The Verdict On Putin.(World Affairs)(Vladimir Putin)

Byline: Stephen Cohen, Chris Weafer, Michael McFaul, Cliff Kupchan, Padma Desai

Is Russia better or worse for his eight years as president? A look at his legacy by top Kremlin watchers, and by the numbers.

'Reasserted Independence'

In the west we have a bad habit of trying to write Russians' history for them. The question we should be asking is, "What is Vladimir Putin's legacy as Russians see it?" Here's how I think their historians will write it: Putin cannot possibly be evaluated apart from the first post-Soviet decade. For nearly three quarters of Russians, the 1990s meant the collapse of their state and standard of living. It was also seen as a loss of sovereignty at home and abroad. Russians believed their country was semioccupied by foreigners--from shock-therapy economists to human-rights advocates. They saw Yeltsin as a U.S. supplicant.

Putin changed this. He ended Russia's collapse at home and reasserted its independence abroad. But the West (and a few Russians) say the cost has been too high: a loss of democracy and good ties with the United States. Yet there's an element of historical amnesia here. Democracy began under Gorbachev, not Yeltsin. And de-democratization began under Yeltsin, not Putin. Moreover, in the '90s, the destruction of the middle class by inflation and poverty made further democratization impossible. Today, with standards of living rising, a renewal of democracy is at least possible. As for U.S. relations, could Putin have been more like Gorbachev? Sure. But neither Bill Clinton nor George W. Bush made Reagan-like concessions. For example, Putin helped the United States with its first military campaign in Afghanistan. All he got in return was an expansion of NATO and America's withdrawal from the ABM treaty.

Stephen Cohen is a professor of Russian studies and history at New York University.

'Into the Oil Trap'