Vladimir Putin: A Leader Who Built Russia or a Tyrant Who Ruined It?

The question of whether Vladimir Putin has created a new and much better Russia has been a topic of much debate. While his critics argue that it was natural resources that did the heavy lifting, this article explores the different facets of Putin's tenure and evaluates his approach to leadership.

The Tyrannical Approach to Power Retention

By controlling the media, Putin has ensured that there is no negative press about himself. This is a standard strategy for maintaining power among despot leaders. Critics argue that Putin has eliminated his enemies through third parties, making certain that direct witnesses to his nefarious activities are eliminated. He also uses public pressure by spending extravagantly in Moscow and St. Petersburg, creating Potemkin cities to impress, while ignoring the rest of the country.

The Human Cost of Putin's Policies

Poutine's invasion of Ukraine has resulted in dozens of thousands of needless deaths and maimings. Additionally, those who dared to oppose him have been imprisoned or murdered. If one appreciates a country where young people are needlessly killed in battle and at home, and where public opinion is strictly controlled, then Putin's regime might be considered an ideal one.

Putin as a Benefactor for Himself and His Cronies

While Russia has seen significant economic growth under Putin's leadership, much of the progress is attributed to the natural resources wealth, rather than Putin's visionary leadership. Critics argue that while Putin has made Russia into a pariah among civilized nations, he and his billionaire cronies have greatly benefitted. Over 17 years as head of state, Putin has increased Russia's budget 22 times, military spending 30 times, and gold and foreign exchange reserves by 48 times. Russia has also made significant advancements in grain exports and industry and agriculture.

The Cost-Benefit Analysis of Putin's Policies

Despite these achievements, ordinary Russians have not seen significant improvements in their daily lives. Vital statistics, such as life expectancy, have greatly improved. However, the narrative of widespread economic prosperity has been criticized, with unverified claims of corruption and misuse of funds. Furthermore, the reintroduction of the laws that curtail civil liberties and the closure of independent media sources have been seen as setbacks for democracy.

The Manipulative Politics of Putin's Era

The question arises as to why Putin cannot change everything at once, and why he makes sudden stops or enters into temporary agreements. This is due to the complex geopolitical landscape where America and other powers are constantly at odds with Putin. The abolition of the PSA agreement, for example, led to significant animosity from the US, as it deprived them of free access to Russian resources.

The Contrast Between Past and Present

Comparing the living conditions of Russians in the 1990s to the present, there have been significant improvements in several areas, including employment, healthcare, and housing. However, critics argue that these improvements have been unevenly distributed, with many areas of the country left behind. As a result, a million Russians have left the country in search of better opportunities.

The Final Analysis

In conclusion, while Putin has undoubtedly made significant economic strides, the question remains whether his leadership has been a force for good or evil. The answer lies in the perspective one takes. For those who value stability and economic growth, Putin may appear as a benevolent leader. For those who prioritize human rights and democratic freedoms, his regime might be seen as a dystopian nightmare.