Reaction to Hassner's "Russia's Tranisiton to Democracy"

When thinking about democracy and all of the different types and descriptions that have been provided and criticized, Russia is among one of the more confusing nations when it comes to classification. Pierre Hassner highlights this especially through the actions and perception of the nation's former (and very much arguably current) leader--Valdimir Putin.
Hassner discusses both Putin and former leader Yeltsin, and there seem to be parallels between the leadership of each and previously explored political syndromes. For example, Yeltsin seems to have been a likely medium for an examination of feckless pluralism, where there is a blurred line between the state and the ruling party. Yeltsin in 1993 decided to order troops (state owned?) to fire on a "rebellious" parliament presumably to cater to his own agenda. Seizure of public wealth by the oligarchs was also not uncommon. Still, under Yeltsin there were vital elements of democracy such as freedom of the media and public debate, at least more so than under Putin. Putin, on the other hand, made his ascension to power and loves to create a guise of democracy while eliminating the content of institutions that he likes to tout as democratic. This element would not fit under the syndrome of dominant power politics, yet I believe that the sheer amount of power exercised by Putin that remains even once he leaves the position of prime minister is a testament to how much this single leader "dominates the political system in such a way that there appears to be little prospect of alternation of power in the forseeable future". This is especially evident through a) Putins handle on the malleable figure-head prime minister Medvedev b) Putin's own pro-Putin youth group "Nashi" ("ours" in Russian) and countless other examples.
Overall, I agree with Hassner's characterization of Russia's political system as a result of the political leader. One can hardly blame the Russian people for being in favor of a stabilizing force after the break-up of the Soviet Union, the U.S.'s indifferent diplomatic attitude following the Cold-War, etc. I do think he is accurate when he states that because a majority of people support Putin, it seems to them to be a sufficient democratic regime. I do, however, disagree with him on one point that I view as critical, especially in the wake of the recent Russia-Georgia conflict. A residual desire for respectability in the eyes of the West and the world is evident, but perhaps not in the way Hassner does. I think this desire for respectability has become a desire for other nations to fear Russia as a re-emerging superpower, not revere it as a democracy(which it is arguably not). While Putin has acquiesced his position as Prime Minister without touching the constitution, I think hes remaining strong hold on Russia is evident to the world. This desire for respect as a democracy once might have been relevent, but I think more than anything now Russia just wants to be recognized once again as a threat, hence the backing of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and the resulting conflict with Georgia.
Is it fair to blame Russia for desiring such recognition, especially as they became essentially dipolmatically ignored after the U.S. presumed it had won the Cold War, and Nato is expanding, and U.S. troops are in Central Asia? Maybe, maybe not. This likely has a lot to do with the nationalism that is brewing inside the country and the amount of power the people of Russia are currently willing to cede to their beloved stabilzer, Vladimir Putin (Judomaster).



While he outlines Russia's current system, a sort of "virtual democracy" I have to disagree with one point he makes.