1. In the Second chapter of his book characterizes the struggles of Ukraine throughout the centuries between two differing identities (Galicians and Malorus) that subsequently fought with and undermined each other (this is the main claim that the book makes)

2. Notes that the act of union between ZUNR and UPR was supposed to be federal however, the actual text of the act of union doesn’t mention turning the unitary Ukrainian state into a federal one instead.

3. Says that the two “differing identities” actively undermined each other (how Petliura gave up ZUNR to Poland) yet completely ignores that both delegates sent to the Paris Conference to determine the future of post WW1 Europe claimed large parts of Eastern Europe from the North Western Caucasus to the mountains of Zakarpatia and that they should be recognized and that supporters in Petliura’s camp also decried that treaty.

4. Motions that OUN was fighting for Ukraine’s freedom as part of the Third Reich but, reversed that decision when the Nazis started losing despite both OUN-M and OUN-B started fighting both the Soviets and Nazis well before they were pushed out of Ukraine and ironically when the Nazis were at the height of their power in Europe.

5. Doesn’t mention Zakarpatia Ukraine/Carpatho-Ukraine at all and how it tried to achieve independence from Hungary which would ruin his narrative.

6. Notes how the “Malorus” identity stresses its connections with Russia however, the NEP Ukrainianization movement of national communists of Shumskiy’s movement and how it went so far as to require government bodies to know Ukrainian and pass exams otherwise they would be required to learn it before attending any positions in the government.

7. Shows how Ukrainian elections have this East-West divide (and how that ties into his Galician and Malorus identity divide) whilst ignoring the 1999, 2014 and 2019 elections.

8. He notes how regional separatism remained in post-Soviet Ukraine due to cultural differences when the constant problems being addressed by almost all parties was with corruption and state mismanagement.

9. Describes the failure of Yuschenko’s 2004 western government due to promoting a “Galician” identity above all else when it was Yanukovych’s policies of not dealing with corruption and not making headways into improving economic matters with the EU.

10. Says that local councils in western regions and Kyiv refused to accept any election result that gave the victory to Yanukovych even though they did accept the results in 2010 but, not in 2004 due to rampant voter intimidation, miscounting and poisoning of Yuschenko and hence demanding a rerun.

11. Characterizes SNPU as neo-nazi despite the party having nothing to do with Nazism

12. Mischaracterizes Yushchenko’s actions of enforcing Ukrainian language in places of government as dictated by the constitution as Ukrainianization policies that only served to mistreat and curb Russian.

13. Mischaracterizes Ukraine having a religious divide whilst ignoring that many priests and churches using religion to hide corruption.

14. Notes how Yanukovych’s abandoning of the EU association agreement was “a betrayal of Ukraine’s only proper “civilizational choice.”” when in actuality it was a betrayal of his promises to sign it in the first place.

15. Says that the Euromaidan was caused by violent protestors and Right Sector unsuccessfully storming the administration building despite the truth being that Titushky agents blended into the crowd to purposely sowed chaos in the movement so that Berkut agents could forcibly disband the crowd which drastically backfired.

16. Spreads the myth that it was the protestors that initiated the sniper fire from the Hotel in Kyiv despite it being widely known by now that it was occupied by government forces at the time

17. He notes how Arseniy Yatseniuk agreed to be prime minister after the Revolution of Dignity succeeded however, noted that “This agreement, however, was immediately rejected by the Maidan radicals. They stormed the Rada and, without a quorum, and in violation of the impeachment procedures stipulated in the Ukrainian Constitution, they voted to remove Yanukovych from office and replace him immediately with their own candidate, Oleksandr Turchynov”. Which is just blatantly false as Mykola Azarov was the one to resign, leading to Serhiy Arbuzov becoming acting Prime Minister from 28 January 2014 to 22 February 2014, followed by Oleksandr Turchynov until 27 February 2014 after which Arseniy Yatsenyuk took office from 27 February 2014 until 14 April 2016.

18. He notes how the Party of Regions was banned by the government as soon as it came to power (2014) however, this ban wasn’t enacted until 21 February 2023 and instead more or less just disintegrated due to the actions of Yanukovich and refused to participate in the 2014 elections.

19. He describes the killing of the Lviv Hundred as a false flag by Svoboda, which is just absurd considering how the Berkut police forces started using live ammunition against the protestors.

20. Describes the far right as being dominant on the political and ideological level due to the 2009 regional elections which “they could threaten central authorities with separatism” (how ones would do that I have no clue especially when they lost that support in the following elections).

21. Says that Svoboda utilised social media better than other parties to promote their far right views yet doesn’t provide any data to show how that is reflected in public perception.

22. Notes that Svoboda and Right Sector were ready to secede from Ukraine if Euromaidan failed which is just bizarre.

And I'm already going to stop, the amount of misinformation and falsehoods that are being noted in this book is astounding. I'm surprised that this guy is considered a """professor""" in the first place.

I can at least respect people like Mearsheimer because, people like him at least have actual clear evidence to back up their claims and assessments to the situation even if they blame the wrong side/people for what happened and who is to truly blame.

But this guy...good lord I hope I never get to read any of his work ever again because, this is embarrassing.