>> get gives me immense pleasure >> it gives me immense pleasure to introduce today's panel where we are discussing the latest book a dear friend and colleague going back to the days he was a graduate student at columbia when i started as assistant professor. it is terrific and an honor for me to moderate this panel continues to be on the forefront of scholarship and an important contribution how we have retrenchment's of authoritarian regimes throughout the world.

we have a panel of three discussions and i will introduce them in turn. professor at columbia school of journalism the professor of history and international affairs and a professor of political science for latin american studies so without further do i will hand it over. >> it is a pleasure to be here thank you organizers for taking time for the busy schedules i appreciate your efforts and what you have to say about the book.

the simplest way to describe the book is that it is an explainer book it translates the best academic research on russia o over the last decade with a host of interesting questions. is too generally popular? does elections matter? is propaganda effective? what are the relations so far? there is no shortage of books on russia so why should you read this one? and a part from existing work on russia the first approach or is that the two most common narratives i will call them more putin explanation exceptional russia

explanation. but there was quite a bit of truthh of these two views. so let me illustrate these two views with the explanation of the arrest of the largest oil company in russia in 2003. so the personal role of putin kgb to seize jim crow and with his cronies to consolidate power that we should view russian politics as a reflection and that's the way it is because putin is but others attribute to russia's

historic infusion of state property. the supposedly lack of interest of markets and democracy and to suggest we should see russian politics through the lens oft history and culture. in the strongest version, it argues there is a unique post-soviet mentality that allows russia to favor strong hands in russia is the way it is because that s is how russians are. one problem with this view energy companies took place of appropriations throughout area bolivia, chad, ecuador, venezue. if you look at a talker sees 46 through 2010 what we see is when oil prices are high nationalizations are a lot more common. so it was driven less by putin's background or history but the autocratic rule.

treating putin's russia with the unique leader i argue we should view putin's russia as an autocracy led by a single individual and those that are led by a military such as pinochet or me in march or with the contemporary china or the soviet union. so they have a mixture of personal popularity and propaganda and good performance. theymama deliver goods to gain popular support and rely on coercion and oppression but they tried to avoid it because it's costly. although these leaders have

formal power in their own hands i argue it's a host of difficult trade-offs and it's important to understand the trade-offs if you want to understand politics and then chapters on putin's popularity and then to identify the trade-offs so looking at russian elections if you cheat too little youea lose but too much you could signal weakness and start a backlash. you need to use corruption to reward your inner circle that you cannot have so much corruption that it slows growth for popular protest autocrats manipulate the news but not sov. much of people stop watching the tv.

but then not so much it provokes a war but then we also see patterns that are different from military regimes in military led regimes policies tend to be more volatile and oppression is higher. we look at russia this sounds like a familiar picture rather than being all-powerful with those trade-offs and it's important to note these trade-offs are problem doesn't mean putin will fall from power anytime soon but having all formal power does not mean you can do whatever you want. it's not really a putin book really the book argues we need to look beyond putin to understand russian politics it's a a trend of russian society to figure out which groups challenge putin's rule and also because he had fairly

high levels of support lasting 20 years. that is a big departure. second i relyha on academic research there is longform writing on russia but the quality of this is better than other countries but my book doesn't do that i couldn't compete with a journalist on that front. instead i tried to highlight the academic research which has been terrific that is not well understood but a great way to study the last couple years it's much better than other autocracies the quality of the administrative data on elections and growth in social indicators is better than

others and it helps that russia is a well educated country. is important to note that many of the best scholars writing today on russia are russians. i had as many russian co-authors as us co-authors. this has been overlooked in the broader debate on russia. 's you will see how my colleagues and i conducted surveys to figure out if russians are lying when they answer questions about putin's approval how we identify propaganda campaigns and then match political graffiti to match the u protest and use the data for economic elites and unfortunately this is had zero impact on public debates on russia so the goal in this book is to bring the research to light its high quality

