The end of the Cold War has been viewed by many as a time of the end of history, a time in which international systems received a plethora of liberal democracy, however, nothing could be further from the truth. Here Conradi argues that by failing to understand the motives of Russia we have not gained an friend but rather an enemy whilst also luring ourselves into a New Cold War, which we are still enduring today.
''A Person who thinks he can stay in power indefinitely is a danger to society. Russian history shows that monopolising power leads to stagnation or civil war''
''Russians had been duped to believe in the promises of democracy that resulted in a decade of poverty, humiliation and political incompetency''
Reading 'Who Lost Russia?' in a time of political instability in which Russia was waging War with Ukraine was highly insightful as Conradi illustrates the origins of such an aggressive fulcrum in the international sphere. What Conradi does well is his ability to not fall victim to western propaganda and create a balanced account of the relations between the different powers involved in the conflict taking into account those such as Gorbachev, Trump, Bush, and Putin who all offer a range of different ideologies and attitudes towards western and Russian relations. This was significant as we are enlightened to how America's gift of Democracy for Russia did more harm than good with many Russians feeling like their identity had been stripped from them which in return led to anti-western sentiment as Russia became economically reliant on the West due to the failures of the 1990 reform.
Furthermore, Conradi also discusses NATO. For me, this was the most interesting part of the book as we can see how NATO has been a catalyst for the demise of relations. Conradi illustrates how NATO to some extent can be viewed as far more of an 'aggressive' force rather than that defensive. This was significant as he shows how whilst Russian democracy may have been seen as a slight possibility at first it was virtually impossible with NATO, an anti-Russian organization expanding on their borders. A country cannot run a successful democratic state if the state attempting to implement this is isolating the other state from the international community with an organization that was anti-Russian. Such an analysis for me was highly interesting as we also are told about the 'broken promise', how NATO Promised to not move an inch eastwards and yet broke this making close relations with several post-soviet states. Here, Conradi shows how NATO perhaps is not as much of an asset to world order as we think as it was NATO's isolation of Russia which contributed to the failures of democracy and helped architect a new Cold War.
However, Conradi is not ignorant with his approach, not neglecting the horrors of Russia discussing how Ukraine was exposed, exploited, and left vulnerable due to Russian aggression which has been further legitimized today by the war we see around us. He also explains how the mishandled economic reform program of the 1990s, the misreading by the west of Russian openness to western approaches as a permanent change, and the ignorance and hubris the US behaved with in the new 1990's world order led to the loss of Russia. It was not Russian aggression, whilst it did play a part, but rather the west's inability to understand Russia, their ambitions, and their inability to be open to reform. Whilst a conclusion was met and a balanced thesis was granted to the reader the one issue I had was the lack of resolve which was present, it seemed at the end that there was nothing politicians could do to solve the diplomatic tensions around us today. However, such weakness does not outweigh the merit of the book this is because '' who lost Russia'' was perhaps one of the best nonfiction books I have read in regards to Russia. Conradi does not shy away from the negatives of the west and for that, his thesis is informative enlightening Western readers to the nuance between Aggressor and defender in the international sphere.
Comentarios