The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine by Serhii Plokhy

The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine Reviews

• 
  Mikey B.

  I felt with the Putin invasion of Ukraine that I should brush up on Ukrainian history. At over 350 pages this book provides an excellent introduction. Well over half of the book is from the 1800s to 2020.
  
  I did find the early history of Ukraine had many complexities. Some terms seemed interchangeable and confusing in their meaning – Ruthenian, Ukrainian, Galician, Cossacks…
  
  Page 118 my book
  
  Until the end of the eighteenth century, most of Ukraine… would remain divided between Poland and Russia. The division would have profound effects on Ukrainian identity and culture.
  
  Ukrainian history is interwoven with Russia, the Ottoman Empire, Poland. Lithuania, Austro-Hungarian Empire (Galicia) and several other European countries.
  
  The author explains as well the religious intricacies of the Uniate Church (a blend of Orthodox and Catholicism) and Russian Orthodox. There has always been a pull of Ukrainian nationhood towards the West. The brutalization by the Soviet Union to Ukraine culture (and also Eastern European countries and the Baltic countries) encouraged this Western pull. Even with the dominance of Russia/Soviet Union of Ukraine over the centuries, there was always a stirring and simmering of Ukrainian nationalism to form a country.
  
  Throughout its long embattled history Ukraine has formed alliances with several nationalities in attempts to survive – with the Ottoman Empire, Vikings (and then Sweden), Poland (several times), Belarus, Austria, and Germany - and with Russia right on the periphery, believing Ukraine was “Little Rus” and belonging to Russia.
  
  Page 126 Ivan Mazepa 1708
  
  “Moscow, that is the Greater Russian nation, has always been hateful to our Little Russian nation; in its malicious intentions it has long resolved to drive our nation to perdition.”
  
  Page 153 1830s
  
  The [Russian] imperial minister of education Count Sergei Uvarov formulated the foundation of the new Russian imperial identity: autocracy, Orthodoxy, and nationalism… Uvarov’s nationality was not general, but specifically Russian… They gather into one whole the sacred remnants of Russian nationality. That nationality included Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians.
  
  There have always been some Ukrainians who valued their Russian “heritage”. The elites would study in Moscow and St. Petersburg. But many valued their Ukrainian background like Taras Shevchenko (1814 – 1861) – and set the precedents for a growing Ukrainian nationalism and culture.
  
  
  
  Taras Shevchenko Memorial, Washington, D.C.
  
  Page 158
  
  They [Ukrianian writers and poets] envisioned Ukraine as a free republic in a broader Slavic union.
  
  Due to constant repression from several ethnicities, many Ukrainians left for the United States and Canada in the early 1900s – over 600,000. This set up a base for a growing and flourishing diaspora.
  
  The author discusses anti-Semitism, the Holodomor (where close to four million people perished in Ukraine in a famine caused by Stalin), and the devastation caused by the Second World War. There was another famine after World War II when Stalin put priority on industrial development over agriculture. Close to one million died.
  
  Truly this is an area of the world where suffering in the first half of the 20th century was ceaseless.
  
  Ukraine voted overwhelmingly to become a nation in December, 1991. Less than a month later the Soviet Empire dissolved (it had really been dissolving for several years). Since then, Ukraine has been plagued by corruption and greedy oligarchs. And as we all know now, by a Russia and leader who never ceases to believe that Ukraine is part of Russia – and is instrumental to re-building a Russian Empire. It’s no wonder many Ukrainians look to the West for deliverance from Russian imperialism.
• 
  Matt

  While I have long heard that the maternal side of my family came from Ukraine in the 1930s, I was not old enough to ask the poignant questions to those who made the journey while they were still alive. While it is not entirely necessary to understand the political and social rationale, my curiosity has always been quite high to better understand what led these people to flee and settle throughout Saskatchewan, in Canada’s Prairie West. A recent topic in my reading challenge pushed me to explore some of my ancestral roots, which paved the way to better understand Ukraine as a country, a political entity, and a society. While I may not discover all the answers I seek, Serhii Plokhy wrote a fairly comprehensive history of the region, giving me a greater understanding of my ancestral homeland, leaving me many new questions that will have to be answered through further research. Plokhy begins his exploration by discussing the territory that would eventually become Ukraine as being vast and open, unbordered in the modern sense. Various groups settled in the region, leaving their marks, including: Neanderthal mammoth hunters, the Norsemen (Vikings), Cossacks, and various others. These groups sought not necessarily to overtake the territory, but to offer influential marks in defence, arms, and primitive political assembly. Plokhy pushes through the centuries quite effectively, with the Ottomans entering the fray, as well as an early Russian Empire, both squeezing the land that would be called Ukraine in a time. Interestingly enough, the influence of these outsider empires helped formulate a cultural mix and a people who referred to themselves as the Rus’, though a number of other names have been given to these people, as Plokhy discusses for the interested reader. Plokhy goes into much greater detail in the early part of the book about many of the cultural and social entities that wove the early fabric of the Rus’ people, should the reader wish to indulge in this discussion. With politics and geography always evolving, the Rus’ found themselves influenced by these two strong-willed groups as the Hapsburgs came along and laid claim to other European neighbours, adding new and flavourful influences to the region. A seminal event in Ukrainian—and world—history would have to be the Great War, where empires fell and territory was handed out like sweets at a party. The Rus’ people, now seeing themselves as Ukrainians, saw the potential to seek independence during a movement of removing past shackles. Interestingly enough, as the Russian Revolution came to pass, Ukraine sought to declare itself autonomous as well, but did not have the military or political might to stand entirely alone, as they soon discovered. Rather, they had the ever-powerful Bolshevik Russia breathing down their neck and quashing any hopes of independence. Plokhy explores an interesting perspective at this point, with army general Stalin wanting Ukraine to fall under the Russian umbrella in this new collective, but Lenin felt it better to make them a Ukrainian people, developing the (other) USSR, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. As part of this vast republic, Ukraine became the second largest of all the republics, even as other countries began eating away at their borders—namely: Poland, Russia, and Czechoslovakia—in the inter-war years. Stalin’s rise to power saw him flex his muscle and turn to the Ukrainians, punishing them by taking all their agricultural offerings and starving them out. A pogrom if ever there was one, this Great Famine was Stalin’s way of turning Ukraine into a great republic, though one can only imagine how beating them down would help them. Plokhy notes that the Ukrainian lands were also quite sought after when the Nazis arrived in the early 1940s to invade Russia. Hitler spent significant time in Ukraine, laying the groundwork for a key cog in the Nazi wheel, with its plentiful fields and the like, though many readers will know what happened to the Nazis. They did, however, leave their mark, alongside Stalin, in ridding the region of Jews, carting them off to camps and luring robust Ukrainian men away from the country to work in Germany. By the Cold War years, Ukraine was a staple part of the Soviet republics, but after Stalin’s death, the bloodletting seemed to taper off, as numerous other leaders utilised Ukraine as one of the key pillars in keeping the region afloat. Soviet Party influence waned for the latter years of the USSR and was completely obliterated with the disintegration of the Soviet Empire in 1991. On wobbly legs, Ukraine emerged as independent for a time, supported by democratic elections and recognition around the world. Plokhy offers an interesting narrative about some of the revolutionary elections that led Ukrainian politicians to push back. However, with Putin sitting in the Kremlin, Ukraine was soon being meddled with once again. Putin pushed for Russian-backed parties to win elections and went so far as to overturn elections in the Crimean Region, installing a party that had not garnered much support by the people—surely more blatant and doable, as social media and collusion tactics were not needed, as in North America. Plokhy leaves open the possibility that Russia and Ukraine with lock horns again over a variety of issues, including the latter’s ability to remain independent. He asks the curious reader to keep an open mind as things progress politically, hoping that the world will not let a Russian fist erase democracy. However, if they can put a Russian agent into the White House, one can only imagine they can do so anywhere. A brilliant piece of writing that gives the reader a great overall view of the region’s development and casts light on some of the current skirmishes with Russia over the Crimea, sure to be a highly controversial battle for years to come. Recommended to those who wish to learn more about Ukraine without getting bogged down in the minute history of the region.
  
