What do you think?
Rate this book
Borderland: A Journey Through the History of Ukraine
Borderland tells the story of Ukraine. A thousand years ago it was the center of the first great Slav civilization, Kievan Rus. In 1240, the Mongols invaded from the east, and for the next seven centureies, Ukraine was split between warring neighbors: Lithuanians, Poles, Russians, Austrians, and Tatars. Again and again, borderland turned into battlefield: during the Cossack risings of the seventeenth century, Russia’s wars with Sweden in the eighteenth, the Civil War of 1918–1920, and under Nazi occupation. Ukraine finally won independence in 1991, with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Bigger than France and a populous as Britain, it has the potential to become one of the most powerful states in Europe.In this finely written and penetrating book, Anna Reid combines research and her own experiences to chart Ukraine’s tragic past. Talking to peasants and politicians, rabbis and racketeers, dissidents and paramilitaries, survivors of Stalin’s famine and of Nazi labor camps, she reveals the layers of myth and propaganda that wrap this divided land. From the Polish churches of Lviv to the coal mines of the Russian-speaking Donbass, from the Galician shtetlech to the Tatar shantytowns of Crimea, the book explores Ukraine’s struggle to build itself a national identity, and identity that faces up to a bloody past, and embraces all the peoples within its borders.
272 pages, Paperback
First published October 13, 1997
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 241 reviews
July 19, 2020
Misguided and barely informed account of what the author presumes to be a journey through history of Ukraine. There's just a tiny bit of history and a lot of banter 'oh, so, everyone hates Kiev when visiting but I've come to love it... blah-blah'.
Lots of facts are misrepresented or omitted or discounted as unimportant:
- Even the name of Ukraine, which was interpreted as 'Borderlands' is not as important as it's made to be. Actually, 'Malorossia' name of Ukraine is more ancient than Ukraine itself, since it stems from the Kievan Rus meaning 'Little Rus'. It's so because the 'Oukraine' term was used since 1187 to refer to all kinds of borderlands, of which there were many, including 'Pskov Oukraine' and 'Oka Oukraine'. None of which have anything to do with Ukraine itself. And only during the times of Bogdan Khmelnitsky, the term Ukraine started to be used referring to Ukraine.
- All the glorious history of the Kievan Rus, it's beginnings and developments have been largely left dismissed. It's basically said: 'yes it was glorious let's move on'. In fact, it's said in here 'Despite its short lifespan, Kievan Rus - ancient, vast, civilised, impeccably European - makes history ... to be proud of', which is stupid on many more accounts than should be possible. For one thing, the Kievan Rus existed during time comparable to the modern day US: from at least 862 to 1237 (IF one takes only timespan before the start of the Tatar-Mongol Yoke). And it proudly wasn't European. When Europe was on its way to the Dark Ages, when it became a point of pride for a royalty to wash oneself 2 times during her life (think Isabella de Castille, 22 April 1451 – 26 November 1504), in Kievan Rus people were known to be using bathhouses regularly.
- Linguistically, this book's shit. For example, it states that a dated (like, by a century) honorific of 'Gospodin' is native to Ukrainian language in Central and Eastern parts and opposed to Polish 'Pan'. Guys, there is NO word 'Gospodin' in Ukrainian, there's only 'Pan' and 'Pani'. 'Gospodin' or 'Gospozha' haven't been in use even in Russian since long. Only 'Gospoda' is used in Russia, referring to a large gathering of people. In Ukrainian, it's gonna be 'Panove'. And, even so, the word 'Pan' was not borrowed by the Ukrainians from Polish but rather by the Ukrainian, Polish, Belarussian, Chech and Slovak from the Ancient Slavic language. There is also no reference to the 'Surzhik', at all, even though it's impossible to miss.
- Basically, this book discounts all the history of Ukraine and goes on to promote that corrupted shithole that it has become in the last 3 decades. And somehow it even manages to GLORIFY all that lawlessness and corruption that permeates the modern day Ukraine. I do realise that this is a book with a vividly highlighted political premise, which had a task to demonstrate that all the participants in this free-for-all did all right for Ukraine, except Russia. It somehow manages to fail miserably at this task.
- And so on and on and on and on... I remain firm in my belief that people need to learn history first and only then go on to write books about it. I could rant about most pages of this book endlessly since it fails to show how the Slavic history progressed for Ukraine to happen.
I added an extra star just because I can share the author's nostalgy about Ukraine. The rest, it's just NOT the book it claims to be.
Lots of facts are misrepresented or omitted or discounted as unimportant:
- Even the name of Ukraine, which was interpreted as 'Borderlands' is not as important as it's made to be. Actually, 'Malorossia' name of Ukraine is more ancient than Ukraine itself, since it stems from the Kievan Rus meaning 'Little Rus'. It's so because the 'Oukraine' term was used since 1187 to refer to all kinds of borderlands, of which there were many, including 'Pskov Oukraine' and 'Oka Oukraine'. None of which have anything to do with Ukraine itself. And only during the times of Bogdan Khmelnitsky, the term Ukraine started to be used referring to Ukraine.
- All the glorious history of the Kievan Rus, it's beginnings and developments have been largely left dismissed. It's basically said: 'yes it was glorious let's move on'. In fact, it's said in here 'Despite its short lifespan, Kievan Rus - ancient, vast, civilised, impeccably European - makes history ... to be proud of', which is stupid on many more accounts than should be possible. For one thing, the Kievan Rus existed during time comparable to the modern day US: from at least 862 to 1237 (IF one takes only timespan before the start of the Tatar-Mongol Yoke). And it proudly wasn't European. When Europe was on its way to the Dark Ages, when it became a point of pride for a royalty to wash oneself 2 times during her life (think Isabella de Castille, 22 April 1451 – 26 November 1504), in Kievan Rus people were known to be using bathhouses regularly.
- Linguistically, this book's shit. For example, it states that a dated (like, by a century) honorific of 'Gospodin' is native to Ukrainian language in Central and Eastern parts and opposed to Polish 'Pan'. Guys, there is NO word 'Gospodin' in Ukrainian, there's only 'Pan' and 'Pani'. 'Gospodin' or 'Gospozha' haven't been in use even in Russian since long. Only 'Gospoda' is used in Russia, referring to a large gathering of people. In Ukrainian, it's gonna be 'Panove'. And, even so, the word 'Pan' was not borrowed by the Ukrainians from Polish but rather by the Ukrainian, Polish, Belarussian, Chech and Slovak from the Ancient Slavic language. There is also no reference to the 'Surzhik', at all, even though it's impossible to miss.
- Basically, this book discounts all the history of Ukraine and goes on to promote that corrupted shithole that it has become in the last 3 decades. And somehow it even manages to GLORIFY all that lawlessness and corruption that permeates the modern day Ukraine. I do realise that this is a book with a vividly highlighted political premise, which had a task to demonstrate that all the participants in this free-for-all did all right for Ukraine, except Russia. It somehow manages to fail miserably at this task.
- And so on and on and on and on... I remain firm in my belief that people need to learn history first and only then go on to write books about it. I could rant about most pages of this book endlessly since it fails to show how the Slavic history progressed for Ukraine to happen.
I added an extra star just because I can share the author's nostalgy about Ukraine. The rest, it's just NOT the book it claims to be.
January 9, 2023
I didn’t read Borderland as entertainment, nor did I think that I would become some sort of overnight Ukrainian authority. I bought the book on impulse. As a first step in trying to formulate my thoughts it was a useful first step. I find myself reviewing the developing situation in Ukraine (after one month) in general rather than this book particularly.
Geography
Its quite clear to me that a rudimentary understanding of the conflict ongoing in 2022, and which has raged over Ukrainian territory can only be achieved if the reader has a decent geographical knowledge. You don’t have to read this book to check out maps, but the great virtue of a slow burn read is that the geography is highlighted with the book’s focus on different regions in Ukraine. Reid spends some time on distinct parts of Ukraine:
• Kiev. The notion of Kievan rus, as distinct from Muscovy, was new to me. The maidan, as a movement and a symbol.
• Galicia region in the West and the essence of Lviv, and the Polish ancestry.
• Donetsk and mining
• Odessa and the south
History
The most contentious element of this book is what is agreed (or not) to be the real history. There is no “true” and Ukraine is a nation for which Putin has cited his particular interpretation of history to justify his actions.
Reid covers, variously, Khmelnytsky in the c. 17th; Treaty of Versailles in 1919 and the division of Ukraine, and the OUN; The Great Famine of 1932/3, when 7 million died in the Soviet Union, of which 5 million were in Ukraine. This was the product of Stalin’s collectivisation, dekulakisation and deportations.
I felt that I was scratching the surface, but at least I have some awareness of that surface now for further reading around the subjects.
More recent history features Victor Yanukovich, favoured by Russia; Viktor Yushchenko, favoured by the West with the photogenic Yuliya Tymoshenko commanding significant international attention. My conclusion from reading about the machinations around this trio, and the ‘orange’ revolution is that it was a mostly chaotic period and it’s difficult not to conclude that the period of time from Gorbachev’s perestroika in the late 1980’s through to the invasion of Crimea in 2014 by Putin, was anything more than a colossal waste of an opportunity for leaders to come together and cement a coherent Ukrainian identity (tough task, but the internecine strife didn’t help).
Ukrainian alumni
Reid references a number of writers and other famous and infamous Ukrainians in the book, and I found this enlightening. Among the people mentioned are:
• Mikhail Bulgakov was born in Kiev. His novel The White Guard is set in Ukraine
• Joseph Conrad was born in Berdychiv in northern Ukraine. His ancestry picks out strong Polish links.
• Bruno Schulz. Born in Drohobych, Austrian Galicia, historically part of the Kingdom of Poland before the three partitions, and today part of Ukraine. Notable work The Street of Crocodiles,
• Joseph Roth. Born in Brody in Lviv Oblast of western Ukraine. Notable work Radetzky March
• Bob Maxwell. From the borderlands Carpathia (it seems wrong to list him in this company but he is undoubtedly a renowned figure, especially in the UK).
