ukraine – REVIEWS AND VIEWS OF LIFE

Ukrainian Independence

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.

BATTLEGROUND UKRAINE

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.

HISTORY LESSON

There is an irony in Higginbotham’s “Midnight in Chernobyl”. It is ironic to see what is happening in the 21st century with the revisionism of Presidents Trump and Putin. Their ideas of openness (glasnost) and system reform (perestroika) are a return to the past rather than the future.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Midnight in Chernobyl (The Story of the World’s Greatest Nuclear Disaster)

Author: Adam Higginbotham

Narration by: Jacques Roy

Adam Higginbotham (Author, British journalist, contributing writer for The New Yorker, Wired, and The New York Times.)

Adam Higginbotham reminds reader/listeners of the terrifying consequences of nuclear power mistakes in “Midnight in Chernobyl”. Over 400,000 people are evacuated from the area of Pripyat, a carefully planned Soviet city of 50,000 people, near four nuclear reactors. One of four reactors explodes on April 26, 1986, at 1.23 A.M. There were actually two explosions. The first was a massive steam explosion while a second explosion blew a 1,000-ton concrete lid into the air. The core of the reactor is destroyed. The building surrounding the reactor blew apart and radioactive fuel and graphite filled the early morning night sky. Fires were ignited on the roof and surrounding structures.

Higginbotham explains the explosion occurs because of a safety test that is botched by the operators of the plant. The nuclear reactor is set into a low-power state that disables an automatic shutdown system. By setting the reactor into a low-power state, control rods lowered into the reactor cause cooling water displacement and a spike in radioactive activity. This is noted as a design flaw that Higgenbotham argues is known by Soviet leaders before the disaster. In less than a second, the reactor surges to more than 100 times its normal power level. This massive energy surge generates runaway fission that destroys the reactor in two explosions. Chernobyl becomes a highly radioactive death trap for workers and residents of the surrounding area.

The total number of people affected by the Chernobyl accident may never be known because of Soviet obfuscation and historical indeterminacies, but Higgenbotham suggests it reaches 5 to 8.4 million people living in Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia. According to archival records, all residents of Pripyat are evacuated and an additional 300,000 are resettled. Twenty-eight people die within three months of the accident, 134 develop acute radiation syndrome. The estimate of cleanup workers is 600,000 made up of firefighters, soldiers, engineers, and volunteers.

As Higgenbotham ends his history, he notes a Russian worker’s death in the 21st century from leukemia. Was his death a consequence of the Chernobyl disaster in 1986? Who knows? The point is representative of the consequence of uncountable deaths that may be related to erasure of truth in any country.

The Chernobyl accident reaches 5 to 8.4 million people living in Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia.

Higginbotham argues Chernobyl is a proximate cause of the unraveling of the Soviet Union. He suggests it accelerates the collapse of Soviet authority. This is an interesting supposition. He argues that Soviet leadership believes their system of government had a level of technological and administrative capability that illustrates a level of competence and achievement that is superior to all other forms of governance. The Chernobyl disaster challenges that self-perception. Hierarchal state control fails to train and manage the complicated nuclear industry. A rigid managerial hierarchy hides incompetence. It also breeds corruption and bureaucratic paralysis with top-down management because of information obfuscation and concealment at lower management levels. Fear of criticism by leadership leads to distortion of the truth at lower levels of government. Higgenbotham’s interviews of Russian investigators of the disaster reveals the incompetent training of lower-level employees who operated the facility. Their inclination is to cover-up mistakes rather than reveal them to their direct reports.

The economic cost of the Chernobyl disaster exposes the USSR’s Communist Party’s failure as a system of government.

Presidents Gorbachev and Reagan signing the nuclear non-proliferation agreement.

Higgenbotham notes environmental movements, and Russian anti-nuclear activists grew to express anger with Moscow and its leaders. The disaster undermined Soviet scientific and technological belief in Russia’s superiority. In 1986 and 1987 speeches Gorbachev notes in a Politburo address that the Chernobyl meltdown is a harbinger of the Soviet Union’s need to change. In a 2006 speech Gorbachev speaks of the need for apparatchiks to tell truth to power, to reduce soviet secrecy, and accept glasnost and perestroika as solutions for improvement of Russian leadership.

