I am still digging up good clips from my last interview with Paul Goble. Here he reacts to the argument from Anatol Lieven’s National Interest article which argued that Piontkovsky, Shevtsova, and other Russian liberals serve as “an asset to Putin in terms of boosting public hostility to Russian liberalism that if they hadn’t already existed, Putin might have been tempted to invent them.“ See more reactions here and here.
Subscribe by Email
3 Comments
Of course Lieven says nothing about whether Russians want freedom, etc. What he says is that Russians want nothing to do with the remnants of the comprador crowd that whines how bad Putin is.And Russia was even less stable when their sort had something to do with the running of Russia.
Umm, yes, and Goble talks about liberals behaving badly. But he is right and has a point in saying that there is nothing more insulting than suggesting that the Russian people don’t want freedom, human rights, and democracy. That’s what the realists basically argue, and it is a devastating insult to the people.
“That’s what the realists basically argue, and it is a devastating insult to the people.”James, that’s not what Lieven argues. Lieven even says “Russia needs a strong liberal movement.” so Goble is totally misrepresenting Lieven’s argument.Goble shows himself a liar and a confuser. He’s right about nothing.