Confusing some with the whole is ignorant at best and disingenuous at worst.

Moreover, some non-Russians in the West aren’t comparitively better at acknowledging the past and present wrongs of their respective nation.

On another point, the subject of Russia involves many issues. A strong knowledge in several areas doesn’t necessarily make one particularly accurate in others.

The better commentators are those who know their limits.

Although I agree SWP’s understanding of Russia leaves much to be desired, he did attempt a lengthy rebuttal of my original criticism and as such I could not let it go unanswered, because of a) I didn’t want to let him have the last as well as the first word – people do read out blogs! and b) etiquette.

He’s a strange character, I admit. A professor who seems quite fluent in matters of finance (or so it appears to me anyway – granted, I have only a layman’s understanding of it), but is irrationally obsessed with populist Russophobia and “Jacksonian” Republicanism. Perhaps these two subjects are his valves for letting off steam?

The biggest problem is that not a shred of hard statistical evidence supports his claims. Straw man fallacies seem to be the norm.

Also, confusion between fact and opinion abounds. Not a shining example of intellect by any means (or even intellectual honesty, for that matter). Just another illustration that one can be well-read, but still somewhat dim.