I think that author's bias towards modern Russia and especially Putin is slowly starting to affect his work to a degree that his works start to feel a little bit forced and rant-like.

If tomorrow Russia would deliver I do not know, cure for all diseases, author would still treat it as a underworld cesspit. In other words, no matter the situation if author is writing about Russia you can expect that he thinks so lowly about it that he would end up on other side of the world.

So, Crimea takeover. Of course, author states that it was all done using gangsters, underground lowlifes and mercenaries that paved the way for Russian special forces and later armor coming in and taking over the Crimea. Somewhere, somewhere in there you might hear something named Right Sector mentioned - but since these are Ukrainians, it is just myth. Yes, majority of Crimea decided to stay in Russia - this is something author shyly mentions at the very last pages - but it was under the threat of violence (which does not make sense if as author says Crimea would make the same decision, but this is think-tank thinking I guess). No free will, no free decision..... But hey, Ukraine government abolished Russian language as an official language, what about that? Well, that was unfortunate decision (never reverted mind you, but OK) that Russians just used as a pretext.

So, it was actions of goons and gangsters then backed up by elite special operations forces and armor units. Police went over to Russians almost immediately (bought up, must be! all of them!), parts of the army went over (bloody traitors, all bought up!) and [for the author] weirdly enough civil population went over (remember the comment that Crimea would decide to join Russia in any event? Why then such a surprise that population went over? Right?).

Use of IL76 transport planes is "hangover from soviet times"? I am still trying to figure this one out. I guess C130, Spartan or any of the Airbus military transports were supposed to be used (although C130 is as old as IL76, but never mind, author's logic).

Does the author discuss the internal national conflicts in Ukraine? Well, he mentions Tatars, because they were severely punished by Soviet government for collaboration with Germans and their allies in WW2 (as author says only small part of the population was involved - interestingly it is always the case of small number of silly naughty people when allies-of-the-moment are in play), Cossacks are mentioned (as Russian thugs of course - also heavily dispersed by Soviet government for same actions as Tatars, but since they remained with Russians these guys are The Thugs)..... and that's it. Is there any mention of enmity between Western and Eastern Ukraine? No. Is there any mention of clashes and atrocities in Odessa and other cities in Ukraine when pro-Russian and pro-Western columns clashed? No, you see this is all a myth and perception used by Russians. If you read all the text you will see how Ukraine army was training with western/NATO forces at the time (picture even says 2014) but is there anything more on this? No, except the mention how installing coastal artillery systems after takeover was done to prevent western intervention - very interesting statement dont you think, but alas no further information is provided.

Was there mention of Ukrainian oligarchs and local chiefs and their personal armies roaming the land on both sides? No. Why? I guess because it is complicated and would mess up with the context here.
Role of Strelkov and his troops - for the author they are war criminals for actions in Crimea, but for what exactly is not disclosed. Strelkov is a weird character, I agree but even his actions in Slavyansk were time limited (80 something days if I am not wrong) so question remains what atrocities were done in Crimea since everyone agrees that level of aggression used was minimal.

So in short when you look at what is expected to get from the book - description of the operation, when all the usual author's comments on Russian gangsters, thugs, traitorous Ukrainian troops, etc - is taken out, is pretty well given. Russian troops are even shown as competent (author's slip I am sure, he was just being generous to the Russians).

Everything else - context of the operation (you know, strategic location, very close to home unlike, I do not know, Falklands, more like case of Panama), political situation in the country, complete confusion when it comes to various militias and paramilitaries and so on and so forth - is as expected from the author, very single-sided. Which is a shame. I still think that author will one day publish a really good and objective work on the subject of Russian military. Question remains when..... sometime in a far far future. In the meantime his books will definitely not age well.

From the operation perspective highly recommended. From the point of everything else, there are better books out there that give lots of political and social context, dont use this one as starting point. ( )