A Russian-American historian and expert on the evolution of security services traces the arc of the twentieth century to today. In his analysis, he surveys how the world has shifted under Vladimir Putin while examining the Ukrainian crisis. The work proposes a broad, provocative view of global events and how they intersect with Ukraine, emphasizing a long view of state power and conflict. He has lived in the United States since 1978.
Is the war in Ukraine the first chapter of a larger global conflict?
I see February 24, 2022 as the start of a broader struggle akin to a third world conflict. It resembles the approach of the late 1930s, when major powers began a rapid escalation. The mobilization of forces on September 21, 2022 echoes prior wartime preparations, reminiscent of the mobilizations in 1914 and 1941. Official statements from Moscow have grown increasingly assertive, including discussions about the potential use of nuclear weapons. These factors lead the analyst to consider that a wider war may already be underway.
If, as suggested in the book, this third global conflict is underway, can people grasp the moment we are in? Is there a way to avoid it?
Time is not on anyone’s side. The central opportunity to prevent a full-scale escalation hinges on a decisive Ukrainian victory within its borders. A setback for Kyiv could open the door for further Russian advances. To stem the tide, Western allies would need to supply robust weaponry and, crucially, permit strikes into contested areas inside Russia and Belarus. Each passing day seems to raise the specter of broader hostilities.
Has Western restraint toward Russia grown too lax in recent years, particularly after Crimea’s annexation? The book argues that sanctions were delayed for a decade.
The answer is nuanced. A simple critique misses the complexity of international responses. If the West had acted decisively in 2014, the 2022 crisis might have unfolded differently. Likewise, a tougher posture toward Georgia in 2008 could have altered outcomes. History shows many turning points; applying hindsight too rigidly risks oversimplifying events that are already in motion. Though the crisis is deeply entrenched, it also reflects a pattern of missed opportunities rather than a single misstep.
There is a sense that a future presidential outcome could shape Russia’s trajectory. Why would a 2024 political result matter for Moscow?
One line of reasoning points to prior statements about NATO and European defense burdens. The argument hinges on whether the leader in question views alliances through a lens of financial and strategic leverage, sometimes invoking Russian influence in Western politics. The underlying question is whether political leaders will align with or resist Moscow’s aims, and how much the United States will influence European security. The connection to Moscow’s calculations is a matter of ongoing debate, with implications for the region’s stability and how allies respond to aggression.
Why does the author argue that force may be necessary to halt Russia today? What kind of power is meant?
The analysis contends that soft approaches have failed to deter aggressive moves. Repeated failures to confront aggressive actions—whether in Chechnya, Georgia, or Crimea—have contributed to a wider war in Ukraine. The current conflict has shown that robust military support for Ukraine, coupled with a willingness to strike strategic targets, has been crucial in slowing Moscow’s advance. The outlook remains uncertain, as planners anticipate further moves and the balance of power evolves with every engagement.
Why compare Russia today to Nazi Germany in 1939?
The comparison centers on the moment when aggression became undeniable and the world watched for signs of broader plans. Since early 2022, Russia’s assault on Ukraine has underscored a shift in how the global order perceives war, including the potential for nuclear use. The discussion recognizes dangerous parallels and warns that the trajectory of events could redefine international norms and the risk landscape for decades to come.
Does history split into a before-and-after date marked by February 24, 2022?
Nuclear capabilities and the changed security environment have altered the calculation. The invasion represents a pivot that could reorder strategic priorities worldwide. The episode is likely to be remembered as a watershed moment, reshaping how nations view deterrence, sovereignty, and the risks of modern warfare.
Is restoring the old empire a feasible goal for Moscow under current leadership?
That notion is dismissed here as unattainable. The belief in reviving a grand territorial empire clashes with historical realities and the limits of force. The leadership’s conviction in this path seems to stem from a sense of destiny, rather than a plausible assessment of constraints and consequences.
Could China join Moscow in a larger conflict?
The assessment leans toward skepticism about a formal alliance between Moscow and Beijing in this conflict. While rivalries and converging interests exist, a direct military pact appears unlikely. The dynamic between major powers could evolve, but the current stance suggests a preference for economic influence over military conquest, avoiding a drawn-out global confrontation at this stage.