Good questions.
Well, I wouldn't call myself much of a Putin supporter. My view on him is about 50/50. IMO, he's far from a perfect leader, but apparently not the worst compared to what we could have instead.
The "more than 20 years in power" part needs some notes. In the president elections of 2008, Putin wasn't allowed to take part because of two terms limit, so his ally Dmitri Medvedev ran instead, and won. Putin was assigned as the prime minister (Russia is a president-parliamentary republic, and the prime minister is accountable to the president), and was taking this office until 2012 (the next elections where he was allowed to run again). Shortly before that, a change was made to the RF Constitution to extend one presidential term from four years to six. So, after being re-elected in 2018, Putin is currently serving his second term in a row, and fourth overall, technically leading the country for 16 years, not 20.
But. There are more constitution amendments made just recently, in July 2020. Among other things (such as priority of the Russian Constitution over the international law, definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and more) there is also a proposal to re-zero the number of terms of the current president. Which means, Putin will be allowed to run for president two more times. However, he'll be 71 years old by the next elections (2024), so it's not certain whether he will run for 6 more years of presidency or not (not to mention 12).
Is it good or bad? Well, what you guys on the West call "dictatorship" is known here as "stability". Putin isn't the longest serving president in the former USSR, where Alexander Lukashenko and Emomali Rahmon (the presidents of Belarus and Tajikistan respectively) are both in power for about the same time as North Korea's last two leaders combined - since 1994. There are more examples outside the former Soviet Union, of leaders who governed their countries for over a decade with decent results. Take Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew, who was a prime minister in 1959-1990 and developed his third world country into one of the leading economies of the region. Or Angela Merkel, who's leading Germany since 2005 (1 year shorter than Putin and 3 years longer than a certain other well-known German politician
) but no one calls her a corrupt dictator. Or Japan's Shinzo Abe... well, not exactly - he resigned just recently after serving 9 years in total - about the same time as Kim Jong Un is in power now.
Alright, fine. I don't mind Putin being replaced. But for who? There's simply no decent opposing politician to entrust the president office to. Alexey Navalny, who is often dubbed as "the leader of the Russian opposition", IMO, is nothing more than a loudly whining populist with criminal record (that effectively bans him from entering the presidential race). I woundn't entrust him a pizzeria, let alone a country with nukes. Pavel Grudinin? No way I'm voting for communists. Vladimir Zhirinovsky? He's a funny man, and if we lived in a simulation, I'd probably click "SAVE" button and then make him our president, to grab popcorn and see what happens. But it's the goddamn real world...
Here. This graph will explain.
The country's collapse (and the failed economic reforms of the early '90s) also crippled the economy. The Boris Yeltsin's era, 1991-1999, is know in Russia as "
The harsh nineties" (Лихие девяностые), and were known for sky high crime rates, corruption, unemployment, hyperinflation, poverty, terrorism, exhausting war in Chechnya and more. China was growing rapidly in the '90s while Russia was diving for the bottom, and this bottom was hit in 1998, which resulted in a default.
It's understandable why Putin is popular especially among older generations - after all the mess Russia went through in the '90s, this country became somewhat stable and livable under his rule. The current generations of Russians never lived better than under Putin's reign - neither under communists nor under "democrat" Yeltsin.
VVP is less popular among younger people who were born after the start of his rule or in the late '90s so they don't remember life before Putin. I was born shortly (two months) after Yeltsin shot the parliament with tanks (October 3-4, 1993, just 27 years ago) and was a little kid in the late '90s, but I remember what my parents had to deal with.
By the way, I find it hypocrite how the US is accusing Russia of meddling in 2016 elections although the US openly helped Yeltsin get re-elected in 1996.
Also, I tried comparing Canadian and Russian economies and didn't find where Canada's GDP is higher than Russia's. If only you mean GDP per capita, but it’s inversely proportional to population.
Here are the tables based on IMF data:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Canada#Data
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Russia#Data
If you compare Russia and Canada when talking about Putin’s achievements, don’t forget to take a look at what Russia was like in 2000 (just after Yeltsin’s retirement) and how Canada was doing meanwhile.
Russia’s GDP grew up from US$1,635.3 billion in 2000 (start of Putin’s presidency) to $4,227.4 bn in 2018 (the year of Putin’s last re-election) - by 2.59 times, or 159%. The GDP per capita increased from $11,170 to $28,797 (by 158%).
For the same period, Canada’s GDP growth was from US$910.9 billion to $1,838.3 bn (102%), and GDP per capita changed from $29,723 to $49,690 (67%).
Thus, it’s not Putin’s fault why an average Russian isn’t as wealthy as an average North American or West European today. I’d say Yeltsin and his government are to blame for this, and even earlier - the stagnation of the Soviet economy in the ‘80s, which was one of the things that caused the country to crumble.
I hope I answered your questions now.
Do you seriously think the public transport is one of the main problems?
