Allow me to elaborate, since I clearly wasn't making my point well.
Russian "democracy" took the standard route of democracy export from the West to the demolished but no occupied nation. The best part of this is that target never realises that it is being a target of democracy export effort when weapons are not involved (which usually means the follow-up of internal conflict of some kind, as the process requires a country with severely damaged economy).
First, you present the intelligencia and leaders with the fact that West is far more wealthy and far more powerful. You show this off to them, and force them to come face to face with reality that their culture and system is worse.
Second, you support these people in their own country, allowing them to work as your missionaries. You know that they will pass on your system because that is what you took such great pains to showcase to them. This also serves the illusion of "local" to the common people.
Third, you ramp up support for those who are your missionaries, allowing them to easily overtake those who attempt to find a truly local solution with vastly superior funds. Most Western countries also have very tight protections from this stage by blocking, or requiring registration of foreign entities (i.e. US foreign agents legislation).
Fourth, you give cheap loans and other economic assistance to target country clearly indicating that requirement for these loans is democratic progress. This ensures that local economy cannot use its own funds to recover, as you offer them a far more efficient route. The catch is that people you hand picked for the job, who have prophesised about greatness of democracy will lead which is easy - your cheap loans and support show the locals that they were right - West is a benevolent benefactor who wants to help them, and missionaries telling them about greatness of democracy were correct. As a result, this step also carries an illusion of being a "local movement supported by benevolent West".
Fifth, you tighten the reigns over those who are now in power. You generally avoid using stick such as funding cuts instead sticking to carrots, like more trips for "consultation on proper implementation of democracy" to steer the country in desired direction. This ensures that path stays to what West chose, instead of taking a local direction.
Russia was a text book example of a successful Western democracy export. It had all the telltale signs, including the economic follow up where West gets to effectively pillage the target country after Westernization opens up the markets. We are really good at doing this and we have a lot of experience.
Now, allow me to present you with example of locally grown democracy, which has been slowly demolished very recently by Westernization of locally grown democratic system.
Kemal Ataturk understood his country very well. He was pushed down the Westernization route, but state of Europe after World War one basically prevented step two, enabling local influence to prevail, and allowing Kemalist democratic structure to emerge instead of Western one.
Under Kemalism, Ataturk understood that his country was uniquely positioned in that it would remain extremely religious and dangerously close to sinking into theocracy under democratic rule due to realities of demographics of the country. As a result, democracy that took shape was shaped as purely secular, and with army as enforcement arm of secularism, preventing theocratic forces from winning democratic elections and then essentially shutting down democratic system, not unlike Hitler did in Germany in 1933-1934.
This system functionally allowed Turkey to have a democratic system in a country where majority would have in fact preferred a theocratic rule but accepted democracy as a good enough substitute. Every time a party with theocratic goals got elected and started progressing the goal of going down the transforming Turkey into theocracy, army would interfere, overthrow the elected government, re-establish secular rule and relinquish power.
This was a working democracy with local, clearly non-Westernized bent. It was working specifically because of lack of many Western democratic features, such as total control over army by the elected government, which safeguarded long term compliance to the core principles of democracy by sacrificing short term compliance.
Recently EU mandated Westernization of the system in Turkey as requirement for the process of Turkey's joining of the EU. Results are once again catastrophic. Secular democratic rule is basically being slowly and systemically shut down as theocratic forces inevitably elected into government due to demographics slowly take control, just as Ataturk envisioned hundred years ago, and why he chose not to go the Westernization route.