Putin's People – a groundbreaking study that follows the money

Same for internal tensions in the west. Sure they exist regardless of Putin and Russia, but it's the size of problem that matters. Extremists without critical mass can't do much harm. A small fire can go out on it's own, but adding gasoline is a clear significant issue.

The last part about calling the other side shills don't interest me much. Internet drama.

Saying that Khordokovsky was "no saint" is...an understatement. He refused to pay tax in Russia, he was charged in the US for money laundering resulting from one of the largest tax fraud schemes ever, he was the main money launderer for Russian organised crime, he was involved in massive political corruption (it is forgotten today, the reason why Yukos was targeted was all of the above...Western investors, Bill Browder, worked with Putin to take Khordokovsky down), he got "his start" by stealing a bank from the state and paying bribes to win rigged auctions (an idea suggested by Western economic consultants, even well after it was apparent they were being rigged). Khordokovsky lived by the sword, and died by it.

To suggest that Putin was immensely powerful from the off and schemed his way into the Presidency is also not true. It took him nearly half a decade to build a power base. The corruption and incompetence around Yeltsin was also very real (it is amazing how almost every Western accounts ignores this), elections were rigged, big donations from foreigners were produced (one even went to pay state pensions before an election), and this was a govt run by oligarchs around Berezovsky (all of whom refused to pay tax and controlled the media, all of whom fled to the UK and were sheltered by the govt...which wasn't particularly smart). Not to mention that Yeltsin was then basically dead on his feet (he had heart surgery, was polling near 0%, and the corruption against him was basically proven).

If you want to understand Putin, you have to understand the 1990s (funnily enough, 1998 isn't mentioned...it never is, a financial crisis triggered by bad advice from the West doesn't fit the narrative).

Btw, this isn't to say that Putin isn't corrupt, etc. But it is to say that West reaped what it sowed in Russia. Bad economic advice (amazingly, some involved are regarded as economic experts of great gravitas and wisdom) and hitching our star to Yeltsin were errors (inevitably and accurately, Russians believe the West is hypocritical...Yeltsin's corruption was fine because he was "our man"). And say what you will but when Putin came to power, Russia's economy had basically imploded, there was essentially a civil war going on, the oligarchs were paying no tax, and looting everything that wasn't nailed down. He ended that (and btw, he won great plaudits from the West for this until he took over Yukos) and brought some measure of stability that Yeltsin was nowhere close to achieving (again, largely because the purpose of his govt was to be run by the West and oligarchs looking to loot Russia...Putin was focused on what was good for Russia).

I am not sure why journalists push this narrative either. Everything doesn't need to be characterised as good or bad. It isn't binary. Putin is a function of the system that exists in Russia, and the situation that he inherited. Russia isn't like the West. To expect that it should be or judge him solely by those standards may feel comfortable but it makes no logical sense.

I'm not saying anything to the contrary, but your statement sounded like only Russia disregards human rights. I believe the primary difference is that Russia will do to Russian citizens what we will do to Iraqis, but not to our citizens.

> Same for internal tensions in the west. Sure they exist regardless of Putin and Russia, but it's the size of problem that matters.

But how do you know what size they would "naturally" be? We've had huge conflicts in the West before Putin, we've even had huge conflicts before the Soviet Union was created. Political conflicts, racial tensions (with the occasional genocide) are nothing new.

> The last part about calling the other side shills don't interest me much. Internet drama.

I disagree, that's why I mentioned it. The same thing is happening offline as well. You're not a fan of further political integration of the EU, the Euro or Euro-Bonds? You'll quickly get called a Putin-bot, because that's the easiest response to dissent: they can't really believe something else, they must have a hidden agenda. Or, alternatively, the more insulting variant: they can't really believe that, they must be stupid and are directed by foreign powers without them knowing it.

If you read my comment again, you'll see that I don't defend Russia at all.