• Ivan Demjanjuk (Cleveland car worker and Nazi war criminal in WW2). Born in in the Zhytomyr Oblast of northern Ukraine
• President Leonid Brezhnev. Born in Kamianske an industrial city in the Dnipropetrovsk Oblast of Ukraine and a port on the Dnieper river.
The author. Style and Prescience
The title of the book is indicative of a sweeping ambition. Arguably its too great an undertaking to try to distil a nation’s history in three hundred pages, and for a country with a volatile history. I thought the author did well, but I’m not Ukrainian, I haven’t visited the country, and I read this as a starting point in trying to get a better understanding of the background to the invasion by Russia in 2022 (and 2014). I note that a number of comments, and reviews, on Goodreads are scathing about the book and its lack of in depth analysis (and accuracy).
I did appreciate the structure of the book which looks at Ukraine’s different regions separately and takes the reader back in time for each of those sections. Reid’s personal experiences in Ukraine are not extensive (two years as correspondent for The Economist ), so her personal anecdotes are limited, but do lighten the book from becoming a straight historical study.
Written in 1997 with an afterword in 2015, in the immediate aftermath of the Russian invasion and occupation of Crimea, Reid looks ahead with a mixture of prescience and ignorance:
“Nobody expects tanks to roll into Kiev as they did into Grozny, but Russia could stir up secessionists among ethnic Russians in Crimea and the Donbass, as it did in Moldova, Georgia. Ukrainians feat that the catalyst for renewed Russian aggression will be the eastward expansion of NATO”
Recommend
I think this is a good introduction, and I stress introduction only, to Ukraine, and for me it’s a book that encourages me to look further and more deeply into the Ukrainian peoples.
Geography
Its quite clear to me that a rudimentary understanding of the conflict ongoing in 2022, and which has raged over Ukrainian territory can only be achieved if the reader has a decent geographical knowledge. You don’t have to read this book to check out maps, but the great virtue of a slow burn read is that the geography is highlighted with the book’s focus on different regions in Ukraine. Reid spends some time on distinct parts of Ukraine:
• Kiev. The notion of Kievan rus, as distinct from Muscovy, was new to me. The maidan, as a movement and a symbol.
• Galicia region in the West and the essence of Lviv, and the Polish ancestry.
• Donetsk and mining
• Odessa and the south
History
The most contentious element of this book is what is agreed (or not) to be the real history. There is no “true” and Ukraine is a nation for which Putin has cited his particular interpretation of history to justify his actions.
Reid covers, variously, Khmelnytsky in the c. 17th; Treaty of Versailles in 1919 and the division of Ukraine, and the OUN; The Great Famine of 1932/3, when 7 million died in the Soviet Union, of which 5 million were in Ukraine. This was the product of Stalin’s collectivisation, dekulakisation and deportations.
I felt that I was scratching the surface, but at least I have some awareness of that surface now for further reading around the subjects.
More recent history features Victor Yanukovich, favoured by Russia; Viktor Yushchenko, favoured by the West with the photogenic Yuliya Tymoshenko commanding significant international attention. My conclusion from reading about the machinations around this trio, and the ‘orange’ revolution is that it was a mostly chaotic period and it’s difficult not to conclude that the period of time from Gorbachev’s perestroika in the late 1980’s through to the invasion of Crimea in 2014 by Putin, was anything more than a colossal waste of an opportunity for leaders to come together and cement a coherent Ukrainian identity (tough task, but the internecine strife didn’t help).
Ukrainian alumni
Reid references a number of writers and other famous and infamous Ukrainians in the book, and I found this enlightening. Among the people mentioned are:
• Mikhail Bulgakov was born in Kiev. His novel The White Guard is set in Ukraine
• Joseph Conrad was born in Berdychiv in northern Ukraine. His ancestry picks out strong Polish links.
• Bruno Schulz. Born in Drohobych, Austrian Galicia, historically part of the Kingdom of Poland before the three partitions, and today part of Ukraine. Notable work The Street of Crocodiles,
• Joseph Roth. Born in Brody in Lviv Oblast of western Ukraine. Notable work Radetzky March
• Bob Maxwell. From the borderlands Carpathia (it seems wrong to list him in this company but he is undoubtedly a renowned figure, especially in the UK).
• Ivan Demjanjuk (Cleveland car worker and Nazi war criminal in WW2). Born in in the Zhytomyr Oblast of northern Ukraine
• President Leonid Brezhnev. Born in Kamianske an industrial city in the Dnipropetrovsk Oblast of Ukraine and a port on the Dnieper river.
The author. Style and Prescience
The title of the book is indicative of a sweeping ambition. Arguably its too great an undertaking to try to distil a nation’s history in three hundred pages, and for a country with a volatile history. I thought the author did well, but I’m not Ukrainian, I haven’t visited the country, and I read this as a starting point in trying to get a better understanding of the background to the invasion by Russia in 2022 (and 2014). I note that a number of comments, and reviews, on Goodreads are scathing about the book and its lack of in depth analysis (and accuracy).
I did appreciate the structure of the book which looks at Ukraine’s different regions separately and takes the reader back in time for each of those sections. Reid’s personal experiences in Ukraine are not extensive (two years as correspondent for The Economist ), so her personal anecdotes are limited, but do lighten the book from becoming a straight historical study.
Written in 1997 with an afterword in 2015, in the immediate aftermath of the Russian invasion and occupation of Crimea, Reid looks ahead with a mixture of prescience and ignorance:
“Nobody expects tanks to roll into Kiev as they did into Grozny, but Russia could stir up secessionists among ethnic Russians in Crimea and the Donbass, as it did in Moldova, Georgia. Ukrainians feat that the catalyst for renewed Russian aggression will be the eastward expansion of NATO”
Recommend
I think this is a good introduction, and I stress introduction only, to Ukraine, and for me it’s a book that encourages me to look further and more deeply into the Ukrainian peoples.
November 10, 2023
What with recent events, I thought it time I did a little reading on the subject.
I found this to be an overview, all well put together, chronologic and jolly interesting stuff.
A country truly ravaged and torn on no end of occasions; no wonder they’ve decided enough is enough and it’s time to make a stand.
I found this to be an overview, all well put together, chronologic and jolly interesting stuff.
A country truly ravaged and torn on no end of occasions; no wonder they’ve decided enough is enough and it’s time to make a stand.
September 18, 2011
This is one of those books that if you write a review to it, you are likely to get counter-reviews from someone out there that belive you should have the same opinion on this book as they have.
As all the postings and appraisal of Anna Reid's book reflects this is a very good popular introduction to Ukrainian history. That is with stress on both *good*, *popular introduction* and *up to 1997*. If you have already read several histories of Ukraine, chances are slim you will find much new here. If you need an update on the orange revolution, you will simply not find what you look for here. If you find another book to cover the orange revolution, it might even be an advantage that it is published in 1997, in the sense that it is likely to focus more on the Kuchma era and describe what Ukraine was like in the 1990s than a book published more recently will.
It is not unlikely that you anyway will enjoy here anechdotical introductions to each chapter though, using personal experiences as illustrations to the different regions and historical periods of the country. To illustrate the strenght and the (less important) weakness of this style of writing, I could tell you about my reading of her book as preperation for a 3 weeks journey though Ukraine. Like a similar incident after reading Kapuscinski's story about Pinsk in Belarus, Reid has made me get off the train at 5 o'clock in the morning after a though night in the restaurant wagon caused by reading her chapter from this region - Chernivtsi is simply somewhere that you have to see before you die. The truth is a bit more complex. I guess what I try to say that her writing is better litterature than travel advice (read, to see what I mean).
I would like to add a few lines of why I think this book is as good as it is.
As I see it, A good history of Ukraine aknowledges the following 3 things that Ukraine is, 3 things that Ukraine is not and 3 things as not important.
3 things you necessarily needs to find in a history of Ukraine is that
-It's history is above everything else multicultural and about a peasant culture
-The by far most significant building-blocks of Ukrainian national identity is to be found in the 1800s and 1900s.
-It is primary Ukraine itself that created the economic and political disaster of the 1990s (unlike in the 1920s, when Ukraine recovered after, say, 7 years of economic crisis the neo-Brezhnevism corruption is what probably makes the big difference)
Second to a cover picture of an Ukrainian peasant with a Russian bureucrate and a Jewish merchant on each side, the picture chosen for the front page is the perfect choice! Read the book and understand why. I am very surprised why someone have objections to the photo. What ever is the basis of their objection it is not Ukrainian history.
As of other peoples included in multicultural Empires in Eastern Europe up to World war I, national identity came late to Ukraine. Anna Reid gives a good and balanced understanding of this.
More important than any other explaination to the political and economic disaster of the 1990s was the policy of Ukraine itself. Anna Reid manages to give a good introduction to this not-so-proud recent past.
3 things you necesary *not* will find in a good history of Ukraine is:
-that Ukraine is an acient Eastern Slavonic Nation
-a history of Ukraine that is not closely related to Russian history
-a place in Ukraine that represents "real Ukraine"
Middle-age settlements in the Eastern Slavonic region was highly autonomious, there was several of them both in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia and Kiev was an important but not the oldest of them.
The southern and Eastern Ukraine is both a crucial part of Russian and Ukraine and Ukrainian-Russian history. The Ukrainian impact on Soviet history and the great importance of the Soviet Union for Ukrainian national identity. Reid gives a good and balanced understanding of this. I take the objection of some reader that she puts to little emphasis of the collectivisation and starvation as a sign that she succeeds to present Ukraine as much more than victims of starvation. Also important, Ukraine was the politically most priviledged republic after the Russians in the Soviet Union.
3 things a history of Ukraine will reflect that is not important is
-whether you prefer to write Kyiv or Kiev
-what Ukraine really means
-what place is the orign of Eastern Slavonic civilisation
Anna Reid does not make a big deal out of any of this. Combined with good writing and the successful use of anecdotes from her personal experiences and research you have the reason why it is so interesting to read her book.
