Daily Archives: January 26, 2007

By most American commentators’ assessment, George Bush’s seventh State of the Union Address was significant for the ritual of it, rather than the substance. The LA Times stated that it “felt even more compulsory than usual” and that Bush “seemed at times to be going through the motions.” On Iraq, the proverbial elephant standing in the middle of the chamber, the paper stated that “he said little that was particularly original or helpful.” On the Iraq issue the NY Times stated that he “added nothing to his failed policies.” The Washington Post lobbed lighter criticism. Bush goal, the daily stated, was not so much to convince anyone about the solvency of his new course for Iraq, but more to “drive home the point that the “consequences of failure would be grievous and far reaching.” The Post agreed with Mr. Bush, writing, “On this, ..read more

January 26, 2007 The Soviet Union, the U.S. and Russia: Opportunities Lost Washington Profile

An interview with Stephen F. Cohen, Professor of Russian and Slavic Studies at New York University and author of several books, including Failed Crusade: America and the Tragedy of Post-Communist Russia.

Washington Profile: There have been several prominent theories proposed as to why the Soviet Union collapsed. In your extensive research on the subject, what is the conclusion that you have reached?

Stephen Cohen: It is fresh in my mind because I just published a little book in Moscow in Russian on this question. I call this book:

“Why did the Soviet Union end?” The publisher called it: “Vopros voprosov, pochemu ne stalo Sovetskogo Soyuza.” I don’t use the word collapse because I think that prejudges an explanation. If you say collapse, it implies an analogy with the end of ..read more

This week’s New Yorker has a lengthy article by Michael Specter entitled “Kremlin Inc.: Why are Vladimir Putin’s Opponents Dying?” The article is not available online. But lawyer Robert Amsterdam has provided a .pdf scan of it for those who don’t have access to the New Yorker. You can read it here.

The article is not so much about Putin’s opponents as it is about the nature of Russia under Putin. In fact, the question posed in the article’s subtitle—Why are Vladimir Putin’s opponents dying?—is not directly answered. Perhaps his editors added it to make the article sexier. The only true dissident featured in the article is Anna Politkovskaya, whose murder is treated as a metaphor for Putin’s Russia. As Specter himself notes, Russia has traded stability for liberal democracy. Putin has put Russia back on a solid economic and ..read more