modern Iran)
Author: Yeganeh Torbati & 1 more
Narration by: Nikki Massoud
Yeganeh Torbati (American author, award winning journalist who is fluent in Farsi, Spanish, and English, earned a BA in political science and Middle Eastern studies from Yale.)
In listening to “Stolen Revolution” one wonders about the objectivity of its author. Because Ms. Torbati is born in America; one is reserved about her objectivity about Iran’s transition from an autocratic country ruled by a king to one that became a theocratic republic ruled by an equally autocratic Muslim cleric. It is difficult for we who are born in America to understand what the truth may be about the true feelings of people who have lived all their life in Iran.
The influence of religion on government.
Though America is not considered a Christian nation, it is deeply influenced by belief in a Christian God. Of course, America is founded on the importance of separation of Church and State which makes cultural influence of theocratic leadership unlikely if not impossible. The influence of one raised in America challenges one’s objectivity in analyzing the history of a country led by a theocratic autocrat. However, Ms. Torbati, in contrast to most Americans, knows the language of the country on which she reports. Further, her Iranian ancestry undoubtedly gives her a better understanding of Iran’s culture.
In recognition of the author’s reporting of Iranian opposition to Ayatollah leadership, a reader/listener is bound to give respect to her evidence of citizen resistance. Her reporting reinforces much of what we read and hear from news reports about Iran’s opposition to women’s rights and freedom of movement. The complaints of voter fraud have been noted by other writers about Iran’s Green Movement in 2009 and later public protests. Torbati’s profile of Hila Sedighi, a poet and activist in Iran, shows her poetry reflects on the shattered hopes and dreams of many Iranians in an election campaign that undermined women’s rights. Tobarti outlines two egregious voter frauds in the two terms of office for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a shill for the Ayatollah.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Elected twice under suspicious voter fraud allegations.)
With the undoubted help of the Supreme Leader’s manipulation of the 2005 and 2009 elections there were more voters for Ahmadinejad than there were people to vote in respective districts. Election competitors like Mehdi Karroubi turned against the Ayatollahs’ leadership because of obvious voter misrepresentations. It became impossible for an independent to be elected.
Autocracy may evolve in any form of government.
With reservations, this book review of “Stolen Revolution” is unlikely to be objective. America is presently being led by an autocrat who is marginally constrained by the checks and balances of America’s government. America’s current President chooses to act as though checks and balances are challengeable by one person’s judgement. The bombing of Iran shows the weakness of an autocrat’s decision; i.e. a fault apparent in Iran as well as America.
America’s bombing of Iran’s Qasim Island water plant on March 7, 2026.
Here stands America as the instigator of a war with a country it cannot or chooses not to understand. The Ayatollahs who replaced Iran’s autocratic king, have not succeeded in establishing a viable economic theocracy. The discontent and poverty of a large part of the Iranian population is revealed by Torbati’s history. How much of that poverty is caused by the Western world’s rejection of Iran is not clearly explained by Torbati’s history. She implies it is largely because of the rule of the Ayatollahs and their theocratic beliefs. She argues Iran is driven by clerical crony capitalism with clerical elites enriching themselves and the military by discouraging private enterprise.
Iran’s military.
Torbati infers Iran’s military has become a construction arm of Iran supported by the Ayatollahs. Citizen taxation is used as a bludgeon to discourage private enterprise while enriching the government and the military. Through personal clerical corruption and favoritism, with the use and support of the military, Iran has failed its citizens. Leadership of Iran confiscated private companies, restricted access to foreign expertise, and created fear and paranoia among its people. The Ayatollahs cultivated a military state by using it as a stabilizing force to repress the public while being the backbone of employment and construction activity as a substitute for private business growth. Torbati argues the government of Iran is more interested in self-preservation than the welfare of its citizens.
Ali Khamenei (Supreme leader of Iran Killed by American bombing on February 28, 2026)
Torbati’s history of Iran is not encouraging. She suggests the Islamic Republic will remain focused on preserving itself with military support more than improving the lives of the majority of its citizens. Torbati implies foreign intervention will not break Iran’s system of government. Iran’s leadership will only change if ordinary citizens, not just the elites of government, are able to influence the course of their economy. She argues Gen Z women, reformist activists, and discontented businessmen will eventually change Iranian leadership. Torbati implies external intervention will not determine Iran’s future.
An estimated 326 Iranians were killed in Iran’s November 2022 protest.