research i try to be on the forefront but i go as fast as i can to keep up with my younger colleagues were doing this terrific research. i also mix in personal anecdotes for my adventures y and misadventures the last 30 years in russia. how i worked as an exhibit guide for the cultural exchange and i was the first that they met in showing them what it's like to live under the autocracy. nasa describe my experiences with the russian sec in the 19 nineties and what it has been like that of the research institute over the last decade so this makes the book a

better read. they provide insights that are hard to come by unless you spent a lot of time in russia they give a town that is different from the writing on russia and just to wrap up comments hard to change people's minds on russia. all sides of the debate people dug in hard but to have a little nuance and complexity and reduce certified russia in a comparative perspective by using social science evidence and paying more attention to russian society, trying to get past the arguments that are made about russia and to provide a clear and mature picture of russian politics today. i look forward to hearing your

comments. >> we will turn to the panel now. at first is the assistant professor at the columbia journalism school. take it away. >> thank you for having me and thank you for this fun and useful book which does cover a tremendous amount of ground and summarizes in a sustained political science research i was not aware of. i learned two terms i cannot believe i have lived this long without knowing one is autocratic legalism, a description of how the kremlin and other regimes very people

and lawsuits and the appearance of legality as a form of oppression. i thought that was interesting in the concept of rational ignorance. for why people in a place like russia may choose certain things or to ignore certain things. not because they don't know about them but it does not serve their interest to know how the regime is behaving. nothing good could come of it for them. and in general i thought to waive this book at people on twitter in particular we don't know what they are talking about enough we have time to

answer all them but i would bring them up. the first is russian specificity. in your point is well taken the ultimate title for the book was average autocracy. the putin regime resembles some of the other contemporary autocratic regimes that have more in common with the air to one regime that is more in common than the stalinist regime so that seemed like a very useful collective that we talk about putin and the kremlin fill in more specific features were mentioned my

interest increase so the fact that russia is well educated more educated the most autocratic regimes about that was interesting the geopolitical position is unique. it is more powerful than most and it is the most personal given that china is a party of autocracy. so ultimately if russians path out of autocracy will depend on those factors and then you talk about that in your conclusion but i thought that what is interesting becoming serious about that. similarly the question of public opinion i enjoyed reading about all the genius ways you and others to make

sure and look at that date i thought that was fascinating and the important point that the kremlin cannot just drum up support for any old policy. crimea, yes. strong and doable support and syria not at all. and as you point out the economy and if the if he would be we elected so putin's performance is dependent on the economy so political elites can mobilize opinions. and it made me wonder which opinion is mobilize a vote? so yes crimea with russian

history and culture but what about ts? that is a little bit of an alarmist statement but i can imagine key have people say that is of course. but i don't think that will happen. so if we study ukraine with these little fissures that would make dormant in ukrainian politics so i like to know which could be mobilized. and then the third i was thinking about so what is the theory of change?

that we could come out of this book with? i thought a lot looking at post-soviet regimes and if you look at the pseudo- democracies and leaves them open and fall - - vulnerable to the elections. the autocratic leaders want to be popular and have decided to continue having elections but it's at that point you have this crisis of legitimacy. if you steal it to obviously been your problems. is that no longer valid in the russian case that the kremlin has figured out a way around that?

so that opposition earlier on before it gets to the point of the election? it's incredible to think that one of the things they would do would be away during the elections. elections are still in play in 2020 as a factor of contention. i do wonder coming out of all of this research how does it end? and the final question in the conclusion and the most relevant for this discussion is why has our discourse been so debased? there have beenh historical factors but the trump situation in the hacking to be a person who wants to have

constructive relations with russia meaning you are pro- trump up to a few months ago. now we have a character assassination before our eyes which i found really disturbing. also a fair amount of academic work, and people who have done good research to make it out to theo mainstream discourse. so to talk about russia in a constructive and reasonable way. those of the four things but it is such a useful and delightful book. >> . >> he w went to assess

questions? >> we will wait hopefully they forgot and then i can use discretion. [laughter] >> let's make sure you don't dodge anything. >> thank you for the opportunity to be here today. professor congratulations on the book. as an obligated leader we have far too many books on russia but we have far too few black - - good books in russia and your bookpl falls into a lot of categories which makes this a pleasurable experience. so long time ago in the late eighties and early nineties

