Fair enough.
Nevertheless when it comes to the arcane workings of Kremlin politics I believe Helmer is far more adept in his analysis,just as Shryver is more at home with US machinations.I find it hard to imagine Helmer taking issue with Shryver,s analysis of Washington,s deliberations
I took Helmers main point in the interview to be that Putin has to contend with different factions in Moscow,oligarchs,military staff,the Defence and central bank bureaucracies,intelligence services etc and that at different moments each have carried more clout in his decision making.The factions are aware of this,accept it and have been made aware by Putin of his constraints and the limitations of their influence.Under the sway of different factions at various times wrong judgements and mistakes have been made.
To retain political stability and consensus Putin has been pragmatic.He is not willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater.That is his strength.
For Helmer,his long held view is that Putin has mistakenly allowed the oligarchs(along with the Central Bank) to retain too much influence within the Kremlin and now has the opportunity to rectify that weakness.
On the international stage Putin,s integrity is unrivalled as Helmer has long supported and applauded.Any shifts in Russian policy or attitudes towards the West have been openly stated
and explained/justified as opposed to the deceit and perfidy of the west.Fallible yes but neither irresolute nor hubristic.
This of course is why he is feared and hated.