Professor Uri Ra'anan and Stephen J. Blank talk about their book Flawed Succession.
In Flawed Succession, Professor Uri Ra'anan and his authoritative contributors analyze the state of Russia's power transfer crises through time. In four key successions - after Stalin's death, throughout Khrushchev's primacy, during the implosion of the USSR, and with Putin's ascent to power - they take aim at Russia's unpredictable leadership changes and consequent crises that result from the absence of a mechanism for legitimate succession. The uncertain and precarious nature of power transfer in Russia - and its lack of a transparent, consistently implemented, non-arbitrary mechanism for succession - has rendered incumbents unsure of the duration of their ascendancy, vulnerable to putative successors, and resistant to putting aside the politics of personal power in consideration of the long-term interests of the country.
In addition to Stephen Blank, contributors include Dr. Robert Conquest and Dr. John Dunlop (both of the Hoover Institution), and Professor Carl Linden (George Washington University).
Bio
Dr. Stephen J. Blank
Dr. Stephen J. Blank has served as the Strategic Studies Institute's expert on the Soviet bloc and the post-Soviet world since 1989. Prior to that he was Associate Professor of Soviet Studies at the Center for Aerospace Doctrine, Research, and Education, Maxwell Air Force Base, and taught at the University of Texas, San Antonio, and at the University of California, Riverside.
Dr. Blank is the editor of Imperial Decline: Russia's Changing Position in Asia, coeditor of Soviet Military and the Future, and author of The Sorcerer as Apprentice: Stalin's Commissariat of Nationalities, 1917-1924.
He has also written many articles and conference papers on Russian, Commonwealth of Independent States, and Eastern European security issues. Dr. Blank's current research deals with proliferation and the revolution in military affairs, and energy and security in Eurasia.
He holds a B.A. in History from the University of Pennsylvania, and a M.A. and Ph.D. in History from the University of Chicago.
Dr. Ariel Cohen
Ariel Cohen's area of study ranges from economic development and political reform in the former Soviet republics to U.S. energy security, the global war on terror and the continuing conflict in the Middle East. As a native of Yalta on the shores of the Black Sea, Cohen brings first-hand knowledge to his studies of the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia.
Cohen also lived in Israel for eleven years, earning his law degree at Bar Ilan University Law School in Tel Aviv and working as a foreign policy journalist.
John Hilboldt
John Hilboldt oversees Heritage's Lectures and Seminars Program which annually hosts over 100 public programs at the Foundation's headquarters.
Before becoming Director of Lectures and Seminars, he served for four years as Deputy Director of Coalition Relations, editing two issues of the Policy Experts guide and its accompanying policyexperts.org web directory as well as coordinating other outreach endeavors.
Additionally, he is a member of the Advisory Council of the Young Britons' Foundation of London.
Professor Uri Ra'anan
Professor Ra'anan taught at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University for more than two decades; he has also taught at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Columbia University, and the City University of New York.
He is the author, coauthor, editor, or coeditor of twenty-five books primarily on Soviet Affairs.
Against my better judgement, as I'm getting a little tired of being flamed over this, I'd like to add an amendum to my last post that I'm certainly not endorsing a_tendency's implication that conditions for U.S. investigative reporters are in any way comparable to those of their counterparts in Russia, a suggestion I find as ridiculous as I do offensive. For her courageous attempts to expose the crimes of Putin and the organizations who support him, Politkovskaya lived in constant fear for her life, as do many of her contemporaries today. That's what it's like to be in the political opposition in Russia. Judges, activists, liberal politicians -- all suffer from the everyday threat of prison or worse for expressing their opposition to the government. The "war on terror" notwithstanding, to suggest that an investigative reporter in the United States would realistically have any such concerns is absolute nonsense. Sy Hersh may have encountered legal opposition from the government for his expose of Abu Ghraib, but do you honestly think at any time he was in danger of being killed by "friends" of the Bush Administration over his reporting? What are you going to tell me next, that Molly Ivins was finally taken out by the CIA over a decade after she first called Bush a "Shrub?" That Paul Wellstone was offed by the Republicans in 2002 for speaking out against the Patriot Act?
I sense that we may agree over many aspects of Bush's conduct of the war on terrorism...but dude, if that's truly the way you see life in this country, you have absolutely lost touch with reality. You're not ignorant, you're just nuts.
I'm not disagreeing with you on the "war on terror" etc.; my point, since it has apparently been missed yet again, is that...oh, forget it. I'm just going to repost what I wrote above:
Quote:
Yes, there is blood on our hands. We are engaging in criminal actions over the so-called war on terrorism that need to be stopped. But my point is that in the U.S. we have the tools as citizens to vocalize these issues and do something about them. The Russians don't. It's a credit to our society that we're able to do that.
