This book is written by an outsider. Many of the negative reviews here are from aggrieved people looking for their version of Ukraine history. The author is not trying to promote one aggrieved party version of history. As an outsider like Anna Reid, I liked her approach. Its a small book covering a big topic, but the author does manage to paint a detailed picture of the sad 20th century in Ukrainian history. I read this book during my recent six weeks in the Ukraine. Ukrainians are digging out from the ashes of the last 100 years. The future looks bright. I found myself thinking if the Ukraine can stay free and avoid a repeat of the disastrous wars of the last century, they could be a first-world nation in a generation or less.

Looking at the cover of this book, I immediately thought to myself that this is not Ukraine--not as I know her! The cover was an insightful indication of the biased rhetoric that was to follow.

The top cover photo is of "Local characters: Two paupers, one blind aged 70, the other sighted, aged 58, 1870s. Courtesy of State Historical Museum, Moscow."

The bottom image on the cover is by "Georgii Petrusov, Lunch in the Fields, (1934), Courtesy of Galerie Alex Lachmann, Cologne, 'The idealization of Russian family and collective...'"

The back cover repeats the front, bottom photo by "Georgii Petrusov, Lunch in the Fields, (1934), Courtesy of Galerie Alex Lachmann, Cologne, 'The idealization of Russian family and collective...'"

Now, I ask the reader, why would a person put on a cover (and repeat on the back cover) of a book purporting to describe the history of Ukraine, photos from Russia and call the book "...A Journey through the History of Ukraine"?

According to the lavish review written by The Times on the back of the book, Anna Reid spent three years living in Kyiv as a reporter and is "remarkably clear-headed about the many competing versions of Ukraine's history and its mostly invented heroes. A wise and generous government in Kiev (sic) would give her a medal." I ask: why would the Ukrainian government give Ms. Reid a medal for stating that Ukraine has "mostly invented heroes"?

The author's very obvious Russian slant/bias is apparent from not only the cover and page one of the book, where she opens with a quote from a Russian novelist and playwright, Mikhail Bulgakov (a Russian born in Kyiv, Ukraine to Russian parents), but continues throughout the book. Again, I ask why wasn't a quote used from a Ukrainian if the book deals with Ukrainian history? If the author wanted to quote Russians and use photos from Russia, why not write a book on Russia and give it a title with Russia in the name?

Of the ten chapters in the book, chapter two has a quote from Ukraine's bard Taras Shevchenko and also a traditional Ukrainian curse (which I've never heard, but encountered for the first time in this book). We, again, hear from Ukrainian bard Taras Shevchenko in chapter four's introduction, but his quote isn't deemed important/meritorious enough to stand alone, so a quote by Hugh Seton-Watson accompanies it.

In chapter nine, there is a quote from the "first verse and chorus of the Soviet national anthem" (eight lines) followed by two lines attributed to an unnamed "Rukh leader." I ask: why are we forced to read lines from the Soviet national anthem in a book dealing with the history of Ukraine?

Chapter ten has a quote from Gogol. Most people still think, erroneously, that he is a great Russian writer. However, to her credit, Ms. Reid does state much earlier in the book (chapter three) that Gogol is a Ukrainian--Gogol (Hohol) was a Ukrainian born in the Poltava region of Ukraine. Gogol, a Ukrainian, became a great Russian writer--this anomaly resulted in studies over the decades. Edyta M. Bojanowska, Ph.D., Harvard University, offers her analyses of this nineteenth-century writer from a new perspective, giving convincing arguments and reflecting critical thought in the process. Dr. Bojanowska teaches (is a Lecturer on Slavic Languages and Literatures) at Harvard University, where she was a Junior Fellow at the Society of Fellows. Her book is available on Amazon.com--buy it, read it, and become enlightened--Nikolai Gogol: Between Ukrainian and Russian Nationalism.

Why not quotes from Ukrainians like Ivan Franko (a Ukrainian scholar, publicist, poet, political and civic leader, publisher, novelist, literary historian, and nationalist, who had Lviv University renamed in his honor. He had over 6,000 books in his personal library; he completed over 5,000 translations for sixty authors in 14 languages. In 1956, UNESCO sponsored the centenary of his birth, an event that was noted internationally.) Franko is just one example--why not quotes from Lesia Ukrainka, Olha Kobylianska, or other Ukrainians?

Ms. Reid likes to give her Russified version of events, followed by: "The Ukrainian version of events, of course..." which implies that the Ukrainian version is in all cases wrong and something to be dismissed and ridiculed.