  As I mentioned before, I wanted a little something that would open my eyes to some of my ancestral roots, as well as offer me the history and politics of a region about which I know so little. Plokhy does this in an even-handed manner, mixing social, cultural, and political history together in an easy to digest format. The book tries not to skim, but it is almost impossible to delve in too deeply and still offer up a book that can be carried from one place to another. Plokhy’s arc of Ukrainian history opens the discussion, but never does he profess to having all the answers or to be the final word on the matter. While I refuse to call it a primer, this book does lay some basic foundations for those who want to learn more. Plokhy’s writing style is also easy to comprehend, offering readers lots of information in a relevant format. Depending on the topic at hand, chapters can be short or more detailed, permitting to reader to extract what they want before moving along. Written in English, there was little I felt I might be missing at the hands of a translator, which helped me feel confident in my reading, though I am sure Plokhy has been able to thoroughly research the topics in their original languages, as well as relying on other historians who have taken the leap before him. While the region may not be of interest to all, I can see many readers learning a great deal, even if they chose only to read key chapters in the book: lead-up to the Great War through the the Cold War fallout. While I never promote ‘parachuting’ into a book, I admit this was the section that interested me most and allowed me to extract a great deal of information to whet my appetite and cultivate a stronger understanding of familial roots. I suppose I will have to see if I cannot better comprehend what led my family to leave Ukraine and settle in Saskatchewan. The Prairie West does have a strong Ukrainian population and Plokhy has given me some good ideas why this might be the case.
  
  Kudos, Mr. Plokhy, for enlightening me on this subject. I feel better versed and am eager to tackle some of your other work, which I see deals with other regional interest of mine!
  
  This book fulfils Topic#3: Show Your Roots in the Equinox #6 Reading Challenge.
  
  Love/hate the review? An ever-growing collection of others appears at:
  
  http://pecheyponderings.wordpress.com/
  
  A Book for All Seasons, a different sort of Book Challenge:
  https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...
• 
  wow_42

  книгу варто читати всім. якщо ви думаєте, що історія це не для вас, то подумайте ще раз і біжіть читати цю книгу.
  
  так, для тих, хто знає шкільну програму історії все буде достатньо знайомо. але прочитати цю книгу буде непоганим підсумком та нагадуванням всього вивченого до цього.
  
  для тих, хто в історії нуль і ви хочете з чогось почати? так, ця книга теж для вас. написано не душно, цікаво, історичний й алфавітний покажчик є, рекомендована література є.
  
  ваші друзі-вестерни постійно питають, а що читати про Україну? і під цей пункт книга Плохія підходить. стільки нових історичних контекстів люди для себе зможуть відкрити.
• 
  Carlos

  This book was a challenge for me , I have wanted to learn more about Ukraine since I heard about the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014, I finally got the chance to do it . Ukrainian history is full of invasions, violence and empires , from the Austrian , polish , German and soviets . It has been defined by multiethnic cultures and by a conglomeration of citizens that shared a language but not a culture , it has managed to survived the oppression of its language both written and spoken by the Soviet Union ever since WW 2, in this book you will find that for good or bad Ukrainian history is linked to Russian history, as Ukraine has fought for its sovereignty it has clashed with Russia many times before , therefore a knowledge of Russian history is needed to enjoy this book better , but not necessary since the author does a good job of introducing all of these concepts step by step in a very detailed manner, I recommend this book to anyone who tries to understand current relations between Russian and the rest of the world as Ukraine is the ground where it has been tested for the first time.
• 
  Andrew

  The Gates of Europe: A History of Ukraine, was a tough read for me. To preface, my family is of Ukrainian heritage, and I am always interested in learning about Ukrainian culture and history. Serhii Plokhy has not itched that scratch for me. The Gates of Europe is a short book for something so ambitious, and it really begins to show as one reads. Massive details that would have been fascinating to read in depth are glossed over. The book is just too ambitious for its own good. Entire centuries are covered in a few pages. Only a chapter or two is dedicated to the fascinating time-period of Greek and Roman colonization of the Crimea. Tartar and Steppe tribes are relegated to foreign "others" and ignored, only being mentioned as untrustworthy allies of the valiant Cossack Tribes in their struggle against foreign aggression from Poland, the Ottomans, and Muscovy. The Cossack's received much more coverage than most of the rest of history, with another large chunk dedicated to more modern (and politically questionable) material.
  
