| JRL HOME | SUPPORT | SUBSCRIBE | RESEARCH & ANALYTICAL SUPPLEMENT | |
Old Saint Basil's Cathedral in MoscowJohnson's Russia List title and scenes of Saint Petersburg
Excerpts from the JRL E-Mail Community :: Founded and Edited by David Johnson

#26 - JRL 8026
From: "Melvin Anders" <melvinanders@usa.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004
Subject: Browder in 8025 [re: Putin]

I’d like to point out two issues that arise from reading William Browder’s defense of Vladimir Putin in JRL 8025.

First, Browder states: “Putin has implemented a reform program that is far more liberal than anything that could have been cooked up at the most radical think tank in Washington.” On reflection, I think most JRL readers would agree that is perhaps an excess of enthusiasm. After all, even a very conservative think tank would probably suggest at least one credible opposition candidate for Putin in 2004, perhaps even a televised debate between them.

Second, Browder argues that it is irrelevant that Khodorkovsky has been a good boy for the past few years, driving major changes in corporate transparency, because of his nefarious past. Browder argues we should remember Khodorkovsky’s past and condemn him to prison without bail and selective prosecution. Yet, where Putin’s own dark past is concerned, Browder suggests that his recent good-boy behavior (as Browder sees it) justifies forgetting the dark past and accepting the “case for Putin.” Upon reflection, I think most JRL readers would agree this is perhaps an unwieldy double standard. You can’t have your "pirozhnoye" and eat it too: If Khodorkovsky’s dark past is relevant, then so is Putin’s. If Putin’s past isn’t relevant then neither is Khodorkovsky’s, and Putin has to get the blame for railroading a progressive capitalist. I understand that it’s an inconvenient Catch-22 for Browder’s “case for Putin,” but que sera sera.