I am flabbergasted and at a loss of words to do justice to this book. Any amount of words cannot capture the complexity and hypocrisy of EU that is represented in this book. While I was aware about the flawed EU system and its corruption, did read about the crisis while it underwent, I could not have in my wildest dreams imagined such high levels of dictatorial and inefficiency in a system. The smooth covering at the top of EU hierarchy to mask all their corruption is not surprising but yet, it dumbfounded me. Reading the news is different and only superficial especially considering the details that have emerged in this book about how complex, inefficient and possibly illegal it may have been for Eurogroup to negotiate with Greece. I am unable to describe this with a single word. It is also plausible that Varoufakis is covering his arse in this book because in my recollection the media always presented him as the guy pushing for Grexit. During the crisis, it seemed so and it maybe that he is using this book to defend himself and build a platform for his own political career. I am developing this theory based on his DiEM party foundations and his tax returns filed in 2016-2018. Considering that his wife/partner is an artist it would have been easy for him to seek compensation/renumeration from his patrons by investing in his partner’s art. Again, that’s just a hypothesis. What’s appalling is that he talks differently than he walks. In his book he outlines how every participant in a venture should have equal votes and decision making ability, but conveniently walks away from doing so when opportunity to do so was laid in front of him. Schauble is presented as a villain in the book along with Merkel’s stubbornness to make Greece an example. I find it hard to believe that Merkel was so dictatorial primarily because she did do a lot in my understanding to keep the EU intact and navigated through multiple crises in the best way possible albeit conservatively. I do accept that I was highly critical of her during those times, but now as I look back at those times and compare with the current leadership, I think she performed exceptionally well for the EU. The book has put me in a difficult position. Its very difficult to believe Varoufakis from here on. In my understanding he pulled off a flamboyant/maverick Kejriwal on Greece and EU with his biker jacket and motorbike. He used that to build pathos with the audience and most likely exploited their trust for his personal gains. Only such a psychotic personality will so brazenly suggest that he knows no explanation to anyone for his huge income tax returns, and especially when he is a public figure. It could possibly also be that its his maverick nature which pushes him to become so arrogant, but yeah I have my doubts on his sincerity to bring income equality into the world. He has good ideas and is a good storyteller that allows him to develop a rapport with his audience initially, and then he exploits that for his personal benefits. He tactically avoids blaming Tsipras directly because that would antagonise his audience completely and hence plays it smart by leaving the readers with a little room to decide for themselves if Tsipras betrayed them or not. Brilliant tactic but thats what most politicians and leaders do, so can’t really blame him. Now, he does bring to the fore the coercive nature of the EU and troika and their tactics. This is prevalent and was observed also during the crisis in other PIGS’ nations. So, his story does have merit to it, but in order to arrive to a fair conclusion I must read the other party stories too. I am unaware if Schauble and others’ have written anything on this subject. Nevertheless, it would be interesting when I have the team and time to research this in detail. Currently, I don’t believe that Varoufakis can have a political career or an academic career by being so politically naive. I have a teeny tiny bit of experience in academia and am well aware about the politics required to be successful there. So, yeah I believe he sold his followers’ to sleep with history himself. History will remember him certainly and might judge him kindlier than I do but I have serious doubts on it. While I understand that the concepts presented in the book are fair and better than the alternative from the troika, I do find it hard to believe that negotiators and diplomats can be so dumb to completely ignore it at the risk of a wider collapse. Negotiations - both business and political - are founded on empty threats till the delusional risk is exaggerated to an extent where one loses rationality. I have a hard time believing that the Troika did not see it this way. My doubt begins with how he went about telling a story and saying how his ideas were eventually presented and applied after being initially refused. I find it difficult to trust the book and its author, but I did learn a lot from the book about politics and finance. So, it was a worthwhile read.