DJ: Here's the basic problem re judging Russia. Bad things are going to happen. They happened under Yeltsin and they happened under Putin. They will happen under Medvedev. Some good things have happened and will happen. So where does one strike the balance in making judgements? (Whether one must feel compelled to make judgements is another question. An important one.) It is quite clear that the dominant Western view in the Yeltsin era was to put the bad things "in context." After all, as the cliche went, "there's no alternative to Yeltsin." Its equally clear today that the dominant Western view of the Putin era is to dwell on the bad things and, for the most part, downplay anything else that may be going on. Some Western analysts go to great lengths to attempt to prove that even the good things that may have happened under Putin have little or nothing to do with Putin. Does that seem compulsively argumentative? Realistically, as anyone who has observed the American legal system knows, an intelligent and eloquent advocate can make any argument seem persuasive. What's needed is exposure to alternative views. That, in the case of Russia, is the function of Johnson's Russia List. If there are any open minded people left JRL is for you. Those who already have a "mission" vis-a-vis Russia will find useful ammunition in JRL but they won't really be making the best use of it.