Understand Ukraine
The Maidan protests of 2014 drew Western audiences into the story of Russian–Ukrainian relations in the post-Soviet era. Interest in Ukraine surged beyond national borders as think tanks and research institutes in the United States and Europe published more books on Ukrainian affairs, expanding the global conversation and shaping policy thinking.
Since the start of Russia’s special operation, numerous lists have emerged highlighting books that aim to illuminate the ongoing events in Ukraine. Beyond this, there is a steady stream of works examining Vladimir Putin’s presidency and the evolving dynamics between Moscow and Kyiv over the last three decades.
Much of the popular scholarship on Russia’s political history tends to center on the figure of the Russian president. The narrative focus often follows the career and decisions of leadership itself, shaping a Putin-centric lens on the country’s modern political journey.
In contrast, the literature that covers Ukraine’s path is typically more granular and expansive, scrutinizing a wide range of factors that have shaped the country’s trajectory since independence and through today.
bibliography
Brookings Institution, one of the oldest Western think tanks, has published a series of works aimed at explaining post-Maidan Ukraine. The most recent title appeared in the wake of Russia’s military actions, with former U.S. diplomat Christopher Smith recounting his experience in Kyiv from 2012 to 2014 in Ukraine’s Revolt, Russia’s Revenge. Smith frames the Maidan events as a banner for anti-corruption reform, while depicting Yanukovych as a corrupt pro-Kremlin Ukrainian autocrat.
Across the spectrum in Russia, Yanukovych’s character has attracted divergent assessments. The Kremlin has long argued that the ex-president was ousted by a coup rather than by the will of the Ukrainian people. Smith’s narrative also draws on memoirs from American diplomats and military experts, suggesting a selective role in the 2014 events.
Wartime: Stories From Ukraine, a 2015 volume by The Economist correspondent Tim Judah, provides a detailed chronology of the Crimean transition and the ensuing conflict in Southeast Ukraine. Judah’s writing seeks to understand the motivations of the warring sides, comparing the crisis to earlier regional conflicts and noting how beliefs formed by the past shape current perceptions.
Judah stresses that beliefs today are influenced by prior convictions, reminding readers that perceptions shift with new information and experiences.
Judah also notes that Ukrainians faced a decisive fight against corruption, a theme echoed by other observers. The narrative traces the geography of the conflict across the country and includes voices from Donetsk and other communities whose views about future ties to Russia vary widely.
Chris Kaspar de Plu, a Danish journalist, published Ukraine in Crossfire in 2017. This work helped spark a public debate about the methods of Ukraine’s security services and their prisons, where numerous individuals were detained. De Plou probes the root causes of the Southeast Ukraine conflict, acknowledging Russia’s role while also examining the impact of ultranationalist currents on Ukraine’s post-Maidan political life.
De Plou argues that Ukrainian authorities sometimes used hardline nationalist rhetoric to justify crackdowns on civil liberties, a claim that adds heat to debates about governance and human rights within the country. He also contends that the long-running tension between Russia and Ukraine has been shaped in part by NATO’s security posture and the broader geopolitical contest, with Russia aiming to preserve its influence in the post-Soviet space while adapting to new realities.
Paul D’Anieri, a political science professor at the University of California, writes that Ukraine and Russia have drifted apart due to a mix of enduring security challenges, democratic transitions, and diverging European and Commonwealth of Independent States goals after the Cold War. D’Anieri highlights three core obstacles to lasting neighborly relations: persistent security concerns in the region, the democratization process reshaping geopolitical calculations, and incompatible objectives among Europe and the CIS. He notes that Russia’s 2014 military actions signaled a willingness to redefine rules in its favor and challenged Western assumptions about the regional order.
The broader European response involved a cautious approach to integration and geopolitics. Brussels often treated European institutional expansion as an opportunity for convergence, but did not fully anticipate how Ukraine’s path toward the EU might influence Russia, or how competing interests among European nations would shape negotiations and policy choices.