Kirill Pankratov (neznaika_nalune) wrote,
Kirill Pankratov

Дэвид Сэттер

Сэттер - это, несомненно, абсолютный говнюк, но не понимаю кому и зачем потребовалось лишать его визы. До сегодняшнего скандала он был почти полностью забыт. Я уже лет 6-7 не припомню ссылок на него или даже упоминания где-либо.

Сейчас припоминаю что у меня с ним некоторая история, 10-летней давности. В 2003 году я написал в Johnson's Russia List (это такой американский сетевой междусобойчик по российской тематике) ответ на рецезию на книгу Сэттера "Darkness at Dawn". Это письмо вызовало довльно широкое обсуждение. На сайте JRL его сейцас трудно найти после нескольки перетрясок, но оно было перепечатано в нескольких местах, например, здесь.

Краткий пересказ его части появился в друой рецензии на книгу Сэттера:
...In a contribution to Johnson’s Russia List (#7284, 11 August 2003) Kirill Pankratov
forcefully argues that these examples don’t prove Satter’s case. With regard to the Kursk
accident, Pankratov points out that other recent accidents took more lives than were lost
on the submarine, including the Concord plane crash and the terrible fire in the Austrian
Alpine tunnel, both of which occurred during the same time period that the submarine was sunk.
Pankratov argues that both the latter two cases included significant technical
shortcomings and human error, but no one claimed that these accidents were symptoms
of the failure of the French or Austrian societies. He then, very logically, goes on to
point out that if the most modern American submarine ended up in serious trouble, even
if the Russians were in the best position to help, asking for their assistance wouldn’t be
the first thing the American Navy would think of.

With regard to the apartment bombings, Pankratov argues that Russian authorities didn’t
need any additional reasons to begin the second Chechen war in view of the growing
lawlessness in Chechnya (e.g., the growing number of kidnappings for ransom of many
hundreds of Russian citizens, including high level officials) and after the Chechen attacks
had begun on Russian forces in Daghestan. He further argues, in effect, that if the
alleged attempted bombing in Ryazan was in fact masterminded by the Russian security
service, we have to assume that they have been able to keep the lid on the cover up much
more effectively than they were able to execute the operation to begin with.

There is more to Pankratov’s criticism of Satter’s argument. The main point is that
Pankrov very effectively demonstrates the weakness of basing one’s argument pretty
much exclusively on a series of examples. It is always possible to come up with counter
examples and alternative explanations. In addition to his examples, Satter needs some
more systematic information in order to be able to present a more convincing argument...

Любопытно, что через несколькo дней после моей публикации в JRL я получил в личную почту сообщение по этому поводу от небезызвестого Андерса Аслунда:
Dear Mr. Pankratov,
Thank you very much for your sound and level-headed rebuttal of David Satter in today's Johnson list. The kind of complete subjectivism that you illustrate is really far too common in the sphere of Russian studies, and it is always a relief to read when somebody is putting things into a sensible comparative perspective. Thank you!
Sincerely yours, Anders Aslund

Кажется он (Сэттер) недавно написал очередную книгу, но никаких публикаций или комментариев об этом я не припомню. Во всяком случае, выгонять его из страны необходимости не вижу.
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.