As history suggests the road to success is not a path you find, but a trail you blaze. Iran’s future is dependent upon the citizens of Iran; i.e., not foreign impositions, wars, or demands of foreign governments. Torbati believes ordinary Iranians, especially Gen Z women, will change Iran’s history. One is reminded of the Yiddish expression “From your lips to God’s ears” because Torbati’s history of Iran is far from encouraging.
Economic chokepoints illustrated by Fishman are real, but their effectiveness is problematic.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Chokepoints (American Power in the Age of Economic Warfare)
Author: Edward Fishman
Narration by: Robert Petkoff
Edward Fishman (American author, international relations scholar, former diplomat at the Council on Foreign Relations, professor of Public Affairs at Columbia, University.)
Edward Fishman offers a detailed history of economic “Chokepoints” that have become a tool of war between nation-states. He reminds readers of Trump’s first term as President of the United States. Trump did not change from policies he believed in his first term. He only became more effective in carrying out his beliefs in his second term.
Trump’s beliefs.
Fishman shows how Trump combines the tactics of warfare with economic chokepoints to decimate Iranian cities while starving its citizens of their right to believe and live. Trump is convinced of the potential of Iran’s current leadership to use weapons of nuclear war to destroy civilization because of religious belief. Trump chooses to bomb Iran while expanding economic policies instituted by both Democratic and Republican administrations to choke petroleum revenues from a country that provides 20% of the world’s oil needs.
Trump is waging a war on the singular belief that he can force Iran to abandon research for a nuclear bomb. The consequence is to embroil America in a war of attrition and destruction based on Trump’s belief that Iran’s leadership is willing to use nuclear war to end life on earth for a place in heaven. Trump’s actions are deluded idea of a “bully in a school yard”. Denying nuclear bomb development by force is a fool’s errand. North Korea, Russia, China, and America are as likely to instigate a nuclear war as Iran. Religious belief is Trump’s excuse; not a cause for war.
Iranian citizen protest.
It is the citizens of Iran that bare the consequence of America’s chokepoint decisions.
Fishman explains how economic chokepoints have becomes as devastating as war. The Iranian people have been impoverished by American allies’ cooperation in restricting their economy. It may be, like the physical war against Germany and Japan in WWII, economic chokepoints will make Iran bend its knee. On the other hand, it may continue a “forever war” that only diminishes humanity. Chokepoints are a war by other means that offer compromise, or dictatorship. Chokepoint effects are poverty, death, or compromise. Religion, like political belief, is a personal choice that cannot be eradicated by force.
Effects of human descent.
Economic chokepoints illustrated by Fishman are real, but their effectiveness is problematic. First, one must identify the economic target that is affective. Second, there must be unity and credibility among nations that can enforce a chokepoint. Even with a chosen chokepoint, the target may make citizens willing to sacrifice everything for belief in sovereignty.
A.I. is a tool of human beings and will always be a tool. If Pollan is right that human thought originates with emotion, A.I. regulation, and transparency must be aligned with human values of truth, right conduct, peace, and non-violence. If A.I. is used for military or authoritarian advantage, it may lead to the Armageddon of biblical prediction.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
A World Appears (A Journey into Consciousness)
Author: Michael Pollan
Narration by: Michael Pollan
Michael Pollan (American journalist, author, Lecturer at Harvard University, co-founded the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism, received an M.A. in English from Columbia.)
Pollan is not a scientist, but he is a writer who has an opinion about consciousness based on detailed interviews with scientists and consciousness researchers. He defines consciousness as the subjective experience of being alive. Pollan interviews mainstream and recognized researchers like Roland Griffiths, and Robin Carhart-Harris while avoiding fringe theorists. He interviews scientists who are empirically grounded by experimental testing.
Roland Griffiths (Deceased American psychopharmacologist.)Robin Carhart-Harris (British psychopharmacologist & Professor of Neurology.)Giulio Tononi (Italian psychiatrist & neuroscientist.)Stanislas Dehaene (French cognitive neuroscientist.)Thomas Nagel (Retired American philosopher.)
Pollan also reads the works of Tononi, a neuroscientist who investigates “Integrated Information Theory”, Dahaene, a neuroscientist who researched “Global Neuronal Workspace Theory, and Thomas Nagel, a philosopher who coined the phrase “hard problem of consciousness”. He attacks the subject from multiple angles with experimental research done by plant and animal neurobiologists, AI researchers, and psychologists. What Pollan concludes from his interviews is that consciousness is the felt experience of being alive. This broad conception takes in all life based on interviews Pollan has with many science experts and philosophers who work in broad fields of human, plant, and animal life.
Stefano Mancuso (Italian botanist and writer, a professor at the University of Florence and the director of the International Laboratory of Plant Neurobiology.)
