Putin actually did rather well, early on. He was behind, or did not impede at least, the recovery of Russian agriculture. This was quite an achievement. And so on in many other things.
However, his positive contributions ended around 2008 and a new tribe of oligarchs grew under him, and vast amounts of national wealth were again siphoned out of the country instead of being invested domestically.
He seemed to become bored of doing well for his people and started throwing his weight around in the near abroad, just for glory I suppose. Being the king went to his head.
Not true. The problem is the Roman approach to foreign policy by the US establishment. I think around 2004 someone in Washington mentioned that Russia has failed to fall apart and then it has all started. The crooked commie tard Browder started the “Putin the thief” campaign on belaft of the CYA to hinder investments, and then in 2008 NATO started a Georgian war - that was a point where the sanction war started. The attempts at regime change in Russia started around 2010, but the approach was ham fisted plus particularly uncharismatic puppets were picked for opposition.
I disagree on the economic reforms completely. Even though there is not a lot to show in terms of the economic growth since 2008 in natural figures due to known demultiplicators, systemically the Russian economy is stronger than ever. In terms of ease of business it is way ahead of half of the US cities and definitely better compared to 2008.