RUSSIA

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

THE RUSSIAN ECONOMY (A Very Short Introduction)

Author: Richard Connolly

Narration by: John Pruden

Richard Connolly (British author, Associate fellow at the Centre for New American Security (CNAS) in Washington D.C., former director of the Centre for Russian, European and Eurasian Studies at the University of Birmingham.)

Richard Connolly offers a brief and informative overview of Russia’s economic growth from the days of Stalin through today. He explains Russia’s economy has grown into a blend of state control and market demand that became the 20th century’s USSR. The common objective of every Russian leader since the 1917 revolution is stabilization of the country and any territory they rule. From the early days of Lenin and Stalin there is the goal of transitioning Russia from an agrarian lifestyle to an industrial power that could compete with other nations. In the process of that decision and from the spoils of WWII Russia became the USSR.

The goal of industrializing Russia for what became the U.S.S.R. is to create a powerful nation-state, by any means necessary, to compete with and/or dominate other nations. The shortest road for an agrarian nation to become an industrial power is dictatorship which fit the personality of Lenin’s successor, Joseph Stalin.

Joseph Stalin (1878-1953, General Secretary of the Communist Party 1922-1952.)

Stalin is a born martinet. He views Russia’s agrarian workers without concern for human or economic cost to turn their labor to industry with the intent of creating a military/industrial power. He redirects Russia’s people to work for the betterment of the state. At the same time, Stalin transitions farm laborers to industrial workers managed by government apparatchiks. Five-year plans are created by the government. Those who fail to achieve five-year plan goals are punished. Agriculture is forcibly collectivized and controlled by the government. The methodology Stalin uses to industrialize Russia is repeated in countries Russia claims after World War II.

The hardship one hears in traveling to Poland and the Baltics opens one’s eyes to the terrible experience their citizens endure from Stalin’s rule. The revenue from agricultural and mineral production goes to the State for purchase of machinery to industrialize Russia and newly acquired territories after the defeat of Nazi Germany in WWII. Thousands die of starvation because of Stalin’s ambition. Economic independence is not tolerated, either in agriculture or industry. Stalin focuses on steel, coal, and machinery to transform the economy. Living standards of workers is of no concern with goals that must be met. Profitability, consumer needs, and human life are sacrificed with the singular goal of maximizing industrial production.

The Soviet economy advanced because of Stalin’s political goals. Stalin’s goals are state security and survival. Human cost is no concern. Those who opposed Stalin’s goals were either suppressed, tortured, or killed as enemies of the State. Stalin rules for 29 years, from 1924 until his death in 1953. Stalin achieves enormous strategic economic gains by building a heavy-industrial, militarized economy that gave Russia, then the USSR, great-power status. Despite his methodology and the duplicity of Stalin’s early support of Hitler in WWII, Russia became a critical world power with the defeat of Nazi Germany. For that success, the world owes some measure of gratitude for an amoral and inhumane tyrant.

Nikita Khrushchev (1894-1971, Secy. of the communist party 1953-1964)

When Khrushchev came to power after Stalin’s death, he shifts Stalin’s model of governance to a more sustainable, technologically oriented system for Russia to remain a superpower. Khrushchev rebalances the Soviet economy in a way that keeps Russia militarily competitive and capable of global engagement. He shifted the economy toward science, technology, and space exploration. One is reminded of Russia’s Sputnik moment. Technology became a core component of economic power. Khrushchev moves Russia toward consumer welfare to illustrate his belief in the superiority of socialism. Connolly suggests Khrushchev began raising the living standards of the Russian people. The Soviet Union became more of an international partner by aiding other countries, selling arms to other countries, and using trade and technical assistance as a geopolitical influencer. Brezhnev solidified the vision of socialism as a stable and predictive governmental system. However, the Russia economy became less dynamic in the modernizing world. In the 1980s, the Russian economy falters.

Yuri Andropov (1982-1984 General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, born in 1914-died in 1984.)

When Brezhnev dies in 1982, Yuri Andropov becomes the General Secretary of the Communist Party. In his short tenure, he revives discipline in governance of Russia by fighting corruption and trying to improve Russia’s economy. Andropov’s tenure is short, approximately 15 months. Andropov wished Mikhail Gorbachev to succeed him, but the Politburo chose Chernenko who only served for 13 months.

Konstantin Chernenko (General Secretary of the Communist Party 1984-1984, born in 1911-died in 1985.)

