U.S. and Russia: no difference, say ultra-conservatives. Conspiracies to kill religious people in America, Christians in dire peril: sure, right. (If Liberals claimed conservatives were paying off hit-men to kill key Liberals, conservatives would laugh with derision, but every time anything happens to one of theirs, that Kenyan Obama must have been involved.)

Russia's constitution apparently counted for nothing. (Again, read that verdict if you will.) It took creative reading of such laws as actually existed to justify this prosecution. Who exactly was injured by Pussy Riot's "blasphemy"? Well, "injured" could mean people's sensibilities were upset. Of course, millions of Americans had their sensibilities upset by election of Obama because he was black, and millions more had their sensibilities upset by allowing gay people in three or four states to wed. Maybe you should be having "blasphemy" trials in America, too.  

The most tragic thing about that is Tony Perkins is still walking around.

I take your remark as humour, no matter how negatively you feel about Mr. Perkins. But Gerry avers that uber-Christians get bumped off by hidden hands, and based on that assumption he equates what happens in his country with what happens in Russia. Pure disingenuousness, it seems to me; I don't think he believes that crap for one moment.

But beyond humour, your remark calls things correctly: if uber-Christians were being assassinated by conspirators, those conspirators would have gone after Perkins before they went after nobodies.

I also wanted to highlight the positions being taken here are out of spite. Pussy Riot equates to OWS in the minds of pro-authority conservatives.

But beyond humour, your remark calls things correctly: if uber-Christians were being assassinated by conspirators, those conspirators would have gone after Perkins before they went after nobodies.

Technically, I'm using sarcasm as a small means of decreasing the likelihood of that happening, since that result looks more possible every year.

I don't recognise sarcasm very well, so please excuse me if I misunderstood what you were saying.

I consider it sad indeed that so many American lefties and righties distrust one another so much that they can be easily convinced that they might be gunned down for what they believe in.

{Sorry, I can't help it recently: That sort of thing would never happen in Canada.]

It's not just you. HMTL needs a "sarcasm" tag. Too much information gets lost in informal text-only communication.

Laws against "hate crimes" generally have as their object protection of minorities from groups that have already proven their violent tendencies and who already have lots of victims under their belts. In this case, laws against "hate crimes" have as their object repression of political dissent and protection of Russia's dominant religion from criticism. What Russian courts did to Pussy Riot would be like American courts imprisoning gay people who celebrated their marriage in public places, making America's dominant Christian right uncomfortable thereby, and calling their celebrations expressions of hatred against right-wing Christians.  

A fine.

Why shouldn't hooligans be in prison so they can't bother law-abiding folk?

"We need to do something about these damn kids skateboarding on the sidewalk!"

Wasn't the church private property?

Why couldn't this be resolve with a fine to compensate the Church like it would've been resolved in the US?

Fines do not go to victims in the US.

I meant civil remedy, if the church was "damaged" at all. Otherwise, just fine the band and move on. The point is to have a reasonable penalty.

How much should the fine have been?

I didn't know, typical fine for a noise violation times number of band members. Something like that.

I think probation would have been more appropriate.

Only if you consider the property of a state-sponsored church to be private.

Tomorrow I will be sober, but you will still be ugly.

Can you walk in and take a chalice?

If something is state-sponsored, citizens can just walk in and take stuff? I can walk into my local county office and just take desks and chairs and tvs and stuff?

The Moscow Patriarchate is state sponsored?

Officially, no, but it might as well be.

Tomorrow I will be sober, but you will still be ugly.

So the church is private property.

Only if a church counts as a private rather than a quasi-public one.

Tomorrow I will be sober, but you will still be ugly.

So it's private property, then.

So, let me get this straight--there are only two kinds of property, right, public and private, and all that matters to you is violation of property?

Tomorrow I will be sober, but you will still be ugly.

No.

Coulda fooled me.

Tomorrow I will be sober, but you will still be ugly.

Why shouldn't you just repeal your First Amendment so that you don't have to worry about those damned feminist hooligans in your own country?

First Amendment?! How was the Pussy Riot crime related the the American First Amendment?

Your First Amendment would have protected political protesters from prosecution for doing what Pussy Riot did in Russia.

Don't be absurd: The First Amendment does not allow one to trespass or interfere with others' lawful activities.