  Plokhy had an axe to grind with this book, and he did it. It was a timely release due to the Russian backed war in Eastern Ukraine that began to gather steam in 2013. It is also politically charged, with Plokhy pulling no punches in his discourse on Ukrainian and Russian conflict and interdependence throughout history.
  
  He goes to great length, as well, to talk about the cultural differences that developed between the Rus of Kiev and the Rus in Muscovy, and the religious and cultural changes that occurred under the tutelage of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The desire for independence throughout history did not always exist, but Ukraine developed its own national identity throughout history due to its connections to other European states, and its closeness to the Turkic and Tartar tribes that inhibited the Crimean region. These were the more interesting parts of the book.
  
  Even so, there is little that I can say to recommend this book to anyone. It is far too politically charged to be a serious history book. The edition I read had literally zero sources. There are hundreds of statements in this book that are questionable and biased, and I would love to see the sources to allay my suspicions. Huge portions of fascinating historical periods are glossed over to play off the Ukrainian-Russian rivalry that will sell copies of this book. It is difficult for me to say anything more, as I enjoyed this book so little. I urge any readers to only pick this up if they are inclined to do so for political reasons. There are many facts that will be interesting to those who interested in historical background to current events. However, as a serious history book, and one written by the chair of Ukrainian history at Harvard University no less, this is a poor excuse.
• 
  John Anthony

  This was quite hard work for me, the reader. But what a task for the author: 1500 or so years of history in just over 350 pages! And what a history – rich, complex, multi faceted with a DNA that probably links most of us to Ukraine, somewhere along the line.
  
  No surprise, after reading this, that its people are brave fighters. They have had to do it throughout their history. The country, or at least one region or another of it, has been almost constantly fought over. An amalgam of regions, each with its own history and identity.
  
  The Rus’ Vikings, a mix of Norwegian, Swedish and probably Finnish settlers, provided some early warrior rulers (Vikings attacked Constantinople in 960). The Ottoman Empire, The Austrian Empire, Muscovite rulers, the Poles and the Germans all figured in the country’s history. This is reflected in Ukraine’s religious history with its many variations of Orthodoxy.
  
  For me, the later chapters - c 1900 onwards were especially interesting and helped to give some context to the more recent troubles, particularly those involving its bullying neighbour (Soviet) Russia.
  
  I bought this on 24th February, the day Putin invaded Ukraine for the second time. I guess what I have seen daily on the T. V. over the past month is the next chapter. Plokhy’s book was published in 2015, the year after the Russian annexation of Crimea. The author’s concluding words echo prophetically in the light of the last few weeks:
  
  “The Russian annexe of the Crimea, the hybrid war in the Donbas, and attempts to destabilise the rest of the country created a new and dangerous situation not only in Ukraine but also in Europe as a whole. For the first time since the end of World War II, a major European power made war on a weaker neighbor and annexed part of a sovereign state. The Russian invasion breached not only the Russo-Ukrainian treaty of 1997 but also the Budapest Memorandum of 1994, which had offered Ukraine security assurances in exchange for giving up nuclear weapons and acceding to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty as a nonnuclear state. The unprovoked Russian aggression against Ukraine threatened the foundations of international order – a threat to which the European Union and most of the world were not prepared to respond to but one that demands appropriate counter-action. Whatever the outcome of the current Ukraine Crisis, on its resolution depends not only the future of Ukraine but also that of relations between Europe’s east and west – Russia and the European Union – and thus the future of Europe as a whole.”
• 
  Wesley Giesbrecht

  One of the problems with reading national histories, especially those of the former-Soviet states, is that they tend to be written from the author's political viewpoint. For example, a history of the Republic of Moldova may feature either a pro-Romanian or a pro-Russian emphasis, depending on the author's personal views.
  
  The same is true of Serhii Plokhy's history of Ukraine, though he is far more objective and fair in his presentation of Ukrainian history than the mere nationalists on either side of the Ukrainian debate. Plokhy is definitely not pro-Russian, but he doesn't come across as someone on the far side of Ukrainian nationalism. He's a Ukrainian patriot who recognizes that the history of Ukraine consists of the union of a plurality of identities, languages, faiths, and cultures.
  
  Plokhy agrees with the position that the historical Slavic inhabitants of Kyivan Rus are the forefathers of modern Russians, Belarusians, and Ukrainians (thereby recognizing the ethnic, culture, religious, and historical commonality between them) but argues convincingly that the various historical trajectories, though oftentimes overlapping, sets them apart from each other as unique ethnic and cultural groups.
  
  I most appreciated his willingness to not cover-up the darker sides of Ukrainian history. Oftentimes contemporary presentations of Ukraine leave one with the impression that Ukrainians are the eternally oppressed people of Eastern Europe (perhaps the Armenia of Eastern Europe), and while vast portions of Ukrainian history reveal the Ukrainians being subjected, oppressed, and suppressed, there are times when Ukrainians have contributed to the history of violence and discrimination; whether it's the pogroms against Jews during the Khmelnytsky revolts of the 17th century or Ukrainian attacks on Polish villages in 1943.
  
  I also appreciate his fairly balanced presentation of the complex history of the relationship between Ukraine and Russia. He relates both the good and the bad as well as the difference of opinion within the Ukrainians communities themselves. While many Ukrainians living in Russian Imperial lands longed for Ukrainian autonomy there were also the Russophiles who lived in the Austrian controlled lands. The history of Ukrainian opinion about Russia has been varied and Plokhy does well to present this.
  
  Overall, as an introductory text to the history of Ukraine, Plokhy's book is highly recommendable. Following the main text he includes an historical timeline of Ukraine, a list of notable figures within Ukrainian history, as well as a comprehensive list of further reading for each major period covered in the book.
• 
  Akram Salam

  Serhii Plokhy is a professor of Ukrainian history at Harvard University and the director of the Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute. I've read several books on Russia, and this is my second on Ukraine. First of all, wow. The story of Ukraine cannot be told in a vacuum, and as Dr. Plokhy gives the greater historical and geographical context for an event, it is so eye-opening to look at that event now from a Ukrainian rather than Russian point of view. The great level of detail allows for a sort of character development of "who" Ukraine is. For instance, Dr. Plokhy often compares and contrasts the social and political conditions in the regions of Western Ukraine such as Podolia, Volhynia, Galicia, Bukovina as he progresses through the chronological history of Ukraine. Of course, all regions of Ukraine are discussed in much depth. Dr. Plokhy does justice to many key issues on Ukraine by offering his analyses: Does Ukraine have an identity independent of Russia? Was Ukrainian culture really suppressed or exploited at different times by the Soviet Union? Was the famine (holodomor) of 1932-33 engineered and targeted? Did Ukraine play a major role in the dissolution of the USSR? Are Russia's claims to Crimea valid? And so much more. I personally have an acquaintance from Donetsk who had once answered all these questions for me, giving the exact opposite points of view as Dr. Plokhy -- who actually mentions in this book the Donetsk-centric outlook on key issues. So! If you have an interest in Ukraine, you must pick up this book. And then go to Ukraine because it is such a beautiful country with amazing and diverse people!
• 
  Clif Hostetler

  This book is a history of Ukraine, and since archeologists have found signs of human habitation dating back to 40,000 years ago, it is a long history. In Classical Greek times it was on the edge of the known world. Greek mythology designated it as the land of the Amazons, and the Greek hero Achilles was believed to be buried there. Herodotus described the region in his Histories and reported on the Scythians who lived there. Later during the time of the Roman Empire their cities on the Black Sea coast needed to be defended against the Sarmatians who were nomads from the east.
  
  Most of that part of the world became inhabited by people referred to as Slavs, but since the Slav occupation was not accomplished by overt invasion we don’t know very much about where, when, or how they came to be indigenous inhabitants of the land.

  We know precious little about the Slavs who settled Ukrainian territory prior to the tenth and eleventh centuries. … The Slavs were agriculturalists who followed in the wake of nomad invasions, as the nomads who “made history” usually did not know what to do with land that was not steppe in which their animals could graze. The waves of Slavic colonization were slow and mostly peaceful, and the results were to prove long-lasting.

  The name Ukraine means “frontier” or “borderland”, and it follows that their long history is filled with instances of multiple crossings of its border by traders, missionaries, nomadic horsemen, and organized armies from multiple directions. In the ninth and tenth centuries the Vikings passed through from the north seeking trade with the Byzantine empire. They brought the term “Rus’” which was later applied to the name for the polity that developed from the tenth to the mid-thirteenth centuries with its center at Kyiv. Scholars today refer to that polity as
  Kyivan Rus'. The
  Cathedral of St. Sophia was constructed in Kyiv during this era (11th century).
  
  Kyivan Rus' development stretched over hundreds of years, but its end came abruptly.

  Kyivan Rus', a polity with no generally recognized date of birth, has a definite date of death. It occurred on December 7, 1240, when yet another wave of invaders from the Eurasian steppes, the Mongols, conquered the city of Kyiv.

  The city of Kyiv diminished in importance under Mongol rule (also known as the Golden Horde). In a decisive battle in 1362, Lithuanian and Rus’ forces defeated the a leading tribe of the Golden Horde. The Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth subsequently controlled the Ukrainian region for many years.
  
  It was during this time that the term “Cossacks” came to be used to describe what at first were roving bandits and later evolved into a force with which regional powers needed to consider. Over time the term Cossack became synonymous with Ukrainian warriors who sometimes served as mercenaries on opposing sides.

  The Cossacks had come a long way—from small bands of fishermen and trappers foraging in the steppes south of Kyiv to settlers of new lands along the steppe frontier; from private militiamen in the employ of princes to fighters in an independent force that foreigners treated with respect; and, finally, from refugees and adventurers to members of a cohesive military brotherhood that regarded itself as a distinct social order and demanded from the government not only money but also recognition of its warrior status. The Polish state could benefit from the military might and economic potential of the Cossacks only if it managed to accommodate their social demands. As subsequent developments would show repeatedly, that was no easy task.

  In 1476 the first tsar and Muscovite ruler, Grand Prince Ivan III, manage to free his country to the north from the Mongols, and his kingdom would later grow to become a regional power. In an effort to free Ukraine from the Poles, the Cossacks made an agreement with Muscovy in return for their protection. Russia’s claims to Ukrainian territory date to this event.

  The Turning Point in the internationalization of the
  Khmelnytsky Revolt took place on January 8, 1654, in the town of Pereiaslav. On that day, Bohdan Khmelnytsky and a hastily gathered group of Cossack officers swore allegiance to the new sovereign of Ukraine, Tsar Aleksei Romanov of Muscovy. The long and complex history of Russo-Ukrainian relations had begun.

  Unfortunately the promised protection to be provided by Muscovy didn't materialize. The Khmelnytsky uprising unleashed a long period of wars that many historians refer to as
  the Ruin. Eventually the Ukraine region was divided between the Ottoman Empire, Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, and Muscovy-Russia. Subsequently, the competing empires of Prussia, Austria, and Russia divided up the region. This time period is filled with so many shifts in boundaries that I'll not try to offer a summary in this review.

  The eighteenth century was not only an age of enlightenment and reason. More than anything else, it was an age of empire.

  This book contains several chapters on Ukrainian cultural, literary, and religious history. After the the Crimean War considerable industrialization occurred in southeastern Ukraine due to the presence of coal and iron ore. Consequently there was labor unrest, and it was this discontent of the impoverished workers that eventually led to the 1917 revolution that deposed the Czar.
  
  After the 1917 Russian Revolution and World War I, Ukraine was filled with warring groups of outlaw bandits, independence revolutionaries, White Russians, and the Red Russians. As part of the Soviet Union under Stalin's rule, Ukraine became victim of the
  Holodomor (a human caused famine).

  Altogether, close to 4 million people perished in Ukraine as a result of the famine, more than decimating the country—every eighth person succumbed to hunger between 1932 and 1934.

  Ukraine emerged from World War II as one of the Soviet Republics. It had gained territory with the boundaries we know today, but its people and economy were in a sorry state.

  Although the map made it seem like one of the main beneficiaries of the war—Ukraine’s territory increased by more than 15 percent—the republic was in fact one of the war’s main victims. It lost up to 7 million of its citizens, who had constituted more than 15 percent of its population. Out of 36 million remaining Ukrainians, some 10 million didn’t have a roof over their heads, as approximately 700 cities and towns and 28,000 villages lay in ruins. Ukraine lost 40 percent of its wealth and more than 80 percent of its industrial and agricultural equipment. In 1945, the republic produced only one-quarter of its prewar output of industrial goods and 40 percent of its previous agricultural produce.

  The book provides an interesting accounting of post-war Soviet history including the death of Stalin, the era of Khrushchev and Brezhnev, the 2004 Orange Revolution, and the breakup of the Soviet Union.
  
  The edition of the book I read was published in 2015, which was after the 2014 Russian annexation of Crimea and invasion of Donbas but before the current 2022 war. In the final chapter this book offers the following prognosis for Ukraine's future.

  Russian aggression sought to divide Ukrainians along linguistic, regional, and ethnic lines. While that tactic succeeded in some places, most of Ukrainian society united around the idea of a multilingual and multicultural nation joined in administrative and political terms. That idea, born of lessons drawn from Ukraine’s difficult and often tragic history of internal divisions, rests on a tradition of coexistence of different languages, cultures, and religions over the centuries. The Ukrainians managed to read their troubled history in a way that secured their future as a political nation.

  In the book's Epilog the following description of the Russian mindset describes the motivations for the partial invasion then, but I think also applies to the current war.

  But Russian mercenaries and volunteers brought to the region an overarching idea of a different kind. Like the best known of the Russian commanders, Igor Girkin, they came to the Donbas to defend the values of the “Russian World” against the West. In that context, they saw Ukraine as a battleground between corrupt Western values, including democracy, individual freedoms, human rights, and, especially, the rights of sexual minorities on the one hand and traditional Russian values on the other. By that logic, Western propaganda had simply addled the Ukrainians’ minds. It was up to the Russians to show them the light.

  The book also contains numerous maps, a timeline of Ukrainian history, and a listing of "Who's Who in Ukrainian History."
• 
  Gabriela Pistol

  4. 4
  
  Aceasta nu este o lucrare pop-science. Acesta este un adevărat manual de istorie, care nu doar înșiră o succesiune de evenimente și figuri, ci te face să înțelegi fenomene.
  De la primele triburi războinice din stepă la Rusia Kieveană - ironic, mai mult Kieveană decât Rusie, pentru ca e vorba de fapt de vikingul Rus'-, la cazacii care trezesc conștiința națională și călugării kieveni din secolul XVII care fac greșeala fundamentală să creeze conceptul de malo ruși (micii ruși), în încercarea de a obține protecția țarilor, o sintagmă ce încă dă apă la moară unui dictator dement din secolul XXI, până la Holodomor și Holocaust, Ucraina Sovietică, cele trei Maidane și anexarea Crimeei + războiul separatist din Donbass, Plokhy (Plohîi în altă grafie) dă mult de lucru cititorului. Mult și greu. Precum istoria acestei țări hărțuite neîncetat de toate imperiile din zonă, mai ceva ca România (la ei au mai fost și Polonia și Lituania, pe lângă toti rușii, otomanii, austro-ungarii, nemții). Dar în final ajungi la ceva foarte dificil de realizat, mai ales zilele astea: o viziune de ansamblu a unei situații extrem de complicate.
  
  Sunt enorm de multe episoade și idei interesante, dar o să menționez doar un eveniment și două concluzii ale autorului.
  Episodul: în 1994 se semnează Memorandumul de la Budapesta, prin care Rusia, dar și Marea Britanie și Statele Unite îi garantează Ucrainei securitatea granițelor, în schimbul semnării de către Ucraina a Tratatului de neproliferare a armamentului nuclear. Se presupune că, la acel moment, Ucraina deținea al treilea cel mai mare arsenal nuclear al lumii (moștenire sovietică). Ucraina chiar renunță la arsenal. Să judece fiecare în ce măsură cele trei puteri își respectă angajamentul.
  Concluziile lui Plokhy:
  1. Este foarte dificil să construiești și să păstrezi o identitate națională unitară într-un spațiu atât de mozaicat etnic și cultural precum Ucraina.
  Totuși,
  2. Toate războaiele au întărit enorm identitatea națională a celui invadat.
  
  Sunt sigură că există o doză de subiectivism în expunerea autorului, dar lucrarea mi se pare o sursă excelentă de informații pentru un profan (unul răbdător și interesat, totuși).
• 
  Daniel

  Excellent history!
• 
  Serhii M

  Must read для кожного українця, особливо якщо ви, як я, не дуже добре вчили в школі історію.
• 
  Ганна Кузьо

  Я тепер розумію, чому історію погано знала і завжди уникала всього історичного - фільмів, книг, розмов. Бо історія України - це невимовно боляче та несправедливо.
  
  Рада, що все ж прочи��ала "Браму...", залишки шкільних знань з уроків історії та спорадичних історичних фактів та статей, які я дотепер не часто й не регулярно споживаю, якось нарешті систематизувалися. Ну я не скажу, що прямо можу вам розповісти від А до Я про історію України, але маю для себе особисте її розуміння. Вважаю, що кожен свідомий українець має вибудувати власне розуміння історії з історичних джерел. Всі вони суб'єктивні, так, але все ж книга від історика є кращим джерелом, ніж статті в медіа (за вийнятком статей від істориків). А історією України так маніпулють, особливо зараз.
  