Chernenko’s successor is Mikhail Gorbachev. Gorbachev transformed the USSR. He ended the Cold War and reduced hostility toward the West. He received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1990. On the one hand he democratized Soviet politics but on the other he unintentionally triggered the collapse of the U.S.S.R. Gorbachev’s replacement is Boris Yeltsin who effectively dismantled Russia’s planned economy and opens Russia to global markets. His short tenure is chaotic, but it creates a foundation that leads to Putin’s reign.

“The Russian Economy” is written before Putin invades Ukraine. Putin reasserts the Russian government’s control over the economy.

Energy, defense, and finance are state controlled. In a sense, Putin returns to something like the rule of Stalin. Putin chooses to reorient Russia toward Asia rather than the United States. Putin rebuilt Russia’s wartime military capabilities. However, Connolly argues Putin fails to diversify or modernize Russia’s economy. He has successfully created a durable, state-centered model of government with geopolitical power, but economic prosperity seems, at best, a faltering work in progress. Connolly believes Russia will be able to withstand pressure from the West with its nuclear capability and economic power. Connolly believes Russia will survive its present semi-isolation. Connolly believes the State will remain the central actor in Russia’s future with (at least a near term) orientation toward Asia rather than the West.

WORLD INIQUITY

One comes away from Trevor Reed’s book with the feeling he tilted at Don Quixote’s windmill. One’s heart goes out to Ukraine and their fight against an implacable Russian President who tilts at a different windmill.

Books of Interest
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Retribution (A US Marine’s Fight for Justice, from the Russian Gulag to Ukraine’s Front Lines

Author: Trevor Reed, Jim DeFelice

Narration by: Roger Wayne, Joey Reed

Trevor Reed (on the left) is the subject of Retribution. It is co-written with the novelist Jim DeFelice (on the right).

U.S. Marine infantry.

Trevor Reed is a former Marine infantry soldier who was imprisoned for being drunk and disorderly in Russia. He became a victim of Russia’s hostage exchange system. The story of his young life and how he became a marine and a Ukrainian combatant against Russia is explained in “Retribution”. As a strong-willed youth who challenged parental control, he became an athletic wrestling champion in high school. His disciplined physical work ethic made him a 145 lb. highly self-confident young man who decided (contrary to his father’s council as an ex-marine) to enlist in the marine infantry.

The risk of travel to foreign countries.

Reed’s story of being arrested in Russia is a lesson about the risks of traveling to a foreign country that disagrees with America’s form of government. Reed became romantically involved with a young woman in Russia who he had corresponded with after completing his 4-year commitment in the Marines. Alina Tsybulnik, his Russian girlfriend, visited America, became a friend of his family, and invited Trevor to Russia. They became intimate friends.

Alina Tsybulnik and Trevor Reed.

Tsybulnik is enrolled in a Russian college to become an attorney. When Trevor visits her in Russia, they go out on the town. Trevor gets drunk and disorderly and is arrested by the Russian police in 2019. In what is characterized as a gross exaggeration of Trevor’s actions on their night on the town, Trevor is sentenced to prison for nine years in a Russian penal colony. In April 2022, after three years, Trevor is released in a prisoner exchange.

Trevor Reed’s parents.

Reed shows himself to be a tough-minded person who refuses to cooperate with the Russian prison guards’ orders to work while being unfairly imprisoned in a work camp. He is visited by his father who works to have the Biden administration get his son released. Alina Tsybulnik uses her legal experience with the Russian legal system to get Reed released. The corruption and purpose of incarceration in Russia is shown to be political by Reed’s story. Reed explains how even some Russian administrators, not to mention his girlfriend, resist the political ministrations of the system but are unable to change its policies.

Alexei Navalny, a Russian dissident, is sentenced to an Arctic penal colony and is poisoned. He dies in that Arctic colony at the age of 47 in 2024.

The last chapters of Reed’s book recount his effort to get a level of revenge against Russia’s injustice by volunteering in Ukraine’s war against Russia’s invasion. Reed had become a fluent Russian language user because of his intellect, his relationship with Tsybulnik, and his imprisonment. He used that skill to join the Ukrainian resistance. One comes away from Trevor Reed’s book with the feeling he tilted at Don Quixote’s windmill. One’s heart goes out to Ukraine and their fight against an implacable Russian President who tilts at a different windmill.

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.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: