Scan barcode
liann24's review against another edition
5.0
Essential to understanding the Russians today...an ongoing historical issue...who are they? Do they even know?
vilshanskyd's review against another edition
challenging
emotional
informative
reflective
sad
medium-paced
5.0
rc90041's review against another edition
4.0
I'm finally done. I've been reading this book for three months. Don't get me wrong: It's an excellent book, and an incredibly important one. It's prescient in seeing the impossibility of Russia smoothly transitioning from the single-party rule of the Communist Party to a type of liberal Western democracy, and in forecasting the dark allure of autocracy and authoritarianism to a people who lived for so long, unfree, under an empire they learned to be proud of.
This book is a work of journalism, not history. Remnick was there in 1991 as the Communist Party came to an end in Russia. The book was published in 1993, with an afterword added in 1994. Remnick was too close to the events to be able to write a history; he was an observer, recording historic events as they happened. There's an important difference. The journalistic work here is excellent, but sometimes suffers from a lack of perspective and proportion. For example, Remnick was a reporter in Moscow for the Washington Post, so he ends up being disproportionately interested in Russian papers and journals, and giving us more details than we really need about them. The book is long, perhaps too long, in large part because it's packed with detail about events and characters; it's just not clear how much of that detail remains relevant as we move further away from the events recorded in the book. That is the difference in a work of history: which details are important becomes clearer with distance from the events.
I'm very glad I read this book. It's a crucial work about a critical historical event: the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the twentieth century. It's a dense, long book, but one that is rich with detail and insight that help explain how Russia has become what it is today: an autocratic state run by an authoritarian leader who promises a people still mourning their mighty empire renewed greatness, security, and strength.
This book is a work of journalism, not history. Remnick was there in 1991 as the Communist Party came to an end in Russia. The book was published in 1993, with an afterword added in 1994. Remnick was too close to the events to be able to write a history; he was an observer, recording historic events as they happened. There's an important difference. The journalistic work here is excellent, but sometimes suffers from a lack of perspective and proportion. For example, Remnick was a reporter in Moscow for the Washington Post, so he ends up being disproportionately interested in Russian papers and journals, and giving us more details than we really need about them. The book is long, perhaps too long, in large part because it's packed with detail about events and characters; it's just not clear how much of that detail remains relevant as we move further away from the events recorded in the book. That is the difference in a work of history: which details are important becomes clearer with distance from the events.
I'm very glad I read this book. It's a crucial work about a critical historical event: the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the twentieth century. It's a dense, long book, but one that is rich with detail and insight that help explain how Russia has become what it is today: an autocratic state run by an authoritarian leader who promises a people still mourning their mighty empire renewed greatness, security, and strength.
nikita_barsukov's review against another edition
5.0
Amazing feat of book-length journalism, this work provides a fascinating read, particularly as the Russian invasion in Ukraine continues to rage. A particularly revealing aspect is the author's firsthand description of the emergence of the Russian far-right during the collapse of the Soviet Union. Additionally, the sketches of well-known present-day figures who began their careers in the aftermath of the empire's demise are truly eyebrow-raising.
However, one caveat should be noted. If you are seeking an introduction to the collapse of the Soviet Union, this may not be the ideal choice. This book is quite lengthy and was primarily written as the events were unfolding, assuming that the reader possesses some knowledge of the context, main characters, and related details. If you already have a solid understanding of the background, this book will undoubtedly provide a captivating exploration of the subject matter.
However, one caveat should be noted. If you are seeking an introduction to the collapse of the Soviet Union, this may not be the ideal choice. This book is quite lengthy and was primarily written as the events were unfolding, assuming that the reader possesses some knowledge of the context, main characters, and related details. If you already have a solid understanding of the background, this book will undoubtedly provide a captivating exploration of the subject matter.
scarletohhara's review against another edition
4.0
I am obsessed by the rise and fall of USSR, especially the fall. I have wanted to learn how the various states were behaving under Moscow's rule, how the control was maintained and when it ended, how it fared.
Remnick answered almost every question for me.
Definitely recommend this book if you want to learn more about USSR.
