Nope. I have far too big an ego to share the limelight…

True. He’s a megalomaniac you know.

Nope. I have far too big an ego to share the limelight…

LYNDON: Merci beaucoup! You haven’t named a single specific example though, so I’m not convinced. Sounds to me vaguely like you are blowing smoke. Try again? And while you are at it, name one person in a position to affect change in Russia who has “written me off”. Isn’t it just as much of a “write off” if nobody pays attention? Answer honestly Lyndon: Are you sinerely trying to increase my influence? Let’s just say my style maximizes my influence — in that case my enemies would want me to abandon it, wouldn’t they?

“Can you give any examples of your approach bearing fruit?” I think there were clear instances during the cold war when engaging the Soviets led to successes in the areas of arms control, for example. And in general, I am a proponent of more diplomatic outreach on the part of the US, because I don’t think the swaggering style scores too many points with the rest of the world. But that is almost beside the point. We are but spectators – at least, that’s my point of view – sort of like people who blog about sporting events but do not suit up and play (though admittedly the analogy is imperfect).

You consider yourself an activist, and perhaps your approach will “bear fruit.” From where I sit, though, in my spectator’s seat, the result of your style so far has been to give an assist to those who wish to discredit more reserved criticism of Russia. It becomes easy for them to write off anyone criticizing Russia as a knee-jerk “russophobe.”

Hmmmm – without wishing to brag, I think you’ll find that this particular post is actually about me.

Although I will concede that, without your interview, this post would never have been written…

I really find it quite amusing how Russophiles like you are ready to attack me in exactly the same terms you say I can’t properly use in attacking Putin’s Russia. The hypocrisy is truly breathtaking.

Are you saying that things wouldn’t be “desperate” until the last Russian was dead? If not, please give a benchmark. What would have to happen in Russia for you to believe that things were “desperate”? How many people like Anna Politkovskaya would have to die?

Do you concede that waiting until the last moment, until “desperation” is clear by your definition, places us at a strategic disadvantage, the same way waiting to take care of a medical problem makes it more difficult later on? Do you concede that, in this respect, you’re advocating gambling with people’s lives?

Can you give any examples of your approach bearing fruit? Or do you simply embrace it on philosphical grounds regardless of whether it works or not?

A good number of people covering Russia are scared of being put in the Quacker’s dog house.

They believe JRL to reach a large audience. Should he choose to ban a source, then that entity might not have as much publicity or recognized publicity that many (rightly or not) attach to JRL.

Oliver, are you jealous that there are people who agree with and support Mike? You do not seem to get as much support.

Self-publication (in the form of a blog) is a simple option, and no one can stop anyone from engaging in it and from getting their views the attention and influence they deserve.

LR, it’s true that desperate times call for desperate measures, I just don’t think times are quite so desperate yet. When the last Russian dies, sure, we can criticize Putin then, though I doubt that day will ever come. But why not try to constructively criticize him now in a way that doesn’t alienate people who see some good in the economic improvements that have happened on his watch?

My take is that those who wish Russia and Russians well in the long run should approach the country and the current regime with “tough love,” criticizing the things that are wrong with an aim to improving them. You do have a right to your perspective, though, and I think everyone can agree that your commitment to that perspective is impressive.