MrTidy

Is it true that Russia is a police state, and Putin is fucked up?

I currently live in Russia so I probably can answer this question. It all depends on your definition of a "police state". It is true that gay people do not have a free speech, it is true that there is a degree of censorship on the internet, but its probably not as bad as you imagine. Also, it is important to understand that many Russian people actually support decisions Putin makes, and in that sense he is not really a dictator, he just chooses to please majority. If you have specific questions, I can try to answer them.

I have watched it, and I would say it is 99% accurate. You have to remember though, he is an opposition politician. Let me try to give a more objective(probably?) point of view. Remember though, I am not a politician, I am an ordinary man with a casual interest in politics, so take everything I say with a healthy does of skepticism.

First of all, is Putin a legitimate leader of the country? Yes. On 2012 elections Putin got about 60% of the votes, with the second candidate, communist Zuganov, following him with about 20% of the votes, which means that beyond a shadow of a doubt, Putin was (and is) the most desired president for Russia. There is evidence that Putin used some of his political power to rig the elections, but the scale of falsifications was not nearly as big. Same goes for United Russia, Putin's political party that now has the absolute majority of places in Russian parliament. There is not much doubt that current leadership is what majority of Russians really elected. In short, Putin is a legitimate leader

Now, how did Putin and his team arrive at this state? Short answer: because they effectively shut down any opposition that arises. That's where Kasparov's words come in. It is true that some journalists in Russia were beaten and even killed, and as far as I know, criminals are yet unknown to public. I personally think that this was indeed linked with their political activities, but I don't think that Putin ordered every of these crimes - it may been other politicians, and Putin may have let it slide, so to say. In short, Putin's team is probably responsible for journalists deaths

However, it seems to me that Putin and his allies prefer a non-violent methods. First, there is of course official propaganda and censorship. TV is the main source of information for the majority of the population and it is controlled by government. It is a well-known fact that main TV channels in Russia are financed by the government, and naturally, that implies that all main TV channels are pro-government. This means that there is an overt propaganda and censorship (easiest example - 1st channel TV host Vladimir Pozner explicitly states he is not allowed to call famous opposition leader Alexei Navalny on his talk show) on the main TV channels, it is sometimes hilarious to watch, frankly. This, however, does not mean that entire mass-media in Russia is censored. There is liberal TV and Radio station echo.msk.ru, and opposition TV channel TV Rain. Such mass-media don't have a large audience and Putin doesn't seem to be bothered by them. Moreover, he welcomes their presence, as they are the proof that there is free speech in Russia. In short, Putin controls major mass media in Russia.

Okay, so what happens to opposition leaders in Russia? Lets take an example of Alexei Navalny, the most popular opposition leader at the moment. He gained his fame by exposing corrupt schemes of Russian businessmen and officials. In just a couple years he became a de-facto leader of Russian opposition; he was highly respected by people for his activities. How did the government react? Well, first there was silence. All major mass media networks basically denied his existance, no matter how important the news actually were. Then, a massive internet-campaign was started against him. Hundreds of bots were sent to spam his blog. Next, hundreds of people from Russian pro-government youth movements who are hired to create an overwhelming pro-government media presence on the Internet were sent against him. They thoroughly examined Navalny's biography and dug up questionable facts about him in order to decrease his credibility as a crime-fighter. For example, they claimed that Navalny has a fake lawyer license, that he studied in American university, where he was hired by the CIA to cause distrubance in Russia, that he was a part of some shady money-laundering schemes, etc. Navalny responded to every such claim, proving their falsehood to his readers. When Navalny's presence became impossible to deny (mostly due to 10000+ demonstrations in ~2012), mass media either said he was an opposition leader, or repeated one of the accusations that were invented earlier. Next, IIRC when Navalny accused the Head of The Investigative Committee of Russia Bastyrkin of assault on a journalist, Navalny himself got officially accused of fraud, based on one of the earlier accusations. Shortly after, three (or so) more cases were started against him. He was later found guilty on one of them, fined and put on probation, the other cases are still in process, AFAIK. However he was allowed to take part in Moscow Mayor elections in summer 2013. He even got some support from government. He got about 25% of votes, getting the second place after the current mayor Sobyanin, part of United Russia, who got about 50% of votes. At the moment, Navalny continues his work exposing corrupt schemes of Russian officials. Unfortunately, prosecutors tend to ignore any legal actions he tries to take against these officials.

Alexei's pattern stays the same for major opposition politicians. When a politician becomes hard to ignore, pro-government mass media will start a propaganda campaign against them, destroying their reputation. If possible they may be put in prison, which is what happened to Khodorkovskiy, mentioned in your link. That doesn't mean opposition politicians are innocent, Khodorkovskiy was certainly (IMO) guilty of his charges. The thing is - starting an opposition political career may lead to court cases against you. In short, oppositian leaders are being pursued in Russia

Finally, what happens to an ordinary citizen, who is against government or Putin? Not much, actually. You are free to express your opinion wherever you want - on the internet, in conversations, on TV, if you get invited (you won't though). You are free to go to the demonstrations, but there's a nuance. According to Moscow laws, every demonstration must be agreed upon with local officials, which effectively means you can demonstrate only if government allows it. Also, police may detain you during the demonstration, releasing you in a couple of hours. Many famous opposition politicians got arrested and released that way. The only exception is the case of 6th of May, where demonstration became a riot, and several policemen were injured. The case is still being investigated, but it is likely that all the accused will be put to jail for several years. In short, an ordinary anti-government citizen in Russia is just fine

Okay, I guess I should wrap it up. This is a very complex and interesting topic, and there's a lot of stuff I haven't touched, like religion, but here's at least something. Remember, its just how I see things, not some objective point of view.

My personal stance on gay people is probably probably close to yours: I believe that gay people should have the same freedoms as other people. That includes free speech, protection by the police, legal benefits from marriage, etc. I am hesitant on gay marriage, because "marriage" in Russia is often closely associated with Orthodox church, which is strictly anti-gay. Allowing gay marriage will offend a lot of people and cause a huge wave of hate from both sides, so it is wise to wait with gay marriage till Russian culture becomes more gay-friendly.

Average Russian does not have strong feelings about Netherlands, neither positive, nor negative

You are right, it was for abusing children!

I am hesitant on the laws, but the way I understand it, diplomats get immunity in the countries they have their mission, so technically, the police had no right to arrest him. Moreover, Russian side claimed that Russian diplomat was beaten in the police, which is, of course, unacceptable. Either way, official Russia was very offended by this incident and called it a violation of international laws. However, there is no evidence that links official Russia to the assault on your diplomat.

Child abuse is a serious crime that should be severely punished, but concept of diplomatic immunity is also very important. It seems to me that The Hague police did not handle the situation the way they should have. That, of course, does not mean that assault on your diplomat can be justified.

Well its totally your right! Russia doesn't get a lot of love from Western world, so yeah, join the club.

As for the assault on the diplomat, I frankly had to google it, because this incident didn't get too much media attention in Russia. As far as I understand it was someone's response on the assault of Russian diplomat in the Hague. These incidents are very unfortunate, but I see them as some weird political games by some shady political forces. This assault does not reflect average Russian's opinion on Netherlands.