I don't think his interpretation was total, complete or absolute. He basically refrained from commenting on it, and made very direct jokes on basic aspects of the situation, while introducing it via a proximate cause (oil price crashing led to instability - it's the lack of diversified economy that made them vulnerable, and it's usually caused by shortsighted natural resource expolitation, blablabla, but that's just correlated with the erosion of property rights, and not necessarily causally).

I'm trying to decide if his omission is okay or not.

Conservative (and I intend that as a swearword) hit-media present his lack of condemnation of "socialism" as a wrongdoing. Which certainly can be argued, that since he got airtime, he has some responsibility to educate, especially if he choose to talk about the topic.

However, I don't think he is a politology scholar, so not using a word so misued as socialism is probably a smart thing on his part, and sticking to the criticism of the consequences of the policies themselves is also an okay-ish solution.

I think shows what a dictatorship leads to is more important than condemning whatever ideology you think lead to it. After all, autorism always mutates the ideology it uses to justify itself, usually subverting all of the original ideas related to it in about 5 minutes after gaining power.