ukraine – REVIEWS AND VIEWS OF LIFE

DICTATORSHIP

The importance of freedom in book publication and for those who read them is the message Charlie English gives the public in “The CIA Book Club”. It is too bad America’s current President chooses not to read because this book reminds one of how important books are in the world.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The CIA Book Club (The Secret Mission to Win the Cold War with Forbidden Literature)

Author: Charlie English

Narrated By: Michael David Axtell

Charlie English (Author, British non-fiction author, former head of international news at the Guardian.)

“The CIA Book Club” is a reminder of the former USSR and today’s Russian invasion of Ukraine and what is at stake for Ukraine’s citizens that may, once again, come under the repressive return of a dictatorial leader. Putin has adopted many of the same characteristics of Joseph Stalin, a leader who believed in dictatorial control over the media, and isolating or murdering anyone who challenges his leadership. The scale of Putin’s use of gulags, and mass executions is much smaller than Stalin’s but his cultivation of a cadre of followers, rewarded by the power of association and lure of wealth, create a similar dictatorship.

What Charlie English reminds listener/readers of is how Poland suffered under Stalin and what it will mean to Ukrainians when much of their land is taken to settle the Ukrainian war.

Without solid opposition of all Western powers, concession of Ukrainian land seems inevitable. Trump’s waffling opposition to Putin and the fear of nuclear confrontation reduce the likelihood of Russia’s peaceful withdrawal from Ukraine.

Like the repressive actions of the USSR in the Baltics, English explains how brutal Hitler, Stalin, and Stalin’s successors were to Poland even after Stalin’s death.

Strick control over publishing continued after Stalin’s death. Orwell, Koestler, and Solzhenitsyn were banned, and western books were blocked at the border. Polish citizens like Miroslaw Chojecki risked imprisonment for smuggling and/or re-printing forbidden works. The KGB monitored dissidents, writers, and students. English notes that phones were tapped and homes raided. However, a CIA program continued to provide copies of banned books to Polish dissidents. Polish citizens became partners in covert activities to smuggle and re-print books for their countrymen and women. A Solidarity movement against censorship and discrimination is formed by Polish patriots. This reminds one of the resistances one hears when visiting today’s Baltic countries and stories of citizens whose families were jailed, tortured, and sometimes killed during Stalin’s occupation.

Poland, a spectacularly beautiful country.

Poland is an important trade and agricultural producer at the crossroad of Europe. It has no natural land barriers between itself and the great powers on their borders. Its strategic value to European aggressors has made it a victim of a history of foreign occupation. In the 13th, 17th, 18th, and 20th centuries Poland was occupied by Mongols, Prussians, Germans, and Russians. Poland’s diverse population seems to have been unable to create a strong centralized authority that could successfully resist their powerful neighbors who confiscated their riches and occupied their land. Charlie English’s book reminds reader/listeners of what makes Poland a great nation. It is its diversity and its pursuit of intellectual development. Sadly, its geographic location has threatened its existence for millenniums. America is blessed by its geographic location and shows how it could survive as a free democratic nation. Through clandestine operations and support by the CIA, Polish patriots were able to reproduce banned books during the cold war that aided the intellectual growth of Poland despite Stalin’s repression.

America’s current President impedes the influence of freedom in Europe by dismantling surveillance oversight, undermining the EU-U.S. Data privacy framework, and by shutting down the GEC (Global Engagement Center) which is designed to counter foreign disinformation.

Trump’s intent is to save money. The author notes the same thing nearly happened with the CIA book publishing support of Poland when some of America’s leaders tried to cut its funding. The CIA prevailed and the financial support continued.

NO WINNERS

Black America is not liberated by the Civil War. Neither will the Russians or Ukrainians be liberated by whichever side wins. There are no winners. There is only death and destruction as evidenced by the tragedy unfolding in Gaza.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

How to Dodge a Cannon Ball (A Novel)

Author: Denard Dayle

Narrated By: William DeMeritt

Denard Dayle (Author, Jamaican-American writer, graduate of Princeton with an MFA from Columbia University.)

The central character in Denard Dayle’s novel is Anders. Anders is a light skinned Black soldier in the American Civil War. He begins as a Confederate and escapes to become a Union soldier as a Flag carrier. The author’s story is tedious and a mess, but it reflects the many conflicts among Americans fighting in the Civil War. The bizarre happenings in Dayle’s story are meant to be satirical with a bite but with so many twists in ideas about race, nationalism, gender, and the history of the war that one is inclined to put the book down. One may soldier on with a hope to understand Dayle’s point.

America’s Civil War.

After listening to “How to Dodge a Cannonball” for several hours, one gathers Dayle’s point is to show the complexity of America’s Civil War and what it means to be an American. The absurdity of all wars is revealed in America’s Civil War contradictions and hypocrisies. There are many, some of which are uniquely about civil wars, but also about every war.

In fighting a civil war for freedom in America, governments deny freedom to both sides of the conflict.

