> I saw the 90's first hand.

The 90's were courtesy of the west, who sent 'advisers' to Russia to help with the transition to capitalism. Most of the issues the west has with Russia today have to do with the fact we wanted them to stay in the 90's... That was the ideal as far as our leaders are concerned.

> I got access to a whole lot more information

No, you just got access to a different kind of propaganda.

You think families don't struggle here, while the elite take in bribes, engage in cronyism, and send their kids to elite schools? The Clinton's weren't worth hundreds of millions before Bill took office, where did they acquire their wealth? All our corporate 'elite' control our governments, they bribe them (sorry, 'lobby'), and get favourable business deals. The only thing the west has going for it is that people are distracted enough by our relative wealth (enough to buy iPads and shit) to be complacent to all these issues...

The 90s really weren't courtesy of the West. I understand this line of thinking, and I don't want to suggest that the West's handling of Russia in the collapse of the Soviet union was ideal. I know that it wasn't.

But the idea that west successfully privatized Russia in the malignant way you describe would require the existence of institutions powerful enough to enact such a change in the collapsing Soviet union. This has no basis in fact. The West did not have this kind of influence, in large measure because the West did not have viable agents or institutions to mediate such power.

The truth is that the kind of plunder that occurred was a natural consequence of the Soviet economic order, as well as the lack of institutions (and norms) required to sustain a functioning market.

If you are genuinely interested in this topic, please do reach out to me via email – it's in my profile. I'd be really happy to talk more about this topic, and even send you a book or two on it!

Some books have been written on the subject by a great many figures, and while my comment may be slightly hyperbolic, it's not entirely wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/c/cohen-crusade.html

While I don't think the west necessarily intended for the Russian economy to collapse, they definitely tried to impose certain policies on Russia in an attempt to remake it into an American-style capitalist state, 'shock therapy' and the 'Washington consensus' were real things that were prescribed, and of course there was also military action taken to weaken Russia's influence as well (NATO expansion).

Anyhow, there were a number of American economic advisers who worked for the Russian government during the 1990's, and to say they had no influence is plain wrong.

I'm happy to talk about the ways in which NATO expansion was a questionable choice, as I am inclined to agree, but that's not what you originally contended.

Russia had a Rust Belt orders of magnitude larger than the United States. It had a factory system optimized on quotas decades out of date. It had no real infrastructure for resolving economic disputes in legal terms. It had a factory manager class with little accountability.

You say these Americans worked for the Russian government. What departments? Do you think those departments had adequate control of their own police forces to enforce such policies? How do you suppose these forces would have been funded?

My point is that you are mistaken about the extent to which a Russian state was a viable entity during this period. Without an effective state, there is no real way for the west to exert the kind of influence you describe. The Washington Consensus was real, and its importance exaggerated by its exponents in the US.

To say Americans had substantial influence on Russian economic policy is indeed plain wrong. I would be honored to send you a copy of some books that explain this, and include abundant primary source documentation of my claims.

Please feel free to email me at my address as listed in my profile. I think you might really enjoy a copy of Armageddon Averted by Kotkin. It is a very enjoyable account of this era, and it quite deftly addresses your contention.

Perhaps decades later ex CIA operatives in their memoirs might reveal the extent to which the agency was present and involved in the events during that period. It's naive to think otherwise considering they were all over various banana republics with much less at stake..

Time will tell.

The CIA had virtually zero footprint in Russia throughout the Cold War. All in all, it is not a remarkably effective institution for collecting human intelligence or for sabotage – the United States IC is far superior with signals intel. Much of our history as a nation over the last 50 years reflects this; consider, who brought Khrushchev's secret speech to the United States? It wasn't a CIA officer or asset.

It is very naïve to think that the CIA is as potent as you do.

You seem to be assuming that there was a much better path that Russia could have followed, and that if the US had stayed out, it had leaders with the intelligence and good motivation to carry it out.

I find that quite dubious. For leaders it had Yeltsin who you have to admit was quite incompetent, and a bunch of greedy old Soviet officials who had been responsible for the collapse of the USSR. The liberals were weak and disorganized, and the public was simply lost.

Perhaps I am wrong, but I get the impression that you, like many, believe the West is not only entirely evil, but is the source of all the evil in the world. If I an reading you wrong, please make clear what you do actually believe.

What really is a shame is the waste, a number of industries collapsed simply because of negligence and greed, not just in Russia but throughout the former soviet block. Quite a lot of factories were very specialised and one of only a few in the world, instead of building industries locally they were sold to foreign companies (the examples I know of were Indian so it's not just US) where they were promptly shut. They were bought simply so that there wasn't competition.

A lot of effort and blood went into building the soviet union and it was very sad to see a lot of that work simply thrown away.

I don't idealise west. I see propaganda on both sides of the fence. If anything living in Russia for extended period of time ( my formative years) made Me distrust all authority. Yes, multinationals were involved in the robbery of Russia in the 90s and they were helped by many who are still in power today and in the government. That's my point.

The fact today in Russia is that all power and wealth is concentrated in the hands of a well connected corrupt circle of people. They and their extended families stand to gain from the policies of the current "regime". The rest of the country stands to lose. It hurts me to see this, as I am working hard to get the rest of my family outta there ( its not easy to immigrate despite what Trump and others say)..

As I said this two faced regime with one hand criticizes the west and with another buys up properties and investments abroad to eventually to retire to with their families.

How come Putin sent his own daughter to live and work in Europe for extended period of time? How come members of his cabinet own real estate in London, Spain etc? When Russian mafia was busted in Spain, how come no one from the gov went to jail even though connection was pointing all the way to the top? The judicial system is rotten. Judges are simply executing orders from the top!

Its sad what's happening there and I don't see a good ending any time soon unfortunately. I could stay and fight...but what for? Ruin my life? Jail time for speaking up? No thank you.

I grew up in the US and lived in Moscow for 6 months. The people aren't different -- just like Americans, most people are focused on jobs, paying rent, friends, their kids, dinner, lovers, TV, etc. They mostly don't pay much attention to what their/our government is really doing.

The primary use of America for Russia and Russia/Muslims for America is to have some Other to point the finger at and blame for the outcomes of the ruling class' economic policies.

ps -- For every pro-Putin Gopnik voter, I counter with southern white trash on Obamacare, Medicare payments for "disability", and meth who voted for President (I just threw up in my mouth a little) Trump.

Well, let's not under play the fact that Russia was and still is a resource rich country that everyone would love to have a piece of. At home and abroad. If you are interested - track down the story behind aluminum and diamond trade in the post USSR era. Very fascinating and reflects the general trend in the country.

To reiterate nooron's point, the West wasn't exactly helpful during the oil shock that ended the USSR and the transition to democracy, but to blame the US for the oligarchs / theft of public resources is going way too far.

BTW, if anyone is interested in the fall of the USSR, Yegor Gaidar, an economist, acting Russian PM from June '92 to Dec '92, and architect of the shock therapy reforms immediately post dissolution of the USSR wrote a book about it. I highly recommend it if you're interested in economic history.

This appears to be a brief summary of the argument: https://thetyee.ca/News/2013/03/13/Soviet-Union-Oil/

book: https://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Empire-Lessons-Modern-Russia...

Yegor Gaidar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yegor_Gaidar

Gaidar is not the person you want to listen to if you want an honest unbiased opinion on the events of that era.

Of course it's biased, I thought that was pretty implicit in it being his book. Primary sources are always interesting.