Remnick answered almost every question for me.
Definitely recommend this book if you want to learn more about USSR.
nlbullock1's review against another edition
5.0
I loved this book, particularly as it gave me a better insight into the collapse of the Soviet Union and helped me to more fully understand some of the things I observed as a missionary.
mybrilliantbasset's review against another edition
3.0
For those of you who like this kind of book, this is the kind of book you will like ::politely stifles yawn while trying to track different men’s names::
sarapalooza's review against another edition
4.0
What a fantastic book! Remnick gives incredible insight from his time in Russia during the end of the Soviet Union.
chintogtokh's review against another edition
5.0
I suppose it’s hard to digest post-1917 Russian history from an entirely objective point of view as a Mongolian, their histories have been entangled too much. Indeed one thought kept creeping from the back of my mind while reading this book: Mongolia became an independent country for the first time in its history just 25 years ago. 1921 doesn’t count: how can it when its leaders were routinely brought to Moscow for bullet-wounds or forced exile. Before that was the Qing. And before that – an era of stagnation? ennui? Since the death of Ligden in 1634, Mongolia hasn’t been independent in any way shape or form. With authoritarian communism as the only relevant-in-the-modern-age system of government known to Mongolians, with the modern day political parties playing a demented game of musical chairs every election cycle – each one drawing on its organisational structure of the MPP/CPSU – did Mongolia ever have a chance to develop? I suppose the most maddening part of it all is that Mongolia somehow managed to import even its own modern miseries from its “big brother” as well – still not independent.
This book is great, but most interesting from own point of view is its echoes in modern Mongolia (copied from my Kindle clippings):
Venezuelan and Korean soap operas, staples of 90s childhood, somehow still going strong.
Just think of the interactions between Mongols and Inner Mongols.
A description of the road to Zaisan.
Sarandavaa and World Energy Centres, anyone?
“Syncretic” Buddhism.
Aside from these, the snippets of prescience in relation to Putin’s Russia are illuminating, and slightly worrying
And this bit is just great – its interesting to try and relate to the modern Mongolian mindset.
But yeah, read the book. If anything, it has moments of great dry humor (the one who said this apparently completely serious):
More often than not when I called and asked how he was, he would say dryly, “My health is awful. I’m spending the week in a sanatorium. I may die.”
This book is great, but most interesting from own point of view is its echoes in modern Mongolia (copied from my Kindle clippings):
Venezuelan and Korean soap operas, staples of 90s childhood, somehow still going strong.
“I am sure if Nadezhda Mandelstam … would be ruthlessly critical of the inequities and absurdities of politics in post-totalitarian Russia. She would warn of the problem of expecting an injured and isolated people to make a rapid transfer to a way of life that no longer promises cradle-to-grave paternalism. She would, despite her own love of Agatha Christie novels, warn against the new tide of junk culture—the sudden infatuation with Mexican soap operas and American sneakers.”
Just think of the interactions between Mongols and Inner Mongols.
“For all of us, this is the saddest thing. We know nothing of ourselves. We have had in here in our building a Jewish boy, with a Jewish face and appearance. A funny little boy. Another boy came from Central Asia. And there was a fight between the two boys. One mother asked the Jewish boy why he was fighting the Central Asian. The little Jewish boy said, “Because he is not Russian!” The poor child didn’t even understand that he was not Russian either”
A description of the road to Zaisan.
One afternoon, we rode around in Guly’s tiny Moskvich “looking for constituents.” … The roads were generally miserable, but suddenly we found ourselves on a strip as fine as a German autobahn. Guly laughed and said, “You want to know why the road is so smooth? This is the road from Party headquarters downtown to where all the Party big shots had their dachas. They wanted a good road for themselves, and that’s all there was to it. Presto! It was built! As for the rest of us …”
Sarandavaa and World Energy Centres, anyone?
The sixth-century historian Agathias recalled “charlatans and self-appointed prophets roaming the streets” after an earthquake in Byzantium. “Society,” he wrote, “never fails to throw up a bewildering variety of such persons in times of misfortune.” In the last years of the czarist regime, Rasputin, an illiterate Siberian, convinced the Romanovs of his magical powers. The royal family was sure Rasputin was curing the heir to the throne of his hemophilia.
