> We should thank people that put him there. Checks notes - The United States. Huh?!

There's nothing inherently wrong with an administration exercising soft power to help a favoured politician in another country – even if they sometimes turn out to be dictators – but in this instance I think it's disingenuous to suggest that the United States "put [Putin into power]", assuming you're referring to the United States' inaction after the FSB apartment bombings?

> Wait. Putin got voted person of the year 2007?

Time's Person of the Year Award is specifically scoped to not be an endorsement or celebration of the winner. Think of it more as a measure of outsized impact on the world in a given year.

> Think of it more as a measure of outsized impact on the world in a given year.

I was Time's Person of the Year in 2006, all i did was get in arguments with people i didn't even know.

> administration exercising soft power to help a favoured politician in another country – even if they sometimes turn out to be dictators

You know. It would be fine if it was a few times thing. But US has a long history of putting dictators into power, calling them allies, then turning against them and invading/killing them. Which only seems to benefit the military and cause chaos everywhere else.

> That the United States "put [Putin into power]" assuming you're referring to the United States' inaction after the FSB apartment bombings?

No. The economic shock therapy.

> No. The economic shock therapy.

Ah, so you mean the United States' inaction in providing aid to Russia after Yeltsin and the IMF began to aggressively reform Russia's economy?

Your logic is that the United States installed Putin by not interfering more?

> You know. It would be fine if it was a few times thing. But US has a long history of putting dictators into power, calling them allies, then turning against them and invading/killing them. Which only seems to benefit the military and cause chaos everywhere else.

It's notable that your own cartoonish straw man bears no resemblance whatsoever to the specific case you're trying to illustrate, unless I'm missing the part where the US installed Putin, allied with him, and then invaded/killed him.

How many dictators has the United States installed, allied with, and then invaded or killed in your lifetime?

> Ah, so you mean the United States' inaction in providing aid to Russia.

US is largest contributor to IMF it would be a joke to suggest their opinion has no sway. Especially application of neo liberal way of things.

> How many dictators has the United States installed, allied with, and then invaded or killed in your lifetime?

Two at least I can recall on the top of my head. Saddam in Iraq and Gaddafi in Libya.

Granted not all dictators are dumb enough to trust US, nor are their circumstances the same, for example some have nukes.

> US is largest contributor to IMF it would be a joke to suggest their opinion has no sway.

Russia was pursuing this strategy prior to IMF involvement. The membership of the IMF was supportive of the strategy. The United States' Treasury Department did not intervene. Tell me again how this had anything to do with Putin? You make it sound as if the US was providing weapons to Putin or something.

> Saddam in Iraq

I think you have some reading to do if you believe the United States "installed" Saddam. It was the Ba’athists.

> Russia was pursuing this strategy prior to IMF involvement.

> Yeltsin turned to the Russian economists Yegor Gaidar and Anatoly Chubais, who, with the aid of Western advisers, hammered out the details.

Jeez, wonder who gave them that idea.

> I think you have some reading to do if you believe the United States "installed" Saddam. It was the Ba’athists.

Think you are placing too much weight on installed. Installed in as in supported materially, financially, or militarily. Helped get into power or remain there.

> or remain there.

Whilst I'm impressed with the speed of your climbdown, you have now broadened your definition of "installed" to the point where it is utterly meaningless.

> Wait. Putin got voted person of the year 2007?

Other notable winners include Hitler, Stalin (twice!), Khrushchev and Trump.

I don't think it's an indication that the west likes them. Even in recent times, I'm not sure it's even an indication that time magazine likes them (see Trump)

Before war in Georgia, Putin had a pretty good image in the West. Back then Putin was nowhere near bad as in the recent years. Power corrupts, long time rulers get crazier with time...

It is important to mention that the war in Georgia was started by Georgia - European Commission made an investigation and ruled this out. Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE58T4MO/

Despite that from the very first day all US media was covering it as if Russia started the war. Effectively, the US media was spreading propaganda. Why?

I think the answer is in Propaganda Model by Chomsky: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model

Hello, dear account dedicating all their two posts to repeating Russian talking points.

Georgia was indeed dumb enough to let themselves get provoked to fire the first rounds. It's very strange though that the peace loving defensive-only Russian forces ended up permanently occupying even more Georgian territory than before the war. That's the Russian history, Russia never attacks, it only defends itself, by advancing and annexing enemy territory.

That part of the report has been widely panned. Russia had brokered a ceasefire with separatists in that region in 1992, then placed its own troops there to act as peacekeepers. Putin's gaze lands on Georgia, and he moves more troops border, the separatists blow up a police car two days after joint American-Georgian military exercises, Georgia's military responds, and within hours, Russian tanks are rolling into Georgia. The EU report was clear that Russia's response was out of line.

> The report found no evidence to support Russian allegations that Georgia was carrying out genocide against the South Ossetian population.

> But it said there were "serious indications" of ethnic cleaning against ethnic Georgians in South Ossetia and found Russian forces "would not or could not" stop atrocities by armed groups in areas they controlled.