Yeah but part of the problem of “putting in power” people like Solzhenitsyn is that from the viewpoint of the time it isn’t in western interests. The national liberals are just that.. national. They would hardly be seeking an integrationist policy with the west and would try to close off to some extent and have a strong Russia straddling Eurasia. While now it’s fairly obvious the turncoat neoliberals were just trying to stuff themselves during the collapse and post-collapse era, to the American State Department in ‘91 they’re infinitely preferable than people with open disdain for aspects of western culture. Teaching a man to fish might be better for the Russians, but giving the man a fish and having him keep coming back to you is better for the State Department. Granted, Solzhenitsyn and Novodvorskaya would be two wildly different stripes of politician. Novodvorskaya and the party would be more acceptable, although I suspect troubles with the former nomenklatura/new bourgeoise will abound given her seeming commitment to an honest administration. Solzhenitsyn might be more acceptable domestically, but to the west I don’t think he would be very willing to *open up* Russia as it were.8) Instead of the corrupt neoliberals (social Darwinists) Chubais, Sobchak, Gaidar, support the Russian national liberals - Solzhenitsyn, Novodvorskaya, any other real Soviet dissidents, and not thieves former Komsomol members (who repainted themselves as neolibs).
Besides, there’s also the matter of the new magnates controlling the property, the new political machines, and the media apparatus in our new democratic Russia. Factions overtly opposed to their control are going to have a hell of a time without a different collapse or something drastic.