Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005
From: "Oliver Bronsen" <oliverbronsen@moscowmail.com>
Subject: Query re Comments on Aslund
In reading the four comments on the piece by Anders Aslund in 9220 by Edward Lozansky & David Gillespie in 9222 and Jeremy Putley and Ira Strauss in 9221, I’m a bit disappointed to see that none of the four spend much time, if any, addressing Aslund’s central thesis, as stated at the outset, namely that Putin's regime is unstable. It seems obvious to me that this question is of seminal importance, but the four commentators seem to go all round the houses avoiding it. It’s a secondary question whether instability, if it exists, is good or bad, and one of little importance for discussion since, from what I can tell, the answer is predetermined by whether you like Putin or don't, with only a narrow vein of interest to be explored for those who don't like Putin but think something "even worse" could follow him. So I'd like to encourage more comments along these lines.
Of course, I can understand why some might be reluctant to go on record as Aslund has done with a specific position, since whether Putin lasts or doesn't is an empirical fact that could leave the prognosticator with egg on his or her face. It seems to me that all should applaud Aslund's willingness to make the call whether he is right or wrong and no matter his motive, and that we would be well served if others would do the same. So many errors have been made analyzing Russia in the past that it's time we begin to separate wheat from chaff and follow those who can truly lead. Also, there seems to be a certain amout of personal invective on all sides which I do not see as serving any useful purpose, it can only cloud the issue.