Don't be absurd yourself: in America they would have been asked to leave, and when they did it would have been all over. Pussy Riot was asked to leave that almost-empty church, they did almost immediately, and they weren't rearrested until Putin's regime decided he could gain politically by making examples of those women.

Your defences of fascism strike me as both disingenuous and revolting.

What would have been appropriate would have been no trial at all.

That you apparently think Putin justified in squashing avowed feminists on behalf of Russian Orthodoxy no longer surprises me.

What would have been appropriate would have been no trial at all

That you apparently think Putin justified in squashing...

You apparently approve of Russian show trials, whether you attribute them to anyone by name or not.

Why do you believe I approve of Russian show trials - indeed, of anything Russian? (Other than Russian women, natch.) It is certainly not based on anything I have written here.

You plainly think that prosecuting Pussy Riot was appropriate and that they deserved to be sentenced in connection with their activities. If you think that doesn't amount to endorsing Russian show trials, you delude yourself. (Common enough around here.)

You have an overactive imagination.

You retain your right to talk out of both sides of your mouth, eh?

What are you talking about?

Your posts nos. 26, 29, 33, 37, and 39. But you didn't mean them how they sounded, I imagine?

How my comments "sounded" echoing around the inside of your skull I can only imagine.

Do you think these women should have been prosecuted? indecentspeech indicated that they should have been fined. Is that too extreme a punishment in your view?

Like sounds of silence. No. Yes.

Do you believe that the women did nothing wrong?

They did not behave criminally under Russian law, until that law was reinterpreted by authorities after their actions took place.

Sounds like the Trayvon Martin case.

Meh.  Stalin and Beria would sneer at Pussy Riot, have them sent forthwith to the Lubyanka and that would be the last heard from them.

I am shitfitter; hear me roar.

Stalin and Beria wouldn't have defended Patriarch Kirill and Patriarch Kirill wouldn't have defended Stalin and Beria.

How many divisions does Patriarch Kirill have?

I am shitfitter; hear me roar.

At least as many as Pope Benedict has these days, eh?

yet most Americans still basically hate Russia

I honestly don't know where you get that from...I can't say that I've ever, in my daily interactions with people, have run into anyone who "hates Russia."  China, yes.  North Korea, yes.  Iran, yes.  Israel, yes.  France, yes.  Shit, even Mexico and Canada, on rare occasion. Russia?  Worried, at worst, about the autocratic nature of the Russian leadership and the endemic corruption, but it's indifference most of the time, if anything at all.  Certainly not hate.

never expect it to be truly free

I think you're strongly overstating that sentiment, but there is something to it - probably because everyone got so caught up in Yeltsin and what happened in the 1990s, when it seemed like Russia was really on the path to quickly becoming a free / liberal Western state, that the last decade or so of Putin has been very disheartening.  

can't conceive of any other way to deal with Russia aside from continuing to be enemies. You'd have more chance of positive outcomes from changing your attitudes about Russia

I'm honestly not sure what you mean by that statement - are you saying that we should buddy up with Putin?  That doesn't exactly seem to square with your lamenting about the Russian people being brutalized by neo-tsarists and traditionalists.  Are you saying that we should support the opposition?  If we do that openly and loudly, then Russia will soon truly be our enemy, because it's not clear at all that Putin is so unpopular that the opposition has a chance in hell right now.  If we step in to support them and they get their hopes up and then get brutally crushed, the situation becomes worse for everyone.  I think of, for example, the situation in the Ukraine - it seemed like the West was really on the right side there, supporting the Orange Revolution, and yet not too long after those parties lost power through more or less free and fair elections.  It is not always so obvious which side the people are on, and if we've learned anything over the last century or so, it's that democracy cannot be imposed by a minority.  So, I am very curious, what do you think the US should be doing right now?

Allons-y!

OK, probably many more Americans remain intentionally oblivious/ indifferent to Russia than actively hate it. Hate would involve passion or feelings that most Americans don't possess except with respect to one another. But when your government sics Georgia on Russia, and one of your presidential candidates indicates that your troops should be posted on Russia's frontiers, it sounds like you still think of Russia as your enemy, even if that conviction remains passionless.

As for hating China, considering how many conservatives on this forum have nothing but nice things to say about Chinese pseudo-capitalism, I don't see it. Israel? With 75 million rabid evangelical Netanyahu supporters, not even to mention American Jewry, where do you see hatred (other than from, say, Alf and associates)? North Korea? Mostly indifference there, too. Indeed, American hatred seems reserved for Muslims (and those seen as supporting or excusing actions of Muslims) these days, whether they live in Iran or France.