the russians were saying they wanted to be a normal country. this is a vast majority of people he would speak to even in the provinces but professor fries argument that professed russia is normal can it is a normal autocracy but it is normal it is not unique to killss journalist and emasculate a part of the judiciary they emancipate any limits on executive power. 's regime is corrupt. yes they are all corrupt so it's just another normal country. it's not normal in the way those people i spoke to in the late eighties and nineties

were hoping they were hoping for a normal country in the western european social democratic welfare state high standard of living rule of law. professor fry is not happy that it is a normal country. it's clear that he would prefer it was more normal in the western european sense. but nonetheless of russiand is normal minutes amenable to social science research because any country to be understood was social science. the beauty ofsc the book that differentiates itself is that it's empirical. most of the books are evidence free they are full of assertion and all sorts of stuff and personal experience

but they don't have any evidence or it is made up so if professor fry is summarizing and very clever sophisticated in research so is refreshing to make a necessary lead so the book makes you think nobody will read it because there seems to be a lot of demand for a simplified mythologized politicized understanding of russia. he is fighting against that but the fact that it seems to

be so pervasive and makes him so angry seems to be a problem. i would argue this is not a course specific direction at all if russia's normal country politicized understandings is even more universal than russia we can have a long discussion with us viewsws on china and us views on america. they are simplified and mythologized and politicized to its the desire to mobilize social science and normalize russia a and the fact that does not happen for any country russia e included there is no analysis in the book why every country is simplified mythologized in politicized that the question for another

time. that is the global commonality and fortunately social science research has public discord and the nation shipped the rest of the world. scratch out rush and put in any country would like. another issue i would like to raise is that he is set up the interpretation that is mutuallyly exclusive. there is a fantastic social science research that he wants to spotlight and then those who in dolch input in history or tradition. so he juxtapose as they are mutually exclusive that is a rhetorical strategy. it doesn't work for him.

, taught at princeton for 35 years saying it is an authoritarian on - - authoritative country but the leadership matters so he set them up as mutually exclusive rather than complementary so that causes him to go to the back door phrases like the kgb background is not relevant and on it goes. so there is talk and strategy but i wonder if it advances the social science argument. so what is the question we try to explain? what is the question that puzzles us that we don't understand? that professor fry helps us understand? you might think the question is how does this fit into

others? but that is not what the book says. it says there ises one like that but in fact it gives a lot of examples on russia being different. in fact russia just isn't that a personal autocracy today but yesterday and the day before yesterday in the 100 years before that and 300 years before that and 700 years before that. russia is on a 700 year plus transition not a lot of countries are on that trajectory. and those that are like llexplaining why russia is still russia and not for example

germany. which has had episodes we got this is very sneaky. for example compared to other countries russia is too rich into well-educated to be non- democratic into be corrupt but it the personal autocracy it shouldn't be. somebody madead a mistake it is too well educated to be so nondemocratic. russia is exceptional foror the why. why is it not unique? why is it on the 700 year transition? to final points.

what is interesting about a week strongly in that he can take away their property he can do a lot of things that professor fry cannot do whose a powerful academic at a major research institution i think we would call him a strong academic with the amazing publication record in teaching evaluations. but think about the argument of a week strongly and i don't know how you can be a strong, strong man because all the problems that make him weaker things that putin does himself. he continually weakens his own rule the structural limitation if professor fries argument is

correct, you cannot have a strong, strongly and they step on themselves all the time they undermined themselves to be corrupt. so how do you be a strong, strong man and why some strong strongmen are strong in some other strongmen are week structurally because all the trade-offs that they face? my final point that is now becoming very popular is the absence of an alternative. i have been making this argument. some people may argue ime still don't understand that but he

was not get anything. couldn't organize transport i could go want. it was a mess but one thing it excel that was destroying any hint of an alternative it would crush immediately with all ofd its force. so the absence of an alternative of what colors everything in today's russia with those subtle surveys that professor fry himself engineered. so at that point i would argue is not deeply appreciated in those arguments inan the book. and that is to say the absence of an alternative and talking about eliminating candidates before you even get to the

