All of those are things Putin has both upheld and directly contributed to, even if those problems were pre-existing, that is the common denominator; there is nothing random about them. They are all attributable to Putin's action or willful inaction. Limited investments in the Russian army may be necessary; wasteful military adventurism into Ukraine and Syria (both in terms of initial expense and the economic consequences) not so much, and for this Putin can be directly and unequivocally blamed.
Actually, they are quite random as I can name numerous additional issues in modern Russia: it desperately needs reforms in its judicial system, a complete reform of its education and medical systems so on and on... yet, you keep concentrating on some issues which became quite prominent in the western media only recently - one can try to blame Putin for everything but imo the common denominator here isn't even Putin, but Russia as a country and its past. The recent events in Ukraine aren't much different in that sense, the "wasteful adventurism" that Russia exhibited in Crimea and Donbass is a direct attempt to preserve Russia's national interests in the region. One might say (as you do) that such actions brought economical hardships as a result of Western sanctions, yet, the alternative for Russia at the time was to completely lose its influence over a key region on its borders - this chain of events was quite expected, yet for some reason Western powers were really surprised that Russia didn't simply back off. BTW I don't really know the actual reasons/goals for Russia's intervention in Syria so it is somewhat hard for me to see the purpose for that operation.
I don't think the West collectively has much against a progressive and fair system of wealth distribution per the likes of say northern Europe; communism (which ultimately services the elite at the expense of the people) yes, European style mixed markets, no. Yes, corruption would impede reforms and needs to be tackled. That said, let's keep it real; I don't think Putin has come anywhere close to challenging the boundaries of what he is capable of so far as anti-corruption efforts go. If anything, he has embraced corruption and kleptocracy wholly.
It's hard to fight corruption, when it has been an integral part of Russia for decades and decades. In Russia's modern history there were numerous campaigns against corruption, yet, it is quite useless as the Russian mentality needs to be reformed first - currently students know that they can get A+ in exams simply for paying the professor, patients know that in order to get something in a hospital they should slip few bills into the doctors robe...so on and on, the system I've described have existed for decades in different forms and there is very little that Putin can do about it imo.
As propaganda goes, it has indeed objectively grown under Putin's direction, both in terms of international outfits (RT) and domestic, where the vast majority of all significant news media is either under the direct or indirect (via intimidation, politically motivated criminal investigations and such leading to self-censorship) control of the VGTRK and Putin Administration. There is not much of a countervailing force to the state, and again, Putin has presided over and ensured this, as well as the swell of nationalism that he has so transparently exploited to distract from the deteriorating state of Russia largely as a consequence of his decisions.
It seems that you haven't read what I've written in my previous post regarding the topic. The domestic propaganda never really stopped it just changed shape, previously it was produced by oligarchs that wanted control over Russian politics (with murder of journalists, self-censorship, etc), now it is produced by the state. The polarity changed indeed though, from something like "US is our friend, Yeltsin will save us!" to something like "US is our enemy, Putin is a strong leader!". With regard to international propaganda, RT has been working for over a decade now and while I don't watch it I can understand its purpose and place - as similar Western projects are directed at Russia and only got more prominent in the recent decade.
Lastly, in order to grow some kind of a counterweight to the state the population itself needs to want it, yet the shock that the Russian population experienced during the late 80's & 90's still generates a negative reaction to anything that has the words "liberal" or "democracy" in its name. Maybe, in years from now Russia will become more prosperous and liberal, but in order for that to happen a lot of things need to change in the Russian society, and it doesn't really matter whether it will be Putin or someone else in charge as these changes need to be more fundamental than any president can force.
Fallen.
