1The book Mobilizing in Uncertainty: Collective Identities and War in Abkhazia, by Anastasia Shesterinina, published in 2021, is the result of an impressive PhD journey in political science. The author conducted an in-depth investigation into the trajectories of the combatants of the Abkhaz-Georgian war of 1992-1993, focusing on the Abkhaz side.

2Two central concepts in this book are mobilization and uncertainty, and the key question the book aims to answer is: "How do ordinary people navigate uncertainty to make mobilization decisions in civil war? Specifically, how did the Abkhaz go from the uncertainty created by the events of mid-August 1992 to a range of decisions about whether and in what capacity to mobilize? Why did some join the war effort, while others escaped the fighting?" (p. 1)

3The book is comprised of seven chapters, maps, and figures. In the introduction, Anastasia Shesterinina describes the extensive fieldwork she carried out between 2010 and 2013, collecting firsthand data through in-depth interviews (150 in Abkhazia; 30 in Georgia and Russia) and archival materials.

4The author begins by exploring a paradox: according to classical political science explanations of mobilization, a broad Abkhaz mobilization would have been unlikely considering the asymmetry of forces, the lack of incentives, and the balance of costs/benefits of armed engagement. Nonetheless, she finds that 13% of the Abkhaz population engaged in armed mobilization and thus attempts to analyze the causes of this phenomenon.

5Shesterinina focuses on the four crucial days of mobilization (August 14-17, 1992) and investigates how collective conflict identities and collective threat framing can help her explore the role of representations and narratives in this mobilization. By reconstructing the trajectories of combatants and their biographies, she gathers information on "whether people anticipated a war, how they viewed Georgian forces, and what motivated them to act. These responses reflected how uncertainty at the war's onset was channeled into different mobilization decisions through collective threat framing." (p. 5)

6How can one evaluate the costs and benefits of mobilization, particularly for a numerically smaller nation with much to lose? Anastasia Shesterinina highlights that the Abkhaz were at a significant disadvantage in terms of manpower and arms when the war began. The population of 5 million in Georgia and the 240,000 Georgians in Abkhazia greatly outnumbered the 93,000 Abkhaz. She then demonstrates that the collective threat framing and the collective memory overhang this objective disbalance.

7The author also analyzes the element of risk and the confusion people experienced when trying to decipher a complex situation. Excerpts from interviews are particularly enlightening, as they remind us that the "horizon of thinkable" in the heat of the action is much more opaque and impenetrable than 'ex post' analyses by scholars. Euphemizing the situation and refusing to label the first clashes as a war impacts the onset of mobilization. She also demonstrates, among other findings, that risk was not a decisive factor in decision-making.

8The relationship between prewar political activism (e.g., in the Abkhaz national movement Aidgylara) and subsequent mobilization is explored, with the author showing that there is not necessarily a strong correlation between the two. In relation to potential typologies, Shesterinina shows that “even prewar activism, the key predictor of subsequent mobilization in the social movement research, did not invariably draw individuals into mobilization when the war began” (p. 204). Acquired dispositions do not always lead to significant involvement, while collective memory and its widespread penetration into the population play a determining role.

9Regarding mobilization, Shesterinina proposes a variety of meanings and modalities of military involvement in the war. She distinguishes the emergence of the Abkhaz Guard, which stems from the Special Regiment of Internal Forces (SRIF) (based on the former Eight Regiment of the Soviet Army located in Abkhazia, this Regiment served as the first facilities for the future Abkhaz Guard) ) and is limited in numbers, from other forms of mobilization, whether led by Abkhaz President Ardzinba and charismatic military figures or initiated by personal and spontaneous acts. One of the book's key findings is the elucidation of different mobilization trajectories, both in terms of time and manner.

10Regarding the "general unreliability of all information" or the "inability to anticipate what the future holds," one might argue that uncertainty could diminish as more information becomes available. (p. 205) However, individual perceptions often serve as the primary lens that significantly influences decision-making. Consequently, ongoing uncertainty might hinder individuals from making clear and well-informed decisions.

11Looking back, it would have been challenging to incorporate external factors into individuals' subjective rational choices in real-time. Nonetheless, Anastasia Shesterinina steps back to analyze Russia's role in the conflict. By reexploring and to some extent downplaying Russia's impact on the Abkhaz victory and the post-war situation, she seems to underscore the ambiguous role Moscow has played in post-Soviet conflicts and their aftermaths.

12Towards the end of the book, the author endeavors to draw broader implications from the Abkhaz case, generalizing her analysis to potentially apply to other conflicts (and especially to small, new or quasi states). In conclusion, the book effectively conveys the complex transition and shift that occurs during the critical period between the pre-war and war states, shedding light on the intricate dynamics at play during this pivotal time. It is a substantial contribution to war studies, through a sociological lens and it will be of great interest for researchers in post-Soviet but also post-communist conflicts or tensions, more broadly, such as former Yugoslavia and the Baltic countries.