In fighting a war of conquest like that in Ukraine, both the aggressor and defender nations equally deny freedom to their citizens. Dayle shows race, gender, and nationality make little difference in who loses their freedom when war is declared. Black America is not liberated by the Civil War. Neither will the Russians or Ukrainians be liberated by whichever side wins. There are no winners. There is only death and destruction as evidenced by the tragedy unfolding in Gaza.

Dayle makes his point, but the story becomes too repetitive and tiresome for this listener/reader who quits the book before its ending.

UNJUST CAPITULATION

Both Trump and Putin are wrong in trying to return America and Russia to their past. What one presumes from Nye’s lectures is that a threat of millions of lives being lost from nuclear war will actually result in a gorilla war in territory unjustly ceded to Russia by Ukraine.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Must History Repeat the Great Conflicts of This Century?

Lecturer: Joseph S. Nye Jr.

By: The Great Courses

Joseph Nye Jr. (1937-2025, Distinguished Service Professor Political Scientist at Harvard Kennedy University.)

In listening to Joseph Nye Jr.’s history of “…Great Conflicts…”, one thinks about similarities between leadership of Russia and America today. Both Trump and Putin believe in strong executive leadership and appear to have a political base that allows Putin to exercise dictatorial power and Trump to bypass traditional bureaucratic limitations on government power. Both Putin and Trump believe in their countries moral and economic superiority and are trying to return their nations to the twentieth century. As leaders of their countries, they have influenced media support of their ambitions through influence and the creation of conspiracy-driven narratives.

Joseph Nye’s lectures suggest history is only a guide to the future, not a prediction.

Nye explains circumstances of the present are never exactly the same as the past. Every war of the past is based on complex causes that are never precisely the same. The world wars and the cold war developed as a result of specific government’ diplomatic, operational, and international circumstances. Nye explains why two world wars were about balance of power that changed with WWI and were refined by WWII. The German, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman empires collapsed after WWI. With the defeat of Hitler, Nye infers WWII is a failed effort to reestablish the German empire.

Listening to Nye’s view of history, makes one think of Putin’s and Trump’s maneuvering in the 21st century. Both leaders are trying to recreate a balance of power with America strengthening its position and Russia reestablishing its role among the top three powers. What gives weight to that view is Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, China’s wait and see attitude, and Trump’s foolish antagonism toward its traditional western allies in the belief that it strengthens America. Trump seems ignorant of history by failing to recognize America’s power is hugely benefited by its close relationship with Great Britain and North America. To antagonize England, Canada, and Mexico with tariffs and the NATO alliance with complaints about unequal financial support reduces America’s power and influence.

Today, nuclear war is a different circumstance upon which every government leader recognizes as a fundamental change in the principle of “might makes right”.

One sees that Trump’s hostile confrontation with Zelenskyy on television is an expression of America’s leadership fear of nuclear war. Putin threatens nuclear retaliation, but threats are not actions. Putin continues his conventional war against Ukraine and Trump pressures Putin to end the conflict with limited support of weapons for Ukraine and implied willingness to agree to Putin’s demands for annexation of some part of Ukranian territory.

Nye’s lectures do not say history repeats, but he warns it can have similar results without careful analysis and strategic foresight by government leaders.

However, Trump and his advisors appear ignorant of the lessons of history noted by Professor Nye. America and Russia think they have a choice in how the war in Ukraine can be brought to an end that will bring peace. The truth is that peace is only a Hobson’s choice where there is only one option. Trump sees the possibility of millions being killed from a nuclear war. Putin sees the possibility of gaining territory from Ukraine with potential loss of rule as President of Russia. Zelenskyy and Putin have the illusion of choice while the international community and America will likely make the decision.

ABSOLUTION

History of the world has shown all forms of government are “equal opportunity” inhibitors, if not destroyers.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Secondhand Time (The Last of the Soviets)

By: Svetlana Alexievich

Narrated By: Amanda Carlin, Mark Bramhall, Cassandra Campbell & 8 more.

Svetlana Alexievich (Author, Belarusian investigative journalist, winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature in 2015.)

Svetlana Alexievich’s “Secondhand Time” is a remarkable and informative explanation of why Putin believes he is right and why many citizens of Russia seem to continue in their support of his administration.

Map of the former U.S.S.R.

Alexievich conducts a series of interviews with Russian citizens of different generations about the U.S.S.R. and its return to the world stage as a Russian nation. The narrators of her book recite those interviews to give listener/readers a complex and enlightening picture of Russian culture. The clash of communist and capitalist ideals is at the foundation of the interviews and the narrators dramatically told stories.

The Russian Soviet Army is the first to arrive in the Battle of Berlin on April 16, 1945. Their flag was hoisted on May 1, 1945.

The citizens of Russia are justifiably proud of their role in WWII that turned the tide of Germany’s war of aggression. (Of course, that is putting aside Stalin’s Machiavellian decision to join Hitler at the beginning of the war.) Some Russian soldiers who fought in that war were disgusted with what they feel was a betrayal by Mikhail Gorbachev of communist ideals for which they lived and died for in the 20th century.