When America could have launched another Marshall Plan to help Russia transition from Communism to democracy, America sat on its hands and laughed at buffoon Yeltsin, cheering him on because it looked like he was leading Russia into weakness and destitution. You could have turned Russia into one of your important allies, as you did with Germany or Japan, but you didn't want Russia to be your friend, then or now. You weren't cheering for democracy during Yeltsin's regime, you were cheering because Russia could no longer be taken seriously as threatening, and you have been upset with Putin more because he has pursued foreign policy objectives that don't align with yours than because of his autocratic rule, which has been less onerous than that of Saudi or most of your other Sunni pals.

Having pissed away most of its opportunities for influence in Russia, it would be hard to say what America should do NOW to change course. I suppose I would advocate making real efforts to treat Russia with respect internationally and to include Russia in important decisions, offering economic assistance in exchange for "reforms" that would make international investment safer (i.e., encouraging rule of law), increasing cultural contacts (so that more Russians get exposed to Western liberal ideas), and offering (at least) lip service support to people who have become Westernised and want Russia to become more middle-class in its attitudes and orientation. Not bloody likely, to be sure.  

he has pursued foreign policy objectives that don't align with yours

And therefore we should suck their cocks?

No, if Russia wants to pursue foreign policy objectives that align with the west, they would be more than welcome to join the fold.  Until then, fuck 'em - if you act like an enemy, you'll be treated like one.

His foreign policy divergences have mostly come since you encouraged Georgia to attack Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Your actions practically set off his.

If America were playing 21st century Asia as England played 19th century Europe, Russia would be your natural ally in face of rising Chinese and Indian power. Too bad America's right doesn't believe in diplomacy, which doesn't provide quite as much testicular surge as invading countries that you don't like.

Foreign policy divergence started when Russia backed Serbia in the Yugoslavian wars in the 90s and then continued with the Russians providing intelligence to Iraq and selling nuclear equipment to Iran and has worsened with the unquestioned backing of Assad in Syria.

Most Americans own lots of things that were made in China - what does Russia have to offer, exactly? It is a backwater nation because it wants to be, for what are apparently ego related reasons.

...what does Russia have to offer..?

"In the 90s", after you had already Russians' standard of living sink precipitously.

Russia offers natural resources, upon which western Europe has become completely dependent lately. Of course, you don't need Russian resources because you get yours from those great guys in Saudi instead.

The US did not in any way cause the Russian standard living to fall - that was a result of Russians lacking the wherewithal to continue their rape of eastern Europe.

Most of the countries that had the Russian boot on their neck for 50 years have seen their standard of living skyrocket with the fall of communism without a Marshall plan.  Why haven't the Russians been able to accomplish that?

"The US did not in any way cause the Russian standard living to fall", you just didn't care to do anything about it.

Russia's inability to exploit other countries didn't cause its economic problems (Russia's empire cost more to maintain than it produced), its problems arose from horrendous mismanagement.

Since Putin took over, Russia has developed its own middle class. How did THAT happen?

Most of the countries that had the Russian boot on their neck for 50 years have seen their standard of living skyrocket with the fall of communism without a Marshall plan.  Why haven't the Russians been able to accomplish that?

Is that what you call it?  At least they were relatively rich to start out with.

More on FSU GDP growth leader Turkmenistan.

In 1991, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic were substantially poorer than Russia and yet have managed to close that gap (and in some cases, exceed Russian GDP/capita) without massive oil & gas resources, mostly because they chose to by becoming western nations.

Russia made a different choice - refusing to become part of the western consensus - and has seen subpar growth even as natural resource export prices have risen considerably.

Most of the ex-Soviet states have remained in the Russian sphere (the Baltics and sometimes Ukraine are an exception here) and, in the Asian state, were extremely poor to begin with.
 

Why should Russia be more a natural ally for us than India?

If America were playing 21st century Asia as England played 19th century Europe,

How'd that turn out for England, Europe, and the world?

1. Russia has longer borders with China than India, and has more legitimate fears that their territory could end up (back) in Chinese hands.

2. Russians look (and usually sound) like other Europeans (as Zyx likes to show us from time to time), and Europe served as cradle for American civilisation.

