back on topic: ok, Mr. K. was a political threat… but so was Mr. Bazayev. We are conflating things when we talk about a legitimate political opposition in the same breath with Mr. K. If we are concerned about democracy, Mr. K. was no hope for the country. It’s bad enough to have to deal with a civilized mafia structure like the Putin people (and I put as much emphasis on civilized as on mafia) — Mr. K would have been running the country with the help of an uncivilized mafia.

Unfortunately, we had the choice between two evils, and I firmly believe the by far lesser won out. I also believe that over time, the current power structures will become increasingly more civilized and less and less mafiosi (again, I mean to use this word in the most original of senses and without much moral judgment. I do think that an enlightened mafia can provide a fairly functional form of government that generally benefits the majority of subjects. It is not democratic, but it can meet the minimum standards of acceptable government).

One day, in the not so far distant future, I think the Russian top mafias will go the way of the American mafias (must I remind you of the origins of the Rockefeller clan’s fortunes and powers? Or that of the Kennedy’s?)

Today, the US is by far one of the most democratic and fair societies out there, but it wasn’t for most of its history.

I believe that, barring terrible events and bloody revolution, Russia will head that way, too. I consider it inevitable — or at least strongly determined.

Oh, I understand the question all right. It’s the relevance I’m struggling with. Given that you are unwilling or unable to explain why you asked the question in its context, I’m going to have to go with the conclusion that you didn’t really understand what your own question meant.

Maybe, but what has this got to with your question:

Are you capable of not appearing to be selective in your criticims of Russia?

Which suggests I should not criticise anything in Russia without criticising everything else as well.

Is there any connection between these two sentences?

It’s therefore not wrong to point this out with comparative examples.

What are you saying? That I should criticise everything in Russia, not just select certain things for criticism?