No thank you. The fact that you insist specifically on "recent", i.e. decades after actual events and during a very specific political climate makes me 100% sure that there is zero substance.
> capital given freely
You have no idea what you are talking about right? Dude, what capital? The only capital that went through Russia were the investors buying state assets cheap and oligarchs filling their pockets for selling "well fluid" (oil, but not taxed)
(https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1117290.pdf, https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c..., https://ips-dc.org/aid_to_russia/). Also Warcast from the ISI which recently did a great podcast on the subject.
On the contrary. I actually criticise dismissing all the research except for "recent". And no one actually brought up any numbers.
Sorry, what is your point exactly? It's hard to figure with link-only answers to huge longreads. I've skimmed the first link and didn't find anything contradictory.
The second link provides a quote that doesn't have too much to do with the topic at hand? Did you read every word attentively? I don't understand how a quote about someone on some economic summit making some statements and the US allocating funds for some operations (might as well be as useful as "building sustainable democratic institutes") on ex-USSR (that's not Russia) is not representative of anything.
> Also Warcast from the ISI which recently did a great podcast on the subject.
Sorry, I am sure this podcast has amazing entertainment value, but referring someone to a podcast is akin to referring to a facebook post.
This is a popular Putinist talking point, and like all of his other propaganda vehicles untrue.