3. Russians have more natural resources than any other major country in Asia.

4. Russians have generally been better educated than Indians (although that could change over time).

How did England's approach to Europe work out for England? They established one of history's largest empires which lasted for over 100 years. For Europe? Better than if England hadn't held out successfully against Hitler. For the world? Anglosphere countries have been responsible for industrialisation and for much of modern technology.

I won't claim to be a historian, so maybe port1080 can chime in, but I thought England's playing off of continental powers against one another contributed to WWI . . . and therefore WWII.

As for India, it just has always struck me as a more natural ally for the US, and I don't know why we didn't do more to embrace them-- and less to embrace the Chinese-- after the Cold War.  Nothing against China or Russia, but India is far closer to a democracy as we know it and has better age-profile demographics to attain and sustain world power status into the late 21st century.

WWI wouldn't have happened but for Archduke Ferdinand's assassination. Nobody really wanted that war, but after one of its crown princes got offed, Austria-Hungary felt it had no choice but to punish Serbia for what had happened, and alliance systems were so rigid that everything went off like dynamite.

If Britain hadn't been trying to balance things in Europe, perhaps it could have refused to enter into war with Germany and Austria-Hungary, but if it had taken that approach Germany would have seriously threatened to achieve supremacy in Europe, which would have put it in position to seriously threaten Britain's (admittedly mostly maritime) empire. Hindsight has always been 20/20.

India was officially "nonaligned" between America and Russia during their Cold War, but plainly favoured Russia, probably because it still resented British colonial rule prior to WWII. But countries that snubbed Britain usually snubbed America as well. India might look like America's natural partner, but history screwed things up somewhat.

WWI wouldn't have happened but for Archduke Ferdinand's assassination. Nobody really wanted that war...

It warms my heart that I can make you laugh with such regularity.

Trust me: it is the only reason I pay any attention to you whatsoever.

Professional comedians make serious money in your country. Maybe I need to start practicing more.

Nobody wanted the war they got. In Barbara Tuchman's The Guns of August she points out that the general feeling in Europe was that they had become so economically interdependent that any war would be a short, jolly affair. Meanwhile, they had been arming to the teeth and developing full-scale industrialized weapons. As we now know, things got rapidly out of control.

Nobody wanted the war they got

Anyway, the idea that the war "wouldn't have happened but for Archduke Ferdinand's assassination" is so simplistic as to induce mirth.

If it hadn't been old Ferdinand it would have been something else. The thing is, if you read about how badly run the entire assasination was, you come away amazed that a series of snafus and bungles could have ended up in a continental war. The word tragicomic doesn't even come close.

The thing is, if you read about how badly run the entire assasination was...

As we now know, things got rapidly out of control.

That's how I explain most of my weekends.

I thought India favored Russia because we favored Pakistan and China.

and alliance systems were so rigid that everything went off like dynamite

Well, that's my point.  Having a balanced system of alliances is not inevitably the stabilizing factor people argue it is when they point to an American wane as a good thing.

America certainly didn't even begin to favour China until its Cold War with Russia was practically over, and it favoured Pakistan eventually because India was unwilling to be its ally.

America and Russia were balanced for some 45 years. Amazingly little blood was shed. That doesn't mean that balanced alliance systems always produce that result, merely that they wouldn't be doomed from inception.

When America could have launched another Marshall Plan to help Russia transition from Communism to democracy, America sat on its hands and laughed at buffoon Yeltsin, cheering him on because it looked like he was leading Russia into weakness and destitution.

If Yeltsin was a buffoon, how could giving him more money to waste have made things any better?  You're being incoherent.  America can't fix everyone's problems...if we had gone in full force in the 1990s you'd probably be bitching about how we tried to make Russia our puppet.  You can't even seem to decide if you like Putin or hate him, and you're complaining that the US isn't doing enough?  Make up your mind about what you want us to do and then we can talk.

Allons-y!

Giving Yeltsin money to spend wouldn't have helped, but Marshall Plan money didn't go directly to governments in Germany or Japan either.

America couldn't fix Germany's or Japan's problems either, but it took steps that made it much easier for Germans and Japanese to fix their own problems, from which steps it obtained loyal long-term allies. It didn't feel that way about Russia.

I've already told you what I would have done, albeit with some trepidation. Sorry you didn't notice.

America couldn't fix Germany's or Japan's problems either, but it took steps that made it much easier for Germans and Japanese to fix their own problems, from which steps it obtained loyal long-term allies. It didn't feel that way about Russia.

