I've written what I've written - the report does not contain statement about food not being supplied and contains no evidence of crime. And the President's words certainly were not referring to the whole $100M package, because Salye's report itself states that at least part of food was supplied and was arguing timeframe of the supplies. I did not suggest it "didn't even happen", if I meant it, I'd say exactly that.
"You seem to think Mr. Putin is incapable of doing wrong" - yet again you're thinking for me, please don't. I'm not a religious guy, the President is human and "errare humanum est". What I think, however, is that making conclusions without evidence is not a wise thing to do.
"They are one of the most reliable reporting agencies in the world." - now that's a religious thing :) I, however, live by the principle of not trusting a piece of information because the source is "reliable".
"Did the reports that you read say anything about the criteria used to select the companies to use for the bartering?"
This is sooo off the board. You really don't get the context. We're talking about 1992 here, less than a year since Soviet Union dismantle. The federal law on government purchases was enacted in 2005. In 1992 - there was no system for government purchases, you just purchased, period, no rules other than the budget, and barter deals are off the budget => no regulation whatsoever.
Your definition of corruption, by the way, does not define it. Because by your definition everyone is either corrupt or incompetent, because errors are inherent.