problem, it does make it a lot easier. and with the faculty meeting as well so in conclusion that we reiterate that this is a very good book on russia. there are a lot of good books on russia that you should never read but this is one that you should now open your phone and go on amazon and order immediately because it is empirically rich, full of evidence, very clever and the use of social science and then how to contextualize russia not solely or dominantly in the personality of the individual but the history and

the tradition the way they behave and that's a very valuable lesson for anybody who tries to understand russia today. heartfelt congratulations and thank you for the invitation. >> thank you for these challenging comments. but first we will hear commentsts from the professor at the school of international at columbia and director of institute of latin american studies. >> . >> [inaudible]

so with this information about russia. so that also with other parts of the world to understand russia and in that perspective. >> and in that question past. part of the difference is -- now

[inaudible] -- enough freedom to get information that allows researchers to produce this studies we built this work and the point that -- because -- [inaudible] i think one i find stronger is that repressive process for but on the other hand could not be strong enough, the tension of the repression and presuppresssive system. a lot of other aspects and the violence of this regime of any other. the second thing that i think

makes -- is that he is -- [inaudible] -- popularity. this is not unique of personality, even though party -- i think -- other countries have seen this but -- [inaudible] -- popularity for the first -- [inaudible] -- like everyone else but this is an economy that is very -- [inaudible] it's very much out of his control and one thing i would use his control -- [inaudible] -- policy of cold war like everyone else, but the relationship to the allies and nonallies. so, many thing he does become popular make weak.

this is a problem that is not unique to putin, not unique to russia but i think that emphasize how it is important and the politics are quite unique to russia in that russia is not a strong world player and in fact that's something that emphasize in cyber security, it's a -- they really -- [inaudible] -- invade other countries and need to do cyber terrorism. one thing that is very important in this book is how much political science has changed in the russia, and the soviet union. i do remember the people who are the -- older people starting the soviet union and then the young generation was starting what came afterwards and political

science war that is -- [inaudible] -- by his students, i have to say, but a lot of russian colleagues. i use it to analyze russia and i think the reliance on surveys that people have -- clever ways of measuring, -- [inaudible] -- unhappy this is not considered by policymakers and the book -- here is the oruwariye information that should be considered and also -- to move beyond their journals and to -- in either policy discussion. the younger generation that focus on -- which is what was asked in the -- but stand to

make it other forms of production for the public and that can be part of the conversation, maybe not of the conversation in tv but yet of the conversation among policymakers and activists. i think that this is a book that i really want to emphasize there's some aspects it seems here, going to russia before he was the soviet union, and keeps talking about his own view as it becomes russia, and what makes -- beyond the -- i want to come back to the history. [inaudible] -- this is not the soviet union. i don't know if he professor is talking -- in political science

but it seems they're very, very different regimes. [inaudible] -- two things. regime is hard to walk -- you have to do something. autocrats and authority in -- [inaudible] -- and a little struck by your comparison with latin america. it's true, russia is rich are, more educated. inequality is lower, and many countries in latin america have more experience with.com -- with competitive --

[inaudible] -- so even if they authoritarianism -- [inaudible] -- have a competitive elections, or very competitive elections and there is still long experience with democracy, so one thing that is really interesting about russia and the -- [inaudible] -- no experience with democracy. hard to think about transition to something that is unknown in the country. [inaudible] -- transition, you -- so much history -- [inaudible] -- i think it's different from the soviet union. the soviet union -- i feel the

narrative of the soviet union of the bolsheviks, that is the not the animal. that's why we have pom tettive authoritarianism like democracy, but it's not clear the history of no experience with democracy is going to say about the future. [inaudible] -- repression and -- i think what is important for me in think about the book was the role of history in defining contemporary theory. this is a fantastic book for someone like me, who want to learn about russia. thanks a lot for the invitation. >> thank you, vicki, for those insights and comments and questions. tim you have five minutes to respond to all these questions.