  Про книгу: написана досить цікаво, наскільки це можливо взагалі.
  Читати важко. На початку з часів скіфів, Київської Русі все було добре, адже це було дуже давно й особливо болісних проблем не було. А от сучасніша історія ішла складно. Трохи я заплуталася в періоді козаччини, не було терпіння вникати в перепетії, але зрештою, важливі історичні віхи тоді закладалися й багато проблем саме відтоді тягнуться.
  Цікаво було читати про 19-20 століття, але дуже болісно. Всі ці поділи України з боку войовничих імперій і жевріюча боротьба за ідентичність та незалежність поміж них... Коли дійшла мова до другої Світової війни та повоєнного періоду, я взагалі читала, ледь не затамувавши подих. Хоча автор не драматизує, але драматичними були ті події самі по собі. Дяка автору за вплетення цікавих не банальних фактів про таких персон, як Костюшко, Хрущов, Горбачов та багато інших.
  
  Останній розділ стосується періоду незалежності України. Цікаво читати про події, які відбулися за мого життя у викладі історика. Воно якось спокійніше сприймається.
  
  Дуже рекомендую цю книгу і дякую автору!
• 
  Murtaza

  Exhaustive history of the Ukrainian people from their origins as observed in the time of Herodotus, the rise of the Cossacks, up til their present moment as a nation-state struggling for existence. For anyone who wants to plow very deep on the subject of Ukraine this is probably a must-read. The last chapters are updated with information pertinent to the present conflict with Russia.
• 
  Evgen Novakovskyi

  По верхах, але влучно і з правильною громадянською позицією. Книжка чудово відіграє роль entry level контенту, плюс в кінці автор дбайливо полишив перелік більш нішевих робіт для глибшого занурення. В цілому, це непоганий експрес курс для тих, хто в останній раз відкривав підручник з історії України ще в школі.
• 
  Галя книжкова буря ⛈️

  я дочитала її
  піду куплю собі київський торт
  
  насправді, книга крутецька для тих, хто хоче пройти короткий екскурс по історії України, або ж пригадати її
  тут максимальна «вижимка», все дуже стисло, коротко, чітко та ясно
  я бралась за цю книгу з великим ентузіазмом ще у липні та лише зараз змогла її дочитати і то брала штурмом, бо раніше весь час відкладала і читала щось інше
  
  трохи розчарувало те, що я для себе нічого нового не пізнала 😅
  хотілося якихось цікавих фактів, які б дивувало, а тут все сухо і майже так, як у підручниках з історії, але дуже скорочено та тезисно
  
  але книга крута (мої очікування - це мої проблеми), тому дуже раджу ознайомитись
• 
  Володимир Демченко

  Є багато видань присвячених історії України. Видань складних, видань занадто спрощених . «Брама Європи» Сергія Плохія, здається, найвдаліший варіант для тих, хто не має часу розбиратися з нюансами, але хоче ознайомитись з правдивим історичним дискурсом держави на ймення Україна. Книга яка полегшила би нам життя на багатьох рівнях, аби її прочитав кожен (чи хоча б більшість) українців, вона також значно полегшила би нам життя якби її прочитали іноземці що дозволяють собі вести публічний дискурс на тему Україна-росія-Світ. Особливо зважаючи що написана вона була якраз для ��ноземців, а це видання є лише українським перекладом. Але…мрії мрііі. Людям легше вірити в міфічних Свидригайлів Дажбоговичів які, зуб даю, правили в 765-713 по до. н.е ніж в справжню, але не таку струнку і гарну історію. Слава Україні!
• 
  Dimitri

  ***1/2. A mind-opening, loving tale of a country little known to Europe before 2022. But. A short history can be too short if you compress post war Soviet Ukraine in 20 pages followed by less than 50 pages for the next generation, up to and including the 2014 annexation of the Crimea.
• 
  Mary

  In the latter part of 2022, I read: ‘The History of Ukraine and Russia: The Tangled History That Led to Crisis’. I’m jolly glad I did.
  
  I’m bashing the books (History of Europe) just now: the university insist on such things. They can be so demanding. I decided, the girl can only read so much and picked up something completely THE SAME. I’m jolly glad I did.
  
  What a corker! I ain’t one to wax lyrical over poetic prose, the magic of the word-play. This … I was hooked by before I’d finished page one.
  
  A cumulation of short stories that provide us with a history of an extraordinary country, culture and people. Told in, my nescient view, a most entertaining and engrossing fashion.
  
  I said, in my review of ‘The History of Ukraine and …’, “If you want to understand why things are as they are in Ukraine today, read this.”
  
  I shall say the same again.
  
  When I started this journey into the books, I did have this ‘little dream’ of one day being recognised as an Historian. Naaa, I ain’t the slightest chance of standing beside people such as Professor Serhii Plokhy (the author), a Ukrainian. An Historian.
  
  They say, “Ukraine is a country largely forgotten by the West.” That was true of me.
  
  I don’t want to get political, I’m far too busy bashing the books, but … maybe one of the few good things that will come from what that horrid man did when invading this incredible country is that we in the West will learn more of the monumental place Ukraine claims in the history of Europe.
  
  Thank you, Professor Plokhy. I did so enjoy reading your book.
• 
  Ilonka Sheleshko

  насправді по враженнях на 4.5⭐️ мабуть більше через те, що все ж історію України добре пам’ятала і багато інформації було просто повторенням
  
  ця книжка максимально варта, щоб її читати для ознайомлення із історією України ( або ж її повторення) як і для українців, так і для іноземців.
  такі книжки хороші для того, щоб з теперішньої перспективи побачити схожості сьогодення із минулим і вкотре вигукнути — «а таке вже було». але от тільки тепер бажано, щоб не тільки вигукнути, а ще й змінити поки є змога:)
  
  читайте! обов’язково!
• 
  Randall Wallace

  Ukraine is the size of France, and in the 18th century it was ruled from St. Petersburg, Vienna, Warsaw and Istanbul. Ruthenians are early Ukrainians. Cossacks were quintessential Ukrainians. Goths were of German stock, Huns came from Mongolia; the Huns were gone by the mid-sixth century replaced by Turkic tribes. The Slavs made slaves of their prisoners. Kyiv (Kiev) shows up before the sixth century. Slavs, then agriculturalists, settle Ukrainian territory before the 10th century. Rus Vikings came first as traders, there was little to steal in Ukrainian forests back then. Building Kyiv was an attempt to reproduce Constantinople on the Dnieper. In the 10th and 11th centuries, the terms Slav and Rus were interchangeable. Slowly the area became Christianized after Volodymyr’s conversion. Cyrillic’s job is to translate Christian texts into Slavic languages. Yaroslav builds the Cathedral of Saint Sophia. Then comes Kyivan Rus which lasts until the Mongol invasion of Kyiv on December 7th, 1240. The Mongols turn back the clock on the area with Pax Mongolica. The Mongols rule Russia more harshly than Ukraine. Still, it took centuries for Kyiv to recover. The Mongols never tried to change the faith of Rus princes. Alexander Nevsky became famous as a defender of Rus lands.
  
  Ivan III was the first Moscovite ruler to call himself tsar and he declared independence from the Horde and invaded Ukraine. US liberals would have condemned that Russian invasion but for the fact that the US wouldn’t exist for another three hundred years. Ukraine begins its role as a food producer for Europe. A Ukrainian becomes the wife of Sulieman the Magnificent. Cossacks were originally nomads who preyed on merchants. Alexander I became emperor of Russia and tsar of Poland. Galician Ukrainians called themselves Ruthenians. In 1848, Hungarians demanded independence from the Hapsburg Empire. Then the Poles wanted freedom. Alexander II makes it illegal to perform Ukrainian theatre or songs. Both Polish and Ukrainian nationalism is repressed.
  
  Russia loses the Crimean War to the British and French. Britain and France wanted to dominate the Mediterranean by force and Russia was in their way with Russia’s warm water port at Sevastopol. Russia sells Alaska to get money to hold on to the Crimea and develop railways. The railways helped Russia to regain its right to a Sevastopol navy after French defeat in the Franco-Prussian War. By mid-nineteenth century, forced-labor became the technique for the cash-strapped empire. Yalta became the summer capital of the empire. Even Chekhov had a house in Yalta. “Ukraine accounted for 75 percent of all exports of the Russian Empire.” Foreigners helped develop the Ukrainian south. Before the Russian Revolution, foreign companies controlled the 50% of Ukrainian steel, and most of its pig iron, coal and machinery. In 1905, Ukrainian became legal as a language again. It was a bright time for Ukrainian nationalism and Ukrainian clubs appeared. Ukraine’s blue and yellow comes from Galicia where they had been part of its coat of arms. Just before the Russian Revolution, Ukraine had both de jure and de facto independence from Russia. But by 1919, Ukrainian statehood was no longer possible. Trotsky was a native of the Ukraine. Think of the right bank of the Dnieper as agricultural while the left bank had the industrial areas.
  
  Stalin’s Holodomor famine killed off 4 million in Ukraine starting in 1932. Stalin’s Great Purge went from 1936 to 1940. The Not-So-Great Purges of Karen Carpenter, Taylor Swift, Calista Flockhart, and Mary-Kate Olsen happened much later. The Ukraine became “a model of Soviet industrialization and collectivization” for Stalin, once all the deaths and underlying sadism were ignored.
  
  Ukraine was Hitler’s Lebensraum centerpiece. Hitler knew that the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (1918) recognized that Ukraine was independent of Russia. His plan was kill everyone up to the Volga and then fill that void with German colonists (a plan Hitler took from the time-tested US settler-colonial technique for odiously killing/removing its native population). Babi Yar in Ukraine outside of Kyiv, was where the first attempt in Europe to mass exterminate Jews happened. The first to die at Auschwitz by Zyklon-B were actually Soviet POW’s (September 1941). “Ukraine under German occupation became a large-scale model of a concentration camp.” Ukrainians who tried to assist Jewish people were not only executed but often their families as well. Germans left the collective farms intact so the exploitation could continue under a different master “extracting resources from the local population”. Ukrainians were almost 80% of all Ostarbeiter taken by Nazis from occupied land. “The Holocaust eradicated most of Ukrainian Jewry. WWII’s end showed Ukraine with 15% more territory, but 7 million citizens had died, and 10 million no longer had a roof over their head.
  
  Stalin dies in 1953. He had relied on people from the Caucasus, while Khrushchev would rely on people from Ukraine. Although, Crimea becomes part of Ukraine, Crimea is actually 71% Russian and 22% Ukrainian. Khrushchev is a believer in communism and believes religion will have to be extinguished before communism arrives in the USSR. Funny how Lenin and even Khrushchev clearly stated that communism was never achieved in the USSR, while US Cold War liberals still comically believe the hype (without evidence) that we were always fighting present Soviet communism and NEVER potentially future Soviet communism. I guess that is because Truman knew you can’t get the public to rabidly want war with (USSR) State Capitalism because it sounds way too much like regular US bipartisan Capitalism. As Serhii writes, “Khrushchev’s promise to the Soviet people that they would live under communism never materialized.” Gorbachev takes power in 1985 and Chernobyl (only seventy miles north of Kyiv) happens in 1986. Chernobyl’s radiation was the equivalent of five hundred Hiroshima bombs. The contamination zone was larger than Belgium. It was a disaster for the forests of Northern Ukraine. But Chernobyl did waken Ukraine.
  
  The first Maidan (Ukrainian word for square) was considered to be October 1990, the second was in 2004 and the third in 2013 and 2014. Think of Ukrainian independence attempts after Kyivan Rus, as first 1918 in Kyiv and Lviv, second 1939 in Transcarpathia, and third 1941 in Lviv. Then comes the real deal in 1991, when Ukrainians went to the polls to vote their future. 90% wanted independence. One week after Ukrainian citizens voted for independence, the Soviet Union was dissolved; as Yeltsin explained, without Ukraine, Russia would be simply “outnumbered and outvoted by the Muslim Republics”. Gorbachev’s resignation speech marked the end of the Soviet Union.
  
  Ukraine’s performance after leaving the Soviet Union was a remarkably bad, industrial production fell 48%, GDP fell 60%, half the population had barely the money to buy their food, and three million citizens left the country. The industrial sector, largely steel, had relied on Russian natural gas supplies. Ukrainian runaway inflation reached 2,500% in 1992. What an ad for capitalism. This book makes no attempt to explain why Ukraine went so fast downhill. Russians are 48% of Ukraine’s Donetsk population. President Yanukovych was the last Ukrainian President sympathetic to Russians within the Ukraine. Russia annexed the Crimea in March 2014.This book talks about the loss of the Crimea and Donbas but makes no attempt to explain the conflict. In 2019, Zelensky takes over the Ukraine Presidency.
  
  The author writes the Russian annexation of the Crimea is simply “unprovoked Russian aggression against Ukraine which threatened the foundations of international order.” That’s pretty funny as the author already told us the Crimea is 71% Russian so why on earth would Russia want connection with a place that is 71% Russian. Apparently, the US war crimes in invading 50 countries since WWII (56 US military interventions just in Latin America) or Saudi bombing of Yemen or Israel’s actions have laughably done nothing to threaten “the foundations of international order.” This book fell apart once it hit 2014, instead, I’d recommend readers instead read the much better Ukraine books: “Borderland” by Anna Reid, “Ukraine in Crisis”, by Nicolai Petro, “Ukraine in the Crossfire” by Chris Kaspar de Ploeg, and “Flashpoint in the Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WWIII” by Stephen Lendman. Noam Chomsky & Chris Hedges have recently addressed this subject too.
  
  Good luck finding in this book any mention of the US orchestrated coup in Ukraine in 2014, the role of Victoria Nuland, or Ukrainian Nazis in power anywhere in the Ukraine, even the Azov Battalion, and God forbid the author tell the reader how (as Noam tells us) Bush/Baker once promised Gorbachev to not move NATO one inch to the left, and then since the US has been intentionally provocative by encircling Russia closer and closer with new fawning NATO servants always ready to do any US bidding. Why pray tell, even have NATO once the USSR fell? The author also won’t give the reader a clue that Ukraine merely adhering to the Minsk II agreements, prudently promising future neutrality with NATO, and a degree of freedom for the Russian Dombas region would have kept Putin’s recent clear war crime invasion from happening. Remember when Diplomacy, and the art of trying to consider your opponent’s concerns and grievances before fisticuffs, was still considered a good idea? At any rate, I did learn some stuff.
• 
  BAM has no time for doctors anymore let me just hand you $5000

  Thanks for the recommendation, Tiffany!
• 
  Anvar

  Одна з найкращих книг. І цікава, і динамічна, й інформативна, збалансована. Тепер хоч маю цілісне уявлення про історію України та Східної Європи.
• 
  Nestor Rychtyckyj

  “The Gates of Europe” is a well-timed and excellent book that shows once again that history repeats itself and how it relates to the present. Ukraine is in the headlines as it fights to protect itself from yet another invasion from Russia. As Serhii Plokhy points out in this book – this invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine is just another in a long list of Russian attacks on the very existence of Ukraine that goes back hundreds of years.
  This book is more than just a history of Ukraine and its people – it’s also describes the language, culture and religion of people who have been under some type of foreign domination for most of its history. Plokhy paints a picture of Ukraine through the centuries with its beginnings as Kyiv-Rus in the 10th century and takes us on a journey through time through the Cossak Hetmanat in the 17th century to the formation of Ukraine as an independent nation. In many ways, the Ukrainian people had to endure a litany of horrors culminating in the Holodomor (famine) of 1932-1933 when millions of Ukrainians died of starvation directly caused by Stalin. The Ukrainian independence of 1918 and 1919 did not last long and the proclamation of independence in 1941 was crashed between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Russia. Nevertheless, the Ukrainian Insurgent Army fought into the mid 1950s against the Soviets and independence finally came when the Soviet Union collapsed. That independence is again being threatened by Putin who seeks to rebuild the Soviet Union again. This ongoing battle will go long way in seeing if Europe is going to be dragged into a future where armed invasions of neighboring countries becomes the norm.
  Ukrainian history is not simple, but the book does a great job in describing the differences in religion, culture, nationalities and language within one country. The constant re-alignment of borders requires a whole set of maps to show exactly how Ukraine came to be. I places it may be difficult to follow all of the nuances that impacted the past, but the book is well worth reading just to understand what is happening now in Eastern Ukraine and why it is so significant for Europe and the world.
  
• 
  Aleksandr Voinov

  I bought this book to gain some much-needed background information on Ukraine (considering what's currently going on), and the author certainly provides an overview of Ukrainian history - for that, three stars. The problem is that historiography, ie the writing and telling of history, is not just about the facts or dates or context - I can't fault the author for any of that, he did his job. The problem is that the style and delivery are really boring; there's almost no colour, quotes, or really anecdotes that would bring the topic (a whole country with a rich history) to life.
  
  I'm passionate about history and don't mind scholarly tomes, but this book proved to be a slog. I finished it only because it felt virtuous and worthy. Another consideration is that the author makes a strong argument for Ukraine's separate (from Russia) identity, with is a counter-argument to Russian propaganda focused on Novorossia/New Russia, and he succeeds in that. Meanwhile, he fails to deliver context on controversial figures such as Stepan Bandera. Going by this book, I know he existed and was important, but there's no context or insight given at all.
  
  All in all, I'm glad I read it, I'm better informed, lots of stuff is still missing, and I'm not ever going to read this again.
• 
  Angela

  Book Discussion:
  https://youtu.be/0b3b3jjWIHg
  
  This nonfiction gave me exactly what I wanted, a broad historical background of this region of the world. I wished that this was a bit better at contextualizing the important of all the names and places as I read it, since there were a ton of names and this was meant as an introductory work. But I would still recommend this a great way to gain a broad history of Ukraine.
• 
  Liviu

  overall interesting but somewhat unbalanced (there are some periods treated in more detail and some almost skipped) and the narrative is not as smooth in other similar books; some stuff I was only marginally aware of (and sometimes not at all), and a reasonable introduction to a topical subject
• 
  Micah Cummins

  I’m going to spend some time with this one in my mind today, and I’ll write up a review once I feel that I have the best possible thoughts to put down for it.