Sorry to say it, but like most things the US government does it sounds like a nice charitable thing, but if you look deeper its prime goal was to serve US interests, and this is hidden behind a charade that it is actually about Russian interests.
2.6 billion sounds like a lot of money, but over that same 20 years the west has probably spend 1,000,000 times more than that on killing people around the world, and developing new oil supplies including in Russia because it is also in their interests to maintain the oil supply.
Perhaps a 750 billion dollar Marshal plan type bailout of Russia in the 1990s might have completely changed the dynamic... perhaps if China had had its growth spurt in the 80s instead of the 2000s there might have been a new cold war, with the west supporting the Russians so they had an ally that shared a land boundary with the new threat... perhaps then western democracy might not have been foul language in Russia in the 1990s.
I remember Bush snr and secretary Baker emphasising that the Cold War is over and that neither side has lost... how can you say Russia lost when it gets democracy as a result. Is democracy a punishment for the loser?
All sorts of promises were then made... NATO will not expand at all, NATO would not expand into eastern europe, NATO would not include former Soviet republics, NATO troops would not be based in eastern europe...
But come election time in the US and it was all about the US winning the cold war... beating the Russians... freeing europe... and it has been the same ever since.