As all the postings and appraisal of Anna Reid's book reflects this is a very good popular introduction to Ukrainian history. That is with stress on both *good*, *popular introduction* and *up to 1997*. If you have already read several histories of Ukraine, chances are slim you will find much new here. If you need an update on the orange revolution, you will simply not find what you look for here. If you find another book to cover the orange revolution, it might even be an advantage that it is published in 1997, in the sense that it is likely to focus more on the Kuchma era and describe what Ukraine was like in the 1990s than a book published more recently will.
It is not unlikely that you anyway will enjoy here anechdotical introductions to each chapter though, using personal experiences as illustrations to the different regions and historical periods of the country. To illustrate the strenght and the (less important) weakness of this style of writing, I could tell you about my reading of her book as preperation for a 3 weeks journey though Ukraine. Like a similar incident after reading Kapuscinski's story about Pinsk in Belarus, Reid has made me get off the train at 5 o'clock in the morning after a though night in the restaurant wagon caused by reading her chapter from this region - Chernivtsi is simply somewhere that you have to see before you die. The truth is a bit more complex. I guess what I try to say that her writing is better litterature than travel advice (read, to see what I mean).
I would like to add a few lines of why I think this book is as good as it is.
As I see it, A good history of Ukraine aknowledges the following 3 things that Ukraine is, 3 things that Ukraine is not and 3 things as not important.
3 things you necessarily needs to find in a history of Ukraine is that
-It's history is above everything else multicultural and about a peasant culture
-The by far most significant building-blocks of Ukrainian national identity is to be found in the 1800s and 1900s.
-It is primary Ukraine itself that created the economic and political disaster of the 1990s (unlike in the 1920s, when Ukraine recovered after, say, 7 years of economic crisis the neo-Brezhnevism corruption is what probably makes the big difference)
Second to a cover picture of an Ukrainian peasant with a Russian bureucrate and a Jewish merchant on each side, the picture chosen for the front page is the perfect choice! Read the book and understand why. I am very surprised why someone have objections to the photo. What ever is the basis of their objection it is not Ukrainian history.
As of other peoples included in multicultural Empires in Eastern Europe up to World war I, national identity came late to Ukraine. Anna Reid gives a good and balanced understanding of this.
More important than any other explaination to the political and economic disaster of the 1990s was the policy of Ukraine itself. Anna Reid manages to give a good introduction to this not-so-proud recent past.
3 things you necesary *not* will find in a good history of Ukraine is:
-that Ukraine is an acient Eastern Slavonic Nation
-a history of Ukraine that is not closely related to Russian history
-a place in Ukraine that represents "real Ukraine"
Middle-age settlements in the Eastern Slavonic region was highly autonomious, there was several of them both in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia and Kiev was an important but not the oldest of them.
The southern and Eastern Ukraine is both a crucial part of Russian and Ukraine and Ukrainian-Russian history. The Ukrainian impact on Soviet history and the great importance of the Soviet Union for Ukrainian national identity. Reid gives a good and balanced understanding of this. I take the objection of some reader that she puts to little emphasis of the collectivisation and starvation as a sign that she succeeds to present Ukraine as much more than victims of starvation. Also important, Ukraine was the politically most priviledged republic after the Russians in the Soviet Union.
3 things a history of Ukraine will reflect that is not important is
-whether you prefer to write Kyiv or Kiev
-what Ukraine really means
-what place is the orign of Eastern Slavonic civilisation
Anna Reid does not make a big deal out of any of this. Combined with good writing and the successful use of anecdotes from her personal experiences and research you have the reason why it is so interesting to read her book.
November 14, 2023
„Още не са умрели славата и волята на Украйна.“ (началото на украинския национален химн)
Признавам си, че преди Русия да нападне Украйна, знаех много малко з�� тази държава; бях един от хората, които бъркат Херсон с Харкив, а Лвив мислех, че е в Полша. Невежеството вече не извинява, особено след 2022 г., когато Украйна се превърна в най-важнот�� място на континента – символ на съпротивата срещу агресията на една крайнодясна диктатура с възроден имперски комплекс.
Но би било грешка да се мисли, че книгата е едностранчива и представя Украйна единствено в бяло. Не спестява фактите около дълбоката корупция, олигархичните връзки на управляващите и мащабното присвояване на средства. Тъй като е живяла там през 90-те и често посещава региона, Рийд става свидетел на много ключови събития, включително обявяването на независимостта, Оранжевата революция срещу проруския кандидат Янукович, кървавия Майдан и последвалата анексия на Крим, докато се стигне до пълномащабната война от февруари 2022 г., когато Рийд вижда с очите си кошмара от Буча. Така че книгата не е само кабинетен продукт, а съдържа елементи на репортажен пътепис, което я прави много достъпна и свръхактуална, в добрия смисъл на думата. Не тръгва от класическата стройна хронология, а всяка глава разглежда определен аспект от историята, който се съчетава плавно в едно цяло.
Всичко започва през 9 век с вездесъщите нормани, които са основателите на Киевска Рус. Следват монголско и полско-литовско владичество, а през 15 век на сцената излизат митичните казаци. Един от тях, смъртно обиден на поляците, ще приеме закрила от Русия през 17 век, което ще се окаже действие от съдбоносно, а бих добавила, и фатално значение. През цялото това време до Първата световна война, когато Централната Рада е възстановена за няколко месеца, украинците са народ без държава. Дори независимостта през 1991 г. е обявена плахо, покрай неуспешния пуч срещу Горбачов, когато става ясно, че реставрация на комунизма е невъзможна. До двете революции срещу президенти, които се опитват да върнат страната в руската орбита и да я отклонят от европейския й път, националната идентичност на украинците е слабо подчертана, неясна и неглижирана като въпрос. Сблъсъците на Майдана и жертвите, дадени за свободата обаче, превръщат фрагментираното население в народ.
Тази книга ме остави дълбоко развълнувана. Освен че следя новините от фронта и се моля ежедневно за изстрадалия украински народ, мисля, че открих за себе си и най-интересното и любимо място в Европа, което нямам търпение да посетя след като Украйна спечели войната – Галиция, която е полско-еврейска-австроунгарска-украинска смесица от най-доброто от тази част на Европа през вековете. Дотогава – кураж и сили и неспираща подкрепа за украинците, които се борят за своята, но и за нашата свобода. Те заслужават да живеят като достойни и свободни хора в мирна и просперираща Украйна.
„Да предадем Украйна сега, би било морален и стратегически провал, сравним с Унгарското въстание от 1956 г. и Пражката пролет от 1968 г….ако сега позволим на Путин да победи, целият свят ще стане едно по-мрачно място за живеене.“
Признавам си, че преди Русия да нападне Украйна, знаех много малко з�� тази държава; бях един от хората, които бъркат Херсон с Харкив, а Лвив мислех, че е в Полша. Невежеството вече не извинява, особено след 2022 г., когато Украйна се превърна в най-важнот�� място на континента – символ на съпротивата срещу агресията на една крайнодясна диктатура с възроден имперски комплекс.
Но би било грешка да се мисли, че книгата е едностранчива и представя Украйна единствено в бяло. Не спестява фактите около дълбоката корупция, олигархичните връзки на управляващите и мащабното присвояване на средства. Тъй като е живяла там през 90-те и често посещава региона, Рийд става свидетел на много ключови събития, включително обявяването на независимостта, Оранжевата революция срещу проруския кандидат Янукович, кървавия Майдан и последвалата анексия на Крим, докато се стигне до пълномащабната война от февруари 2022 г., когато Рийд вижда с очите си кошмара от Буча. Така че книгата не е само кабинетен продукт, а съдържа елементи на репортажен пътепис, което я прави много достъпна и свръхактуална, в добрия смисъл на думата. Не тръгва от класическата стройна хронология, а всяка глава разглежда определен аспект от историята, който се съчетава плавно в едно цяло.
Всичко започва през 9 век с вездесъщите нормани, които са основателите на Киевска Рус. Следват монголско и полско-литовско владичество, а през 15 век на сцената излизат митичните казаци. Един от тях, смъртно обиден на поляците, ще приеме закрила от Русия през 17 век, което ще се окаже действие от съдбоносно, а бих добавила, и фатално значение. През цялото това време до Първата световна война, когато Централната Рада е възстановена за няколко месеца, украинците са народ без държава. Дори независимостта през 1991 г. е обявена плахо, покрай неуспешния пуч срещу Горбачов, когато става ясно, че реставрация на комунизма е невъзможна. До двете революции срещу президенти, които се опитват да върнат страната в руската орбита и да я отклонят от европейския й път, националната идентичност на украинците е слабо подчертана, неясна и неглижирана като въпрос. Сблъсъците на Майдана и жертвите, дадени за свободата обаче, превръщат фрагментираното население в народ.
Тази книга ме остави дълбоко развълнувана. Освен че следя новините от фронта и се моля ежедневно за изстрадалия украински народ, мисля, че открих за себе си и най-интересното и любимо място в Европа, което нямам търпение да посетя след като Украйна спечели войната – Галиция, която е полско-еврейска-австроунгарска-украинска смесица от най-доброто от тази част на Европа през вековете. Дотогава – кураж и сили и неспираща подкрепа за украинците, които се борят за своята, но и за нашата свобода. Те заслужават да живеят като достойни и свободни хора в мирна и просперираща Украйна.
„Да предадем Украйна сега, би било морален и стратегически провал, сравним с Унгарското въстание от 1956 г. и Пражката пролет от 1968 г….ако сега позволим на Путин да победи, целият свят ще стане едно по-мрачно място за живеене.“
January 30, 2016
While in Ukraine a few months ago, I asked the editor of the Kiev Post to name the best book on her country. "Borderland," she replied. "It was published in the last 90's, but it will tell you who we are."
Anna Reid writes ten chapter on eight different cities. She describes centuries of cultural influence, war, subjugation and trauma. And then - in each city - she describes the breath of the Ukrainian people and the depth of their soul. Interestingly, while published in 1997 and updated in 1999 and 2000, she presciently predicts actions by Russia, Europe and the west when Ukraine faced their most recent challenge.
What "Invisible Nation" is to those who want to understand the Kurds, so is this book a must read for those who want to understand Ukraine's search for their statehood and their nationhood.