The rejection of communist ideals for capitalism is viewed by some Russians as a tyranny of greed that lays waste to the poor and creates a class of haves and have-nots.

Some Russian veterans of WWII see the seduction of capitalism destroying the ideal of a classless society. Some citizens see the ideal of a government is to demand the wealth of life be spread equally according to individual need. To these believers, enforcement of communist ideals would eliminate private property and greed that would create a classless society. Some believed Stalin exemplified leadership that would achieve that ideal. The hardship of life during Stalin’s rule is considered by some as justified means for the achievement of the Marxist ideal of communism.

Statue of the “Circle of Life” in Norway.

Cultures may be different, but all human life is the same.

The underlying point of these interviews is to show Russian culture is not monolithic, just as culture is not in any nation. All cultures are filled with diversity. There is no singular cultural mind but a range of interests among many factions that establish a nation’s culture. The evidence of that is the contrast of Gorbachev and Putin in Russia and FDR and Trump in America. All four leaders led their countries but represent completely different cultural beliefs.

Alexievich shows there are veterans in Russia who strongly believe Gorbachev was a traitor to his country.

Conservatives, New York Governor Al Smith, Southern Democrats, and isolationists like Charles Beard opposed FDR in America. Putin and Trump have their cultural supporters in today’s national governments, but they also have their critics. The difference is that in Putin’s world, being killed or put in prison for opposition is culturally acceptable. In America, one is reminded of Trump’s deportation and imprisonment of migrants without due process.

The author’s interviews are not suggesting that either Russia or the West have good or bad governments but that every culture tests their leaders.

Many Russians, undoubtedly blame American Democracy for the dismantling of the U.S.S.R. Alexievich interviews Russians who believe the hardship that countries within the U.S.S.R. experienced were not the fault of Stalinist policies but the failure of citizens to live up to the ideals of communism. To anyone who has traveled to the Baltics, that opinion is founded on ignorance of the hostility expressed by citizens of the Baltics who were starved, displaced, jailed, and murdered during their occupation by Russia.

The other part of the story is the rise of the oligarchs in Russia as a result of the greed associated with capitalism.

The gap between rich and poor is accelerated in Russia just as it has been in America. Democracy does not have clean hands when it comes to equality of opportunity. Like the Jewish pogroms in Russia, America’s enslavement, murder, and discrimination of Blacks is proven history.

Siberian Exile during Stalin’s reign in Russia.

Alexievich draws from all sides of Russian beliefs. Those interviewed note the terrible conditions of those exiled to Siberia. Many Russians became disillusioned by the redistribution of wealth and privilege after Gorbachev and Yeltsin showed themselves to not be up to the task of leadership change. In fairness, one wonders who could have been up to the task when Russia had a long history of monarchal and tyrannical leadership?

Alexievich reveals a split between those Russians who want a fairer communist’ socialism or fairer western capitalism. One doubts either is possible with Putin.

A few Russians became immensely wealthy while the majority were somewhat better off but some struggled with the loss of State benefits and fewer jobs. The rising gap between rich and poor soured communist idealists. Even those who had been sent to Siberia by Stalin who toiled and suffered the experience of isolation, slave labor, and frigid weather felt they were no better off because of the loss of a socialist future.

The frightening truth of Alexievich’s book about the culture of Russia is that Putin may be absolved for his atrocities just as leaders of America have been absolved for their mistakes. History of the world has shown all forms of government are “equal opportunity” inhibitors, if not destroyers.

WAR

The only hope for Ukraine is a change in Russia’s leadership as a result of Putin’s foolish effort to return Russia to its past. It is the same effort and mistake Trump is making in trying to return America to the 20th century.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Evil Hours: A Biography of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

By: David J. Morris

Narrated By: Mike Chamberlain

David J. Morris (Author, former Marine, reporter in Iraq, received Navy-Marine Corps Commendation Medal, M.A. from San Diego State University and the University of California, Irvine.)

In listening to “The Evil Hours”, the refrain “War, what is it good for, ABSOLUTLY NOTHING” from Edwin Starr’s song comes to mind. Ukraine’s and America’s current political position in ending the war are irreconcilable. Anyone who has read this blog knows I am not a fan of President Trump but his position on the war is sadly correct. It is sad because it is only Ukranian people who will suffer, not we who are isolated from the European continent.

Having recently visited the Baltics, and hearing of their experience under Stalin from a family we had dinner with makes one understand how horrible Trump’s decision will be for Ukraine’s citizens.

Trump’s decision is a Hobson’s choice because there seems no alternative. The potential for nuclear war is a threat from Putin who has an ego like Trump’s that cannot be assuaged. Putin appears not to be deterred by his followers or the Russian citizens.

What is left is the domination of a portion of Ukraine that will be forced to live under a dictatorship.