She describes her drive "from Khortytsya Island in Zaporizhya: `Covered in snow, the countryside looked one-dimensional, like an over-exposed black-and-white photograph.'" Maybe Ms. Reid should have taken that photo and used the photograph on the cover of her book. It would have depicted the steppes of Ukraine and Ukraine's chornozem (on its website, the Embassy of Ukraine describes chornozem as meaning `black earth'--it has become internationally recognized and refers to Ukrainian soil, celebrated as the most fertile possible. Because of her fertile land, Ukraine was once known as the Breadbasket of Europe.).

In this book, you can't venture far without derogatory remarks and comments, such as: "...the Cossacks weren't up to much. Weren't they violent? Weren't they drunk? Above all, weren't they failures? Didn't even Gogol make fun of his Cossack hero Taras Bulba?"

Let me first of all address the issue of Cossacks (Kozaks). Everyone should view the video entitled, "Ukraine: Ancient Crossroads, Modern Dreams." In my review of that video, I quote from the movie: In one segment, the narrator explains that "Kozaks did more than fight and dance, they also financed the building of many churches...the Kozaks brought many fine churches and other developments to the region, but, perhaps, their most important achievement was holding off the bondage of serfdom..." This must-see video is available for purchase on Amazon.com, or through interlibrary loan.

Regarding Ms. Reid's reference to Gogol and Taras Bulba, Professor Bojanowska addresses this issue expertly in her scholarly study (Harvard University Press) entitled: "Nikolai Gogol: Between Ukrainian and Russian Nationalism." Pages 271-279 are rich with references, quotes, and scholarly insight. "...Taras Bulba stands out as a savvy political leader. He understands how history and politics are made and is able to promote an ideology, rather than just blindly follow one. Though his single-mindedness makes him an exemplary patriot, Gogol's portrayal of him is more complex than a simple affirmation of his values and actions, as is commonly assumed." "Nikolai Gogol: Between Ukrainian and Russian Nationalism" is available for purchase on Amazon.com, or through Interlibrary loan.

As another example of disparaging discourse on Ukraine, Ms. Reid describes Shevchenko's grave: "was covered with a Cossack-style mound and marked with an oak cross. In the 1880s the wooden cross was replaced with an iron one, in 1931 with an obelisk, and in 1939 with a hideous monumental bronze statue, which still stands today." I propose to readers that the word "hideous" is Ms. Reid's description. That she thinks it's hideous is really of no interest to me. When I read a history of a country, I like to read the facts, not someone's opinion and biased description.

A disparaging comparison from Ms. Reid follows: "`Poland is not yet lost' was the title of a Napoleonic Polish marching song; `Ukraine is not dead yet' is the less-inspiring opening line of the present-day Ukrainian national anthem."

Her derogatory descriptions continue: "...OUN split in two--the more moderate `Melnykivtsi,' under the Civil War veteran Andriy Melnyk, and the fanatical `Banderivtsi', under the young head of OUN's terrorist unit, Stepan Bandera."

The Encyclopedia of Ukraine describes Stepan Bandera as a "revolutionary, politician and ideologue of the Ukrainian nationalist movement." The Encyclopedia of Ukraine describes Andrii Melnyk as a "military figure and political activist." I submit that the words "fanatical" and "terrorist unit" have no place in this discussion if it's to remain truly objective and depict historical events. The Encyclopedia of Ukraine is "the most comprehensive work in the English language on Ukraine, its history, people, geography, economy, and cultural heritage. This site was created and is updated/maintained by a team of scholars and editors from the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies (CIUS) (University of Alberta/University of Toronto). Hundreds of specialists from around the world have contributed and continue to contribute to the Encyclopedia."

For readers who want a true, unbiased history of Ukraine, an excellent 150-minute video called "The Ukrainian Experience," covers Ukraine's history in five parts: part 1: From Antiquity to the Rise of Kiev (Kyiv); part 2: From the Fall of Kiev (Kyiv) to the Rise of the Hetman State; part 3: From the Ruin to the 1905 Revolution; part 4: Modern History of Ukraine; and, part 5: The Diaspora and Ukrainians in Canada.

This video is "The story of Ukraine from the founding of Kiev (Kyiv) to the recent Declaration of Independence as told by Roman Onufrijchuk, writer and lecturer with the Department of Communications at Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, B.C., enhanced with colorful visuals, anecdotes, pathos, humor and music. This series was produced during 1992 as a Centennial Project by: the Ukrainian Canadian Congress, B.C. Provincial Council, #208 - 1015, Burrard St., Vancouver, B.C. V6Z 1Y5, phone: 604-687-2052."