Anna Reid writes ten chapter on eight different cities. She describes centuries of cultural influence, war, subjugation and trauma. And then - in each city - she describes the breath of the Ukrainian people and the depth of their soul. Interestingly, while published in 1997 and updated in 1999 and 2000, she presciently predicts actions by Russia, Europe and the west when Ukraine faced their most recent challenge.
What "Invisible Nation" is to those who want to understand the Kurds, so is this book a must read for those who want to understand Ukraine's search for their statehood and their nationhood.
June 24, 2022
I was really interested to find out more about the history of Ukraine, and thought that this could be a good book to start with.
The country has certainly been through a lot – having been a vassal state of Lithuania, Poland, bits of it in the Austro-Hungarian empire, Ottoman empire – and of course the Russian empire and then the Soviet Union. None of its masters treated the Ukrainian people particularly well, though prize for biggest b***rds has to go to the Russians. Starting with the Russian empire:
Stalin brought in the farm collectivisation that generated the appalling famine, made worse by the appropriation of any food grown in Ukraine and the deporting of many Ukrainians to gulags and other parts of USSR:
Then came WWII, and the Germans:
When Chernobyl exploded, the Ukrainians were kept in the dark about the dangers, and unnecessarily exposed to high levels of radiation.
Not until the collapse of the Soviet Union had Ukraine been an independent, sovereign nation. There had been sporadic independence movements, but they seemed to have been often badly run, with no clear objective or direction, or subject to poor timing.
The author has spent a lot of time in Ukraine, and the little snippets of information about her experiences in the country in the 1980s and 90s were very interesting. The first part of the book was researched and written in the 1990s, and ends with Ukraine at a crossroads – poor, badly and corruptly run, still suffering from a Soviet hang-over – and unsure whether to continue to stay aligned with Russia, or to veer more West. The second half ends in 2015, after the Orange Revolution, and after the invasion of Crimea, but before Zelensky took power. She ends with a warning, which – given the timing – is rather prescient:
The Ukraine at the end of the book, still seemed a basket-case – and so completely unlike the pictures we see of unoccupied, free Ukraine today. Outside the war-zones, Ukraine looks happy, united, prosperous, with a well-educated population living in a modern Western world:
After reading this book, and seeing the hell that Putin has rained down on Ukraine – the question is not why Ukraine would want to join NATO and the EU, but why on earth they would EVER want to have anything at all to do with Russia.
I hope with all my heart, that this horrendous war ends soon, with an independent and intact Ukraine, free at last to decide whom it wants to befriend, and whom to shun. A clear break with the past and a look forward to a golden future.
The country has certainly been through a lot – having been a vassal state of Lithuania, Poland, bits of it in the Austro-Hungarian empire, Ottoman empire – and of course the Russian empire and then the Soviet Union. None of its masters treated the Ukrainian people particularly well, though prize for biggest b***rds has to go to the Russians. Starting with the Russian empire:
“1876 Russification climaxed with the Edict of Ems. Taking the waters in that German spa, Aleksandr II signed a decree banning all import and publication of Ukrainian books and newspapers, all stage-shows, concerts and public lectures in Ukrainian, and all teaching in Ukrainian, even for infants. Ukrainian-language books were to be removed from school libraries, and Ukrainophile teachers transferred to Great Russia. During cholera outbreaks, even public health notices were to be posted in Russian alone.”
Stalin brought in the farm collectivisation that generated the appalling famine, made worse by the appropriation of any food grown in Ukraine and the deporting of many Ukrainians to gulags and other parts of USSR:
“Killing more people than the First World War on all sides put together, the famine of 1932–3 was, and still is, one of the most under-reported atrocities of human history, a fact that contributes powerfully to Ukraine’s persistent sense of victimisation.”
Then came WWII, and the Germans:
“For Ukrainians, the war was fratricidal. Caught between Stalin and Hitler, they split three ways. The vast majority of direct participants – 2.5 million men 13– were conscripted straight into the Red Army. Several tens of thousands – known as ‘Hiwis’ – short for Hilfswillige or ‘willing-to-helps’, joined the Nazis in various capacities.”
“‘The Poles didn’t find as many “political criminals” among us in twenty years,’ the Avhustivka villagers mourned, ‘as “older brother” Russia did in a year and a half.’ Along with millions of other Ukrainians, they believed Nazi rule could not possibly be any worse than Stalinism. Photographs (some cooked up by Soviet propagandists,) show smiling Galician peasants running out of their houses to welcome the Panzer crews with bread and salt.”
“For all Ukraine, the war years were ones of unparalleled violence, destruction and horror: 5.3 million of the country’s inhabitants died during the war – an astounding one in six of the entire population. (The equivalents for Germany, France and Britain were one in fifteen, one in seventy-seven and one in 125.) Of these, about 2.25 million were Jews. … Altogether, the Holocaust killed 60 per cent of the Jews of Soviet Ukraine, and over 90 per cent of the Jews of Galicia.”
When Chernobyl exploded, the Ukrainians were kept in the dark about the dangers, and unnecessarily exposed to high levels of radiation.
Not until the collapse of the Soviet Union had Ukraine been an independent, sovereign nation. There had been sporadic independence movements, but they seemed to have been often badly run, with no clear objective or direction, or subject to poor timing.
“Split between rival powers for centuries, talking about history at all only emphasised disunity. Poles, Hungarians, Czechs and Balts all knew they were rejoining Europe; Ukrainians were not sure where they belonged or even where they wanted to belong.”
The author has spent a lot of time in Ukraine, and the little snippets of information about her experiences in the country in the 1980s and 90s were very interesting. The first part of the book was researched and written in the 1990s, and ends with Ukraine at a crossroads – poor, badly and corruptly run, still suffering from a Soviet hang-over – and unsure whether to continue to stay aligned with Russia, or to veer more West. The second half ends in 2015, after the Orange Revolution, and after the invasion of Crimea, but before Zelensky took power. She ends with a warning, which – given the timing – is rather prescient:
“rather than refraining from poking the bear, it is becoming unpleasantly clear, we are going to have to stop it biting off our leg.”
“If we let Russia wreck Ukraine – if we are feeling too poor, anxious, or distracted to fight Ukraine’s corner – we will not only be undermining our own security, but betraying 46 million fellow Europeans. It would be a strategic and moral failure on the scale of the crushed Hungarian Rising and Prague Spring – and with much less excuse.”
The Ukraine at the end of the book, still seemed a basket-case – and so completely unlike the pictures we see of unoccupied, free Ukraine today. Outside the war-zones, Ukraine looks happy, united, prosperous, with a well-educated population living in a modern Western world:
“Just as flourishing, law-abiding, genuinely democratic Poland helped inspire the Maidan, a flourishing, law-abiding, genuinely democratic Ukraine might hold out the prospect of a freer future to Russia’s boxed-in young, and give heart to her persecuted liberals. And for Russians in general, nothing would better demonstrate the benefits of Western-style government than to see their ‘little brothers’ next door doing well – which is exactly why Putin is so determined not to let that happen.
After reading this book, and seeing the hell that Putin has rained down on Ukraine – the question is not why Ukraine would want to join NATO and the EU, but why on earth they would EVER want to have anything at all to do with Russia.
I hope with all my heart, that this horrendous war ends soon, with an independent and intact Ukraine, free at last to decide whom it wants to befriend, and whom to shun. A clear break with the past and a look forward to a golden future.
March 19, 2022
Ukraine was split between Russia and Poland (mid 17th century to end of 18th century), between Russia and Austria (19th century), and between Russia, Poland, Czechoslovakia (between the world wars). Before 1991, it was never an independent state. Ukraine is famous for being “flat and fertile”. While Poland went Catholic (a la Rome), Ukraine went Orthodox (like Byzantium). One continuing argument is whether the heirs of Kievan Rus are Russian or Ukrainian. Northerners then lived in log cabins and ate black bread while southerners lived in wattle and daub (like English peasants) and ate white bread. Russian rulers learned from the Mongols to show no concerns for public well-being. Scratch a Russian, as the saying goes and you find a Tatar. Scratch some Tatar and you’re a dental technician. Ruthenians was the Polish name for future Ukrainians and Belarussians. Polish rule of Ukraine saw the rise of the Cossacks and Ukrainian national consciousness. Think of the Ukrainian hetman as a headman.
Khmelnytsky was a major early Ukrainian who sought an alliance with Russia during Polish rule. Russia would rule over Kiev for the next three and a quarter centuries. Ukrainians like that Khmelnytsky beat the Poles but dislike that he delivered them to Russia. Poland disappeared in 1795. Galicia was left vacant by the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Joseph Conrad came from the Ukraine. Ukrainians don’t care, the common response is “What did Konrad give us? Nothing.” Ukrainians spent centuries under Polish rule yet strangely, there’s little anger about that today.
For a while after 1991, Ukraine tried to appease its Russian population because the Donbass coal region is mostly Russian, and Donbass separatism is no small thing. Russification of Ukraine was successful because Catherine the Great courted Ukrainians by giving the Cossack ruling class noble privileges and turning peasants into serfs. Cossack: Madame, this blatant theft from the people is immoral! CG: I’ll give you a cut from the theft. Cossack: In that case, where do we sign?
Tara Shevchenko is Ukraine’s answer to Pushkin; he’s a national hero and he died in 1861. In the Donbass and Crimea almost all the schools have their books and lectures in Russian, while in Lviv school kids speak almost no Russian at all. After Hrushevsky’s ten volume history of Ukraine was written, it became hard to pretend Ukraine didn’t exist. In WWI, 3.5 million Ukrainians fought for Russia while a quarter million Ukrainians fought for Austria. “Ukrainians often ended up fighting each other.”
The Russian Civil War mostly took place in Ukraine. Then two attempts at Ukrainian independence (Lviv and Kiev) failed. Kiev saw fourteen to eighteen changes of power in a year and a half. Did you know that the Treaty of Versailles split Ukraine into four parts? Only central and eastern Ukraine stayed with Russia (That could explain why it’s still so Russian today). The Poles destroyed Ukrainian garb and needlework in order to erase their identity. Ukrainian reading rooms and libraries were destroyed by the Poles. No doubt afterwards there was much rejoicing through pole dancing.