Hearing from Baltic citizens of how horrible their lives were under Stalin; one’s heart goes out to Ukrainian citizens who will have to live under Putin. Putin and Russia will pay a high price for their occupation because of citizen opposition that will take many forms. Though there is no comfort to the Ukranian people, Russia’s occupation will eventually end. The cost of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has been high. It will be a reminder of the folly of unjust invasion and dictatorial control of an independent people.

America’s foolish Vietnam’ belief in a domino theory of Vietnam was wrong, just as the belief that Russia’s success in Ukraine will lead to further Russian expansion.

The relevance of “The Evil Hours” is the stress Ukrainians will face with Russian occupation. One hopes Russian occupation will not take as long as it did for the Baltic countries to regain independence.

PTSD is shown as the horrible consequence of internecine conflict that will continue after Russia’s occupation.

WAR & PEACE

Trump’s effort to make peace is important. Putin will gain a pyrrhic victory, and many Ukrainians will suffer the same consequence as the Baltic citizens who were victimized by Stalin. It is likely that the price of peace is going to be the lives of Ukrainians who come under Putin’s rule. The only solace is that Putin, like Stalin, is near the end of his rule.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (A History of Nazi Germany)

By: William L. Shirer

Narrated By: Grover Gardener

In thinking about Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, it seems prudent to revisit William Shirer’s studied history of Nazi Germany and the beginnings of WWII.

Reviewing the literature and history of Russia and Germany, one wonders if there are parallels between Hitler’s invasion of Poland and Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Literature suggests few cultural parallels. Having read Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, one can hardly compare their themes of societal suffering and redemption to Kant and Nietzsche’s themes of individualism or Mein Kamph’s iteration of survival of the fittest. In the history of the Czars of Russia, society and class were of the greatest importance while in Germany, Goethe’s Faust and Hesse’s Siddhartha–the focus was on individualism–not the general condition of society.

It seems Putin is not like Hitler in his aim to acquire other countries. Putin is interested in expanding Russia’s territory to return to a Stalinist style of communism. Both Hitler and Putin are deluded but in different ways. William Shirer characterizes Hitler as ambitious, and fanatic but focused on gaining personal power through German conquest of other countries. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is to return Russia to a Stalinist U.S.S.R., a nationalist power. Both are set on invading other countries, but Shirer shows Hitler’s desire is for personal power while Putin is more interested in nation-state power.

One must ask oneself, if there is a motivational difference, so what? The consequences to countries being invaded is the same.

Yes, the consequence to an invaded country is the same regardless of the motivation of the invader. Hearing the atrocity of Russian oppression is as though it happened yesterday when one visits the Baltic countries and talks to people who survived Stalin’s control of their countries. There is a palpable fear one hears from Baltic citizens when the invasion of Ukraine by Russia is discussed. The fear is in the possibility of the Baltics being next.

President Trump is attempting to quell the war between Russia and Ukraine, but the cost of peace looks like it will require appeasement at the expense of Ukrainian citizens.

The question is–will appeasement stop further encroachment by Russia on other former U.S.S.R. countries? Putin is 72 years old. Hitler was 45 years old when he became the Führer of Germany. It seems unlikely that the next leader of Russia will follow Putin’s lead in view of Russia’s atrocities in Ukraine and the history of former citizens, like those of the Baltics in Stalin’s U.S.S.R.

The invasion of Ukraine is not like Hitler’s invasion of Poland except in the tragedy of death of innocents.

There is little reason to believe Ukraine is a domino, as was the mistaken American belief in Vietnam by the Kennedy Administration. As all who have read this blog, I am not a fan of Donald Trump. However, in this realpolitik world, Trump’s effort to make peace is important. Putin will gain a pyrrhic victory, and many Ukrainians will suffer the same consequence as the Baltic citizens who were victimized by Stalin. It is likely that the price of peace is going to be the lives of Ukrainians who come under Putin’s rule. The only solace is that Putin, like Stalin, is near the end of his rule.

A UKRAINE BOMB SHELL

Though Yovanovitch had nothing to do with Poroshenko’s defeat by Zelensky, it seems clear that her tenure as Ambassador to Ukraine set the table for a change in direction for Ukraine.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Lessons from the Edge (A Memoir)

By: Marie Yovanovitch

Narrated By: Marie Yovanovitch

Marie Yovanovitch (Canadian-American Author, retired senior member of the US Foreign Service.)

Marie Yovanovitch is retired from the US Foreign Service but as is widely known she was fired in the first Trump administration as US Ambassador to Ukraine in 2019. A reported reason for her firing is she is said to have resisted Trump’s effort to pressure Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden. One suspects that is partially true, but Yovanovitch shows she was a believer in equal rights for women and a supporter of Hilliary Clinton which may be additional reasons for Trump’s action to fire her. “Lessons from the Edge” is a memoir of Yovanovitch’s career as an American diplomat.