Somehow I think that if the United States had written Russia's post-communist constitution and forced Yeltsin to adopt it at gunpoint, and occupied Russia for half a century, that you wouldn't really have been a big fan of that.  Or are you forgetting those parts of Japan's and Germany's post-war rehabilitation?

Allons-y!

In other words, you only helped Germany and Japan because you beat them in WWII? And you didn't help Russia because Communism collapsed without your assistance, even though Russia did more than you did to take down Germany when they were your allies in WWII?

Somehow I think that if America had privately insisted on three or four key reforms, without seeking to humiliate Russia in connection with adopting them, prior to giving Russia aid, it would have gotten what it wanted without much opposition. But Americans don't even care; they wouldn't have helped anyway. Unless it feels good, Americans don't do it, and nothing feels quite as good as rubbing ex-enemies noses in feces.

In other words, you only helped Germany and Japan because you beat them in WWII? And you didn't help Russia because Communism collapsed without your assistance, even though Russia did more than you did to take down Germany when they were your allies in WWII?

No, that is not what I'm saying at all.  I'm saying that World War II resulted in some very unique circumstances that allowed the US to mold Germany and Japan in its image, and the only reason it worked is because they were abjectly defeated, because they were more terrified of the Soviets than they were of the US, and because we occupied them for close to fifty years (well, probably only the first two decades were strictly necessary).  My point is that you can't learn any lessons from Germany and Japan and apply them to post-Soviet Russia, because the circumstances weren't remotely the same.

Somehow I think that if America had privately insisted on three or four key reforms, without seeking to humiliate Russia in connection with adopting them, prior to giving Russia aid, it would have gotten what it wanted without much opposition.

I think you are incredibly, ridiculously naive to think that Russia's leadership would have agreed to be an American client state just like that.

But Americans don't even care; they wouldn't have helped anyway. Unless it feels good, Americans don't do it, and nothing feels quite as good as rubbing ex-enemies noses in feces.

If that's the case, why did we rehab Germany and Japan?  Again, you're being incoherent here.  If anything, the US has a long history of turning around and making up to countries that had recently been its enemies.  I simply don't get where you're coming from with all this.

Allons-y!

Insisting on "rule of law" or protection of investments wouldn't have turned Russia into America's "client state" any more than it turned China into America's "client state". If "unique circumstances" make it absurd to compare 1948-1949 to 1990-1991 in your first paragraph, I find it odd that you nonetheless take so much credit for rehabbing Germany and Japan in your last paragraph.  

But I think it past time to back off anyway. You don't usually get worked up enough to call anyone "incredibly, ridiculously naive", so I have plainly caused unnecessary upset. Forget it, really. Just another crazy eastern European who doesn't know what he should be talking about.

Insisting on "rule of law" or protection of investments wouldn't have turned Russia into America's "client state" any more than it turned China into America's "client state".

The US didn't force China to adopt "rule of law" (such as it is - if you've been paying attention to the Bo Xilai scandal it's obvious that China still has a long way to go there), and I don't have a clue why you think the US would have had the leverage to force Russia to do so.  The oligarchs were mostly people who already had some established power base in the old system, and they would have been highly resistant (and highly capable of resistance) to the US coming in and trying to force them to play by the rules.

If "unique circumstances" make it absurd to compare 1948-1949 to 1990-1991 in your first paragraph, I find it odd that you nonetheless take so much credit for rehabbing Germany and Japan in your last paragraph.

Umm, wut?  Does that even make sense to you when you go back and read it again?  I said that unique circumstances allowed us to be successful in rehabbing Japan and Germany.  Those unique circumstances did not exist with Russia (and still don't).  There is nothing contradictory about anything I said.

But I think it past time to back off anyway. You don't usually get worked up enough to call anyone "incredibly, ridiculously naive", so I have plainly caused unnecessary upset. Forget it, really. Just another crazy eastern European who doesn't know what he should be talking about.

You haven't really backed up any of your points with anything other than assertions that seem to fly in the face of facts.  Give me something to work with here...you're usually a pretty skeptical guy, why do you have such a strong belief that the US could have gone in and done good here?  Would you feel the same way about US intervention in, I don't know, Iran?  Iraq, for that matter?  Look at all the good we did there...

Allons-y!

No, international investors wouldn't invest in China unless it protected them, and so they decided to do so, years before CCCP fell. Russians could have been similarly convinced.

