Maybe if the Soviet Union hadn't just completely collapsed, things might've been different. Or even just not having a corrupt, alcoholic clown for a president during the most critical period in Russian history since the war.

The chaos was inevitable, it happens ever time and in every society, specially after 70 years of one brutal regime. I was expecting even worse ( and it was bad ).

And after a certain period of suffering and unrest, people just want "stability" and that's when any well-intention-ed politician in a country with 5min of democracy experience don't stand a change against the quintessential competent strongman savior of the once-great empire.

The problems and solutions for Russia are inside, but I don't see how that society after 70 years + 20 under alternate realities can change to actually modern and democratic ( which is very different from being Americanized ).

Most of the Warsaw pact are doing much better ( in terms of democratic and economic development ) than most of the ex-Soviet republics, even though they came through a similar path. So it wasn't inevitable.

All of them gone through a period of instability and serious economic hardship in the first years, that was my point. Then eventually they found the path and that path is not inevitable if they let themselves get caught by a “glorious savior”, then its inevitable they’ll end in yet another autocracy.

The former Warsaw Pact members got fewer decades of socialism, and they did not experience most of Stalinism; their experience was less brutal.

Being geographically closer to the West probably also made a difference; after the fall of socialism, more people could take a trip across the iron curtain and observe how things worked on the other side.

Maybe these days, people living in Russia should be invited to visit Europe and see how people live there. Like, maybe as a part of "propaganda budget", EU should offer one month of fully paid vacation here to every citizen of Russia. To see that we are actually not a hellhole full of Nazis; to see how even the life standards in Eastern Europe are these days closer to the West than to Russia; to understand that they could do even better (because they could do whatever Eastern Europe did, plus they would still have the oil).

Generally, people should travel more, see the world more. So that they can later return to their country and ask: "How is it possible that other countries have X, but here at home we say that it is impossible?" (And this applies to everyone. Like, Americans would probably also benefit from seeing that universal healthcare is possible and actually considered normal in some places.)

Yeltsin the predecessor was also corrupt. To protect himself when he left office, he helped Putin get into power when he resigned. Putin himself was involved in corruption in the city level in St Petersburg with the help of the mayor. Putin in turn granted Yeltsin protection from prosecutions and also covered his tracks of the corruption he was involved in St Petersburg.

Yeltsin was the alcoholic clown I referred to.

Maybe our FMI didn’t do such a good job at implementing capitalism in Russia. I know the World Bank criticized it a lot for its actions during the 1990 decade, namely Joseph Stieglitz.

Friends don't stockpile nukes against each other.

No but at that time those stockpiles were also in the process of being decommissioned. I have to echo that positive sentiment.

And in some areas like Eastern Europe that's exactly what did happen of course.

I was in my late twenties and expecting my first child ...it was definitely a positive time and the economy was just starting to pick back up. Even the first gulf war seemed like a just cause (liberating Kuwait). I did a lot of work in Europe as well as a couple projects in Brazil and Americans weren't largely disp ised then.

When people mention US aggression the first gulf war is never really one of them. I think most people still consider it pretty justified. I'm sure their motive was more about the oil but Iraq totally started it.

It also didn't leave a power vacuum in the country afterwards that allowed a worse enemy to grow (Like Isis in Iraq, the Taliban's return in Afghanistan). Civilian casualties were also an order of magnitude lower. The local population was better off with the intervention than if it hadn't taken place.

PS I don't despise Americans at all! Although I was opposed to the wars in Iraq (2003) and Afghanistan and my own country's involvement in them. However I don't blame the American people for it, same way I don't blame the Russian people for Ukraine.

These wars are orchestrated by interests so far above the heads of common people that they really have no control over it.

Strange. Last I checked the US arms many countries that share borders with friends. The Netherlands didn't seem to care when the US sold F-35s to Belgium.

Why does NATO exist again?

It’s a defensive pact for smaller countries to protect themselves from Russian aggression and imperialism.

And that’s exactly the problem. Seeking an enemy where there’s one eventually creates it. And lots of arms revenues too.

How is it problem if you want to be protected from someone who has already rolled tanks in your country before?

Maybe you should ask people in Poland, Latvia or maybe even in Ukraine.