But Putin has always been the man he is now – the war in Chechnya began in 1999.
This is a very generic and abstract statement. If you think that the growth could happen without economic reforms that took place in early 2000s, please explain how exactly could that happen in the aftermath of second Chechen War and economic crisis of 1998.
What you saw in early 2000s in Russia was mostly caused by reforms in 1990s, but times were already turning to worse.
1. Tax reform: flat income tax of 13%, reduction in total number of taxes by 70%, reduction in social security tax, introduction of severance tax (captured 84% of profits from oil and gas in state budget)
2. Zero budget deficit and significant reduction of foreign debt
3. Reform of land ownership: created free market of the land
4. New Labor code and pension reform
5. Reform of banking sector and new bankruptcy law
Also, afaik, journalists writing against Putin were attacked (arrests, taking over of business) right as he got into power. The changes leading to contemporary ideology, effective rehabilitation of Stalin, the state murders were happening right away.
The events around Russia apartment building, the ones suspect of being done by FSB and Chechnya war were in 1999.
>The large ones were not independent in anything but the name long before being taken over by state.
Let's take a few concrete examples of really big companies: VKontakte, Wildberries and Magnit. How exactly Putin and his gang exercised the control over them before acquisition (Wildberries still belongs to the founder)?
1. Father of one of the co-founders had a business in St.Petersburg in 1990s, but already in 2001 he was arrested for kidnapping charges. Doesn't sound like a "friend", does not prove Putin's control over VK at that moment.
2. Source? The only thing I know is that the founder is distant relative of a person, who became VP in Rosneft in 2016, long after the company was founded. Quite a stretch for "patronage", though they could use their connections to defend from raider attacks and extortion.
3. Every large company in every country has some relationship with the government. This is not the same as control, not the same as having political influence over the company and not the same as using the business for embezzling the funds for political purposes. I know some companies where their GR was basically a CSO playing tennis with an old friend from FSB, which kept them under the radar of the regime - I would not even call it corruption (how often can you see a DA in USA playing golf with some businessman?). You have to be more specific.
The reason why government or affiliated oligarchs take over the businesses, is to gain control because they did not have it before.
2. Look into Bell research against widberries, its quite public.
3. Yep, fair point.
Sorry, I do not understand this. I did not mean literally Putin himself, but VK was not in any relationship with anyone from his inner circle (e.g. Timchenko, Rotenberg) or other oligarchs (e.g. Matvienko clan). Founders were forced to sell the company under pressure exactly because the government intended to get control over the most important social network, which it did not have.
>Look into Bell research against widberries, its quite public.
Do you mean the one from which I got information about relatives? https://thebell.io/nastoyashhaya-istoriya-wildberries-kak-ta...
It is a typical success story of an online retail business. It actually does not show anything that could be even slightly resemble affiliation with Putin and his inner circle. I know other relatively big companies which had similar growth trajectory and are still controlled by their founders.
//It is a typical success story of an online retail business. It actually does not show anything that could be even slightly resemble affiliation with Putin and his inner circle. I know other relatively big companies which had similar growth trajectory and are still controlled by their founders.//
In Russia? really? show me them. For now, I think you are really trying to look fav into Russian biz-scene, but that's not the case for the last 9 years. You either work with gov or you f-ked. That the rule here. Last example is Tinkoff, who at the beginning of his bank licked Putin ass as hard as he could, but now was forced to sell )
I will not give you a name, but this is a large online DYI retailer with over $0.5B in revenue. I know execs from there personally.
>For now, I think you are really trying to look fav into Russian biz-scene, but that's not the case for the last 9 years.
You probably forgot that we were talking about 2000s, not 2010s. Until 3rd term of Putin relationship of business and siloviki was usually transactional, but the economy was booming and the pie was big enough that some of the businesses were operating unnoticed. After events of 2012-2014 many things changed, but the climate was still tolerable - new companies were starting (e.g. Miro - it's great that they relocated early), there was visible progress in quality of life in big cities etc. 24.02.2022 changed everything.
> Taxes, land ownership, banking, bankruptcy etc. The economic block in the government remains very professional and impartial even now.
Russia has one of highest inequalities and quite poor population. It is also heavily corrupt. The macroeconomics works, but lower levels don't.
> The only thing Russia really needed to become a normal state was to reform judicial branch, police and security services.
That is kind of problem, given that Putin is former KGB agent, surrounded himself by alike people, became president duet to former KBG agents cooperating on gaining power ... Also, used both judicial branch and police against political opponents including journalists from day 1. They are corrupt basically as a matter of policy.
Putin did reformed judicial branch, police and security services. Just not the way we would like.