“Lessons from the Edge” is interesting because it reveals the history of how one becomes an American diplomat and what his/her role is as a representative of America. One may wonder what qualifies one to be a diplomat when some are appointed because of political connection rather than educational accomplishment or training.

Yovanovitch became a diplomat because of her education and personal ambition. Because of her background as the daughter of a Russian born father, she chooses to take classes in Russian which leads to her eventual assignment in Ukraine. Her memoir explains how her journey began and how it ended. It is a highly personal memoir that is enlightening. However, this mild journey explodes at its end. Yovanovitch comes across as a decent person caught up in the events of history, not as a giant of diplomacy but an honest and hard-working diplomat.

Marie Yovanovitch earned a BA in History and Russian Studies at Princeton. During her career she studied at the Pushkin Institute of Moscow and acquired a Master of Science in National Security Strategy from the National War College. Her background certainly qualified her for diplomatic posts. Her early assignments were in Africa which eventually led to Russian speaking countries like Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, and Ukraine.

Russian speaking countries.

An example of the difficulty of her job is when America wishes to maintain the American Kyrgyzstan’ Air Force base because of America’s role in Afghanistan in 2009. Kyrgyzstan offers closer logistic support for the American military.

The Kyger’ President demands an increase from a $17.4 million-dollar annual rent payment (Yovanovich indicated the rent payment was $2,000,000/yr) to $200,000,000 per year for the continuation of Kyrgyzstan’s American military base. Yovanovich implies Kyrgyzstan’s President, Mr. Bakiyev, demand for higher rent would be to line his pockets with stolen revenue, not help the citizens of Kyrgyzstan.

A final settlement increased annual rent to $60 million per year with additional payments of $37 million and $30 million for new aircraft slots and additional land for location of a new American navigation system.

Kyrgyzstan’s American Air Force Base.

Many questions come to mind in listening/reading Yovanovitch’s book. How important are the presence of American military bases around the world? What is the difference between isolationism and internationalism? Should America remain isolated from other nations or engage and collaborate with other countries of the world? Where is the line to be drawn between American influence and the cost of that influence? This last question is answered in the last chapters of “Lessons from the Edge”.

Yovanovich takes on the complicated role of American Ambassador to Armenia from 2008 to 2011.

Armenia and Azerbaijan are a source of political and territorial tension. There is a dispute over a region called Nagorno-Karabakh that is under the control of Armenia with a majority Armenian population. Turkey supports Azerbaijan while Armenia has a close relationship with Russia. Armenia and Turkey’s relationship is strained because of a WWI Armenian Genocide perpetrated by Turkey. An estimated 600,000 to 1.5 million Armenians were killed between 1915 and 1917. Turkey refuses to identify it as genocide which aggravates Turkey’s relationship with Armenia. Russia has a military base in Armenia and has tried to mediate the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict without much success. Because of energy projects and trade relations, Russia has managed a balanced relationship with Azerbaijan.

Yovanovitch decides to return to the U.S. because of her aging mother and an offer to take the role of Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs. However, as Ukraine becomes embroiled in a conflict with Russia and her previous assignment and knowledge of Ukraine, she returns as America’s Ambassador. Her mother’s decision to accompany her made the opportunity worth taking.

When Ukraine became independent of the U.S.S.R. in 1991, its transition to a market economy was marked by widespread corruption in the same way as alleged in Russia.

The assets of the country fell into the hands of Ukraine’s leaders who became wealthy oligarchs at the expense of the general population. Election to the leadership of Ukraine gave Presidents like Viktor Yanukovych, who served from 2010 to 2014, license to embezzle state funds. Compounding that corruption were Ukrainian bank owners who were equally corrupt. The fifth president of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko faces allegations of corruption with his ownership of the International Investment Bank (IIB).

Rudy Giuliani (American politician, former NY mayor, former U.S. Associate Attorney General–now a disbarred lawyer.)

As if Rudy Giuliani needs no further damage to his reputation than his lies about election fraud, Yovanovitch reveals his role in discrediting her reputation with false accusations about badmouthing Trump as the new President of the United States. Judging from Yovanovitch’s book, Trump is unlikely to have been someone she admired. However, as an experienced diplomat, it is inconceivable that she would have undermined Trump or any U.S. President’s reputation. Trump ordered Yovanovitch’s removal. She is recalled in May 2019.

Volodymyr Zelensky became the President of Ukraine in May of 2019.

Zelensky soundly defeated the corrupt Vasily Poroshenko with 73% of the vote.

Though Yovanovitch had nothing to do with Poroshenko’s defeat by Zelensky, it seems clear that her tenure as Ambassador to Ukraine set the table for a change in direction for Ukraine. This is a very personal memoir of Yovanovitch’s career that is somewhat marred by a plaintive melancholy about life and an aging mother but “Lessons from the Edge” is highly informative about what it takes to be an American diplomat.