Another excellent source for impartial information on Ukraine's history is Professor Orest Subtelny's (published to international acclaim) Ukraine: a History. Orest Subtelny is a Canadian historian of Ukrainian descent, and a Professor at the Department of History and Political Science, York University, Toronto, Canada. The third edition (2000) is available for purchase on Amazon.com.

There are good sources of information on Ukraine's history; unfortunately, "Borderland: A Journey Through the History of Ukraine" falls far short of a good reference source. As I read through some of the reviews, seeing statements such as "I purchased this book for research purposes (I needed some familiarity with Ukraine), and this book more than sufficed"--I cringed!

A person doing research needs material that is factual, not something that is laced throughout with subjective, biased comments. Consider this review: "...this book gave a wonderful condensed history of the (sic) Ukraine."--I cringed some more!! By the way, the name of the country is one word: "Ukraine," the phrase: "the Ukraine" is incorrect!

Another review continues: "...There are some historical inaccuracies in the book, but one assumes that these (sic) data were (sic) supplied to the author by both Polish and Russian sources. Otherwise, this (sic) a good book for (sic) reader interested in getting his "feet wet" on this newly independent nation." May I suggest to the author of this review that "some historical inaccuracies" do not "otherwise (make it a) "good book."

I wonder whether this "A Customer" is the same one that I encountered when I wrote a rebuttal review of "Ukraine: Ancient Crossroads, Modern Dreams"? "A Customer" in his/her review recommended "Save your money. This video taught me nothing about the (sic) Ukraine, its countryside, its people, or its culture." My review, in part, reads: Ukraine (Ancient Crossroads, Modern Dreams) is a must-see video! Not only is it recommended by the Ohio State University Center for Slavic and East European Studies, but the university offers a free loan (call 614-292-8770, or write to Keisel.1@osu.edu). For a complete review/debunking of the review of "A Customer," please go to that page and read my review. "Ukraine: Ancient Crossroads, Modern Dreams" is available for purchase on Amazon.com.

Here's what this "A Customer" wrote about Ms. Reid's book: "Borderland" is an excellent book by a very perceptive and knowledgable (sic) writer." It's interesting that when "A Customer" writes a review, his/her Amazon account is closed so that when you mouse over that name, no profile appears. I do believe that this person puts out false/misleading information, and then conveniently disappears so that answers won't be forthcoming to legitimate questions. Also interesting, is the fact that two reviews appear by "A Customer": one dated May 16, 2000 (rated 2 stars), and the other dated February 15, 2001 (rated 5 stars). Both reviews are from accounts that were closed--if you mouse over the names, no information is available regarding a profile for either person. Is this the same person, closing an account, only to reopen it a short while later so that he/she may continue to write reviews and influence the rating system? There are very many "A Customer" entries when you search the reviewers.

Imparting truthful information is one thing; imparting biased information is inexcusable. The author used credible sources/references to conveniently lure the unsuspecting reader into a complacent belief that the rest of the words that follow are objective reporting. Chapter six on "The Great Hunger" (Holodomor) is a good one, and merits reading. This could have been a remarkable "journey through the history of Ukraine"; unfortunately, the author squandered that opportunity by littering the roads with very obvious bias and subjective slants.

As all the postings and appraisal of Anna Reids book reflects this is a very good introduction to Ukrainian history. That is with stress on both *good*, *introduction* and *up to 1997*. If you have allready read several histories of Ukraine, chances are slim you will find much new here. If you need an update on the orange revelution, you will simply not find what you look for here. If you find another book to cover the orange revelution, it might even be an advantage that it is published in 1997, in the sense that it is likely to focues more on the Kuchma era than a book published more recently will.

It is not unlikely that you anyway will enjoy here anectodical introductions to each chapeter though, using personal experiences as illustrations to the different regions and historical periods of the country. To illustrate the strenght and the (less important) weekness of this style of writing, an could tell you about my reading of her book as preperation for a 3 weeks journey though Ukraine. Like a similar incident after reading Kapuscinski's story about Pinsk in Belarus, Reid has made me get off the train at 5 o'clock in the morning after a though night in the restaurant wagon caused by reading her chapter from this region - Chernivtsi is simply somewhere that you have to see before you die. The truth is a bit more complex. I guess what I try to say that her writing is better litterature than travel advice (read, to see what I mean).