Oligarchs, like most rich Westerners, wanted rule of law too. Some of them have ended up in prison because it still doesn't exist.

There was nothing self-contradictory about your second paragraph here, but I saw contradiction between your assertions in your first and third paragraphs in your previous post.

Military interventions don't work for America. Economic interventions (by which I don't mean "sanctions") often do.

No, international investors wouldn't invest in China unless it protected them, and so they decided to do so

That is the kicker.  The Chinese were the driving force there, not the US - China opened up FIRST, then the US businesses came in (and it was business driven, not government driven - remember that as late as the late 1990s, the US was still debating over whether to renew its trade agreements with China, and whether to block it from the WTO, because of ongoing concerns over Taiwan, Tiananmen Square, and other human rights abuses).  I just don't see why you think the US had any control over China, and I really don't see why you think we would have been able to have any control over Russia.  Also not sure why you would want us to have exercised that control, if we did have it.  You're displaying the same weird dynamic that a lot of non-US people do - on the one hand, you act like we're all powerful but all we do is bad, and yet on the other hand when we don't do something, you criticize us for not stepping in and doing the right thing.  You also seem to forget that the US government isn't some monolithic organization, and that policies change from President to President (and even within presidencies - look at the massive shift Reagan took mid-term vis-a-vis the USSR, for example).  I really think it's odd to think, though, that Clinton, of all presidents, was trying to turn the screws on Russia.  Bush II, maybe did some stupid things (although I'd say that was more because he was a stupid president than out of any particular malice towards Russia), but Clinton, Russia hater?  Really?

Allons-y!

I've plainly offended you, which was not my intent. America wasn't required to do anything for Russia, and it didn't, and now Russia has turned crypto-fascist and inconvenient to American foreign policy goals, and all I meant to say was that it could have been different. In my opinion only, of course. If that opinion makes me ridiculously naive, so be it.

Americans watched developments in Tienanmen Square with excitement, genuinely hoping China would go democratic, and were tangibly disappointed by what happened there. Americans watched similar developments in Russia with ennui tinged with malevolence, hoping Russia would screw itself, which it did for quite some time.

American has believed in buying allies in many previous situations, but it didn't want to throw anything Russia's way. If it had been willing to do so, it would have had lots more influence in Russia without insulting anyone. I apologise if that seems crazy to you.

Americans watched developments in Tienanmen Square with excitement, genuinely hoping China would go democratic, and were tangibly disappointed by what happened there. Americans watched similar developments in Russia with ennui tinged with malevolence, hoping Russia would screw itself, which it did for quite some time.

I lived through the fall of the Berlin Wall, in America - in redneck, communist hating, conservative America.  I honestly cannot understand where you get the idea that there was any desire among Americans to see Russia screw itself.  I just don't see it.  Throwing this out to other TnT US citizens who are older than me and perhaps had a different perspective on the events of the 1990s - did you see that / feel that?  Honestly all I remember is a strong desire to see Russia become a normal country, with free markets and a liberal democracy.  I really don't know where you get this idea from that we all wanted to see Russia suffer.  Is there something specific that you can point me to that makes you believe this?

Allons-y!

I remember both the strong desire to see Russia become a normal country, with free markets and a liberal democracy, and also the desire to see Russia screw itself as much as possible, just in case it didn't, and with some bloody-minded revenge thinking thrown in.  I remember it as having taken another decade or so before people really accepted that Russia wasn't going to revert back to being like it was during the Soviet Union.

I also remember Yeltsin's 1993 coup as receiving pretty much unanimous wholehearted support, because removed the Communist-dominated legislature from power.  Nobody seemed much concerned that it eliminated many of the institutions of liberal democracy, because they'd never had really free elections in the first place.  It's definitely looking more like a mixed outcome at this point.

From around 2000 on, I remember there being in the US a general belief that Russia had become a normal country, with free markets and a liberal democracy.  With the Pussy Riot flap, there seems to be some waking up to the fact that this has not actually happened.

In Russia, it's been well known for quite some time that speech critical of the government is likely to result in the speaker being murdered or thrown in prison.

I was a kid when the Iron Curtain tumbled, but I remember having what I would consider a stereotypical American impression: people are overthrowing their evil governments, i.e. I/we were rooting for them.

I read lots of American media and watch lots of American television programming, and I thought I saw major differences in how your media dealt with China and how it dealt with Russia.

But if you think I have been hallucinating, fine.

