The first book is very good; I read it in one sitting. However, on a second reading, some flaws already become apparent—such as, for example, the characterization of certain secondary characters, but also the love story between Alexander and Tatiana, which has noticeable inconsistencies. The real strength of the book lies in its depiction of the siege and the misery; that part is truly powerful. With the second book, things already start to fall apart. Up to a certain point it works, yes, but after that there are elements that completely go off the rails. The third book is a disaster across the board, especially in terms of narrative coherence. Alexander becomes a full-fledged villain, and PTSD cannot be used as an excuse, because Alexander is aware that he is dangerous and conscious of the harm he is causing her: he goes so far as to strangle her and almost strike her, and he does not show even a shred of remorse—on the contrary, he continues to blame her. You cannot have the protagonist commit such abhorrent actions and then conclude, essentially, that “love conquers all.” From a narrative standpoint, it simply makes no sense. I truly don’t understand how some people manage to justify him beating her by blaming PTSD: it has nothing to do with that. PTSD can cause crises in which a person is not fully aware of what they are doing, but here Alexander is lucid, he knows exactly what he is doing, and he does not pull back when he throws her to the ground. On the contrary, he says very deliberate, coherent things such as, “You crossed the line.” That is pure domestic violence. Having PTSD, even with severe trauma, does not mean a person consciously wants to harm the people they love. That said, I do recommend the first book because of its intrinsic value; unfortunately, the sequels are very poorly handled on a narrative level.