i'll ask that you respond to the most difficult questions first. >> thanks a lot. first, really terrific set of comments. this is the first book panel that i've done, and it's really terrific to get these comments. some of which i anticipated in the writing and some that are new. let me start with keith's comment about why his discourse is so debased on russia and there is a lot of that debate lurking in the browns in the book and i don't really take it on head on, and that was a conscious decision because i was afraid that would then just get the hackles up and reinforce the kind of polarization and compel me into one camp or another, and one thing but the book is there's a lot of stuff for each side of the russia hawk, rich dove divide to not like, the russia hawks won't like it to

learn that when we did these survives put nut in 2015, yes, people weren't lying when they answered the question about putin's approval, and the rachel maddows won't like to and with the russia hysterics in the trump era that with those russian efforts in 2016, the chances they turn the election and trumps favor are pretty low. that was a conscious choice not to take that devoid - - debate head on. the reason why the russia discourse it's far away, it is opaque, that gives people a lot of room to make claims that are hard to disprove. often they politicized the debate themselves in ways that

are not helpful at all. but what evidence could i give somebody that a fair-minded reader would consider persuasive? and forev some part you will never persuade but i try to roll the dice instead of one - - and then, the reader with more evidence and then in the end people will think what they will think. but really interesting points. the second point about russian specificitys and moving into steve's point as well. this was a real tension in the book. maybe i go overboard to paint russia to much as a normal autocracy.

that was something of a choice because writing about russia is in the vein that putin is unlike other leaders. russia is so unique. but i like pushing against that and you might think i go to far. but that was a corrective based on where i think much of the writing on russia is today because you have to make a choice. there is a lotot of implicit non- comparison to other countries people only look at russia than the explanations are rooted in the factors that occur in russia and then by definition you cannot know the prophecies are going onn at the same as other countries. so try to balance off what makes russia special or comparative you have to take

that comparative approach to find out what's different. but russia is better educated. but there isn't much evidence they are less interested in participating in politics than other countries. the way w you establish that is looking outside. only by looking outside can we figure out what is unique and what is not unique about russia. and then to accept the comments are mutually exclusive, that is a good criticism. i was russian language and literature. so to major has an undergraduate what is exciting is the new research on russia but a younger generation to spend a lot of time on the ground in russia.

they traveled the country and then on the backs of the social science approach and a deep understanding and that distinguishes the work and thatat week strongly and i struggled with this. or the moderately week strongman or the text is more measure than the title. and steve sayspp im strongmen. i appreciate they don't seem to hold o that point of view. the point i'm trying to make is there is a lot of

discussions about russia in the west. in the assumption becausese h putin is unrivaled politically he can do whatever he wants. the bureaucracy snaps to his order because he is all-powerful in such a w persuasive character. in the west putin is probably reading your e-mails right now because he has this incredibly powerful kgb and then manipulates that leads to russia's advantage. and i want to push back and what can putin do very well so with the political opposition and to make it less appealing for those of the approval ratings it's not that they are high..

nobody else's ratings are high. there is a bigo gap between putin and everybody else in the approval rating so i think steve's point i take that quite well. so what dont segue into the point short change in history and that's a serious charge and i think we are often forced to make a trade-off particularly writing a book for a general audience you have to keep people turning the pages and it has forced me to cut out the topics i would like to spend more time talking about. one is the history of personalism in russia a lot of countries have had these experiences for long periods of time.

and the era of collective decision-making at the highest levels in the yeltsin era he was a personalistic ruler but had to struggle every year to get the budget passed. that was an epic battle each year. the point i went to make it is very different from that. that collecting so much power in his own hands allows him to do certain things but not others and then it is very difficult to get people to investing get businesses to innovate. and that is the paradox that

steve is talked about in his writing as well of the omnipotence if you have all power you to start have the time and energy to resolve all problems and that creates unintended consequences i point out in the book. >> here is the first question. one topic not mentioned through the table of contents is the role-play from the policy choices is a very well documented. to be in charge of the contract approval from the early 19 nineties and became involved in the scandal for

authoritarian groups many find themselves cooperating with organized crime and that having those in their careers before they made it to a high-power position does this set putin apart? >> i do mention putin's experience in the leningrad city government and the charges he was in charge of the food import program where money went outut of the country and then it came into the country with anv lot of allegations that putin was deeply involved. but this book covers those topics and so much better detail than i can.