As hopeless things can seem, we DO have the ability to challenge the government to affect institutitional change. Look at last summer's Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, in which the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional the detainee tribunals that had been going on since 9/11. See what happened there? Our government listened to its critics and checked its own power. Changes can happen slowly, but they do happen. Do you think a case like that would have any chance of going through in Russia? That their hopelessly corrupt legal system might stand up and say something like, "Hey Putin, you need to treat the Chechens like human beings once in a while"?
This debate is crazy. You're blinded by your own ideology if you think there's a legitimate comparison here.
Rocketdog: it seems that you are troubled by the 'style' and manner of the brutality
"Can you imagine what would happen if reporters at the Nation or the American Prospect were regularly taken down in contract-style killings, and the government simply shrugged and looked the other way?"
Your point being that that the Russian government is barbarically honest about their killing of political dissidents and in the the U.S. we do our best to disguise it through 2 or 3 degrees of institutional separation? Ask the Canadian and German citizens whom BRICEHOBBS referred to whether or not they have any chance of justice in the US Courts. The ignorance and naivite which you accuse is yours, sir.
Look, I'm certainly no conservative nationalist, but you guys are still blowing my mind here. Your points are vaild, Brice, but you seem to be ignorant of just how bad things are in Russia. Can you imagine what would happen if reporters at the Nation or the American Prospect were regularly taken down in contract-style killings, and the government simply shrugged and looked the other way? That's the equivalent parallel for what happened to Politkovskaya. You're honestly implying that kind of thing happens here? Right now, in this society? You're not exaggerating your case, maybe just a little bit?
Yes, there is blood on our hands. We are engaging in criminal actions over the so-called war on terrorism that need to be stopped. But my point is that in the U.S. we have the tools as citizens to vocalize these issues and do something about them. The Russians don't. It's a credit to our society that we're able to do that. Have you been so obsessed with the bad that we've done as a country that you've forgotten completely about the good?
"Our government doesn't look the other way when the mafia takes out contract killings on judges, reporters, and social activists." —Rocketdog
Oh I do wish things were as rosey as you suggest. The CIA, the FBI and the agents they hire repeatedly do these deeds you mention at home and abroad. There is no need to hire the mafia.
Government policy is to redefine terrorism and torture as something the other side does while committing horrific acts (there are those that are known versus those that will never be told) ourselves that I will assume I can simply reference here for a well read commentator such as yourself: black sites/extraordinary rendition(see recent case of an innocent German man tortured by the CIA ), water-boarding, feces and Botero drawings, Guantanamo, a miltary raping of a 14 year-old Iraqi child, Abu-Ghraib (the sadist scene straight out of a Heironymous Bosch painting). I don't have to go on, do I?
Chechnya is Russia's psychological enemy used to whip up support for dictatorial control. Keeping a populus afraid of the Terrorist in our mind is Bush's version of this. Parallel realities don't have to be as literal as you suggest to be observed and to be true.
Woah there...I was totally with you right up until your last sentence. I agree with you about Russia's woeful current state, and I found Politkovskaya's death, tragic as it was, to be hardly surprising. (By the way, anyone with any sort of interest at all in this topic absolutely has to read Politkovskaya's final book, Putin's Russia. It's as well written as it is shocking.) But your implied comparison of the criminal oligarchy that runs Russia to that of the Bush Administration is hyperbole in the extreme. I'm no fan of Bush myself, but drawing broad parallels between these two governments dramatically misrepresents both of them. To be totally frank, Russia's current condition should serve to bring us all down to earth a bit and remind us of how good we've really got it and how far we've come as an effective democracy. We've still got an effective court system, civil rights, and a free press, for example -- even if it looks like they're occasionally under attack. Our government doesn't look the other way when the mafia takes out contract killings on judges, reporters, and social activists. We actually have environmental legislation, and when it isn't upheld, we as citizens can take the government to task for it. Russia has none of this, and no hope for any of it in the immediate future. Do you need me to go on?
Look...in two years, Bush will be gone. He's barely there right now. But Russia's criminals aren't going anywhere. And that's a real tragedy.
As someone who has lived in Russia I was pleased to find this article in today's ny times
because it rings true to both my experience and understanding of everyday Russian social and political realities.
A single sentence synopsis might read something like:
Many voting Russian citizens value stability in their government and will trade it for the West's notion of freedom of choice and freedom of expression. Futility and cynicism are no strangers to Russian intellectuals when considering their leaders. I recently, asked a Russian friend of mine about the recent contract killing of Anna Politkovskaya (the Russian journalist who was not afraid to print the truth about Putin and the war in Chechnya) and he said it was well understood by the Moscow/St. Petersburg intelligentsia that this was done in service to Putin with absolutely no hope of justice or even an investigation. This is today's Russia: powerful because of energy and ruthless toward it's enemies. Hmmm that sounds too familiar.