Hello Ted!

I can easily see how one might pick up those views from the English-language media - most especially from the BBC News website, which is running a sequence of anti-Putin pieces at the moment

for example, this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/specials/1112_putin_project/

Your well-formed questioning would really need a small book in reply, to cover all the points.  Instead I will say basically "no, I disagree with that position", and I will illustrate my answer with an example whose principles hold true in general in many other cases too.

In the past two weeks, Russia was once again (falsely, IMO) accused of using oil and gas as a "weapon" to control its neighbours, notably Ukraine.  Ukraine had built-up debts of over US$1.5Bn for gas it had used but not paid for.  This is, I would say, a large sum of money - especially since the winter is only half-way through in Russia and Ukraine, and a good deal more gas will be consumed before the thaw comes in April.  Russia sought - by credit-control methods which don't differ from any other large utility provider - to secure the financial position of this debt, and have it paid.   This was reported (by the BBC, and by the Murdorch-owned press, and not only) as "unfair pressure".  Clearly, according to Rupert Murdoch or the BBC, Russia was supposed to supply gas for free to Ukraine (which is already getting a 25% discount on all its bills anyhow).  The Ukrainian side refused to discuss the matter or attend any talks proposed by the Russians - finally leaving the matter until a 24-hour notice period was issued by the Russians.  The Ukrainians began reporting this as "Russian pressure", when in fact they'd "ignored all their red gas bills until the day the gas-man came to cut it off".   Finally, at the eleventh hour, a payment was negotiated (structured over a period of time to help the Ukrainians pay the bills they'd run up).

There then came further news.  Ukraine had decided to join a consortium of nations (including Poland and the Czech Republic) which will host American missiles pointed at Russia.  (The Americans claim the missiles aren't pointed at Russia,  but at, errr, Iran?  So it's odd that they surround Russia and are nowhere near Iran,  whilst America's ally Turkey is adjacent to Iran??).   Understandably the Kremlin was more than miffed to discover the Ukrainians wished to host these missiles, and frankly - since they point at my home - I rather agree with them.  The Ukrainian Ambassador was summoned in Moscow, and told in words of very few syllables what the Kremlin's view was about being made the target for such missiles.  (Let us remember that our dear Mr Blair, who alleged - on the basis of no evidence whatsoever - that Britain was a target of missiles in Iraq that could be launched "within 45 minutes" considered this a basis for the peremptory aerial bombardment, invasion and occupation of Iraq...  Mr Putin's response to a similar situation with Ukraine could be said to be rather more measured, one could say?).  Twenty-four rather tense hours later,  Kiev confirmed that they would not host ANY American missiles.

Although this may all seem to be off-topic, in point of fact there is an underlying point of relevance...  America's military threats towards other nations,  of which Russia is one and Cuba is another. 

How this scenario may yet play out remains to be seen.  The Russian position is that whilst it doesn't wish to re-arm, if confronted with strategic missile bases on its frontiers built and operated by an America which is increasingly hostile,  then it will take steps to protect its borders.   I believe the majority of Russian citizens support the Govt on this issue.   So do I.

I greatly fear what may happen if a military martinette like McCain becomes President of Russia - a man who thinks that all-out nuclear strikes against other countries are suitable topics for jokes. 

In point of fact I was quite serious... there are demagogues within the Russian military who are the exact equals of McCain.  If - as everyone now expects - Medvedev is elected President on March 2nd, then Russia will have backed away from having "military" leaders, and I would rate this as good progress.  The danger would be if the "siloviki" (the "top brass" who have controlled leaders like Yeltsin like a puppet) manage to keep their hand on power.  Medvedev is a lawyer, with a reputation as a reformer - he believes in "rule of law" instead of "rule of might".  Let's hope this is put into practice.

Whilst I submit that your knowledge of this issue is vastly more extensive than mine, it occurs to me that, whatever may be the rights, wrongs or ramifications of Kosovan secession (which is not in any case the first such ex-Yugoslav example), neither you nor anyone else who has discussed it here appears yet to have addressed the EC factor in the sense that it is surely only a matter of time before Slovenia is no longer alone among ex-Yugolav states as an EC member; given also that Albania itself has announced its desire to join EC, Turkey's wish to do the same has been noisily advertised for years and Ukraine and Moldova may eventually also follow suit, I cannot help but wonder whether at least some of the current passionate arguments for and against such secession may eventually dissolve into a kind of historical irrelevance as the remainder of European nations gradually become absorbed into the ever-expanding EC agglomeration.