that's really not what this book is about. also it is not unique for leaders to rely on all kinds of agents at their disposal. so too use economic policy or foreign-policy, that is the analysis i don't want to do because that would require speculation and on sources that would likely to be pretty dubious. >> second question. >> by the way anybody can jump in. >> which policy areas do you

find to be strong on good performance in russia doesn't matter for outcomes with the foreign-policy efforts of the economic front? >> putin is extremely good on the macroeconomy. i brought you stability after the chaos of the nineties. and he did manage the inflow of the petrodollars into the economy was not detrimental to the economy with lots of other countries. and also he hired a very good central banker keeping macro economic stability a really high priority. also if you look at things like lng production to be tasked with the north of

russia they bungled the job. and then get this to another company to develop but the sochi olympics building the bridge to crimea, if you look at the targeted, even the vaccinelo, look at that targeted efforts the russian state can marshal those resources these problems what is not good is generating the economic dynamism with innovation and new invention and with that economic playing field so equal good ideas and with a good connection to the state and in foreign-policy and it

part four years of peace even as the economy started to slow down so from his point of view it was not a wise move. and in other areas with some roadbuilding because the kremlin is not so good at doing those type s of activities. >> and on the other side of the border even though those conditions are exactly the same so that is what russia is not so great at. >> what consequences flow from

concrete policies with regard to russia? do theyit want them to ignore the reality -based approach? >> i hope they read the book. >> and i mean policy point that we take away from the book is to have a clear eyed view to recognize what is not on the brink of an economic collapse just a few more sanctions will push them over the edge. that does not mask a groundswell of support that is putin stumbles

and he's been in power six years longer than putin. and the personal rains are very long-lived even the out on - - the autocratic regimes last about 15 years.

but the h change that comes about is whene a leader dies that is what we had seen in azerbaijan. that has been a very difficult transition that putin will stay in power for a long period of time with this nasty equilibrium slow growth and popular leader with no alternative with the version and russia that was better able to satisfy the needs of the majority because the way that change might come about as russia's economy but this

makes it more difficult for an autocratic leader with the first ten yearsrs in power with that into - - that inner circle that also the average russian because living standards level than the first decade in office. in the last four years putin really started to make hard choices what is the next ruble go? does it go to the inner circle who are importuned for his rule or to try to build a broader base economic growth? economic changes one source of political change. elections, the nature of elections has changed a a lot. the earlier putin was able to win honest majorities because

the first decade in office putin would claim there was fraud that had no impact on the election. but the presidential elections, that will be a much tougher challenge for putinst to claim the majority if current trends continue. so elections are another potential source where leaders can make mistakes. the net got people on the streets in a country with very little protest over two decades.

i'm skeptical change comes from without there is sound wishful thinking of foreign countries ability to manipulate domestic politics it is justca really hard and i'm skeptical that's the way political change will come about. >> another question from the audience i wonder ifrs the term personal is goodn to explain russia in the countries the book seems to make and argument that it really isn't about putin but in that opposite direction are there other terms we could use for the political system? >> it is not a great term but commonly used in this literature. but the regimes were major policy and personnel decisions are made by a single individual particularly when it's time to step down.

in mexico every six years the party says yourr time is up and move on to somebody else or even in china and recently to manage for the general secretary the leader decides when it's time to go even if they decide to late because there is allf kinds of informational incentives of people atr lower levels and in that bureaucracy to hide the bad news. we cannot always assume those leaders who are politically unchallenged get the best information about what is going on in the country. >> are there any other

questions or comments from the panelists? ck>> so how do we handle this trade-off?ty and account forhe that specificity? that foreign-policy chapters the one i struggled with the most because it is the atypical autocracy of foreign policy. looks as large and cross-national decisionmaking about foreign policy, and i didn't cite that literature because i think russia is very different from other kind offered autocracies and i want to avoid trying to fetishize wht is unique about russia and

