The New Cold War: Putin's Russia and the Threat to the West

That this book was hastened to press is evident from the numerous typos that occasionally blunder over into silly factual errors (Henry Truman, Kirgistan). The prose is also, while engaging, at times under-edited. Yet one wants to overlook these shortcomings, as Edward Lucas is an important and influential observer of things Russian, having served for several years as the Economist magazine's bureau chief in Moscow.

Drawing on this experience, Lucas recounts a decade of Russian domestic and foreign policy crises, arguing that Russia is a dangerous foe, bullying its neighbors, cornering natural resource markets, crushing internal dissent and defrauding foreign investors. "Repression at home is matched by aggression abroad," Lucas writes. "Russia is reverting to behavior last seen during the Soviet era," yet now it is not "the Kremlin's tanks thundering into Afghanistan that signal[s] the West's weakness; now it is Kremlin banks thundering through the city of London."

Yet, Lucas notes that, while Russia's "tactics are increasingly clear and effective... the goal is still puzzling." Imputing intent from actions, he concludes that Russia "...wants to be respected, trusted, and liked, but will not act in a way that gains respect, nurtures trust, or wins affection. It settles for being noticed - even when that comes as a result of behavior that alienates and intimidates other countries. It compensates for real weakness by showing pretend strength." In short, we should be worried about Russia because it is reasserting itself in the world, and it is doing so with methods that scorn (or undermine) the cherished values of Western Liberal Societies: free trade, primacy of individual liberties, the rule of law.

Fair enough. The facts of the Putinera events are presented well. And his argument is logical. Yet flawed. For none of these things are certainties: that a richer, more emboldened Russia will threaten international stability, that Russia will become more authoritarian over time, rather than less, that Russian civil or commercial interests will continue to quietly acquiesce in the erosion of civil liberties, that Russian actions over the past decade are part of a coordinated Eastern Front in a New Cold War.

This latter is the weakest leg of Lucas' argument. Many Russian actions internally and externally over this period have been reprehensible. But to assert that those actions belie an orchestrated intent is to give Russian policymakers more credit than is their due.

In fact, events seem to show nothing so much as that Russia is blundering about blindly in its foreign policy. There is no wizard behind the Kremlin curtain, shaping a cohesive international plan. Indeed, The New Cold War is a ruthless cataloguing of Russia's nearly unbroken string of foreign policy failures since 2000: Chechnya, Estonia, Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia... Lucas repeatedly shows how Russia has overplayed its hand in its attempts to influence and cajole its neighbors, in the end assenting to an outcome it initially insisted was untenable (e.g. the current missile defense debate). Russia, Lucas writes, "is too weak to have a truly effective independent foreign policy, but it is too disgruntled and neurotic to have a sensible and constructive one."

So which is it? Should Russian foreign policy make us tremble with fear or with laughter? Maybe both. Lucas' treatment of domestic issues suffers from the same disconnect. Recounting the decline of pluralism and a free press, and the rise of corruption and statism in business,

Lucas forecasts gloom and doom while at the same time pointing out the massive inefficiencies of state-run enterprises. It is not clear: are the behemoths taking over the economy or teetering on the brink of collapse? And if one believes (as Lucas seems to) that modern commerce needs a free and open society to survive, how can one not have confidence in the power of the market to eventually overrun any government gates that hem it in?

The mind yearns for simple, logical explanations. But it is not always good to give the mind what it wants. Sometimes it is best to accept complexity and not try to explain irrational behavior with logical arguments. Recommendation: Read this book for its superb account of the Putin era, but overlook its typographical and theoretical errors. (Reviewed in Russian Life)

I remember those heady days of the late 1980s and early 1990s - seeing Boris Yelsin standing on the tank defying would-be dictators, seeing meaningful moves towards peace in Europe, Jesus Jones singing, "watching the world wake up from history." And, then it all started to go wrong. Rigged elections in Russia, the rise of vicious robber barons, the seeming takeover by members of the old KGB, the squelching of freedom of speech, the murder of a Russian dissident in London with radioactive polonium-210. What has happened in Russia, where does it stand now and where is it going?

In this fascinating and highly informative book, British author and journalist Edward Lucas answers those very questions. The book traces Vladimir Putin's rise to power and how he has ruled in Russia, and then it looks at what Russia is doing now, and what it means for the West. In the final chapter, he suggests steps the West should take to protect itself from the newly aggressive Russia with its "divide and rule" tactics.

