Articles and Essays

THE IMMEDIATE RESPONSE of President Bush and his administration to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the United States was superb, both purposeful and principled -- a military, political, and diplomatic success. But what comes next? In his State of the Union address, Bush suggested specific targets of future phases of the war -- the "axis of evil" of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. But what has been missing in the discussion of the second stage (and perhaps the third, fourth, and fifth stages) of the war on terrorism is an articulation of the general principles that will guide

with Kathryn Stoner

Vol. 38, No. 2 (Summer 2015)

In the late 1990s, as Russia’s economy descended into a death spiral— eventually culminating in the August 1998 crash of the ruble and the government’s default on its international loan commitments—a series of books and articles appeared asking, “Who Lost Russia?”1 Fingers pointed in many directions, but almost all to the West: the International Monetary Fund (IMF), NATO, President Bill Clinton, and then later in the next decade, President George W. Bush. Arguments came in many varieties, but divided into two polar opposite views: the West

How Putin's Crackdown Holds Russia Back

Vol. 87, No. 1 (Winter 2007)

The conventional explanation for Vladimir Putin’s popularity is straightforward.In the 1990s,under post-Soviet Russia’s first president, Boris Yeltsin, the state did not govern, the economy shrank, and the population suªered. Since 2000, under Putin, order has returned, the economy has flourished, and the average Russian is living better than ever before.As political freedom has decreased,economic growth has increased. Putin may have rolled back democratic gains, the story goes, but these

The 9/11 Commission offers a model.