Just another crazy eastern European who doesn't know what he should be talking about.

I know I'll never convince you, but that really isn't what we see. Personally I think your biggest problem is that you've allowed your view of the US to be shaped not by your eastern european roots but by your present Canadian location.

[I'm not that guy.]

Since I've spent more of my life here than there, that does seem likely. Canada (like other Anglosphere countries) seems so similar to America in so many ways that it can be tempting at times to think of America as Alberta writ large, as silly as that sounds even to me.

So, aside from being comically and parochially Canadian, what DO you see?

Such links as I have already provided, including Judge Syrova's verdict itself, indicate that (1) Russia's establishment explicitly links feminism with religious hatred for Orthodoxy, which has been openly anti-feminist, (2) most support for prosecuting/ persecuting Pussy Riot came from religious quarters (including those Russians who consider themselves devout), (3) Putin has consistently sucked up to Russia's Orthodox Church because it in turn provides his rule with legitimacy, and (4) Putin has tried to make it look like he favours leniency while Russia's Patriarch wanted harsh treatment.

What your links don't provide is any indication that any of that is illegal or against Russia's constitution. And no, I don't accept quotes from Pussy Riot as informed legal analysis. Even in the US, private groups providing public venues retain some rights as to what takes place at those venues. If, e.g., a neo-Nazi rock band staged a guerrilla video recording in the NAACP's offices for an explicitly racist song, I would expect criminal trespass charges with hate crime modifiers to be brought against the band members.

Pussy Riot has been fairly clear -- they think the Orthodox Church has engaged in illegal activity to prop up Putin. Is there any evidence it has? I'm not asking for the sake of inserting doubt; I honestly don't know.

But how many non-Muslim countries can you name where you can go to jail for years for "blasphemy"? Doesn't THAT strike you as weird and surprising also? What about Putin's regime makes this sort of prosecution possible?

They weren't prosecuted for blasphemy, which is a crime against religion. They were prosecuted for (effectively) hate speech, which is a crime against civil rights. I have plenty of sympathy for the punk rock ethos in general and Pussy Riot in specific, but "I'm so punk!" is not an absolute get out of jail free card. The details matter.

"They weren't prosecuted for blasphemy ..." Sure they were. It just was called something different because "blasphemy" couldn't be directly prosecuted under Russian law.

Orthodoxy hasn't engaged in "illegal activity" to prop up Putin, but prop up Putin they most certainly do, and directly oppose feminism in Russia they also most certainly do.

I continue to be amazed that Americans who could be expected to sympathise with westernised elements in any other country can't bring themselves to sympathise with westernised elements in Russia.

I continue to be amazed that Americans who could be expected to sympathise with westernised elements in any other country can't bring themselves to sympathise with westernised elements in Russia.

Funny, because by supporting equal treatment under rule of law, that's what I thought I was doing.

"Equal treatment under rule of law"? Priceless. That explains why Pussy Riot defendants were denied food and sleep during their trial. It explains why promoting feminism itself was deemed to be expressing hatred of Orthodox Christianity (and Catholicism) by their judge. It explains why you apologise for people you would ordinarily be expected to decry even if that requires condemning people whose principles most resemble those of North Americans. It explains why "hate crimes" can now be considered to be committed by minorities who offend sensibilities of majorities. It explains why you think "free speech" no longer applies when religious people get offended by that speech.

I hope your version of "equal treatment under rule of law" never makes it to North America.

It explains why promoting feminism itself was deemed to be expressing hatred of Orthodox Christianity (and Catholicism) by their judge.

There are ways to promote feminism that don't infringe on other people's rights -- or more broadly stated, there are tactics which remain illegal even when a cause is just. See also:

It explains why "hate crimes" can now be considered to be committed by minorities who offend sensibilities of majorities.

Hate crimes are crimes against sensibilities. How could one argue that they weren't inherently discriminatory if they were only ever applied against members of a majority population? More the point, what majority would continue to support them if they were?

You mean, besides irreverence in that empty cathedral? I imagine so. But it would be easy to imagine behaviour that infringed on people's rights to much greater extent than what these women did. Putin and his judicial system didn't even know they were going to call what they did criminal for weeks after they did it.

If espousing unpopular viewpoints constitutes hate crimes because it offends majority sensibilities, please see my latest Diary entry. Also, if espousing unpopular viewpoints can now be hate crimes, then your First Amendment truly means nothing.