[lbo-talk] The Russia Debate

Chris Doss lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com
Sat Nov 13 08:10:12 PST 2004


Experts: The Russia debate By Peter Lavelle Published on November 11, 2004 This article was written for UPI - United Press International

MOSCOW, Nov. 11 (UPI) -- UPI's Russia analyst Peter Lavelle engages experts Patrick Armstrong, Donald Jensen, Vlad Sobell, Ira Straus, Peter Rutland, Gordon Hahn, Janusz Bugajski, Edward Lozansky and Dale Herspring on the West's polarized debate on Russia.

There has never been much consensus in the West when it comes to Russia, but lately the Russia debate has become polarized -- even contentious. This has become particularly apparent with the start of Vladimir Putin's second term in office as president earlier this year. On the one hand, many Russia-watchers (academics and journalists) appear to have given up on Russia, viewing Putin as too authoritarian and pursuing policies that do not promote democracy and an open society. However, others have suggested it is finally time to abandon any hope that Russia will follow a Western path of political development and that Russia will create its own sense of democracy based on its own political culture and traditions.

Where do we go from here? Clearly there is a split in the ranks. With some Russia watchers wary of engaging the country, there appears to be little interest within the community to engage one another as well. Do we all need to change the way we think about Russia to create more consensuses or simply face up to the fact the split is irreversible?

--

Patrick Armstrong, defense analyst for the Canadian government

I think the split is very long-standing. Many commentators can be divided into righties and lefties. For the righties, the problem is Russia: imperialist and expansionist by its very nature. Communism was just Russians wearing a red shirt and now that they have taken the shirt off, they're still Russians -- never to be trusted: Czar Nikolai II, Vladimir Lenin, and Vladimir Putin: what's the difference? These people can generally be identified because of their tendency to quote Marquis de Custine or Nikolai Gogol or start their think pieces by talking about Ivan the Terrible and suggesting that nothing has changed in Russia in the intervening years, decades and centuries.

While the lefties may be prepared to admit -- sotto voce -- they were wrong about socialism, modern Russia proves they were right about capitalism. They concentrate on wretched pensioners and crooked "biznessmen," and post-Soviet times are a disaster in which all Russians are much worse off and getting poorer. While the two groups disagree about practically everything else, they can agree that (Boris) Yeltsin and Putin are bad people and a threat to their neighbors; Russia is a big mess and getting worse; Putin is not a "democrat" and becoming less so.

I think the majority of commentary on contemporary Russia comes from one of these two camps. Which is why whole forests have been sacrificed arguing that (Mikhail) Gorbachev won't make any difference, that he'll be overthrown, that Moscow will never allow Germany to reunite, will never leave the Baltics, that Yeltsin will never leave office, that Moscow will never allow U.S. troops into Central Asia and so on. Their predictive record is poor. I recommend cautious optimism: a cautious optimist would have won a lot of bets over the last 20 years.

http://www.untimely-thoughts.com/?art=1032

===== Nu, zayats, pogodi!

__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list