America makes a mistake if it chooses to isolate itself from allied countries that have similar economic and political aspirations. It may be time to reset America’s international relations, but isolation is not a rational alternative for an interdependent ecological and economic world.

FREEDOM’S COST & VALUE

Freedom, once it is experienced, is an unconquerable force. Conquest of Ukraine, the Baltics, or Taiwan would be a pyric victory at a cost far in excess of a conquerors’ perceived value.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Return of Great Powers (Russia, China, and the Next World War)

By: Jim Sciutto

Narrated By: Jim Sciutto

Jim Sciutto (Former American news anchor for ABC, national security correspondent for CNN, Yale graduate majoring in Chinese history.)

Jim Sciutto has been seen by many on television. One suspects few know he served as the Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor to the U.S. Ambassador to China between 2011 and 2013. His book, “The Return of Great Powers” is interesting but not particularly revelatory. It was written before today’s news of the blows to Iran’s role in the Middle East with the removal of Syria’s brutal leader and Israel’s increased attacks on Hezbollah and Hamas. Tragically, there is always death of innocents in war. The question is whether war is ever worth its cost.

Sciutto certainly has a better grasp of China than most Americans based on his education and experience but his general analysis of the “…Great Powers” and their return is more topical than insightful.

The rise of Putin and Xi have certainly changed the world. Newspapers and television are full of stories about these leaders’ dance around the war in Ukraine. Xi offers moral and financial support to Putin, along with some important weapon components needed by the military, but China limits military equipment and direct munitions provisions for the war. China may benefit from Russia’s Ukraine invasion because of Xi’s expressed interest in acquiring Taiwan but China’s advances have not moved much from where they were before the invasion.

What seems clear today, particularly in Sciutto’s book, is that Putin has made too many mistakes in his invasion of Ukraine.

Putin’s apparent disregard for Russian soldiers’ deaths undoubtedly threatens his influence with many Russian citizens. Some of America’s media suggest Putin is becoming more conscious of his political and personal vulnerability. It is reported by Gleb Karakulov. a Russian engineer and defector who fled to Kazakhstan, that Putin has become paranoid and increasingly isolated.

Sciutto suggests Estonia is on a Putin invasion list once Ukraine has been conquered.

Having recently returned from the Baltics, occupation of Estonia would be a pyric victory for the same reasons as the Ukraine invasion. The hate for Russians one hears from Baltics’ residents (Lithuanian, Estonian, and Latavian) who were under the rule of Russia from 1940s to 1991 is palpable. The jail cells, torture, and murder of Baltic citizens by Russia is detailed by tour guides from each country. The prosperity of the Baltic countries since 1991 is a tribute to freedom that will not be given up easily by its people. At best, Russia may be able to occupy the Baltics, but citizen resistance would far outweigh any value occupation might offer.

Sciutto goes on to imply Taiwan will lose its independence to China.

The picture of death and destruction he outlines with China’s overwhelming military might mitigates against China’s success. Once freedom is experienced, it is like genies in a bottle–difficult to be re-imprisoned. Whether NATO or America will come to Taiwan’s aid is unknown, but like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Putin’s interest in the Baltics, the price to be paid is higher than the reward they can expect.

Freedom, once it is experienced, is an unconquerable force. Conquest of Ukraine, the Baltics, or Taiwan would be a pyric victory at a cost far in excess of a conquerors’ perceived value.

IN THE ROOM

How close is the world to its next world war? The character of today’s leaders seems as threatening as Stalin and as unpredictable as Churchill.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Stalin Affair (The Impossible Alliance That Won the War)

By: Giles Milton

Narrated By: Giles Milton

Giles Milton (Author, British writer and historian.)

Giles Milton offers a fascinating and well written account of the dynamics of the relationship between Churchill and Stalin with a brief analysis of Franklin Roosevelt that shows a difference of opinion about Stalin. There are some surprises in Milton’s history of the beginning and ending of WWII and the role of Joseph Stalin.

As is well known, Stalin and Hitler made a pact at the beginning of the war that made them allies with a plan to divide Europe between their two countries.

The pact falls apart when Hitler chooses to invade Russia on June 22, 1941. Germany made rapid progress and was nearing Moscow when winter struck, and Germany’s wheels of war were stuck in the mud. Stalin was psychologically paralyzed by Germany’s decision to turn against Russia. He hid in his dacha, his second home in the Russian countryside. A delegation of Russians went to the Stalin’s dacha and pleaded with him to direct the defense of Russia against Germany’s onslaught. Stalin is surprised that the delegation wanted him to return to the leadership of Russia in Milton’s telling of the story. One presumes that reluctance is because of Stalin’s mistake in believing Hitler could be a reliable ally in their mutual desire to expand their territories.

Milton’s history has a particular interest to me because of a planned personal visit to the Baltics next month.

