Charles, i think you put too much weight on the US role in Russia's problems. The US-ers did not do Russia in, the Russians did it themeselves. US advisors were merely "co-conspirators" invited by part of the Russia's elite - wihtout that invitation they would carry no weight whatsoever.
It is useful to portray the x-USSR political system as the Hobbesian "social contract" cum Leviathan of a sort, except that parties to the contract were not individual citizens but various power groups. The central government apparatus acted mainly as as a Leviathan that prevented those groups from being at each other's throats.
With the demise of the central system, "power was dropped onto the floor" as one Russian friend of mine used to say, and the local power groups scrambled to pick up pieces of it. In that intense competition, any resource was a valuable asset, including contact and assiatane from the West. Hence some groups saw it that inviting Western experts and advisors can help their agenda either by lending it legitimacy or by bringing in foreign resources, know-how, technology, expertise, money, etc. Despite their immense arrogance, western experts were mere puppets in the Russian power play, their influence was usually no greater than the sponsoring party intended it to be.
So it was NOT the "Harvard boys" who did Russia in, but Russia's own "boyars" - industrial managers, power brokers and elite intellectuals. It looks like Putin may want to put that element under control - I woul dnot be surprised if we saw a re-enactment of the 1930s Moscow trials. As the pro-western camp is loosing power (the pro-western "reformers" in the Duma are outraged by Putin's deal with the communists), western influence in Russia will decrease sharply.
wojtek
PS. Post-communist Russia is probably the poster case of rule-by-conspiracy.
w.