How???
Can you answer what America specifically did to "refuse to integrate Russia into world economy" and how did "Putin nationalizing most of Russia's major industries" resolve that issue?
You say a lot of things that don't add up to a concise, coherent answer.
Watch the Jeffrey Sachs video, he was the head economist charged with advising Russia by the GHW Bush administration.
Go to
4:45 and watch what he says until
11:05.
4:45 - 11:05
He explains how the US refused to help Russia. They didn't send money as you claim. When Sachs offered the same economic program for Poland, the White House was in complete agreement and hence canceled 60% of their debt, and aided Poland to get on its feet financially. They refused to assist Russia, demanding full payment of all debts and denying Russia the assistance that it needed. These policies continued into the Clinton administration.
During the 1990s, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia privatized all of its state-owned industries. This period saw the rapid rise of a group of businessmen who became the ruling oligarchal elite-class of Russia. They took advantage of the privatization process and the loosening of government controls under Mikhail Gorbachev's "perestroika" reform policies to amass vast fortunes and significant influence over key sectors of the Russian economy.
Vladimir Putin, upon assuming the presidency in 2000, was faced with a situation where these oligarchs had enormous wealth and political influence. Many Russians viewed the oligarchs with resentment, seeing them as having profited enormously while the vast majority struggled to survive. Putin believed that these oligarchs "looted" Russia during this time, a view that resonated with most Russian citizens.
Putin initiated a campaign to regain control over these major centers of economic power. This involved a combination of legal measures and political pressure to reduce the influence of the oligarchs, particularly those who challenged his authority or involved themselves in politics. This effort can be seen as a form of re-nationalization or at least a move towards greater state control over vital industries
(these industries were completely state-owned in the Soviet era). Some prominent oligarchs who opposed Putin or became politically ambitious, like Mikhail Khodorkovsky, faced legal charges and imprisonment, while others were forced to align themselves with the Kremlin or leave the country. Many of them left and the ones who now remain in Russia are under the heel of Putin.
It's disingenuous of you to poopoo this:
Russia's economy has grown exponentially since 2000. I explained in a previous post how the Ruble's collapse in 1998, and the Russian government's default on its debts, led to more government involvement in the economy, increasing productivity and hence confidence in the market, leading to a modest rise in GDP. Putin took it much further by essentially nationalizing the nation's industries that are vital to Russia's national infrastructure. He laid a firm foundation for Russia to develop its economy and is continuing to do that now. Is Putin perfect? No. Could he have done better? Yes. But for you to flippantly ignore the progress that Russia has seen in the last 23 years is simply dishonest.
Do you actually believe Russia would be better off under the rule of oligarchs in bed with Western elites? They will rape Russia again, and balkanize it
(Breaking it up into several nations). Without a strong leader like Putin, Russia would be "gangbanged" by Western powers, including NATO. You've been brainwashed by American pop culture and the status-quo narrative that the US is simply "Spreading democracy throughout the world". You're so naive. We're an empire with 700+ military installations and bases around the world, and all our rulers (ruling elites) care about is FULL SPECTRAL DOMINANCE. That's the bottom-line. Power and control of the world's resources and markets. American politicians are in the pockets of the wealthy ruling-elites. Big Money.