I would like to add a few lines of why I think this book is as good as it is.

As I see it, A good hisoty of Ukraine aknowledges the following 3 things that Ukraine is, 3 things that Ukraine is not and 3 things as not important.

3 things you necesarily needs to find in a history of Ukraine is that
-It's history is above everything else multicultural and about a peasant culture
-The by far most significant buiding-blocks of Ukrainian national identity is to be found in the 1800s and 1900s.
-It is primary Ukraine itself that created the economic and political disaster of the 1990s (unlike in the 1920s, when Ukraine recovered after, say, 7 years of economic crisis the neo-Brezhnevism corruption is what probably makes the big difference)

Second to a cover picture of an Ukrainian peasant with a Russian bureucrate and a Jewish merchant on each side, the picture chosen for the front page is the perfect choice! Read the book and understand why. I am very surprised why someone have objections to the photo. What ever is the basis of their objection it is not Ukrainian history.

As of other peoples included in multicultural Empires in Eastern Europe up to World war I, national identity came late to Ukraine. Anna Reid gives a good and balanced understanding of this.

More important than any other explaination to the political and economic disaster of the 1990s was the policy of Ukraine itself. Anna Reid manages to give a good introduction to this not-so-proud recent past.

3 things you necesary *not* will find in a good history of Ukraine is:
-that Ukraine is an acient Eastern Slavonic Nation
-a history of Ukraine that is not closely related to Russian history
-a place in Ukraine that represents "real Ukraine"

Middle-age settlements in the Eastern Slavonic region was highly autonomious, there was several of them both in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia and Kiev was an important but not the oldest of them.

The southern and Eastern Ukraine is both a crucial part of Russian and Ukraine and Ukrainian-Russian history. The Ukrainian impact on Soviet history and the great importance of the Soviet Union for Ukrainian national identity. Reid gives a good and balanced understanding of this. I take the objection of some reader that she puts to little emphasis of the collectivisation and starvation as a sign that she succeeds to present Ukraine as much more than victims of starvation. Also important, Ukraine was the politically most priviledged republic after the Russians in the Soviet Union.

Though this side of the story is included in Anna Reid's book, the fact that it is published in 1997 does that some important developments that we can see though the last 10 years is missing. I miss some important development lines in post Soviet Ukraine, compared to Russia and Belarus. When Yury Andropov introduced the perestroyka policy in Russia (yes, this was originally Andropov's and not Gorbies initiative) backed by the army and KGB, one might say that the Russians (who were in charge of the milirary powers, while the Ukrainians had a huge influence on the Post-Stalin political power) took over the political wing of the Soviet Union from Ukraine, who on their site continued the corruption and maleconomies of the disasterous Brezhnev years into the Kuchma era. Belarus, on thir side, seems to never got as badly hit by the Brezhnev's Dnipropetrovsk mafia as did Russia and Ukraine.

3 things a hsitory of Ukraine will reflect that is not important is
-whether you prefere to write Kyiv or Kiev
-what Ukraine really means
-what place is the orign of Eastern Slavonic civilisation

Anna Reid does not make a big deal out of any of this. Combined with good writing and the succsessful use of anecdotes from her personal experiences and research you have the reason why it is so interesting to read her book, while hardly interesting to read some of the polemics over this kind of choices in some of the customer reviews.

As all the postings and appraisal of Anna Reids book reflects this is a very good introduction to Ukrainian history. That is with stress on both *good*, *introduction* and *up to 1997*. If you have allready read several histories of Ukraine, chances are slim you will find much new here. If you need an update on the orange revelution, you will simply not find what you look for here. If you find another book to cover the orange revelution, it might even be an advantage that it is published in 1997, in the sense that it is likely to focues more on the Kuchma era than a book published more recently will.

It is not unlikely that you anyway will enjoy here anectodical introductions to each chapeter though, using personal experiences as illustrations to the different regions and historical periods of the country. To illustrate the strenght and the (less important) weekness of this style of writing, an could tell you about my reading of her book as preperation for a 3 weeks journey though Ukraine. Like a similar incident after reading Kapuscinski's story about Pinsk in Belarus, Reid has made me get off the train at 5 o'clock in the morning after a though night in the restaurant wagon caused by reading her chapter from this region - Chernivtsi is simply somewhere that you have to see before you die. The truth is a bit more complex. I guess what I try to say that her writing is better litterature than travel advice (read, to see what I mean).

I would like to add a few lines of why I think this book is as good as it is.

