Oh, I know that feeling! Sorry to know the long comment is gone, happened to me more than once.

Oh, so you attribute the rise of Finnish right-wing to Russia as well, as in Russian agencies artificially create a wave of anti-immigration and then send immigrants in? Honestly, with all the real damage Russia has done, I feel like it is used as a scapegoat here; among a few reasonably confirmed cases (mostly of Russia killing dissidents abroad etc.), there is a sea of practically baseless speculation. Last time I saw this was a few days ago, when German military vehicles burned and journalists attributed it to Russia because some random pro-Russia Telegram channel mentioned it (and did so with clear factual errors that are alone enough to dismiss it).

Cold war, we should remember, was a two-sided conflict. It was not good vs evil, it was capitalist world full of red scare and propaganda vs communist block full of authoritarianism and, again, propaganda. Both sides could do much more to maintain peace, it’s just that one side has eventually collapsed, leaving the other to rule the world and write history books. And as much as Europe was concerned about USSR being on their doorsteps, so was USSR concerned about militarization of Europe with the aid of the US. That’s what this entire showoff is based on; it’s not a one-sided show of intimidation, and, arguably, both sides would rather not have it. Moreover, it was started by the US swinging nuclear arms around, and then USSR jumped along.

I’m not sure what you consider to be a shot of democracy - perestroika itself or the dissolution of the Soviet Union? In first case, yes, it was a welcome change, but as some of the Soviet republics, particularly in the Baltics, were essentially held in by force and censorship, it was a catalyst for the future dissolution, which is likely why it wasn’t done sooner. Dissolution itself brought a lot of freedom to the former republics which were not super fond of being Soviet to begin with, but was a disaster for Russia, Belarus, and new states in the Middle East. In the latter, there was nothing to blow as there was nothing democratic about them to begin with - it was just a bunch of new dictators.

Speaking of Russia in particular, while trying to show a face of democratic change, Yeltsin has consolidated power by creating puppet parties (including a puppet Communist party), silencing opposition by not letting them into main federal TV channels that were the main information source at the time, and destroying existing democratic institutions, sometimes with actual military force (see the assault on Congress of People’s Deputies). By the time Putin (heavily endorsed by Yeltsin as the new leader of the country) got to rule Russia, it was already heavily in United Russia party’s grip. Make no mistake - this was a show of democracy designed to be blown. And, sure, it was an easy play, as Russians by then never really knew the times they, and not someone in the high cabinets, could vote someone in.

We should certainly have experts running and planning critical parts of the economy, but we should also make sure it’s as hard to corrupt as possible. Governments are prone of injecting propaganda in schools we both care about, cutting medical spending, and attacking nuclear plants during the wars. If we should have governments at all, they should either work through as much of direct democracy and self-organizing as opposed to representative power (which is quite close to anarchy), or through careful and open computerized planning with active input of the people. The global political goals in the meantime should shift towards cooperation and integration on all levels, so that one plot of land uniting against the other plot of land would look as absurd as it actually is.