In reading a book about the Baltics during WWII, there seems some confusion among the Baltic countries because their sovereignty is being usurped by Russia while the instigator of WWII is Germany. The guide on the trip suggests we read “between shades of gray”, a book written by Rusa Sepetys, a Lithuanian born American writer. Sepetys story is of Lithuania intellectuals being arrested by Stalin’s troops and carted off to Siberia. Brief mention of the Germans is mentioned but implies the Germans were not the enemy but an opposing force of the Russian attack on the Baltics. Having visited Finland last year, it is interesting to find the Finns allied themselves to Germany during WWII because of their fear of Russia’s aggression. Now, having read Sepetys novel of Russian aggression in early 1941, one begins to understand the complexity of which side of the war the Baltics chose to be on.

Ruta Sepetys (Lithuanian born American writer.)

It tells the story of Russia’s invasion of the Baltics soon after Hitler’s decision to attack Russia.

WWII in the Baltics is not Milton’s history, but Sepetys offers a footnote on its consequence in the Baltics.

Milton makes one feel they are in the room when decisions are made about the progress and ending of WWII. It is a fascinating story. Stalin is a villain in sheep’s clothing. His lust for power is unquenchable. Winston Chruchill is shown to be more aware of Stalin’s intent than Franklin Roosevelt. At Yalta, where the peace plan is agreed to and signed, Milton explains Roosevelt is feeble. The Yalta conference took place in February 1945. Roosevelt dies in April, two months later. Stalin’s ambition is the expansion of the U.S.S.R. and anything that gets in the way of that ambition is an obstacle to be overcome or removed.

Milton’s access to historical documents, reveals the many important roles of government leaders during WWII and after.

Of course, the most obviously impactful leaders are Churchill and Stalin, but the author notes the roles of lesser-known participants like Averell Harriman, Kathy Harriman, and Vyacheslav Molotov. There is also the role of Lavrentiy Beria, Stalin’s head of the NKVD (the Soviet secret police).

W. Averell Harriman (1891-1986, American politician, businessman, and diplomat.)

Averell Harriman, as the son of a wealthy railroad baron, becomes the founder of Brown Brothers Harriman & Co., an investment company. He became one of the richest men in America.

Harriman is asked by Roosevelt to become the America’s diplomatic contact with Great Britain to manage the Lend-Lease Program before America enters the war. As a personal envoy, he strengthens the alliance between Britain and America. Later he becomes Ambassador to the Soviet Union after Hitler’s betrayal of Stalin. Milton touches on the married Harriman’s attraction to women and his extramarital affairs. However, Harriman was revered by Churchill, and later Stalin, for the aid he coordinated for both countries during the war.

Kathleen Harriman (1917-2011, died at age 93.)

A lesser-known role is of Harriman’s daughter, Kathy Harriman. In the first years of contact between her father and Stalin, Ms. Harriman smooths America’s relationship with the Russian administration.

Ms. Harriman leaned to speak Russian and aided her father in his diplomatic contact with Soviet officials. She became a correspondent for the International News Service and Newsweek during her time in Russia. In 1944, Ms. Harriman exposes the mass murder of 22,000 Polish officers by the NKVD, at the order of Stalin. She plays a role in the Yalta Conference in assisting the American delegation with logistics and management.

Milton makes a listener feel like they are in the room at a dinner table with Stalin and Churchill when they exchange harsh words about the creation of a western front to aid the Russian army in the fight with German soldiers.

Stalin demeans the British army for their early failures in the war when they were outnumbered and outgunned by the Germans. Churchill is deeply offended by the disparagement and is on the verge of canceling a dinner with Stalin before leaving Russia. His anger is quelled by Harriman. Churchill changes his tone with the Russian leader and mends their relationship over cigars and alcohol. However, there is little doubt about their continued acrimony and Churchill’s unshaken belief in Stalin’s intent to expand his empire.

Milton offers the same “in the room” understanding of what happens at the Yalta Conference.

Germany is divided into four occupation zones which ended up being East and West Germany. The groundwork for the United Nations is formed with the aid of promoting international cooperation and prevention of future conflicts. A zone of influence is created between Eastern European Countries which were added to the U.S.S.R., to expand a buffer zone between Russia and the Western Powers. This iron curtain results in the cold war. The table is set at Yalta for the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi and Japanese leaders and for future reparations to rebuild Europe.

“The Stalin Affair” is an excellent reminder of WWII that makes one think about what is happening today with Russia in Ukraine and Israel in Gaza. How close is the world to its next world war? The character of today’s leaders seems as threatening as Stalin and as unpredictable as Churchill.

PUTIN & UKRAINE

Without checks and balances, autocratic beliefs inevitably lead to conflict and mutually assured destruction, Donald Trump notwithstanding.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

From Cold War to Hot Peace (An American Ambassador in Putin’s Russia)

By: Michael McFaul

Narrated By: L. J. Ganser

Michael McFaul (Author, American academic and diplomat, ambassador to Russia 2012-2014, former Professor of International Studies at Stanford.)