Stefano Mancuso explains vineyard-like plants exhibit consciousness in their drive for growth and survival with roots that behave with “swarm intelligence” to detect a pole nearby. A vinery’s root tips communicate with each other and make a collective decision to grow in a particular direction. Though this process is slower than in the animal kingdom, Mancuso’s experiments show vines preternaturally use their root systems to reach out to a planted pole to improve their growth through photosynthesis. The point of Pollan’s observation about plants is that a brain and neurons may not be required to show and sustain life, but plants appear to exhibit intelligence and sentience without a brain or animal-like nervous system. Plants seem to live without thought or emotion.
The easy part of consciousness is observed cause and effect. The hard part is knowing where cause comes from and why it arises in the first place.
Based on Pollan’s interviews of scientists and philosophers, he develops a central argument that animal/human consciousness comes from life’s need to maintain stability. However, his argument is that sentience does not come from initiated thoughts but from emotions that generate conscious thought. The implications of that belief are frightening because it may explain why consciousness leads to futile war. If thought process is a follower of emotion, reason plays second fiddle to action. Current events in the world show Pollan may be right. Fear of nuclear annihilation may be the cause of America’s futile war with Iran. Russia’s fear of becoming a lesser hegemonic power may be the cause of Ukraine’s territorial theft. If Pollan is correct, the futility of war will never end with emotion as precursor to thought and action.
Pollan’s interviews with representatives of the science and philosophical communities strongly implies human thought is as likely irrational as rational and may or may not be concerned about survival. The threat of A.I. is that it is used to reinforce the irrationality of emotion as a precursor to thought and action.
What comes to mind is that A.I. might be able to assuage irrational decisions but A.I. is of no help if human thought is initially driven by emotions. A.I. only amplifies the harmful potential of irrational human decisions with thoughts only initiated by emotions. One comes away from Pollan’s book with fear.
Pollan ends “A World Appears” with a journey through philosophy that is interesting but unique to him. Some may become distracted by his personal journey, but his view of consciousness is enlightening and frightening.
A.I. is a tool of human beings and will always be a tool. If Pollan is right that human thought originates with emotion, A.I. regulation, and transparency must be aligned with human values of truth, right conduct, peace, and non-violence. If A.I. is used for military or authoritarian advantage, it may lead to the Armageddon of biblical prediction.
The essence of Rickard’s book is that the use of GPT is a threat to the financial world and to world peace. If the war on Iran continues, there is increased risk of wider conflict, further financial stress, reduced human judgement, and greater potential for world conflagration in a nuclear war.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
MONEY GPT (AI and the Threat to the Global Economy)
Author: James Rickards
Narration by: James Rickards
James G. Rickards (Author, American lawyer, investment banker, media commentator.)
Though Mr. Rickards has something valuable to tell his audience, his writing leaves room for improvement. The initials “GPT” stand for “Generative Pre-trained Transformer”. They are an abbreviation for massive datasets gathered by artificial intelligence to aid one’s understanding of complex predictions about finance and military conflict based on collected language used to explain the world.
Languages of the world.
What Rickards intellectually recognizes is that collected language about the real world lacks human judgement which can accelerate human actions, weaponize misinformation, and increase conflict because AI lacks human reasoning. Without judgement, facts imparted by language collection may as quickly make wrong as right decisions. Optimum answers to complex problems require human judgement. Optimum answers may be aided by AI collated language, but human judgement is key to appropriate action. Rickards notes how stock market investors who rely on AI for decisions about what to do with their investments can as easily be misled when the market is in crisis because collected language is as likely to lead one further into crisis as toward a reasoned investment response.
Rickard explains a financial decision based on GPT carries the same threat in regard to war. One wonders whether President Trump’s escalation of the war on Iran is not based on GPT that compresses decisions and amplifies the volatility of America’s actions. Is the war escalating because of GPT and inadequate human judgement? America is faced with incomplete information on a purpose for bombing Iran and what goals are intended for ending the conflict. What GPT predicts is more U.S. strikes, further Iranian retaliation, and prolonged conflict that will continue to roil the economies and citizens of the world. Regional war, let alone a World War, is increasingly likely to cause a global shock to financial markets.
Uses of GTP aka GPT.
The essence of Rickard’s book is that the use of GPT is a threat to the financial world and to world peace. If the war on Iran continues, there is increased risk of wider conflict, further financial stress, reduced human judgement, and greater potential for world conflagration in a nuclear war.
REVIEWS AND VIEWS OF LIFE 