The best works currently done on the Russian-side of the Napoleonic Wars is being done arguably by LSU's Alexander Mikaberidze. His trilogy on 1812 (The Battle of Borodino, The Burning of Moscow, and The Crossing of the Berezina) are probably the best introduction to the 1812 campaign. Mikaberidze's various articles as well as translations of Russian memoirs has also deepened the current historiographical assessment of the Russian army in this period. In the notes of his studies on the 1813 and 1814 campaigns, Michael Leggiere thanks Mikaberidze profusely for his insights into the Russian elements in these campaigns. Lieven's Russia Against Napoleon is also quite good, but leans a bit too heavily on a pro-Russian bias (Lieven himself is a descendant of one of the Baltic German servitor families of the Romanovs). This bias does not fundamentally undercut his scholarship, but it does tinge it at places. Napoleonic military studies using the methodology of the so-called "new" military history (which is now approaching thirty-years old) and examines militaries as socio-political entities and not just fighting units has been extended to Russia quite recently. The anthology Russia and the Napoleonic Wars put out by Palgrave is one example of this. Many of the books in Palgrave's series "War, Culture and Society, 1750-1850" typically feature very good entries on Russia and 1812.

As the above sample of quite recent scholarship suggests indicates, Russia's role is being reevaluated significantly current historiography. Older works like Chandler's or Elting's were greatly marred by a lack of access to Russian archives or limited linguistic skills about Russia. This meant the bulk of scholarship on 1812 prior to 1989 tended to be derived from French- or Allied-sources, producing a very skewed picture of events. This very narrow source base had much the same effect that Shattered Sword described over older accounts Midway; lopsided source base led to mistakes in analysis. The Cold War also contributed to a problematic view of 1812 in the West. Although Chandler was a good scholar, his connection to Sandhurst made him a "NATO stooge" for the the Eastern bloc and he really could not access sources in this area or make fruitful connections with Eastern bloc Napoleonic scholars and enthusiasts. In a 2006 Kritika review essay "Russia and the Defeat of Napoleon (1812-14)," Lieven noted that a good many authors had imbibed Cold War-era stereotypes about Russia that had seeped into their scholarship. Examples of Russian discipline under fire, a natural consequence of a long-term service army, sometimes got transformed into tales of Russian automatons operating in human waves, drawing a line of continuity between the Alexander I's army and the alleged tactics of Stalin's Red Army. And this WWII narrative had parallels with the Napoleonic one, memoirs of the defeated side in both cases defined the contours of the campaign as well as placing responsibility for the defeat on anything but Russian/Soviet agency. Swords Around a Throne's sections on the Russian army in particular is quite bad in this regard with Elting downplaying Russian professionalism and claiming

Through it all they were Russian- demanding, untrustworthy allies; subtle, persistent enemies; entirely set upon the single goal of expanding their empire by whatever means might be necessary. Meanwhile they operated in a fine Slavic confusion no other army could have endured.

Elting's othering contains a mishmash of contradictory characteristics (untrustworthy but persistent, confused yet engaged in a singular expansionist policy) betrays much of its Cold War-era thinking, Tom Clancy's technothrillers often contained the same set of contradictions, but it really has no place in contemporary scholarship. Like Shattered Sword, the new historiography on 1812 starts off with the "novel" proposition of examining sources from both sides. Mastering Russian, German, and French is not an easy task, but it is not an insurmountable one.

From the russian point of view, definitely:

Russia against Napoleon by Dominic Lieven. The author ia a specialist of Russia and made extensive research on the usually neglected Russian side/ He analyzed with a good deepness the whole political aspect of Russia (internal policy, limitation of the tsar etc...) and the logistics are the Russian faced tremendous difficulties to replace their heavy casualties, raise new armies and equipped them. The book went from the peace of tilsit in 1807 and the escalation that led to war in 1812 until the end of the Germany and France campaign, in order to have a more comprehensive view of the Russian invasion.