putting too much explanatory power on things that are -- if not unique, at least atypical among autocracies. so, professor kotkin kin -- do you have -- you look at russia as a former colonial country like britain and france and the difficulty of dealing with that. >> give yourself a little more credit, dr. frye. you do this. rhetorically you hide your achievements by going after the simplified ignoramuses who need a certain view of russia or who are wedded to it. you actually have the sophisticated even-handed

judicious russia is normal country but it has specificities, too. your rhetorical package doesn't do full justice to our achievements in my view but i've already stated that. let's not imagine that you ignore russian history, russian tradition, russian institutions, that you ignore put's permit. in fact you have all of that -- putin's experiment you have that in the book and it's rightfully there. so, let's not beat ourselves up here with a stick as if we're trying to get the most out of steam here in the cabana. >> vicki? keith? do. >>ized you want toened. >> i agree. i think the material -- the most -- the chapter on foreign affairs because that's where the

political role of russia becomes evident. comparing russia with venezuela or turkey or hungary but when you get to that chapter, that comparison, and you bring science to the conversation. so certainly i think you are doing in the book. it is there. i thought what i -- what is in the conclusion the way you finalize and i'm think about the future, i liked -- you make this comparison which is at least for me a big -- [inaudible] -- american country but the history was so different. yes, they're poorer but they cover different history and [inaudible] -- history of being an empire and nondemocratic or

elective empire. >> i have a question if could i for professor kotkin that relates to this discussion. have you -- your talk of a 700 year transition to democracy, suggests it's never going to happen. have you -- a term that's come up in your work recently is past dependence. kind of a depressing term. have you given up hope? >> this is a question that professor frye has already answered, and i would prefer to let his answer stand here and i would want the audience to focus on his book. russia has had state collapse and autocracy comes back. it's had mass revolution more than once, and ukraine comes back. so we have a -- autocracy comes back and we have a problem that

needs to be explained. don't necessarily have a cage we live in. but it's been a long time since the kingdom -- very long time. anyway, professor frye, back to you. >> i think -- i quote steve in the book about historical legacies and much harder to make persuasive than people commonly realize. so, really neat article by -- where they show that in districts within russia where the purges were especially severe, voting patterns in contemporary russia are different in regions with the purge was severe. turnout is higher.

that's really interesting. what we -- and that is much better i think than a lot of work that just says, look, russia's always had centralized power and putin's centralizing power so therefore that's an nation and. no, that's a description, and what we need is an explanation why it's happening now and why decentralization -- why centralization is happening rather than decentralization because we have seen that in the soviet period and the russia period. so, i think there's this dash lot of interesting work being done right now that looks at how the past affects the scent it's a really rick thing to do -- affects the present and it's a really difficult thing to do without hand-raise thought mechanism we -- we had purges in

villages in 1938 and then voting pattern they're different in the early 1990s. what is the mechanism that makes that happen rather than two discrete events and it's smart people doing smart work on that and i try to highlight that in the book. >> another question from the audience that couldened the panel on a dramatic note. do you believe putin has a path to get out of the top spot alive? >> they all do. they all have a plan. but it -- i as i make the point in the book, it is difficult -- vicki made this point, too -- difficult for these rulers who have emasculated so many political institutions, that would really be helpful to facilitate a transfer of power but having a emasculated them

the don't provide a soft landing pad for this personalist rulers. so, one strategy would be to kind of revert to a post in security services that would make him hard to dislodge, at the same time, it would also make the new president of russia, whoever that might be, in a post putin era, very nervous and it would be difficult for that person to really exercise power fully were putin to still be around in the political scene. so, the challenge for put is even if he would like to step down, it is difficult to find a way to tie the hands of your successor so they'll leave you alone.

>> so we are just about out of time. i want to thank the panelists. this was a terrific discussion. i wish it could go on for another hour. maybe we'll have everybody back when we can all be in person in the same room together at some point. but here's the book, way weak strongman the limits of putin's power in russia "pushedly princeton university press. please buy it. and thanks gone everybody. >> thank you, everybody. really appreciated the comments. i thoug