“Syncretic” Buddhism.
“With the Russian people,” he said, “Christianity is superficial. They are largely pagan. They observe rituals without understanding the essence. Under the political situation today, mysticism increases, and with such a low cultural level it acquires outrageous forms.”
Aside from these, the snippets of prescience in relation to Putin’s Russia are illuminating, and slightly worrying
The historian Yuri Afanasyev, a deputy now in the Russian parliament, told me he thought the Russian scene was one of dangerous flux. “The old system will never regain its shape, but all kinds of possibilities exist for the future of Russia,” he said. “We could look like South Korea, or, say, Latin America with a taint of Sicily. It is a far from sure thing that we will resemble the developed Western democracies. The pull of the state sector, the authoritarian tug, is still a very dangerous thing. Fascism, in the form of national socialism, is a major threat. And it is finding supporters not only in the lunatic fringe, but in the alleged center. The Russian consciousness has always been flawed by a yearning for expansion and a fear of contraction. Unfortunately the history of Russia is the history of growth. This is a powerful image in the Russian soul, the idea of breadth as wealth, the more the better. But the truth is that such expansion has always depleted Russian power and wealth. Berdyaev was right when he said that Russia was always crippled by its expanse.”
Many influential liberals in politics, such as Yeltsin’s former adviser Galina Staravoitova, feel that Russia’s economic failure and wounded self-esteem are so profound and combustible that the rise of a charismatic authoritarian movement in Russia cannot be ruled out. “One cannot exclude the possibility of a fascist period in Russia,” Staravoitova said on the radio station Echo of Moscow. “We can see too many parallels between Russia’s current situation and that of Germany after the Versailles Treaty. A great nation is humiliated, and many of its nationals live outside the country’s borders. The disintegration of an empire has taken place at a time when many people still have an imperialist mentality.… All this is happening at a time of economic crisis.”
And this bit is just great – its interesting to try and relate to the modern Mongolian mindset.
And so they staked their lives on a new Russia and tried to understand the pathology of the old. “Igor would quote Paul Tillich, who said there are two great fears: the fear of death and the fear of vastness, senselessness,” Seriozha said. “Death and suffering are the same for all, but senselessness means different things in different cultures. Europe chose the undeniability of death as a principle, refusing to construct anything everlasting, so life ends with the end of life and is senseless. Previous old cultures and modern Oriental cultures chose another explanation. One possibility is to create something that lasts forever, a form of eternity. So we are together and there is no death. When some cells in an organism die in one organ, the organism still lives on, because it is social and not individual. The problem of death is solved. The idea that the ego has borders that are the same as the borders of the self is a new idea; it began with Descartes’s idea ‘I think, therefore I am.’ If you ask a representative of old Roman culture or European medieval culture, ‘Does human life coincide with the life of one man?’ he’d say no.
“This was the case with Russian culture. And in Russia, this medieval mind-set has lasted until very recently. The serfs in Europe were liberated in the mid-fifteenth century, but it happened in Russia in the mid-nineteenth century. The idea of community was more important; that way the physical unit lasted eternally. The idea that the individual was of absolute value appeared in Russia only in the nineteenth century via Western influences, but it was stunted because there was no civic society. This is why human rights was never an issue. The principle was set out very clearly by Metropolitan Illarion in the eleventh century in his ‘Sermon on Law and Grace,’ in which he makes clear that grace is higher than law; you see the same thing today in our great nationalists like Prokhanov—their version of grace is higher than the law. The law is somehow inhuman, abstract. The attempts to revise this principle were defeated. The Russian Revolution was a reaction of absolute simplification. Russia found its simplistic and fanatic response and conquered its support. What we are living through now is a breakthrough. We are leaving the Middle Ages.”
But yeah, read the book. If anything, it has moments of great dry humor (the one who said this apparently completely serious):
More often than not when I called and asked how he was, he would say dryly, “My health is awful. I’m spending the week in a sanatorium. I may die.”