When the media creates an object of hate, it is amazing to watch the coordinated flood of attacks that none will admit is coordinated. The pure anger the media complex feels towards Vladimir Putin is strong enough to be felt through computer screens. Whether it is legitimate criticism, snarky insult throwing or ethnic animus fueled diatribes, the American media is unrelenting. There is an undercurrent of fear in all of it. A fear that Putin, and what he represents (Russia's deep state), understand the current USG leadership and can break free from it, pulling others away as well. What all of these pundits and righteous keyboard warriors miss is that Putin is a result of the West's predatory moves in the 1990s.
Putin the man is a product of Russia. Son of a military veteran, KGB agent, reliable comrade. He is a man made in the late Soviet era. How he became leader of the Russian nation is a creation of the West's suite of moves throughout the 1990s. There is a wonderful article that describes the rise and fall of the '90s Russian oligarchs. Read as a simple record of the rocket like rise of a handful of men who often had dual citizenship (Russia and Israel) followed by a nearly as quick crash to earth, one can miss the deeper read to it. These handful of men were the prime beneficiaries of the US guided privatization system of the 1990s. The system was based on vouchers for shares of firms where companies would be auctioned off. The initial idea would be that many of the management teams and professional workers would end up with a share of the equity in firms. This did not happen. The speed of the auctions with little educational efforts and confusing presentation of the system in a nation with a different history for law gave an advantage to anyone with insider access and who had some banking expertise. The bankers with capital also went around with cash and bought up vouchers from the little people to amass tons of vouchers for auctions. If this sounds like what Alexander Hamilton did with scrip and federal debt, it's close. The later loans for shares program allowed rigged bids so that bankers like Khodorkovsky could gain 78% of Yukos which was valued at $5 billion for just $310 million dollars. Berezovsky got oil giant Sibneft worth $3 billion for just $100 million. This is how so much wealth was consolidated in the hands of so few.
If you read the linked article, it is not just money moves that were a problem. These new tycoons were eager for joining forces with the West. They were also eager for political control, including control of the armed forces. Each suggestion they had was for greater control over the state apparatus and a quick engagement with the same power that had just spent decades demonizing Mother Russia. The end of Communism was just junking a system of governance for a new one, as the same crew was still in charge, so these moves by the oligarchs were legitimate moves to upend the order of the prior decades. To the security state hierarchy, that is a direct challenge and immediate threat. The men making these moves own the media, own an insane percentage of the national means of production, and have continuously amassed millions (or billions) as the nation has experienced a crash in social standards and a hyperinflation. These are the billionaires that pushed to keep Yeltsin in power when it was blatantly obvious by 1996 that his reforms were serving so few. Come 1999, the wonder must be, "when will it ever be enough for these men".
The link explains how the real battle was between Berezovsky and Primakov. Primakov represented the security state, and he wanted to make moves against Berezovsky. Berezovsky struck first to have Primakov removed, but Primakov struck back. Berezovsky liked to think he was the man who found Putin in his obscure position for the leadership role. The article above considers Putin a compromise candidate, and one that tilted towards the security state. Let's get real about this, and read Putin's page on La Wik. Putin was a KGB agent who worked in East Germany, which was the Cold War hot spot, had worked his way up not just on a security basis to circles of power in St. Petersburg and then Moscow, to later be the head of the FSB (post-USSR KGB). That guy is not obscure. Putin was a piece of the security state machinery. Primakov, and the itnerests he represented, would have to use a face of a younger generation to get back at the oligarchs.
Putin's installation was a compromise but a move by the more nationalist feeling and paranoid elements of the Russian state. If the US sticks to the Bush 41 idea of not encroaching on the old USSR sphere of influence regions, the Russian security state probably does not react in that manner. If the Harvard-Wall Street-US Treasury boys do not pillage the economy with help by favored insiders, the entire domestic evolution in Russia is different. Hyperinflation, default, massive concentration of wealth... does any of it happen without the US pushing as hard as it did financially? Creating mega-wealthy insiders who then manipulate an election to continue their pillaging of the economy, how much paranoia and defensiveness is due to American moves?
The American academic and media infrastructure is quick to point out any American origins to foreign figures that come back to bite American interests. There are books about Vietnam that try to spin Ho Chi Minh as American aided because he may or may not have received a rifle during WW2 despite the fact that he was leading a liberation group for decades before that mythical meeting. These pundits who froth at the mouth when reporting on Putin could do us all the favor of explaining how his rise and stance towards America is all due to American meddling in the domestic realm of a beaten foe. They cannot do so. It would admit fallibility, and their insecurity and control of the system depends on righteous infallibility.