Overall, I found this book to be very informative read. While it is possible, even likely, that the author has overstated the threat caused by Putin's Russia, I found that much of what I already know about Russia squares perfectly with what Mr. Lucas says in this book. Therefore, if you want to understand where Russia is today, and where it is trying to go, then I would strongly recommend that you read this book.

This book is the best I have read to make one understand the current relationship with the New Russia. Americans need to understand and come up to date on the attitude of the Russian leadership at this point. As long as oil is priced high, Russia will have the money to feed their economy and will contend with the United States in that part of the world. They will continue to be an enemy in our relations with Iran and will do everything they can to undermind our efforts. Putin is still very much operating as an old KGB operative with that mind set.

I read this book because I would like to add a Russian component to the masters thesis I am working on, and thought it would give me good background. Alas, while the book was an entertaining read, it is practically useless academically. Mr Lucas' prose drips with outrage and disdain toward Russia's leaders--and I sometimes got the feeling that his attitude extends toward all Russian people. Although I don't have a deep background in this field, it was pretty obvious that Mr Lucas glosses over very complicated events in order to substantiate his own rather simplistic argument. The book quotes very few sources and mostly regurgitates events that have already been widely reported on. The author's lack of nuance is the most troubling--everything boils down to Putin/Russia = power/control/corruption/bad--which left me with very little I could use in a serious paper. By the end of the book, I had the impression that I had read a polemic summary of everything bad the mainstream Western media has had to say about Russia over the past couple of years, which might explain why it appears to have gotten so many good reviews from major news outlets.

Mr Lucas may be right, and he certainly has a valid opinion on Russia's politics and the direction the country is going. However, I hope that anyone who would like to read this book understands what it is--the strongly written personal opinion of a journalist who has been covering Russia for a few years. It is certainly not an objective or meticulous study of any aspect of contemporary Russia.

After reading such reviews no wonder West is on alarm on what is going on in Russia.
Russia is a country which has power.
It is understandable US feels threaten, because weak "partner" is always better than a strong partner, in a politic which just declare DEMOCRACY as a true value. There is nothing democratic in US position in jumping all other the world including IRAQ, and showing "them" who has the power.
So, Mister Lucas, before you start writing you book, explore the facts.
Sure, Russians consider Estonians fascists, they act like ones. They give their country to Nascists (is it OK now? Is it Adolf Hitler an American Hero now? Are you rewriting the history to make Hitler look good?) They worship fascists and built memorial in their honor (how democratic was Hitler?) Do you want one? They destroy the memorial built in the honor of Russian Soldier. The soldier, who freed this country from Hitler and his regime, and POOR Estonians lived better than any other republics in FSU. They start begging for Western help when Russia stopped providing for them.
Russians lost 27 millions of soldiers fighting Hitler.
How many American soldiers were lost?
How many houses and businesses in America were destroyed because of Hitler?
How many people suffer from hunger because Hitler's soldiers took food from them?
You, Americans, don't have memory of this war in your country.
Russians have plenty. Think about it. Every family was affected.
If Latvian leader come to Russia and join Mister Bush to celebrate Victory Day, it is not Estonian's, Latvian's or Lithuanian business to criticise Russian politic on this day. It was beyond comprehension watching Bush and President Vaira Vike-Freiberga of Latvia, talking about things which don't belong to this celebration.
Do you think if on 4th of July Mister Putin will come to US and start talking politic, how unfair history was done to natives in this country, how does this would sound? Would it sound supportive of national celebration?
WW2 was not won by Americans. They did not fight on their territory, what year Americans join the rest of the world? Americans were fighting in Pacific, not in Europe, not in Russia. They join others in Berlin and dump the nuke on Japan.
So, please, Mister Lucas, look at that rate poor population and not so poor population reproduce itself here, in America. In Russia people have 1-2 children, in America the number is around 3. Think about it. Every country thinking about future want their citizins to produce offspring. What is wrong with that?
What is wrong with cotton undergarments? American environmentalists seems to enjoy it too.
America is constantly talking about forbidding abortion. This is true democracy on AMERICA's part. Especially in regard to women's rights.
You book belong to humour section (if the facts were not as screwd as you present them), the masses don't need it.