Ukrainians don’t talk much about the Holodomor because under Soviet rule you could get in trouble, and discussing it afterwards was rarely career advancing. After the post-purge census came out in 1937, showing much lower population figures, Stalin had the officials arrested and shot. Ukraine was hit hard with deaths because Russia was much more indoctrinated with 10X the party members than Ukraine had, and a loyalty lesson had to be taught by the famed sociopath who would later give Ned Flanders his moustache. “What collectivization was to the countryside, the purges were to the towns, the two running side by side.” If your village house had a metal roof, you were considered a kulak and eligible for a free trip to Siberia. “What the Stalin regime cared for was the constant threat, the constant fear.” “Denunciations were encouraged.” “You wrote a denunciation and you didn’t have to even sign it.” Say someone else had three cows, and he was gone. “Deportation was the equivalent to a death sentence.” “By 1931 there had still been some grain to hide, by 1932 there was none.” Towns were quiet because all the dogs had already been eaten. If you picked corn or hid food, you were shot.
By 1933, when forced grain collections ended, one-fifth of the rural population (five million people) were dead. The foreign press knew about the Russian Famine, but not the extent, and thus pretended it was not unlike the US Great Depression – bad times all around. Journalists also knew accuracy with some facts might endanger their visa and their access. The author says this famine killed more people than WWI, but I would argue the British made famine in Iran alone killed more people (1917-1919, see Mohammad Gholi Majd), but luckily, US liberals historically give UK crimes a free pass, and have never cared about the Iranian people’s misfortune (apparently, they aren’t white enough), so it’s not a concern.
The Ukrainian national instrument is the “bandore”; the US national instrument is the “iPhone”. Ivano-Frankivsk started as a Polish frontier town, then it was in Austro-Hungary, then in Poland again, then a part of the Soviet Union, then it was in Ukraine - basically changing partners like Taylor Swift, yet still no hit songs came out of these ordeals. The Union of Lublin brought many Jewish immigrants in and then dormant Ukrainian anti-Semitism reared its head. However, Poles (the occupiers) were equally hated by Ukrainians then. Tolstoy and Turgenev were strangely silent during the 1881 pogroms which were draconian and excluded and disempowered Jews from all the important stuff. “When the Bolsheviks came to power in 1917, Jews were able to take government jobs for the first time.” The WWII death toll in the Ukraine was 5.3 million. The Holocaust kills 60% of the Jews of Ukraine and 90% the Jews of Galicia.
13,000 Ukrainians were accepted during WWII by the Nazis (out of a much larger Ukrainian applicant pool) to work as SS Galicia. Question of the day: Fraulein, when will we be measured for those lovely black Hugo Boss SS suits? Hugo Boss joined the Nazi Party in 1931 and designed all Nazi uniforms. I can picture him pitching the Nazi hierarchy, “I’m seeing brown, and I’m seeing black. And our Fuhrer …is an Autumn.” Remember: When Hitler and Stalin in 1939 invade Poland from both sides, Poland ceases to exist for the second time in history, while Galicia for the first time falls under Russian rule. Many older Ukrainians greeted Poland’s demise with relief, while comedians who had recently specialized in Polish jokes felt verklempt.
Many Ukrainians pondered whether life might be better for them under Nazism than or under Stalinism. In Rivno, 17,000 Jews were murdered and “those who refused to undress beforehand had their eyes put out.” In Odessa, 19,000 Jews were herded into a fenced square sprayed with gasoline and burnt alive. It’s hard to imagine much hope in the Ukrainian soul while caught between the worst of both Stalinism and Nazism. Slavs at the time knew they were Untermenschen, when the Jews were gone, they would be next. The head of the Reichskomissariat Ukraine (Erich Koch) said, Ukrainians were “niggers” fit only for vodka and the whip”. Goring sought to kill all Ukrainians over the age of 15.
If you were forced to Germany to work during the war, when you returned to Kiev, officials made you throw away all postcards and photos that suggested a better world on the outside. Those returning workers were also hated by locals. Sevastopol and the Crimea are passionately Russian; the peninsula is 66% Russian speaking. Russia annexed the Crimea in 1783. The Tartars are a stateless nation, a conquered people who ask, “How can you have a Tatar Crimea when 70% of Crimeans are Russians?” “The fact that we were annihilated doesn’t lessen our rights to our native land.” Did you know the Russian parliament twice condemned Khrushchev’s transfer of the Crimea to Ukraine? Crimeans says Khrushchev must have been drunk to even think to do that.
Ukrainians were the most common nationality in the 50’s Gulag but many of the post-Stalin Soviet leaders had deep connections to the Ukraine. At this point in this really interesting book, Anna goes Cold War liberal in her analysis and Anna says nothing original or progressive about post-independent Ukraine, not even the obvious threat of NATO expansion, so that’s the review. This was a really good book on Ukraine up to 1991. “The Gates of Europe” by Plokhy, has a great section on the next ten years of Ukrainian history. But for current Ukrainian history, I’d recommend “Ukraine in Crisis”, by Nicolai Petro, “Ukraine in the Crossfire” by Chris Kaspar de Ploeg, and “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WWIII” by Stephen Lendman. For a quick intro though: google Noam Chomsky Ukraine or Chris Hedges Ukraine. Cheers.
Khmelnytsky was a major early Ukrainian who sought an alliance with Russia during Polish rule. Russia would rule over Kiev for the next three and a quarter centuries. Ukrainians like that Khmelnytsky beat the Poles but dislike that he delivered them to Russia. Poland disappeared in 1795. Galicia was left vacant by the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Joseph Conrad came from the Ukraine. Ukrainians don’t care, the common response is “What did Konrad give us? Nothing.” Ukrainians spent centuries under Polish rule yet strangely, there’s little anger about that today.
For a while after 1991, Ukraine tried to appease its Russian population because the Donbass coal region is mostly Russian, and Donbass separatism is no small thing. Russification of Ukraine was successful because Catherine the Great courted Ukrainians by giving the Cossack ruling class noble privileges and turning peasants into serfs. Cossack: Madame, this blatant theft from the people is immoral! CG: I’ll give you a cut from the theft. Cossack: In that case, where do we sign?
Tara Shevchenko is Ukraine’s answer to Pushkin; he’s a national hero and he died in 1861. In the Donbass and Crimea almost all the schools have their books and lectures in Russian, while in Lviv school kids speak almost no Russian at all. After Hrushevsky’s ten volume history of Ukraine was written, it became hard to pretend Ukraine didn’t exist. In WWI, 3.5 million Ukrainians fought for Russia while a quarter million Ukrainians fought for Austria. “Ukrainians often ended up fighting each other.”
The Russian Civil War mostly took place in Ukraine. Then two attempts at Ukrainian independence (Lviv and Kiev) failed. Kiev saw fourteen to eighteen changes of power in a year and a half. Did you know that the Treaty of Versailles split Ukraine into four parts? Only central and eastern Ukraine stayed with Russia (That could explain why it’s still so Russian today). The Poles destroyed Ukrainian garb and needlework in order to erase their identity. Ukrainian reading rooms and libraries were destroyed by the Poles. No doubt afterwards there was much rejoicing through pole dancing.
Ukrainians don’t talk much about the Holodomor because under Soviet rule you could get in trouble, and discussing it afterwards was rarely career advancing. After the post-purge census came out in 1937, showing much lower population figures, Stalin had the officials arrested and shot. Ukraine was hit hard with deaths because Russia was much more indoctrinated with 10X the party members than Ukraine had, and a loyalty lesson had to be taught by the famed sociopath who would later give Ned Flanders his moustache. “What collectivization was to the countryside, the purges were to the towns, the two running side by side.” If your village house had a metal roof, you were considered a kulak and eligible for a free trip to Siberia. “What the Stalin regime cared for was the constant threat, the constant fear.” “Denunciations were encouraged.” “You wrote a denunciation and you didn’t have to even sign it.” Say someone else had three cows, and he was gone. “Deportation was the equivalent to a death sentence.” “By 1931 there had still been some grain to hide, by 1932 there was none.” Towns were quiet because all the dogs had already been eaten. If you picked corn or hid food, you were shot.
By 1933, when forced grain collections ended, one-fifth of the rural population (five million people) were dead. The foreign press knew about the Russian Famine, but not the extent, and thus pretended it was not unlike the US Great Depression – bad times all around. Journalists also knew accuracy with some facts might endanger their visa and their access. The author says this famine killed more people than WWI, but I would argue the British made famine in Iran alone killed more people (1917-1919, see Mohammad Gholi Majd), but luckily, US liberals historically give UK crimes a free pass, and have never cared about the Iranian people’s misfortune (apparently, they aren’t white enough), so it’s not a concern.
The Ukrainian national instrument is the “bandore”; the US national instrument is the “iPhone”. Ivano-Frankivsk started as a Polish frontier town, then it was in Austro-Hungary, then in Poland again, then a part of the Soviet Union, then it was in Ukraine - basically changing partners like Taylor Swift, yet still no hit songs came out of these ordeals. The Union of Lublin brought many Jewish immigrants in and then dormant Ukrainian anti-Semitism reared its head. However, Poles (the occupiers) were equally hated by Ukrainians then. Tolstoy and Turgenev were strangely silent during the 1881 pogroms which were draconian and excluded and disempowered Jews from all the important stuff. “When the Bolsheviks came to power in 1917, Jews were able to take government jobs for the first time.” The WWII death toll in the Ukraine was 5.3 million. The Holocaust kills 60% of the Jews of Ukraine and 90% the Jews of Galicia.
13,000 Ukrainians were accepted during WWII by the Nazis (out of a much larger Ukrainian applicant pool) to work as SS Galicia. Question of the day: Fraulein, when will we be measured for those lovely black Hugo Boss SS suits? Hugo Boss joined the Nazi Party in 1931 and designed all Nazi uniforms. I can picture him pitching the Nazi hierarchy, “I’m seeing brown, and I’m seeing black. And our Fuhrer …is an Autumn.” Remember: When Hitler and Stalin in 1939 invade Poland from both sides, Poland ceases to exist for the second time in history, while Galicia for the first time falls under Russian rule. Many older Ukrainians greeted Poland’s demise with relief, while comedians who had recently specialized in Polish jokes felt verklempt.
