Reviews for The Nature of War: Conflicting Paradigms and Israeli Military Effectiveness

The average rating for The Nature of War: Conflicting Paradigms and Israeli Military Effectiveness based on 2 reviews is 2.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2020-10-26 00:00:00 Peter Saunders As someone who has read considerable Russian history, including military history -- and as someone who spent his years in the Reserves and Guard training for a war with the former Soviet Union -- I can say that this book is a very good introduction to a very large subject. It's a tribute to the author that he can keep the book to 247 pages of very readable text, but still touch on all the major topics. He does not neglect the political interactions between the Russian state and its army: the push-pull between the royal courts, e.g., of Peter and Catherine the Great and the army, particularly in reforms, or the impact of dissidents as different as Pugachev or the Decembrists. It shows something of his editing skills that he can cover the sweep of all those tumultuous centuries without losing understanding or context. He also keeps it in its own Russian context, and seeks to avoid " ... misunderstandings of Russian military history: that World War I was a war of stalemate and immobility, that World War II was a 'good war' with a clear line between the just and unjust ..." (from the introduction). Worthwhile, either to those new to Russian military history, or to those seeking to put the wars and revolts and reformers all in a single continuum. Very worth while.

Review # 2 was written on 2009-12-27 00:00:00 Logan Langor A succinct yet comprehensive military history of Russia. Stone traces the important military events and personalities of late Muscovy, the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, and the early Russian Republic, against the unchanging background of geography and the slow transformation of demography. Well worth reading for anyone interested in military history but unfamiliar with Russia, or for those who have studied Russia but lack a solid understanding of the role of warfare in the development of the region.