As I see it, A good hisoty of Ukraine aknowledges the following 3 things that Ukraine is, 3 things that Ukraine is not and 3 things as not important.

3 things you necesarily needs to find in a history of Ukraine is that
-It's history is above everything else multicultural and about a peasant culture
-The by far most significant buiding-blocks of Ukrainian national identity is to be found in the 1800s and 1900s.
-It is primary Ukraine itself that created the economic and political disaster of the 1990s

Second to a cover picture of an Ukrainian peasant with a Russian bureucrate and a Jewish merchant on each side, the picture chosen for the front page is the perfect choice! Read the book and understand why. I am very surprised why someone have objections to the photo. What ever is the basis of their objection it is not Ukrainian hisotry.

As of other peoples included in multicultural Empires in Eastern Europe up to World war I, national identity came late to Ukraine. Anna Reid gives a good and balanced understanding of this.

More important than any other explaination to the political and economic disaster of the 1990s was the policy of Ukraine itself. Anna Reid manages to give a good introduction to this not-so-proud recent past.

3 things you necesary *not* will find in a good history of Ukraine is:
-that Ukraine is an acient Eastern Slavonic Nation
-a history of Ukraine that is not closely related to Russian history
-a place in Ukraine that represents "real Ukraine"

Middle-age settlements in the Eastern Slavonic region was highly autonomious, there was several of them both in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia and Kiev was an important but not the oldest of them.

The southern and Eastern Ukraine is both a crucial part of Russian and Ukraine and Ukrainian-Russian history. The Ukrainian impact on Soviet history and the great importance of the Soviet Union for Ukrainian national identity. Reid gives a good and balanced understanding of this. I take the objection of some reader that she puts to little emphasis of the collectivisation and starvation as a sign that she succeeds to present Ukraine as much more than victims of starvation. Also important, Ukraine was the politically most priviledged republic after the Russians in the Soviet Union.

Though this side of the story is included in Anna Reid's book, the fact that it is published in 1997 does that some important developments that we can see though the last 10 years is missing. I miss some important development lines in post Soviet Ukraine, compared to Russia and Belarus. When Yury Andropov introduced the perestroyka policy in Russia (yes, this was originally Andropov's and not Gorbies initiative) backed by the army and KGB, one might say that the Russians (who were in charge of the milirary powers, while the Ukrainians had a huge influence on the Post-Stalin political power) took over the political wing of the Soviet Union from Ukraine, who on their site continued the corruption and maleconomies of the disasterous Brezhnev years into the Kuchma era. Belarus, on thir side, seems to never got as badly hit by the Brezhnev's Dnipropetrovsk mafia as did Russia and Ukraine.

3 things a hsitory of Ukraine will reflect that is not important is
-whether you prefere to write Kyiv or Kiev
-what Ukraine really(tm) means
-what place is the orign of Eastern Slavonic civilication

Anna Reid does not make a big deal out of any of this. Combined with good writing and the succsessful use of anecdotes from her personal experiences and research you have the reason why it is so interesting to read her book, while hardly interesting to read some of the polemics over this kind of choices in some of the customer reviews.

I bought this product on the strength of the interest generated by a visit to Ukraine, good reviews, and its inspired title. I have to say I was disappointed, in that instead of history I found, for the most part, patronizing British journalism, a bit too full of the kind of smart comments which are intrusive without being thought-provoking. Certainly I found here much of the historical information I was looking for, but with a bias towards colourful anecdote rather than explanation of background.

I have to say it picked up considerably in the chapters on the first half of the twentieth century. The obtrusive comments seem to recede as the grim story takes centre stage. Much of this is powerfully told, and I respect the way the writer does not pull her punches on the Famine.

I do not regret purchasing the book, and in view of the last paragraph, plus the absence as far as I know of better work with similar coverage, I think three stars is fair. Readers who like its journalistic style might find it worth four.

There are certainly connections between russian and ukrainian culture. But those of us who have gone to ukrainian schools know well how authorites can suppress the total picture of a culture. Get a taste of the beauty of Ukraine from this book, but be open to more and accurate info as well. Buy more books on Ukraine!

Very complete. Great timeline in front of text so one can keep track of which Polish or Russian invasion the writer is explaining. HOWEVER, it needs extra chapters to explain the last 10 years of major change in Ukraine.