Many Ukrainians pondered whether life might be better for them under Nazism than or under Stalinism. In Rivno, 17,000 Jews were murdered and “those who refused to undress beforehand had their eyes put out.” In Odessa, 19,000 Jews were herded into a fenced square sprayed with gasoline and burnt alive. It’s hard to imagine much hope in the Ukrainian soul while caught between the worst of both Stalinism and Nazism. Slavs at the time knew they were Untermenschen, when the Jews were gone, they would be next. The head of the Reichskomissariat Ukraine (Erich Koch) said, Ukrainians were “niggers” fit only for vodka and the whip”. Goring sought to kill all Ukrainians over the age of 15.
If you were forced to Germany to work during the war, when you returned to Kiev, officials made you throw away all postcards and photos that suggested a better world on the outside. Those returning workers were also hated by locals. Sevastopol and the Crimea are passionately Russian; the peninsula is 66% Russian speaking. Russia annexed the Crimea in 1783. The Tartars are a stateless nation, a conquered people who ask, “How can you have a Tatar Crimea when 70% of Crimeans are Russians?” “The fact that we were annihilated doesn’t lessen our rights to our native land.” Did you know the Russian parliament twice condemned Khrushchev’s transfer of the Crimea to Ukraine? Crimeans says Khrushchev must have been drunk to even think to do that.
Ukrainians were the most common nationality in the 50’s Gulag but many of the post-Stalin Soviet leaders had deep connections to the Ukraine. At this point in this really interesting book, Anna goes Cold War liberal in her analysis and Anna says nothing original or progressive about post-independent Ukraine, not even the obvious threat of NATO expansion, so that’s the review. This was a really good book on Ukraine up to 1991. “The Gates of Europe” by Plokhy, has a great section on the next ten years of Ukrainian history. But for current Ukrainian history, I’d recommend “Ukraine in Crisis”, by Nicolai Petro, “Ukraine in the Crossfire” by Chris Kaspar de Ploeg, and “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WWIII” by Stephen Lendman. For a quick intro though: google Noam Chomsky Ukraine or Chris Hedges Ukraine. Cheers.
November 10, 2023
An interesting look at Ukraine, focusing mostly on its history over the last two centuries or so, from the perspective of a journalist who's spent many years living in and reporting on Eastern Europe. The version of Borderland that I read consists of the original book, published in the late '90s, which talks about the history of Ukraine and its early years of post-Soviet independence; an additional section written in 2015 which brings coverage up to the Maidan Uprisings of the 2010s; and a last part which considers Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022. The earliest sections make for sometimes eerie and often queasily ironic reading in light of recent events. This isn't a deep analytical dive into the history or politics of the region, but it is an accessible overview of events. Anna Reid has a journalist's eye for good anecdotes/interesting vox pop moments.
3.5 stars, rounded up to 4.
3.5 stars, rounded up to 4.
October 14, 2008
Reid writes with the intimate style of someone who has lived in the places she tells about. It also does not hurt that she was Kiev correspondent for The Economist. Her employment seems to have provider her with a great degree of access to all levels of Ukrainian society. Her brisk and insightful style is also informed years banging out copy for that most erudite of British magazines. Having just returned from Ukraine and possessing a woeful ignorance about the country's history, this book was an excellent introduction. Popular history as it should be: informative without being tedious and engaging without being trivial. Great book for fans of history soaked travel writing as well.
May 1, 2022
“With a bearish Russia to its east, and an expanding NATO and European Union to its west, Ukraine remains, as ever, a disputed borderland between rival powers. Ukrainians try to view their position as a blessing. They talk about being a ‘crossroads,’ a ‘doorway,’ a ‘lever,’ a ‘bridge.’ But in this part of the world, bridges tend to get marched over or blown up.”
“Were Ukraine -- or more likely Belarus -- to lose its independence, Russia would be back glowering over the frontier wire, and Europe's center of gravity would shift away westward.”
“Annexing the Black Sea steppe, Russia was "gathering the Russians lands," rebuilding the ancient kingdom of Rus. Catherine had a commemorative medal struck, engraved with the words "I have recovered what was torn away," and gave her new territories the name Novorossiya - New Russia.”
“Were Ukraine -- or more likely Belarus -- to lose its independence, Russia would be back glowering over the frontier wire, and Europe's center of gravity would shift away westward.”
“Annexing the Black Sea steppe, Russia was "gathering the Russians lands," rebuilding the ancient kingdom of Rus. Catherine had a commemorative medal struck, engraved with the words "I have recovered what was torn away," and gave her new territories the name Novorossiya - New Russia.”
March 7, 2022
What a massive disappointment. I'm not even Ukrainian and I know this book is shit.
First, forget about the implied "journey through the history of Ukraine". The author picked some bits and pieces that sell well - Holodomor, Holocaust, a bit about Kiev, a bit about Lviv, something about Crimea... There is not structure, no continuity, no depth - the only readable parts are those when she quotes external sources. Her analysis is sometimes so shallow I had to check her actual credentials (and ruin my assumptions about Oxford education).
In official notes you can find a phrase saying that "Anna Reid combines research and her own experiences to chart Ukraine's tragic past" - WELL. No charting was done, five articles on random subjects are not charting. AND the book would be definitely better without "her own experiences" as they are continuously condescending, silly and/or offensive. If felt like reading a blog of a person that went to a country once and is coming back to tell you stories.
Seriously, you can get a better understanding of Ukrainian history if you read Wikipedia on Ukraine, Poland and Russia, as the histories are entwined. This thing - it's as good as quotes it contains.
If anyone knows a good book on Ukrainian history (in English, Polish or French) please let me know, I now regret transporting this one with me when I moved. Thought I was bringing a piece of history of my family with me, ended up with annoying crap.
First, forget about the implied "journey through the history of Ukraine". The author picked some bits and pieces that sell well - Holodomor, Holocaust, a bit about Kiev, a bit about Lviv, something about Crimea... There is not structure, no continuity, no depth - the only readable parts are those when she quotes external sources. Her analysis is sometimes so shallow I had to check her actual credentials (and ruin my assumptions about Oxford education).
In official notes you can find a phrase saying that "Anna Reid combines research and her own experiences to chart Ukraine's tragic past" - WELL. No charting was done, five articles on random subjects are not charting. AND the book would be definitely better without "her own experiences" as they are continuously condescending, silly and/or offensive. If felt like reading a blog of a person that went to a country once and is coming back to tell you stories.
Seriously, you can get a better understanding of Ukrainian history if you read Wikipedia on Ukraine, Poland and Russia, as the histories are entwined. This thing - it's as good as quotes it contains.
If anyone knows a good book on Ukrainian history (in English, Polish or French) please let me know, I now regret transporting this one with me when I moved. Thought I was bringing a piece of history of my family with me, ended up with annoying crap.
February 4, 2021
Bardzo ciekawa, skondensowana do najważniejszych wydarzeń, historia narodu żyjącego przez większość swojej historii między rosyjskim młotem, a polskim kowadłem. Reid pisze w bardzo przystępny i lekki sposób, nie jest to typowa książka historyczna pisana językiem naukowym, wielką jej zaletą jest kompozycja, świetnie prowadząca nas od X w. do teraźniejszości za pomocą odniesień geograficznych dzisiejszej Ukrainy. Dużym plusem tego wydania jest jego druga część weryfikująca przewidywania autorki z lat 90 po upadku Związku Sowieckiego, choć części tej jest już dużo bliżej do typowego reportażu. Autorka nie boi się śmiałych tez, wydaje się być obiektywna, mimo nieskrywanej sympatii do Ukraińców. Życzyłbym sobie przeczytać równie dobre książki o pozostałych naszych sąsiadach, szczególnie o Białorusi, bo jest to świetny punkt wyjścia do ich zrozumienia i szerszego postrzegania dzisiejszych wydarzeń.
July 17, 2022
I found this a very readable account of Ukraine’s history, driven by its geography.
Over the centuries it has been invaded and occupied by every empire around it - the Lithuanian-Polish, Hapsburg, Byzantine/Ottoman and, of course, Russia.
Most occupations were partial, leading to two different ethnicities/cultures occupying the land we now know as Ukraine. The western provinces, occupied by Poland and Austria/Hungary, were mostly Catholic and the eastern provinces were more influenced by Constantinople/Istanbul, are mainly Orthodox and more closely linked to Russia.
Ukraine’s independence has been very short lived and we now see Russia determined to bring the territory back under its direct rule. Mercilessly, ruthlessly.
It doesn’t matter that the book was originally written in the early 2000s and updated in 2014. The history and the issues remain the same. The tragedy for the people of Ukraine continues.
Over the centuries it has been invaded and occupied by every empire around it - the Lithuanian-Polish, Hapsburg, Byzantine/Ottoman and, of course, Russia.
Most occupations were partial, leading to two different ethnicities/cultures occupying the land we now know as Ukraine. The western provinces, occupied by Poland and Austria/Hungary, were mostly Catholic and the eastern provinces were more influenced by Constantinople/Istanbul, are mainly Orthodox and more closely linked to Russia.
Ukraine’s independence has been very short lived and we now see Russia determined to bring the territory back under its direct rule. Mercilessly, ruthlessly.
It doesn’t matter that the book was originally written in the early 2000s and updated in 2014. The history and the issues remain the same. The tragedy for the people of Ukraine continues.
February 18, 2013
Quite a brilliant book . First I learned that Ukraine only ever been independent once and that it was from after the collapse of the soviet union . The horrors of the terrible famine 1931 -1932 are well told. Along the way we learn about the Cossacks, the tartars and other groups who lived these lands. It has many bloody battles and massacres throughout its history such as that took place during the Civil war of 1918-1920 and the eastern front in World War II . The chapter on the Chernobyl incident is shocking . But throughout there is a also a lot of wit . The author Anna Reid is magnificent. All and all this is a great read.
October 12, 2016
It's rare to find a book about a country that is so well set out, full of antidotes, opinions and characters. Originally written in 1995, this 2015 edition has 70 new pages.
