Seems true enough to me, though I'm willing to be educated. Where is the Russian equivalent of, say, the Koch brothers or Soros? That is: wealthy, powerful people who use their wealth to drive policy aimed (often) at unseating the established government.

Russia had a few of those in the mid 90's. They're all jailed or exiled, or in more than a few cases murdered. Who are Putin's powerful domestic opponents whose existence you think is unfeasible to deny?

It is absolutely feasible. Much of Russia's wealth is generated by a handful of large state owned businesses, predominantly the oil sector.

And all these positions are staffed with individuals who have intimate contact to Putin himself. Ranging from the husband of his daughter (Kirill Shamalov) who within months after the marriage took over Sibur, one of the largest petro businesses in the country, to old KGB aides of Putin who are now in charge of say, Rostec (Sergey Viktorovich Chemezov ) Russia's largest tech company. He too met Putin during his KGB time in East Germany. The list is too long for one post.

This is called an oligarchy and it's a fairly common historical arrangement. Nothing special about it and can be found in stratified countries where economic and political power is concentrated in the hand of a few families.

For starters, do you not see the huge logical leap going from naming a couple of executives who are close with Putin, to saying that ALL people in Russia with money or power are doing nothing but following Putin's agenda?

What about the minor detail that the oligarchs existed not only before Putin, but before Yeltsin, his predecessor, as well (not that they didn't grow under Yeltsin, but still)?

Most documentation that even passes a smell test of being reasonably plausible also suggests that the relationship was inverted - the oligarchs had more influence over Yeltsin than he did over them. When Putin took power, he was known for getting rid of many of them. The interesting thing about that, is that can be interpreted charitably or uncharitably - reducing the level of corruption and oligarch abuse of the government would be a positive thing, but banishing those who don't get in line (where we are assuming "getting in line" means they are being asked to do bad things, not follow laws) seems to be the default assumption in Russia's case. As far as I've seen, there's really never been anything to substantiate the uncharitable narrative, but so many people who have never been to Russia or spoken to a Russian person have themselves thoroughly convinced that they understand these secret "arrangements".

The whole idea that he could be a mafia boss and the CEO of literally everything is just crazy thinking, yet many of us westerners seem to just eat it up, and anything shady that happens even close to the government is always personally attributed to Putin's orders. It'd be like calling Trump a mafia boss because some random cop took a bribe in some city in the mid west. The idea is laughable, and the fact that we got here warrants a little bit of self-reflection on our part.

>What about the minor detail that the oligarchs existed not only before Putin, but before Yeltsin, his predecessor, as well (not that they didn't grow under Yeltsin, but still)?

Nobody is doubting that. The country wasn't liberal or less oligarchic under Yeltsin, it was just as oligarchic under Soviet rule. Russia never meaningfully deviated from this course.

And this doesn't just come from a 'westerner far removed from Russia'. I have family in the country and lived there and I have experienced the degree of corruption not just under Putin but his predecessors personally.

Not everyone would agree that things are good now, or perhaps not even anyone, but it seems like most agree that they have at least improved dramatically since Yeltsin. You're disagreeing with this and saying it has not meaningfully deviated?

Also, why do you believe that the corruption you experienced was because of the leader, rather than despite the leader's efforts?

I do not think anyone would even try to claim that Russia does not have a corruption problem. Putin himself has discussed it at length, particularly expressing frustration over how it cripples the economy, which is probably his biggest obsession.

Furthermore, and I am assuming here, but unless you're from an extremely important family, it seems unlikely that the flavor of corruption you would experience is even in the same universe as what the oligarchs and president are dealing with. This goes back to the idea of him being the mafia boss CEO of literally everything.

>Also, why do you believe that the corruption you experienced was because of the leader, rather than despite the leader's efforts?

because of the programs he has put in place. Role of state owned entreprises has nearly doubled up to 70% of the economy, he has consciously put these close friends in place, he has cut down on any form of opposition and dissent within the country. It is the official course of his politics. The Russian government is not even hiding this, which makes the constant apologia from people not even affected by it seem only more baffling.

Old news. The Russian government, for all practical purposes is the Russian mafia. Many people have written about this starting several years before Steve Blank, the SV entrepreneur, wrote about it in 2008. In 2010, the US Diplomatic Cables Leak confirmed it, going on from there with Luke Harding's book Mafia State. You can get a pretty good look by reading the wikipedia article on this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mafia_state

seems like you've never set foot in Russia