The difficult Soviet transition from totalitarianism began a generation ago. Although some aspects of it are incomplete, there are lessons to be learned from Russia's experience. We in liberal democracies especially need to examine Russia's recent history when deciding how best to support others who are trying to liberate themselves.Between 1982-2011, I carried out hundreds of interviews with intellectuals, scientists, peace workers, and politicians who were working to end the Cold War as research for a book, The Russian Quest for Peace and Democracy.1 Those conversations dealt with an issue that is still current in North America - whether, or how, to assist pro-democracy movements abroad.SHOULD WE PROMOTE THE DEMOCRATIZATION OF AUTHORITARIAN STATES?Historically, the promotion of democracy and human rights in other countries was a liberal project. After World War II, western democracies began covertly funding freedom and human rights movements in repressive societies. When this became widely known, independent agencies were set up instead, largely funded by governments but not directly controlled by them. Nevertheless, these agencies did not lack critics - especially by two political groups. The larger category of opponents comprised initially mainly conservative isolationists. The smaller, mainly left and centrist, category included Marxists and cultural relativists who refused to criticize totalitarianism or human rights abuses abroad.The revolutionary left typically disparages the value of representative government, arguing that states are always controlled by the ruling class, so that only revolutionary changes can liberate the masses. Still, most people in democratic states were progressives who wanted their governments to foster the spread of freedom in other countries where citizens incurred punishment for demanding it themselves. Not until George W. Bush's presidency did matters change.It was Bush who reversed the political valence of democracy promotion. Having initially declared that his administration was not interesting in nationbuilding abroad, he abruptly switched his tune after n September 2001 and announced plans to invade Iraq so as to force it to become democratic. Immediately the American right wing also embraced this rationale, while progressives reacted by turning against democracy promotion.Apparently most Democrats did not dispute Bush's assumption that in dictatorships such as Iraq and Afghanistan democracy could only be imposed, and with violence. Any comparative historical study of ousting dictators reveals that such movements have often used nonviolent methods, and that bloodless revolutions are more successful than bloody ones in establishing a lasting democracy.President Barack Obama came to power as a new-style liberal and has only timidly supported pro-democracy movements in Russia and other unfree regimes, including the area of the Arab Spring. Now it is necessary to restore liberals' original conviction - that promoting democracy abroad is a proper project for those of us who can act without fear of being shot or imprisoned.Our justifications are much the same as before. We consider democracy a national security issue, citing Kant's democratic peace theory, which continues to be substantiated empirically. Democratic countries almost never go to war against other democratic countries, and are overwhelmingly less likely than authoritarian ones to kill their own citizens. Logically, then, when all societies are democratic, warfare may well end. Peace researchers are still studying the basis for this finding, but without questioning its validity.2But a second justification for promoting democracy abroad is more uncertain nowadays. For decades many researchers agreed that democracy and economic development went hand-in-hand, though there were debates about which variable was the cause and which the effect. However, the economic rise of China, despite its lack of political freedom, has cast doubt on that connection. …