It's not a long tedious read. The early chapters take a part of the Ukraine, give it's history and relate it to a current issue. The relationships with it's neighbours, the question of what is a Ukrainian, and where the country is heading to are all thoughtfully and interestingly covered.
I had little knowledge of Ukraine (other than it's time as part of the USSR) so can't compare this book with others. But it was full of interest and revealed what a complex world we live in.
It's not a long tedious read. The early chapters take a part of the Ukraine, give it's history and relate it to a current issue. The relationships with it's neighbours, the question of what is a Ukrainian, and where the country is heading to are all thoughtfully and interestingly covered.
I had little knowledge of Ukraine (other than it's time as part of the USSR) so can't compare this book with others. But it was full of interest and revealed what a complex world we live in.
December 17, 2016
Anna Reid is to Ukraine what Rebecca West is to the Balkans, a unique historian with both knowledge and insight. Although the form is not that of a travelogue, each chapter covers an idea, a period or an event by refering to a city, or a place in particular. It is recounted by someone who knows Ukraine from within, having resided there as a correspondent, who travelled east and west, and very well documented. For the most part, the book has been written in 1997, but this revised and updated edition (2015) includes an entire second part focused on the orange and euromaidan revolution.
August 21, 2012
So you think you know about Ukraine? This is an interesting introduction to the brutal history of Ukraine and how the borders have changed over centuries. How Ukraine was born out of part of Poland and Imperial Russia.
This is a well written and evocative book about Ukraine and I would recommend this as a starting point if you are interested in Eastern European history.
This is a well written and evocative book about Ukraine and I would recommend this as a starting point if you are interested in Eastern European history.
November 16, 2022
A highly readable account of the history of Ukraine, as told by the writer as she travels through various cities and towns throughout Ukraine in the early 1990s. I found it both enjoyable and sad at the same time, and most especially in light of the current situation of Russia's attack on Ukraine.
March 24, 2022
Borderland was recommended by my Ukrainian colleagues as the best book for conveying a sense of the similarities and differences in culture, values and national aspirations of Ukrainians and Russians. It is a really well-written account of Ukraine's past and present, its geography and its people. Reid is a both a journalist for the Economist and the Daily Telegraph, and scholar of Russian history, so this account blends the historical narrative with a sort of travel writer feel full of interviews and conversations with pro-democracy activists and pro-Russia militiamen, peasants and miners, survivors of Hitler's Holocaust and Stalin's famine.
The first 3/4 of the book were written in the mid-1990's, after the breakup of the Soviet Union and at the dawn of Ukraine's independence. The last section picked up again in 2015, after the Maidan Uprising and Putin's subsequent annexation of Crimea and the war in the Donbas. I was struck by how prescient her predictions were of how things might play out after both sections. At one point she lays out a best case/worst case scenario for Ukrainian-Russian relations, and unfortunately, it appears we got the worst case.
Be forewarned, the chapters on the the Stalin-induced famine of 1932 and the German invasion of 1941 are so horrific as to be almost unreadable. The statistics are staggering
* 1929-1933: Twelve million 'kulaks' deported
* 1933: Five million peasants die of starvation
* 1937-1939: Stalin's purges (perhaps one million killed)
* 1941: German occupation - about seven million killed
A few of my notes:
‘Ukraine is not dead yet’ is the less-then-inspiring opening line of the present-day Ukrainian national anthem.
Russians have still not accepted, deep in their hearts, that Ukraine is a legitimate phenomenon,
Zbigniew Brzezinski writes that ‘without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire, but with Ukraine suborned and then subordinated, Russia automatically becomes an empire.’ - This seems to be at the heart of what is motivating Russia today.
The West’s role should be to slap down any renewed Russian pretensions to empire.
Ukrainians’ worst nightmare is that Putin makes a grab for the whole of the Russian-speaking south and east, perhaps even launches his army at Kiev.
The Maidan – now often called the ‘the revolution of dignity’ – was not about ethnicity, language or history. It was about values we all share.
From the late fourteenth century until Russia took its first big bite out of the Commonwealth in the mid seventeenth, nearly the whole territory of present-day Ukraine, including Kiev, was ruled from the Polish royal capital of Krakow. - Throughout their history, there is just a dizzying amount of complexity of political control. Russia, Poland, Austria. Ukraine itself is visualized variously as Ukrainians, Galicia, Ruthenia, or Little Russia.
The first 3/4 of the book were written in the mid-1990's, after the breakup of the Soviet Union and at the dawn of Ukraine's independence. The last section picked up again in 2015, after the Maidan Uprising and Putin's subsequent annexation of Crimea and the war in the Donbas. I was struck by how prescient her predictions were of how things might play out after both sections. At one point she lays out a best case/worst case scenario for Ukrainian-Russian relations, and unfortunately, it appears we got the worst case.
Be forewarned, the chapters on the the Stalin-induced famine of 1932 and the German invasion of 1941 are so horrific as to be almost unreadable. The statistics are staggering
* 1929-1933: Twelve million 'kulaks' deported
* 1933: Five million peasants die of starvation
* 1937-1939: Stalin's purges (perhaps one million killed)
* 1941: German occupation - about seven million killed
A few of my notes:
‘Ukraine is not dead yet’ is the less-then-inspiring opening line of the present-day Ukrainian national anthem.
Russians have still not accepted, deep in their hearts, that Ukraine is a legitimate phenomenon,
Zbigniew Brzezinski writes that ‘without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire, but with Ukraine suborned and then subordinated, Russia automatically becomes an empire.’ - This seems to be at the heart of what is motivating Russia today.
The West’s role should be to slap down any renewed Russian pretensions to empire.
Ukrainians’ worst nightmare is that Putin makes a grab for the whole of the Russian-speaking south and east, perhaps even launches his army at Kiev.
The Maidan – now often called the ‘the revolution of dignity’ – was not about ethnicity, language or history. It was about values we all share.
From the late fourteenth century until Russia took its first big bite out of the Commonwealth in the mid seventeenth, nearly the whole territory of present-day Ukraine, including Kiev, was ruled from the Polish royal capital of Krakow. - Throughout their history, there is just a dizzying amount of complexity of political control. Russia, Poland, Austria. Ukraine itself is visualized variously as Ukrainians, Galicia, Ruthenia, or Little Russia.
September 21, 2011
While there are certainly some interesting facts on Ukrainian history in this book, the author's research is lacking. The first chapter skims over hundreds of years of Ukrainian history while offering no real insight into any era of it. Her observations of "present-day Ukraine," while interesting, are no longer representative of modern-day Ukraine, and the book is not even 5 years old. The book reads more like a journal article than a history book, which makes for quick reading, but that may also be attributable to lack of depth.
This book is decent if you know nothing about Ukraine or Ukrainian history and want an intro. If you know anything about Ukraine today or Ukrainian history, skip it.
This book is decent if you know nothing about Ukraine or Ukrainian history and want an intro. If you know anything about Ukraine today or Ukrainian history, skip it.
August 21, 2011
Once I knew that I was going to Ukraine, I started looking for books about Europe's largest country but much to my chagrin, there is not much to choose from and definitely not very many books that aren't sort of more academic books. Borderland is a wonderful book and definitely seeks to fill the void. I learned so much from this book and was even able to pass on some of what I learned to my friend who has lived in Ukraine for the past two years. This is Ukraine in easily digestible pieces.
March 8, 2022
This is a light-touch and basic history of Ukraine, providing a very broad survey with enough focus on the different aspects of Ukrainian history and just enough charm to see the reader through.
The approach of taking a place (Kyiv, Crimea, Odessa etc) and combining aspects of travelogue and vox pops with locals before diving into its history (and relation to wider Ukrainian history in a generally chronological historical narrative) is an effective means of drawing the reader in and connecting the reader with the past.
Probably the most frustrating aspect about the book is its tendency to make broad-brush statements and unbalanced assessments indicative of the author’s liberal-centrist outlook.
For example, while stating the foreign autocratic Hapsburg rule over Lviv and the region of Galicia was relatively ‘indulgent’, a page or two later the author acknowledges that in the late 19th century every year 50,000 people in the province died of malnutrition, and only one in two children reached the age of five; but ‘the population grew regardless’ and ‘the Ukrainian national movement was able to take root and flourish.’
Such an approach is not especially different from a more honest species of Stalinist apologism, except in their case they are downplaying a much bigger body-count in a much shorter timeframe during Soviet Ukraine’s hungry 1930s, and point to later achievements in health, welfare and education (not agriculture notably, which from the 30s onward always lagged behind much of the rest of Soviet economy) to excuse such earlier policies.
‘Indulgent’ is not a word the author would use to describe any period of Soviet rule in Ukraine, including in its most peaceful and prosperous period - despite the low-level and sometimes more significant relapses into the persecution of Ukrainian dissidents, like of literary critic and dissident communist Ivan Dzyuba who criticised the USSR’s nationality policies, or the Ukrainian general Petro Hryhorenko, who took up the cause of the Crimean Tatars as his own and suffered for it, and so on - that managed considerably better with dramatically improved living standards indicative of a modern and developed industrial society than that particular time, or probably any other time under Austrian control (early 1960s to late 1970s/early 1980s or so).
Soviet buildings and sanatoriums, for example, are uniformly described as ‘drab’; recent art books focusing on Ukrainian Soviet mosaics that adorned various public buildings illustrate considerable evidence to the contrary.
If only privatisation could be fully let loose, such drabness and backwardness in parts of Ukraine that continued into the 90s when she visited could finally be put to an end!
Ukraine could finally enter the contemporary world, and become just like Poland - a modern, liberal, and cosmopolitan European country; such assertions are particularly indicative of a liberal 90s myopia (even though the section where such assertions are made - Poland as ‘flourishing, law-abiding, genuinely democratic’ - are in an updated 2015 version of the book).
The author fails to anticipate the incoming right-wing nationalist and populist turn in Poland under the Law and Justice party elected in 2015, and its combined hostility to certain laws and regulations of the EU - and to elementary aspects of contemporary liberal society like a basic respect for, let alone the institutionalisation of LGBTQIA+ rights at the legal level.
