{
"authors": [
"Anders Aslund",
"Oliver Bronsen",
"Susan J. Cavan",
"William Dunkerley",
"Julian Evans",
"David Gillespie",
"Roger Hamburg",
"Edward Lozansky",
"Jeremy Putley",
"Ira Strauss"
],
"type": "other",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "russia",
"programs": [
"Russia and Eurasia"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Caucasus",
"Russia"
],
"topics": [
"Political Reform",
"Democracy",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}
REQUIRED IMAGE
Anders Aslund’s policy brief, “Putin’s Decline and America’s Response,” has provoked a fiery debate over the nature and future of the Putin regime. Some commentators insist that Russia’s real authoritarian turn took place under Yeltsin, while others agree, with Aslund, that Putin has tightened the screws. Some believe Putin’s government has been ineffective in dealing with crises like Beslan, while others call such criticism misguided and unfair.
Few take direct issue with Aslund’s most surprising claim: that Putin may not survive in power until the 2008 elections. But the experts vary widely in their assessment of which social forces could spark an anti-Putin movement.
This document includes postings that originally appeared on Johnson’s Russia List, including Aslund’s response to criticism of his work.
Click on the link to the right for the full text.
Former Senior Associate, Director, Russian and Eurasian Program
Oliver Bronsen
Susan J. Cavan
Boston University
William Dunkerley
William Dunkerley Publishing Consultants
Julian Evans
David Gillespie
Roger Hamburg
Edward Lozansky
Jeremy Putley
Ira Strauss
Carnegie India does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
After the chill in ties between 2020 and 2024 that brought India–China relations to their lowest point in several decades, the two countries have engaged each other afresh. This paper argues that there are predominantly four imperatives guiding India’s approach to China, and they exist in an order of priority.
Saheb Singh Chadha
This piece argues that India’s central challenge is not managing a single flashpoint but resolving the underlying tension between expansion and institutional coherency of the BRICS grouping.
Vrinda Sahai
A partnership between India, a country of subcontinental size, and Africa, a continent of fifty-four countries, may seem asymmetric until one notes that both are home to nearly the same number of people—1.4 billion. This essay spells out the existing challenges to the partnership, its optimal potential, and the possible pathways to realize it over the next quarter-century.
Rajiv Bhatia
The India–EU Free Trade Agreement (FTA) is shaping up to be one of the most consequential trade negotiations, both economically and strategically. But, what’s in the agreement, what’s missing, and what will determine its success in the years ahead
Vrinda Sahai, Nicolas Köhler-Suzuki
Trump 2.0 has unsettled India’s external environment—but has not overturned its foreign policy strategy, which continues to rely on diversification, hedging, and calibrated partnerships across a fractured order.
Milan Vaishnav, ed., Sameer Lalwani, Tanvi Madan, …