You’re being deliberately obtuse.

I'm being patient, trying to help you understand. Not accepting bare statements is not being obtuse.

Imagine saying this about Ukraine pre-invasion.

This comparison is delusional. USSR was already ruined by 1989. The question was only where to go from there. You are comparing some of its systems conclusively crashing to a war.

What happened in 1991 is that there was narrow balance on the consensus on a new union treaty, but the GKChP coup attempt (real or not) shattered that balance, allowing leaders of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus to sign its dissolution just so, and nobody protested.

They didn't have the mandate for that, but the Soviet society in general was shaken by those few days of tanks on the streets and jammers being turned on first in a few years. Nobody wanted a totalitarian state back (after "glasnost" policy).

So - before the coup attempt most of the union voted for its preservation (meaning a new union treaty, leaving things as they are wasn't an option, simply because nothing worked). After the coup you'd be hard pressed to find anyone supporting its preservation.

Before the coup and during it the center also soiled its pants by trying to solve all ethnic conflicts with similar elegance (enraging locals, committing some crimes against civilians, then fucking right off) - them stopping the pogroms in Baku was probably the only bright spot (it's officially a day of mourning for Azeris, they call it the Black September, and western politicians too mourn those poor looters raping and burning Armenians all over the city, and condemn Soviet troops ; BTW, I mentioned Lebed before - he was the commander of that force).

So in 1991 Yeltsin was a hero (unfortunately).

Now between 1991 and 1993 the "shock therapy" and privatization happened, conducted in such a way that by 1993 like half of the populace thought that it's been enough. The other half kinda thought the same, but was more frightened of something like united communist and neo-Nazi reaction, thus supporting Yeltsin.

It has to be clarified that in the crisis of 1993 the parliament really did consist of mostly communists and neo-Nazis, a really weird hybrid. While Yeltsin's supporters seemed "normal", and just for some liberal democracy.

The constitutional court ruled that both presidential and parliament snap elections must be held, thus rotating both parties of the crisis, but then Yeltsin, as you've mentioned, shelled the parliament building and had his way.

And like since 1993 to the 1996 election there was outrage over such a resolution of it all, and the 1996 election saw first widespread use in Russia of USA-style political campaigning, and there were protests, and and many people thought the election was stolen and Zyuganov actually won, but Zyuganov removed himself from that debate, so it was Yeltsin's victory in the end.

Then, yeah, that clan sort of cemented their rule (and power in media) enough to successfully present Putin, well, as the second best thing after communists winning instead of Yeltsin in 1996, playing on resentment, and thus he won his only real election.

The reason I've described all this is to explain that it was a gradual process, not some immediate apocalypse. And yes, in 1991 it went the wrong way, and in 1993 again the wrong way. But in the 1989 it didn't, and, say, when they talk about looting and ruin of Soviet industries - that too was happening gradually. Many of those actually stopped existing in the 00s, surviving 90s and even functioning well enough.

And about level of life - I don't think you realize how much higher it became in the 00s in Russia as compared to both 90s and Soviet 80s.