To get someone interested in Ukraine, a book like this does the job, and its quick-moving narrative prevents it from getting bogged down in the sometimes substantial complexities and contradictions of Ukrainian history.
But it is only a halting start, and must be followed up with a range of other texts for those who want a much deeper and more in-depth engagement with the history of Ukraine.
The approach of taking a place (Kyiv, Crimea, Odessa etc) and combining aspects of travelogue and vox pops with locals before diving into its history (and relation to wider Ukrainian history in a generally chronological historical narrative) is an effective means of drawing the reader in and connecting the reader with the past.
Probably the most frustrating aspect about the book is its tendency to make broad-brush statements and unbalanced assessments indicative of the author’s liberal-centrist outlook.
For example, while stating the foreign autocratic Hapsburg rule over Lviv and the region of Galicia was relatively ‘indulgent’, a page or two later the author acknowledges that in the late 19th century every year 50,000 people in the province died of malnutrition, and only one in two children reached the age of five; but ‘the population grew regardless’ and ‘the Ukrainian national movement was able to take root and flourish.’
Such an approach is not especially different from a more honest species of Stalinist apologism, except in their case they are downplaying a much bigger body-count in a much shorter timeframe during Soviet Ukraine’s hungry 1930s, and point to later achievements in health, welfare and education (not agriculture notably, which from the 30s onward always lagged behind much of the rest of Soviet economy) to excuse such earlier policies.
‘Indulgent’ is not a word the author would use to describe any period of Soviet rule in Ukraine, including in its most peaceful and prosperous period - despite the low-level and sometimes more significant relapses into the persecution of Ukrainian dissidents, like of literary critic and dissident communist Ivan Dzyuba who criticised the USSR’s nationality policies, or the Ukrainian general Petro Hryhorenko, who took up the cause of the Crimean Tatars as his own and suffered for it, and so on - that managed considerably better with dramatically improved living standards indicative of a modern and developed industrial society than that particular time, or probably any other time under Austrian control (early 1960s to late 1970s/early 1980s or so).
Soviet buildings and sanatoriums, for example, are uniformly described as ‘drab’; recent art books focusing on Ukrainian Soviet mosaics that adorned various public buildings illustrate considerable evidence to the contrary.
If only privatisation could be fully let loose, such drabness and backwardness in parts of Ukraine that continued into the 90s when she visited could finally be put to an end!
Ukraine could finally enter the contemporary world, and become just like Poland - a modern, liberal, and cosmopolitan European country; such assertions are particularly indicative of a liberal 90s myopia (even though the section where such assertions are made - Poland as ‘flourishing, law-abiding, genuinely democratic’ - are in an updated 2015 version of the book).
The author fails to anticipate the incoming right-wing nationalist and populist turn in Poland under the Law and Justice party elected in 2015, and its combined hostility to certain laws and regulations of the EU - and to elementary aspects of contemporary liberal society like a basic respect for, let alone the institutionalisation of LGBTQIA+ rights at the legal level.
To get someone interested in Ukraine, a book like this does the job, and its quick-moving narrative prevents it from getting bogged down in the sometimes substantial complexities and contradictions of Ukrainian history.
But it is only a halting start, and must be followed up with a range of other texts for those who want a much deeper and more in-depth engagement with the history of Ukraine.
December 15, 2015
This book is written by an outsider. Many of the negative reviews here are from aggrieved people looking for their version of Ukraine history. The author is not trying to promote one aggrieved party version of history. As an outsider like Anna Reid, I liked her approach. Its a small book covering a big topic, but the author does manage to paint a detailed picture of the sad 20th century in Ukrainian history. I read this book during my recent six weeks in the Ukraine. Ukrainians are digging out from the ashes of the last 100 years. The future looks bright. I found myself thinking if the Ukraine can stay free and avoid a repeat of the disastrous wars of the last century, they could be a first-world nation in a generation or less.
March 24, 2020
Was thinking of giving it 3 stars, but then I was rushing to get to the end of the book, and not in a good way. I found it dry in most places. It talked a lottttt about Russia and Russians. I also spotted a few inaccurate facts (Robert Maxwell famously drowned off the Canaries, not in the Mediterranean!). Probably a good read for if you're travelling around Ukraine and aren't familiar with its particularly bleak recent history, but I still have a couple of books lined up that are dedicated to specific moments there... hopefully they'll satisfy me more.
March 5, 2023
Zatiaľ jednoznačne najlepšia kniha o Ukrajine akú som čítal.
May 24, 2022
"This time, the Ukrainians' journey looks like having a happier ending. After a thousand years of one of the the bloodiest histories in the world, they surely deserve it"
This is the final sentence of the first part of the book written in the 90s and it just breaks one's heart. The original book is really good. The history is well divided in time as well as in regions. We get to know more about each area of Ukraine, their history and their "present" (in the 90s).
Knowing the "future" makes it interesting to see how the author was predicting it will work out. As we see she had some positive expectations but she also looked in the less optimistic outcome and Russia's interest in Crimea as well as an option of Donbass separatists. This already shows that the book is intelligent and reliable.
The second part was added in 2015. It gives a look at the corruption of Ukrainian presidents as well as people's fight against it: Orange Revolution and Maidan as well as Russia's first attack taking Crimea and starting the conflict in Donbass. I was more familiar with this than Ukraine in pre-USSR times and can say that it was accurate. It was also well described to better understand for people who don't know what is going on right now.
If anyone is interested in history of Ukraine this is a book I would definitely recommend.
This is the final sentence of the first part of the book written in the 90s and it just breaks one's heart. The original book is really good. The history is well divided in time as well as in regions. We get to know more about each area of Ukraine, their history and their "present" (in the 90s).
Knowing the "future" makes it interesting to see how the author was predicting it will work out. As we see she had some positive expectations but she also looked in the less optimistic outcome and Russia's interest in Crimea as well as an option of Donbass separatists. This already shows that the book is intelligent and reliable.
The second part was added in 2015. It gives a look at the corruption of Ukrainian presidents as well as people's fight against it: Orange Revolution and Maidan as well as Russia's first attack taking Crimea and starting the conflict in Donbass. I was more familiar with this than Ukraine in pre-USSR times and can say that it was accurate. It was also well described to better understand for people who don't know what is going on right now.
If anyone is interested in history of Ukraine this is a book I would definitely recommend.
April 26, 2012
Amazing book that covers the full gamut of Ukrainian history from Kievan Rus, through Cossack 16th - 18th centuries, on to WWII, into modern times and Chernobyl, right through the year 2000. The author's personal affection for the people of Ukraine is obvious from the outset, but she does not let this cloud her holistic picture of the Ukrainian nation and people, in which she relates the beautiful and the horrific in equal measure. Tough pragmatic survivors of Soviet collectivism-induced famines, and heartless collaborators in Nazi WWII genocide. A people who are willing to find national identity in the Ukrainian poetic mastery of Taras Shevchenko on one hand, and yet whose leaders allow thousands and thousands of their own die as they try to cover up the disaster of the Chernobyl meltdown. Her exploration of the difficult issue of Ukrainians' identity as separate or linked to Russia, Poland, and/or Germany at various times in their history unifies the narrative under the compelling larger concept of people who have always been "on the borders," are not exactly sure of who precisely they are -- or to whom they owe their loyalty -- and are just now discovering themselves as an independent and unique people. I only wish this book could have been written 6-8 years later after we'd seen the Orange Revolution, the poisoning and recovery of Viktor Yushchenko, and the rise and fall of the dynamic and beautiful Yulia Tymoshenko.
Read
August 30, 2014Fine and readable, but really very basic. Not at all an academic book. The anecdotes from the collapse of the 90s are funny/painful, when I realize my grandparents must have gone through all that. The optimism going forward is...also funny painful, given that a cynical, worst-case guess at Ukraine's future - an impoverished chaos torn between Russia and Europe - only barely scratches at how bad the situation really is, as the one thing Reid seems confident about is that country certainly wouldn't break up. Yeah.
The thing is, every time i'm in the Ukraine, i'm struck by how rich it is in many ways. So much space, so much water, so much green. Educated population, extant (if crumbling) modern infrastructure, medical system, education system. This isn't some patch of desert or somewhere that has never gotten out of subsistence agriculture - it just tumbled back there. I always get vaguely angry there, almost. Like, what's your excuse, huh, you ridiculously vast expanse of stuff? I guess I need a more in depth book for that.
The thing is, every time i'm in the Ukraine, i'm struck by how rich it is in many ways. So much space, so much water, so much green. Educated population, extant (if crumbling) modern infrastructure, medical system, education system. This isn't some patch of desert or somewhere that has never gotten out of subsistence agriculture - it just tumbled back there. I always get vaguely angry there, almost. Like, what's your excuse, huh, you ridiculously vast expanse of stuff? I guess I need a more in depth book for that.
September 20, 2015
A terrific, highly accessible history of Ukraine which has been updated to include recent events right up until early 2015 and cleverly uses a visit to various cities and towns within the country to launch into narratives of the past. There is just so much that is important and sections on the Ukraine's Jews, Communism and its general buffeting between rival powers are all very well told.
Reid also explores the origins of what it means to be Ukrainian and it left this reader none the more decided on the arguments that are currently causing such bother - that myth and legend are used to certify what is remains a pity and one is left to yet again contemplate the trouble the concept of the nation state has caused. I found myself disagreeing slightly with Reid in the final chapters as her welcome for untrammeled capitalism is as enthusiastic as you would expect of a columnist for The Spectator but it's a sign of a good book that I would still provide it with an unhesitating endorsement.
Reid also explores the origins of what it means to be Ukrainian and it left this reader none the more decided on the arguments that are currently causing such bother - that myth and legend are used to certify what is remains a pity and one is left to yet again contemplate the trouble the concept of the nation state has caused. I found myself disagreeing slightly with Reid in the final chapters as her welcome for untrammeled capitalism is as enthusiastic as you would expect of a columnist for The Spectator but it's a sign of a good book that I would still provide it with an unhesitating endorsement.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 241 reviews