First of all, Ukranians and Russians is one nation. And Ukraina is a modern name for the present territory of this country, since the establishement of the USSR followed by the October revolution in 1917.
For centures before that and after reunification with Russia some 350 years ago that part of Russia was called Little Russia. History of Ukraine is a sad history of Russia with Kiev to be the first capital of old Russia going back to 5th century and was always called as mother of all other Russian cities.Still today Kievo-Pechorskaya Lavra,( set of orthodox churches and a monastrye) the heart of Kiev belongs to Russian Orthodox Church. Kiev Russia(old name of Russia) being a rich and strategically well located country was an attraction for tatars and polish. This is where the first split of Russia as a country comes from. Part of Ukraine being under Poland for quite a time turned into a source for separatism for some of people of this region, especially in the western part of Ukraine.
There is little spoken about it today, but eastern parts of modern Ukraine and down very south (Crimea) never were under polish ruling, and in fact are more Russians than Ukranians, if to use modern terminology. Existing borders of Ukraine been made artificcially due to complex history of Russia, the most "outstanding" act was a gift of Khrushev(leader of USSR) from Russian Federation to Ukraine in the mid of last century. On celebration of 300 years of reunification of Ukraine with Russia, Crimea`s vast land was taken from Russian Federation borders under republic Ukraine borders, as a gift prooving we are together for ever.
And the split up in 1991 had more economical reasons than national, due to weak leadership of Gorbachev, which brougth the USSR on the edge of economical, political and moral collapse. Everybody was running away from that muddle.
Bur history has no way backward, what is done-is done. But in all time it has to be respected. What happens now: either because of little knowledge or to proove the split up, we see that some are trying to write " a new history of Ukraine".
I agree with F. Alcala comment, that Russia and Ukraine will be together in the future with one one remark: we were not for 350 years together, this is the date of reunification of Russia and what is called Ukraina today, but long before that we started as one country in Kiev Russia, later invaded by the neighbours around, what resulted the split up before that reunification took place 350 years ago.
Nice remarks from F.Alcala about other countries.
I wonder if Mrs Anna Reid next book will be about USA? Is she going to defend the idea of setting up Indians Country on the territory of USA,
demandig a contribution from UK for occupying Indians lands for centuries and genocide to indian people?

While it wasn't exactly what I was looking for, this book gave a wonderful condensed history of the Ukraine. This small country has gone through so many changes, and been under so many other countries leadership, finally winning their independance. It makes you appreciate our own history.

While it wasn't exactly what I was looking for, this book gave a wonderful condensed history of the Ukraine. This small country has gone through so many changes, and been under so many other countries leadership, finally winning their independance. It makes you appreciate our own history.

Never would I have thought that a history could be so enthralling. This work reads like a fine novel. The author has extensively researched her subject. The book was read in preparation for a visit to the Ukraine. Having read Borderland provided a basis for understanding the contempory politics and attitudes of the country whose National anthem begins with "Hope in the Ukraine is not yet dead."!!! A must read for anyone interested in the Ukraine or the post USSR conditions of previous soviet border states.

This is a good example of a book about Ukraine written by a person with a Russian mindset - crucial points about understanding the Ukrainian culture, spirit and sense of independance are wrong. Buy and read this book if you want to know about all Russian misconceptions of Ukraine. Otherwise choose someone more knowledgeable. Two other reviewers made good points about what's wrong with the book, which you can notice even without reading it:
1) The explanation of the origin of the name of the country is wrong. This has been an issue of fierce scientific debates between true historians and pro-Russian communist pseudo-scientists who preferred to see Ukraine only as a border of the bigger Russain empire;
2) peasants on the cover of the book look really dirty, uneducated and backwards - like Ukraine doesn't have writers, scientists, cultural artifacts, national symbols over more than 2000 years of its history - well, there are millions of things she could have chosen for the cover of her book.
Sorry for the people reading this book and thinking they actually understand where Ukrainian sense of national identity and independence is coming from.

I really enjoyed reading this book. The author is well informed and knows the country. The book ends before the Orange Revolution, but is a wonderful introduction to a great country and people.

Unfortunately the author did not get the basic premise correct. Ukraine does not mean borderland. The oldest use of the word found in written text is in the 10th century chronicle of Slava o Polke Ihoria. The term Ukraine is used as meaning within the kingdom, at the heart of the kingdom. The opposite of what the author writes. Borderland would mean Okraina, this is the difference between in and out. She also missed that Ukraine has the oldest calendar on the planet now dating to 7039. Another significant fact.

Maybe the next book could be an new history based on archives from Lutsk and Kyiv that the author did not read. Missing such a basic premise clouds the rest of the book.