1
1
(see: http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=20584 , http://www.russiaprofile.org/page.php?pageid=CDI+Russia+Profile+List&articleid=a1232381631 , http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/88068 , http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/89320 )
RE: Umland (JRL 2009-#19)/RE: Ivanov (JRL 2009-#12)
From: Eugene Ivanov (eugene_ivanov@comcast.net)
Published in: Johnson's Russia List (JRL) 2009-#21, 30 January 2009
First of all, I'd like to thank Andreas Umland for his thorough comments on my blogpost.
At the core of Umland's response lies his explanation that due to indiscriminate cutting and editing, at the hands of TNI editors, his position has been severely distorted. To restore the truth, Umland has provided us with a fuller version of his article posted to the American Chronicle. He has also suggested that I should have first read this AC version before writing on my blog.
I disagree. I'm not a scholar studying Umland's writings and I'm not obliged to read everything he publishes. I came across the TNI article and commented on what I read there. If Umland believes that his views were misrepresented, he should blame the TNI editorial office, not me.
Besides, and that is a key point, although the AC version of the article is arguably a better piece of literature, both are conceptually similar in claiming that anti-Americanism is rising in Russia; both invoke the same polling data to support that claim. Speaking of polling data, I was somewhat surprised by Umland's confession that polling data were submitted to his TNI article "only after TNI's explicit request." What is that supposed to mean? That Umland originally claimed rising anti-Americanism in Russia without providing any data?
Now, having met "TNI's explicit request" to provide polling numbers and having shared with me a reference to a Levada poll, Umland seems to believe that his job is done. No, it's not. In the center of our discussion is Umland's assertion (articulated in both versions of his article) that "[w]ith the beginning of Vladimir Putin's rise in 1999…Russians' views of the United States were deteriorating continuously." Has Umland supplied us with any reliable data to support this assertion (except for his expert advice to watch, "for a week or two", Russian TV)?
The truth is that no such data exist. Tellingly, Umland dismisses a VCIOM study I mentioned in my post, which was directly contradicting to what he says. Sure, when Umland likes a polling number, he writes that the poll was conducted by "Russia's leading sociological survey agency." When he doesn't like a number, this number was obtained by an agency that "has been put under stricter governmental control." How convenient! (I could understand why VCIOM pollsters would feel pressured to inflate, say, Medvedev/Putin's rating numbers or to downgrade concerns about the economy. But why would they tamper with numbers on U.S. favorability in Russia? Beats me.)
And what about this Pew report (http://pewglobal.org/commentary/display.php?AnalysisID=1019), which I also mentioned in my post and which found that over the period of time Umland is talking about, favorable opinions of the United States have actually increased in Russia: from 37% in 2000 to 43% in 2006. Does Umland have any evidence that Pew pollsters were under the Kremlin's "stricter control"?
That's what I call "cherry-picking" polling data: present data that support your position and ignore those that don't.
Absent the data on U.S. favorability, what else does Umland have? Nothing. He frets over the fact that in mid-August 2008, 48% of Russians opined that "[t]he U.S. leadership wants to extend its influence on Russia's neighboring states." This is ridiculous. A political scientist, as he is, Umland must understand the difference between negative views of foreign policy of the Bush administration and negative views of the United States as a country. He's also concerned that many Russians believe that the cold war is still going on. So what? Has he ever heard about a guy named Edward Lucas? Lucas not only believes, too, that the cold war still continues; he's written a book about it. Will Umland accuse Lucas of rampant anti-Americanism?
I'm puzzled with the amount of attention Umland pays to the nature of my relations with Russia Profile. True, occasionally, I contribute to Vladimir Frolov's weekly expert panel, but I have never submitted anything directly to RP. I know that almost every piece of mine that appears in JRL is later re-published by RP. I guess this is because of some, unknown to me, agreement between JRL and RP. Yet I cannot have any responsibility for the format RP uses to reproduce my pieces (even if I cared).
The rest of Umland's comments are noise, a smokescreen aimed at hiding the fact that he has nothing to say on the substance of my critique. I'm obviously not going to discuss the Russian-Ukrainian gas conflict: I didn't touch this subject. Nor am I going to engage in a discussion of who Umland should consider himself: a suicidal or a paranoid liar. Intelligent people, and I definitely count Umland as one, must make such decisions by themselves.
Oh, yes, there is one thing Umland and I completely agree upon: I'm indeed cautiously optimistic about the future of U.S.-Russia relations. And yes, I consider talks about a nuclear war between the two countries deliberately provocative.
----------------------
For further Russian and Ukrainian comments, see:
http://www.newsland.ru/News/Detail/id/343304/cat/42/
http://www.glavred.com/archive/2009/02/23/182544-1.html
http://blogs.korrespondent.net/celebrities/blog/forum2004/a8634
http://smi.liga.net/articles/IT091046.html
http://www.delfi.ua/news/exclusive/interview/article.php?id=349466&com=1
1 | 2