Not since George Kennan’s brief time as Ambassador to Russia in 1952 has an American ambassador been denied access to Russia. Michael McFaul became the second in 2016. McFaul joins the pre- and post-Obama election to become Obama’s ambassador to Russia from 2012 to 2o14. McFaul writes this book to explain his experience in the Obama administration, his understanding of Russia, and his tenure as Ambassador to Russia.

Interestingly, Condoleezza Rice recommends McFaul should join Obama because she was sure he, rather than McCain, would become the next President of the United States.

McFaul follows Rice’s recommendation and joins Obama’s campaign. Mcfaul’s grasp of Russian foreign affairs is insightful and relevant based on his personal experience. McFaul lived in Russia for a period of time when Gorbachev and Yeltsin attempted to liberalize Russia’s autocratic government. McFaul’s time living in Russia, his understanding of Russian language, and his study of Russian history at Stanford make his opinion in “From Cold War to Hot Peace” important.

Gorbachev’ biography shows he experienced the autocratic rule of Stalin’s U.S.S.R. as a young boy and found the courage to open the door to citizen’ freedom.

Mikhail Gorbachev was 22 when Stalin died. His ideal was to maintain the U.S.S.R. but with a system of government that rejected totalitarianism while freeing its citizens to improve their way of life. However, the shock of newfound freedom appeared an economic change too difficult and unfairly remunerative for the U.S.S.R. to survive as one hegemon.

A fundamental ingredient of independence is freedom.

When countries controlled by the U.S.S.R. were offered freedom, they looked to forms of democracy rather than autocracy. Gorbachev’s inability to accelerate economic growth to improve the lives of his country’s citizens doomed his goal to create a freer society within the U.S.S.R. Compounding his failure, Boris Yeltsin usurps Gorbachev’s power by arguing he has a better way of accelerating Russia’s economy to keep the U.S.S.R. together.

Boris Yeltsin talked the talk of democratic government but because of his inability to coopt the underlying authoritarian habits of former KGB operatives, he lost control of the government.

Yeltsin’s rise undermined the influence of Gorbachev, encouraged the departure of U.S.S.R.’ member countries, and gave an opening to Vladimir Putin, a former KGB officer. The KGB changed to the FSB in 1991 (along with Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service) to become the right and left hand of Putin’s power and influence in the new Russia.

Fifteen countries leave the U.S.S.R. in 1991.

Estonia: August 20, 1991
Latvia: August 21, 1991
Lithuania: March 11, 1990
Armenia: September 21, 1991
Azerbaijan: October 18, 1991
Belarus: August 25, 1991
Georgia: April 9, 1991
Kazakhstan: December 16, 1991
Kyrgyzstan: August 31, 1991
Moldova: August 27, 1991
Russia: December 12, 1991
Tajikistan: September 9, 1991
Turkmenistan: October 27, 1991
Ukraine: August 24, 1991
Uzbekistan: September 1, 1991

Gorbachev effectively ended the cold war, but McFaul argues the cold war turned into a “…Hot Peace”. Gorbachev was the last leader of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. His effort to democratize Russia fails even though he fully champions Valdimir Putin to become president of Russia in 2000.

Putin took control of Russia as Prime Minister under Yeltsin in 1999. He later effectively became President of Russia for life.

McFall explains Obama became President of the United States in 2o09. Obama revised America’s relationship with Russia with what became known as the U.S./Russia “Reset” policy.

Obama’s “Reset” policy had some early positive effects. The relationship between America and Russia arguably improved despite their significant political differences. When they disagreed, they agreed to disagree. There were halting steps toward nuclear bomb limitation and greater cooperation on America’s actions in Afghanistan when the Taliban had shown support for Osama bin Laden after 9/11.

Putin rose to the presidency in 2011 and has remained effectively in control of Russia since 1999. Though not argued by McFaul, Putin’s intimate understanding of Russia’s secret service has given him the power to exercise dictatorial control over Russia. The history of U.S.S.R. since the 1917 revolution has been maintained by a secret service used to jail, torture, and murder any opposition to leadership of Russia. Today, that autocratic leader is Putin. There seems little reason to believe kleptocratic control of a massive secret service apparatus will be overcome without revolution. Every Russian knows of the threat the secret service has to any opposition to Putin who controls and has an intimate relationship and understanding of the organizational capabilities of the former KGB.

Gorbachev’s legacy is hope for a better form of government in Russia. Change is possible just as Gorbachev’s history as the secretary of the Communist Party from 1985 to 1991 proved.

One is inclined to believe change will come to Russia from a disaffected communist party leader who rises in the party and taps discontented Russians looking for change. If all one’s life is lived and raised in Russia, a Russian born change-agent like Gorbachev may, once again, be born

As one completes McFaul’s book, the threat of masculine blindness in world leaders is made clear. Leadership entails a power that corrupts leaders who think they know what is best for their citizens. Autocracies concentrate that power in singular human beings. Without checks and balances, autocratic beliefs inevitably lead to conflict and mutually assured destruction, Donald Trump notwithstanding.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: