SURVIVING KATYN: STALIN’S POLISH MASSACRE AND THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH by Jane Rogoyska

(Mass grave of Polish officers in Katyn Forest, exhumed by Germany in 1943)

The Katyn forest massacre committed by the Soviet Union occurred between April and May 1940.  Though killings took place in Kalinin and Kharkiv prisons operated by the NKVD and elsewhere, the massacre is named after the Katyn forest where mass graves were first discovered by the Nazis in  April1943.  Roughly 22,000 Polish military, police officers, border guards, intellectual prisoners of war were executed by the Soviet Secret Police, Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin issued the orders.  Once the Nazis announced their findings Stalin severed diplomatic relations with the London based Polish government in exile because they asked for an investigation by the International Committee of the Red Cross.  Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbles realized the publicity value of the find he immediately contacted the Polish Red Cross to investigate but the Kremlin denied culpability and blamed the Germans.  The British and their allies, dependent upon Soviet participation to defeat the Nazis, went along with the falsehood.   The Kremlin continued to deny responsibility for the massacre until 1990, when it finally accepted accountability for  NKVD’s actions and the concealment of the truth by the Soviet government.

At that time Russian president Boris Yerltsin released top-secret documents pertaining to the investigation and forwarded them to Lech Walesa, Poland’s new President.  Among the documents was a plan written by Lavrentiev Beria, the head of the NKVD until 1953 dated March 5, 1940, calling for the execution of 25,700 Poles from the Kozelsk, Ostashkov, and Starobelsk prisoner of war camps, and from prisons in Ukraine and Belarus.  After the fall of the Soviet Union the prosecutors general of the Russian Federation admitted Soviet responsibility for the massacres but refused to admit to a war crime or an act of mass murder. 

(Aerial view of the Katyn massacre grave)

The historical record acknowledges that Stalin was behind the genocidal atrocity and it was part of his larger plan to remove anyone who might conceivably pose a threat to the imposition of future Soviet rule in Poland – “a decapitation of Polish society strikingly similar to Nazi policy in occupied Poland at the same time.”  He wanted to eliminate large elements of the Polish elite to remove any potential obstacle to the later imposition of communist rule.  For Stalin, Poland was an artificial creation of the 1919 Versailles Treaty that undid the 1772, 1793 and 1795 partitions of Poland between Russia, Prussia, and the Austrian Empire.  Because of the Nazi-Soviet Pact of August 26, 1939, Poland would be divided a fourth time between Germany and the Soviet Union.  Stalin could retake Russia’s Polish holdings, Western Ukraine and Belorussia without worrying about German opposition.  A second line of reasoning for Stalin centers around the Soviet dictator’s knowledge of Adolf Hitler’s intentions.  Stalin had read MEIN KAMPF and was fully cognizant of Hitler’s endgame- Lebensraum or “living space” in the east, and how Russia was to be Germany’s “breadbasket.”  By invading Poland on September 16, 1939, completing the fourth partition of Poland he would create a buffer zone for the eventual German invasion of the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941.  For Stalin it was a defensive measure.

The mystery clouding responsibility over the massacre is the subject of historian and biographer Jane Rogoyska’s book, SURVIVING KATYN: STALIN’S POLISH MASSACRE AND THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH which chronicles how the NKVD worked to reshape the facts pertaining to the massacre blaming it on the Nazis.  Planting documents on dead bodies to pursuing a truck full of evidence across Europe, destroying records, to staging incidents in European capitals the Stalinist government left no stone unturned in quashing the truth.  Only 395 men survived the massacre who were unwitting witnesses to a crime that theoretically never officially happened.  In a striking narrative, Rogoyska brings the victims out of the shadows, telling their stories as well as those of the people who desperately searched for them.  In a work of moral clarity and precision, the author does not just supply statistics about another World War II atrocity, but how individuals were sacrificed for no reason and whose memory was lost, a sideshow in the battle between two psychotic and demented dictators.

Map of the sites related to the Katyn massacre

(Map of the sites related to the Katyn massacre)

At the outset Rogoyska introduces the reader to the prisoners of war and their overseers.  She lays out the incarceration process, the paranoia of the NKVD, and the incompetence of the bureaucracy of those in charge.  Recounting the interrogation process, attempts to propagandize the Poles, and presenting intimate pictures of the prisoners, the author employs interviews, memoirs, and whatever documentation was available in order to the provide the most complete picture of the personalities and events pertaining to the massacre since Allen Paul’s KATYN: STALIN’S MASSACRE AND THE TRIUMPH OF TRUTH.

Initially the prisoners were taken to three camps, Starobelsk, Kozelsk, and Ostashkov.  Rogoyska discusses life in all three camps and focuses mostly on Starobelsk as she follows the lives of Bronislav Mlynarski, Jozef Czapski, and Zygmunt Kwarcinke.  They would be among the last group that left Starobelsk and were sent to a transit camp at Pavlishchev Bor in a group of 395 out of 14,800 from all three prison camps.  On June 14, 1940, they were taken to the Griazovets camp located halfway between Moscow and the Arctic port of Arkhangelsk.

While in Griazovets, Beria, with Stalin’s support, worked to create a Polish Division within the Red Army, a topic that Rogoyska spends a great deal of time discussing.  Beria and his henchmen tried to recruit Polish officers to lead it, most refused, but a few from a pro-Soviet group from Starobelsk known as the “Red Corner” agreed.  The NKVD was concerned about the officer’s attitudes toward the exiled Polish government in London.  While questioning other officers who remained POWs who wanted information about the whereabouts and availability of their compatriots, Beria responded “no, we made a big mistake.”  From this phrase the author develops Beria’s guilt in the death of thousands.  It would take until May of 1943 for the creation of the Polish 1st Tadeusz Kosciuszko infantry division within the Red Army led by General Zigmunt Berling, an NKVD collaborator.  This would satisfy Beria’s goal of a division with a “Polish Face” within the Soviet military.

Lavrenty Beria

( Director of the Soviet secret police-NKVD Lavrenty Beria)

During training at Griazovets, the NKVD invested a great deal of time trying to gain the loyalty of the Poles.  They created a cultural school employing film, lectures, music, better treatment, etc. to no avail.  The NKVD attempt to re-educate these men was an abject failure.

Finally on June 22, 1941, Stalin’s greatest fear came to fruition when the Nazis invaded Russia.  The invasion impacted the prisoners in a number of ways.  First, conditions at Griazovets worsened as rations were cut 50%, clothing became unavailable, and freedoms were lessened.  Secondly, the Polish POWs feared as the Russians collapsed they would be seized and imprisoned by the Germans.  Thirdly, a large influx of new prisoners created chaos.  Lastly, the London Poles came to an agreement with the Kremlin, known as the Sikorski-Maisky Agreement, restored diplomatic relations between Poland and Russia, instituted an amnesty for all prisoners in Russia, including thousands of women and children.  It was decided that General Wladyslaw Andres would command the Polish army after his release from prison on August 4, 1941.  The Poles, no longer prisoners, wondered the fate of their comrades – they had no idea that 14,500 of them from the three camps had been massacred.

From this point on Rogoyska explores who was responsible for the deaths of thousands of POWs, who was responsible for their deaths, and how the truth was covered up.  Despite the amnesty for prisoners during their arrests they were sent deeper into Russia.  These deportations took place between 1940 and 1941 numbered between 1.25 and 1.6 million, though the NKVD argues it “was only” 400,000.  The death toll was about 30%.

( Jozef Czapski in uniform, January 1943)

Rogoyska focuses on the major players in her investigation.  Generals Anders and Zygmunt Bohusz-Szysk met with Marshal Georgy Zuhkov and General Ivan Pantilov asking for a list of Polish soldiers taken by the Soviet Union.  They met six times and meetings were pleasant until the fate of the prisoners were brought up and Zhukov would change the subject and remarked they would eventually be found.  Professor Stanislaw Kot, a Polish academic was placed in charge of the prisoner issue by Andres, but he also was stonewalled and got nowhere.  His meetings with Andrey Vyshinsky (Stalin’s purge prosecutor in the 1930s) and Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov who offered to assist but claimed the NKVD did not maintain detailed records on the missing officers.  Kot knew it was a lie, and the author details the meticulous records the NKVD kept.  Rogoyska integrates transcripts of their meetings and Kot grows increasingly angry and frustrated with Vyshinsky’s responses.  Molotov wrote General Sikorski in December 1941 that “all Polish citizens detained as POWs had now been released and that Soviet authorities had given them all necessary assistance.”


The author addresses the silence surrounding the missing men that gave rise to theories as to their fate.  The most plausible thing was that they had been sent to one of the Soviet Union’s remote regions and had not yet been able to make their way south.  Another theory rests on the claim that Polish prisoners were working in the mines and construction of military facilities in the Gulag region of Kolyma in the far east of Russia.  Andres put former prisoner Jozef Czapski in charge of investigating the plight of these men and basically took over from Professor Kot.  After meeting with Major Lenoid Raikhman, who was in charge of the Polish section at the notorious Lubyanka prison in Moscow who plead ignorance about the fate of the 14,500 officers, Czapski concluded they were probably sent to the remotest parts of the country and very few returned, and even those who made it back could not provide any useful information.  Czapski was limited because he was appointed by the exiled Polish government in London and since the British were dependent on their Soviet allies in defeating Hitler they did not want to create waves.

Another key figure in the investigation was Lt. Stanislaw Swianiewicz, a former prisoner in the Kozelek camp and a distinguished professor of economics.  The NKVD was interested in him because he had authored a book explaining how the Germans had rearmed.  His story is right out of a movie set as the Russians interrogated him, released him, and tried to rearrest him but he escaped.  Rogoyska’s chapters on his escapades provide a glimpse into Soviet thinking, the diplomatic game that was taking place between the Polish government in exile, the allies, and the Soviet Union, and Russian duplicity throughout.  Swianiewicz was important to the Stalin because he was a witness to Soviet war crimes. 

(Andrey Vyshinsky in 1940)

The Soviet smokescreen began in the fall of 1943 after the Red Army retook the Smolensk area.  Before the Soviets arrived, the Germans allowed a group of Allied journalists to watch an autopsy prepared by Professor Gerhard Buhtz, the head of Germany’s Army Group Medical Services who pointed out that the bodies were all shot through the back of the head.  Not to be out done, the Soviet Union conducted its own investigation headed by Lt. General of the Medical Corps and one time doctor to Stalin, brain specialist Nikolai Burdenko.  NKVD operational workers arrived at Katyn in September 1943 under the direction of BG Major Leonid Raikhman whose men proceeded to rearrange the site, swaying witnesses, planting documents on dead bodies to support the charge that the massacre did not occur in 1940, but in August 1941 during the Nazi occupation.  After allowing a group of journalists to visit the site, Alexander Werth, British journalist concluded that the evidence was very thin, and the site had a “prefabricated appearance.”   He agreed with others that Moscow had committed the massacre.  To her credit, the author delves into minute detail of the investigations and the personalities involved who could only conclude based on their findings it was not Germany that was responsible, but the Stalinist regime.  She also includes primary source material like the Burdenko Commission report and others that were issued after careful investigations of the site and the exhumed bodies.

(Formal portrait, 1932 Josef Stalin)

The British and the Poles were convinced the NKVD was responsible, but it did not matter as the Soviet Union was needed to defeat Germany, so the allies swallowed their concerns.  After the war, the communist government in Warsaw pursued anyone who tried to alter occurrences that would contradict the Soviet rendering of events.

Since the topic of the massacre has fostered a great deal of scholarship it is not surprising that the author does not contain any new revelations.  But to her credit her account is lucid and powerful as she recreates the lives of the officers who were artists, scientists, engineers, poets, lawyers, as well as career military men.  She chose to examine her topic through the lens of the investigation rather than describing it as it happened which may have been more thought provoking for the reader.

A mass grave, with multiple corpses visible

(A mass grave at Katyn, 1943)

DEMOCRATS VS. AUTOCRATS: CHINA, RUSSIA, AMERICA AND THE NEW GLOBAL ORDER by Michael McFaul

Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Beijing. Pic: Sergei Bobylev, Sputnik, Kremlin Pool Photo via AP

(Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Beijing)

The other day President Trump gave Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinsky an ultimatum, accept his proposed peace plan by Thanksgiving or else.  The next day Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the United States was still in negotiations with Kyiv to find a solution for its ongoing war with Russia, and the deadline was cancelled.  Another day went by when we learned that Special Enjoy Steve Wycoff had spoken with a top Russian negotiator and provided him with information as to how to maneuver Trump to obtain his approval for Kremlin demands.  It appears that the original twenty-eight step proposal ultimatum from Trump was a recasting of Putin’s maximalist position which has not changed despite the recent Alaska Summit.

It seems to me the only way to get Putin to seriously negotiate is to provide Ukraine with long range missiles, ammunition, and other military equipment to place the war on a more even footing.  Further the Trump administration should introduce more secondary sanctions on Moscow and others whose purchase of Russian fossil fuels fund Putin’s war, which would create a more level playing field for Ukraine, however the president will not do so no matter how often he hints that he will.  Another important aspect is that Trump refused to provide any direct American aid to Ukraine.  He will allow the European allies to purchase American equipment and ship it for use by the Ukrainian army.  The problem is that it is not quick resupply and the allies have had difficulty agreeing amongst themselves. 

As the war progresses Putin has tried to showcase his burgeoning friendship with President Xi Jinping of China.  China has purchased millions of gallons of Russian oil, as has India which states it will now find alternative sources, which has bankrolled Moscow in paying for its war against Ukraine.  These two autocratic countries are solidifying their relationship after decades of disagreements.  It would be important for American national security not to drive a wedge in Chinese-American relations, however, Trump’s obsession with reworking the world economy through his tariff policy seems to be his only concern.  Increasing tariffs, threatening trading partners, disrupting trade just angers China and does not allow American businesses to plan based on a supply line that is at the whim of Trump’s next TACO or change of mind!

Trump meets Xi Jinping

(President Donald Trump spent his first term pursuing a grand new bargain with China but he only got to phase one)

In this diplomatic environment Michael McFaul, a professor of Political Science at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, in addition to being a former U.S. ambassador to the Russian Federation (2012-2014) latest book, DEMOCRATS VS. AUTOCRATS: CHINA, RUSSIA, AMERICA AND THE NEW GLOBAL ORDER is rather timely.  In his monograph McFaul concludes, the old world order has ended, and we have entered a new Cold War era which is quite different from the one we experienced with the Soviet Union.  The new era has witnessed many disconcerting changes; a new alliance emerging between China and Russia, Chinese economic growth has been substantial, and it has allowed them to fund their overwhelming military growth, the far right has grown exponentially in the United States and Europe, and the disturbing shift of the Trump administration toward isolationism, except in the case of Venezuela and the Southern Hemisphere.  As a result, we are facing a new world which offers new threats without precedent in the 20th century, and we seem incapable of dealing with them.

McFaul meticulously takes the reader on a journey encompassing the last 300 years as he argues that today’s new power alignments and problems require a fresh approach, unencumbered by our Cold War past or MAGA’s insular nationalist dreams.  McFaul’s incisive and analytical approach provides a manifesto that argues against America’s retreat from the world.  The author develops three important themes throughout the book.  First, Russia’s disruptive ambitions should not be underestimated.  Second, China’s capabilities should not be overestimated.  Lastly, Trump’s move toward isolationism and autocracy will only weaken America’s place in the world balance of power.  These themes are cogent, well researched, and supported by numerous historical examples that McFaul weaves throughout this lengthy work which should be read by all policymakers, members of congress, and the general public.

There is so much to unpack in McFaul’s monograph.  He does an excellent job of synthesis in tracing the causes of great power competition today reviewing the history of US-Russia and US-China relations over the last 300 years and explains how we arrived at the tensions that define the global order today.  He correctly argues that power, regime types, and individuals have interacted to produce changing cycles of cooperation and conflict between the United States, China, and Russia over the last three centuries.  It is clear that over the past few decades these factors have created more conflict after the hopes of democratization that existed in the 1990s.

McFaul argues that there are some parallels between the Cold War with the Soviet Union and the present competition with China and Russia, but we should not go overboard because it distorts what is really happening.  Similarities with the Cold War include a bipolar power structure this time between the US and China; there is an ideological component resting on the competition between democracy and autocracy; and all three nations have different conceptions of what the global order should look like.  However, we must be careful as we have overestimated Chinese power and exaggerated her threat to our existence for too long.  Containing China must be our prime goal but China is not an existential threat to the United States and the free world.  China does not threaten the very existence of the United States and our democratic allies.  President Xi of China has witnessed the decline of American power particularly after it caused the 2008 financial crash and no longer believes he has to defer to the United States and has taken advantage of American errors over the last twenty years to pose a competitive threat to Washington.  Xi is not trying to export Marxist-Leninism, he is employing China’s  financial and technological strengths to support autocracies around the world and expand Chinese power in the South China Sea,  the developing world, especially in Africa – once again taking advantage of American errors.

Image: U.S. President Trump And Russian  President Putin Meet On War In Ukraine At U.S. Air Base In Alaska

(President Donald Trump greets Russian President Vladimir Putin as he arrives at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson)

Along these same lines we have underestimated Russian power in recent years as under Putin it has the capacity to threaten US security interests, including those of our European allies.  Though Russia is not an economic threat she is a formidable adversary because Putin is a risk taker and is more willing to deploy Russian power aggressively than previous Russian leaders.  Secondly, its invasion of Ukraine provides military experience and lessons that can only improve their performance on the battlefield. Thirdly, unlike during the Cold War, Russia is closely aligned with China.  Putin’s aggressive foreign policy has an ideological component and has sought to propagate his illiberal orthodox values for decades.  Unlike his predecessors Putin is willing to intervene in the domestic affairs of other countries, i.e., kept Bashir Assad in power in Syria for a decade, interfered in American presidential elections and elections throughout Europe, invaded Georgia, Chechnya, Ukraine, etc.  Putin sees the collapse of the Soviet Union as the greatest disaster for Russia of the 20th century and wants to restore the territorial parameters of the Soviet Empire in his vision of Russian autocracy.  As he exports this ideology we can see successes in a number of European countries and certain right wing elements in the United States.

One of his most important chapters recounts the decline of American hegemony since the end of the Cold War.  It has been a slow downturn  and has resulted in the end of the unipolar world where the US dominated.  The Gulf War of 1991 witnessed the United States at its peak power.  Following the war the United States decided to reduce its military since the Soviet Union was collapsing.  However, after 9/11 US military spending expanded.  Under Donald Trump the US spends 1% of GDP on the Pentagon allowing Russia and China to close the gap.  Today we correctly condemn Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but from 1991-2020 the use of hard power in Kuwait to remove Iraq, the overthrow of Manuel Noriega in Panama, the bombing of Serbia in 1998, interfering in the Somali Civil War in 1992, the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the overthrow of Gaddafi in 2011 created power vacuums for terrorist rebels to fill including ISIS in Iraq and Syria.  In addition, it cost the United States trillions of dollars to finance.   According to economist Joseph Stiglitz the war in Iraq alone cost three trillion dollars, and the trillions lost in Afghanistan money that could have been put to better use domestically and globally to enhance Washington’s reputation worldwide, along with thousands of American casualties resulting in death and life-long injuries.  In this environment it is no wonder that the Chinese have expanded their power externally and strengthened their autocracy internally, and Putin feels American opposition is rather hypocritical.

A satellite overview of Fiery Cross Reef in the South China Sea as seen on 1 April 2022(A satellite overview of Fiery Cross Reef in the South China Sea as seen on 1 April 2022)

If this use of hard power was not enough along comes Donald Trump to accelerate the decline in US power by turning to disengagement and isolationism as he withdrew from the Transpacific Partnership, the Paris Climate Accords, the Iran nuclear deal, the INF (Intermediate range nuclear forces) treaty, the World Health Organization and severely criticizes the World Trade Organization, NATO, the European Union, and imposed new and higher tariffs on China, and our allies.  The Trump administration has done little to promote democracy and weakened the United States’ ability to compete ideologically with China whose reputation and inroads in the developing world have made a difference in their global image at the same time the Trump administration has severely cut foreign aid.  His actions have led to little in the area of supporting democracy as an ideological cause as he has curtailed or stopped funding for USAID, NED, Voice of America, Radio Free Europe among many programs, in addition to picking fights with allies, and threatening to withdraw from NATO.  If this is not enough, the COVID 19 virus showed how dependent the United States was on Chinese firms for drug production and critical medical supplies.

Domestically, Trump’s immigration policy is becoming a disaster for the American economy as there is a shortfall in certain areas of the labor market, particularly food production and distribution.  The policy could be a disaster in the long run as university enrollment of foreign students has declined markedly and if one examines the contributions of immigrants historically in the fields of medical and other types of scientific research this is a loss that eventually we may not be able to sustain.  As Trump attacks the independent media and truth, politicizes the American justice system, and uses the presidency for personal gain he appears more and more like an autocratic wannabe, and it is corrosive to American democracy and our image in the world.  These are all unforced errors, and China and Russia have taken advantage dramatically, altering the global balance of power and America’s role in it.

McFaul provides an impressive analysis of the relative economic power vis a vie the United States and Russia, and the United States and China.  The entanglement of the US and Chinese economies must be considered when their relationship has difficulties.  China is both a competitor and a trading partner for the United States.  American companies and investors engage profitably with Beijing, i.e., Boeing, Apple, Nvidia, and American farmers have earned enormous profits and supported thousands of jobs.  American consumers have benefited from lower-priced products imported from China.  Chinese companies trade with and invest in American companies, Chinese scholars conduct collaborative research at American universities, and Chinese financial institutions buy American bonds and go a long way to finance American debt.  Their entanglement presents both challenges and opportunities, but the fundamental challenge for the American foreign policy toward China is figuring out the delicate balance between economic engagement and containment.

In turning to difficulties with Russia, the United States does not have the meaningful economic relationship it has with China.  In fact, as McFaul correctly points out our issues rest outside the economic realm to the ideological – Putinisim.  The Russian autocrat “champions a virulent variant of illiberal, orthodox, and nationalistic ideas emphasizing identity, culture, and tradition.”  Putin wants to export his conservative values and attack western values, by supporting a strong state, enhancing autocracy by promoting Russian sovereignty, basically by creating a false image of Russia.  China spreads its ideology to the developing world.  Russia tries to spread Putinism to the developed world, especially Europe as he tries to foment social polarization in democracies to weaken them.  The rhetoric out of Moscow does not bode well for the future and any change in their approach will have to wait until Putin leaves the scene.

Another very important issue for the American consumer and politicians is Chinese-American trade.  Those who are against an interdependent economy increasingly call for a decoupling of the economic relationship with China because of the damage it does to Americans.  McFaul drills down to show that this is not the case and more importantly how difficult it would be to decouple.  The argument that the US does not benefit from this relationship is a red herring as China holds $784 billion in American debt, and Chinese manufacturing production is imperative for the global supply chain.  Companies like Apple, pharmaceutical companies, and the robotics industry are entities deeply intertwined between the US and China creating economic growth in both countries.  It also must be kept in mind that Chinese growth had a positive effect on the American economy as goods made in China make them cheaper for the US consumer, in fact during the period of increasing US-China trade and investment, the American economy grew more rapidly than any other developed economy.  McFaul warns that the US has to learn how to further benefit from the US-Chinese relationship or at least manage economic entanglement better because it is not going away for decades.

Michael McFaul Profile Photo

(Author, Michael McFaul)

If there is a flaw in McFaul’s monograph it is one of repetition.  The structure of the book makes it difficult to avoid this shortcoming.  Whether the author is discussing Chinese and Russian approaches to confronting the liberal economic world, interfering in other countries, or the philosophies and actions of Putin, Xi or Trump at times the narrative becomes tedious.  The constant reminder that the Chinese threat is much more dire than the Soviet threat was during the Cold War is made over and over as is the constant reminder that our fears of the Chinese are overblown, our attitude toward Russia is not taken seriously enough, and the threat represented by Trump’s devotion to isolationism.  To McFaul’s credit he seems aware of the problem as he constantly reminds us he is repeating the same argument or that he will elaborate on the same points later in the book.  My question is, if you are aware of a problem why keep repeating it?

McFaul spends the last third of the book warning that the United States cannot repeat their Cold War errors as there are fewer resources today to prevent mistakes.  He calls for containing Russia and China, and avoiding what Richard Haass calls “wars of choice,” as took place in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan.  After critiquing errors like overestimating Soviet military and economic power, in addition to exaggerating the appeal of communism, along with underestimating China’s economic and military rise and the faulty belief that the Chinese communist party would democratize, he offers solutions.

All through the narrative McFaul sprinkles suggestions of what the United States should do to compete and contain China and Russia.  Be it encouraging parameters for Ukrainian security, rejoining the Trans-Pacific Partnership, negotiating comprehensive trade agreements with the European Union, the restoration of USAID and other forms of soft power, maintaining and increasing funding for our research institutions, and most importantly lessen the polarization in American politics so China and Russia cannot take advantage.  In considering these policy decisions and many others which would restore America’s reputation and position in the world – the major roadblock is the Trump administration who will never act upon them.  According to McFaul we must ride out the next three years and hope that the damage that has been caused and will continue can be overcome in the next decade.  McFaul is hopeful, but I am less sanguine.

(Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin)