If you’re going to write an op-ed about how Russia has turned away from the liberalization of the 90s, perhaps it would be wise to give a reason why that happened other than “Russians fully deserve Putin’s illiberal leadership …” I mean, really, this is a shockingly anti-Russian hit piece.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev came out today against the rehabiliation of Soviet leader Josef Stalin’s image, in no uncertain terms: “Millions of Soviet citizens died under Stalin’s rule and Mr Medvedev said it was not possible to justify those who exterminated their own people. He also warned against efforts to falsify history and defend repression.”

Under Medvedev’s predecessor, Vladimir Putin, Stalin received somewhat of an image makeover—although, to be fair, it was largely supported by average Russians eager to remember their country as a superpower and economically and technologically advanced. Putin, of course, remains Prime Minister, and Medvedev’s comments seem to be a break with that attitude. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, living standards for common people have plummeted in Russia, even while a few insanely wealthy oligarchs make out like kings at the top. This, of course, has been a prime factor in entrenching authoritarianism, as well as the promotion of Soviet nostalgia.

If Russia ever were to join the first world, it would begin that path with major economic reforms that would improve the plight of the masses. Russia is  facing the oil curse, and losing. Its economy resembles the worst aspects of the Soviet system, without any of the benefits (massive investments in infrastructure and one of the best science/technology sectors in the world).

Barely a majority (56 percent) of Russians believe their country “needs democracy”, according to a new poll from the Levada Center. But that’s not the only grim statistic in the data. A full one-fourth said that democracy was not suitable for Russia, and virtually all respondents (95 percent!) agreed they “had little or no influence on what was happening in the country.”

Yikes.

Western observers have long been troubled by a simple fact: Even though Russia is growing increasingly autocratic, its government and leaders remain just as (if not evermore) popular. Elections in Russia are now little more than shams—Prime Minister Putin’s (or rather, United Russia, Putin’s party) picks indubitably win, and by rather hefty margins. There is no real opposition (United Russia controls 315 out of 450 seats in the Duma), and what little there is exists solely at the government’s will.

Russian politicians that the West likes are pretty much universally hated in the country. Partly this is a result of government propaganda dominating—more like running—the airwaves and controlling civil society. (And if you do step too far out of line, you end up with a bullet in the back of your head—just ask Anna Politkovskaya or Natalya Estemirova.) But this is also the case because the Russian politician that most Americans were most familiar with in the early post-Soviet years, former President Boris Yeltsin, was a blubbering, drunk buffoon. Yeltsin presided over a total economic collapse and a reversal in basically every quality-of-life indicator that exists. So while Yeltsin was paraded around by Bill Clinton (and attempted to hail DC taxis for late-night pizza completely blind), Russia fell apart.

Let’s be clear. Russia does not share Western political values, and it never has. Partly this is a result of the lack of a Russian middle-class. This is not to say that democracy, or liberal capitalism, can’t exist in the country. But it will take many, many years of slow, incrementalist reforms—and it will take a new generation of Russian politicians who are interested in reforms. For now, the West must approach Russia with realistic calculations of its capabilities, which is to say, not much.

There’s been a lot of worry in recent years over Russia’s ‘resurgence’ onto the world scene. The thinking went that Russia was suddenly a major power again because they renewed some bomber flights and sold weapons to places like Venezuela and Iran. Of course, this was all very sensationalist and had very little bearing in reality. Russia has major, major problems and it is not a threat to the United States. In fact, Russia has never really recovered from the breakup of the Soviet Union (and long before the Soviet Union collapsed, its economic prowess was waning considerably).

It should therefore come as little surprise that the Russian economy is in a free fall. The vast majority of its influence now depends on global commodity prices—in this sense Russia is little more than a nuclear third world country. So when oil and gas prices are high, there is lots of consternation in the press about Russia’s ‘rise’, and when oil and gas prices plummet, you’ll see stories like this one that quotes Russian President Dmitry Medvedev as saying the Russian economy will contract by 7.5 percent this year.

Russia benefits from the fact that it has a brilliantly cold global strategist as its Prime Minister, and that Europe is basically dependent on Russian gas and oil flows. But its basic problems are virtually unchanged from a century ago—economic growth is basically solely driven by the state and natural resources, and its political system remains as backwards as ever. Russia, at this point, is an entirely reactionary state—it has little capability to direct events outside its borders, and even places like Ukraine—the old Soviet heartland—are interested in EU and NATO membership (not that it will ever happen, but still).

Russia has serious demographic problems, not least because of a huge alcohol addiction problem. It would be helpful if the United States—as President Barack Obama has pledged to do—would approach Russia as the country it is (wounded, isolated, and encircled) rather than the one pundits proclaim it as (a global threat). Cooperation on issues like reducing nuclear arms arsenals will hopefully lead to spillover in future areas, and will ratchet down the absurd tension in parts of both countries’ presses.