I think unsubstantiated is a more accurate term than unverified.
The positive regard is mainly on the side of those who agree with his opinions and wish to believe all his claims are true. Reading his books should certainly refute any ideas about Bodansky being a scholar or analyst; they're just clumsily aggregated lumps of assumptions, claims, conjecture and other information - without citation - attempting to pose as authoritative works.
Chechen Jihad is a paperweight; not worth slogging through 300+ pages unless you are a true fan of Bodansky. You'd be better off spending the time poring over archives of the North Caucasus Analysis.
Bookmarks