Easy to read and gives a great insight where his is coming from. Double standards of the West, showing strength, Russia's view of itself. Russian leaderships' view of its role etc. I enjoyed it and it has made me interested in reading other biographies. ( )

The author is a former journalist with the BBC, the Economist, and the Times of London so does have the credentials to speak to a knowledge of Putin’s behaviour. He concludes that as long as Putin remains in power, Russia will remain in stagnation and economic collapse and sharper will be the simmering social tension. The author has chosen to ignore the “Budapest Memorandum: an agreement signed in 1994 by Ukraine, Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom committing all parties to assure Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. In the Memorandum, the U.S., Russia, and the UK committed to (1) “respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and (2) “refrain from the threat or use of force” against the country.” Yet he goes into great detail on the similarity of U.S. support of Kosovo is good reason for his annexation of Ukraine. The author is unabashedly sympathetic of Putin, offering reasons for Putin’s anger toward the West: Clinton and the European allies made two decisions that led to Russia’s current state of being: 1) refused to give economic aid during the collapse of the Soviet Union and 2) offered NATO membership to former Warsaw Pact members in Europe and Eastern Europe. Putin vehemently declared Secretary of State James A. Baker III in 1990 promised NATO jurisdiction would not move “one inch to the east.” In fact, Baker did not but Putin is flailing wildly to come up with justification for his invasion of Ukraine. The author’s immensely detailed, and well researched book offer us a more nuanced description of Putin as not being the evil maniac as viewed by some in the West, but a cold, calculating man intent on returning Russia to the status of a major power. ( )

While there is no denying that this is now the standard accounting of Vladimir Putin's life up to his decision to launch a "final solution" to his Ukrainian problem, the reality is that the continuing war leaves this work in indeterminate place. I would say that Short's coverage of the man's early life, up to the fall of the Soviet Union, is probably a must read. However, Short's efforts to depict Putin as a rational statesman, playing for rational gains, are now unconvincing to me. Perhaps Moscow does sustain a stalemate in regards to the current lines of battle. Perhaps Moscow does thread the needle in regards to the economic pit that they have lodged themselves in. Perhaps, and this is the point that Short ends on, Putin does achieve his ambition of breaking the "New World Order" that came to be in the 1990s; whether Moscow is a beneficiary is the live question. ( )