Nationwide protests bring thousands to Russia's streets

Thank you for for your courage, Russians. Let's hope it's contagious...

Putin has led Russia since 1999. He'll soon extend his rule and remain in power until 2024. As the article below suggests he's been able to maintain his power by limiting opposition - by any means necessary. His control over Russian media has helped ensure his opinions are the primary opinions heard. He and his loyal oil-igarchs (sic) are among the richest on the planet, while living standards continue to fall fall for the population in general.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-critics-of-vladimir-putin-who-died-20170325-story.html

you're a tool of Western propaganda if you think otherwise.

Given Russia's history of authoritarian state control, it's pretty easy to think most 'everyday' (whatever that means) Russians are tools of Putin's media propaganda. Either that or they know they must keep their thoughts to themselves and dutifully accept the dictates of the regime. Hats off to the brave ones who protest; they must be aware of the consequences.

Burning BushMAR. 27, 2017 - 03:36PM JST Not even 10,000 people out of a city of 10 million, that's not even 0.1%.

Previous waves of demonstrations have dissipated through inertia or the intimidation of increasingly punitive measures; under a 2014 law, holding an unauthorized protest is punishable by 15 days in jail, or five years imprisonment for a third offense.

But no, maybe your proposal that everyone who didn't protest is a supporter of their government is totally reasonable and not a line fed to you by Russian dezinformatsiya agents.

The interesting thing is the bind this puts Trump in. His failure to get his signature healthcare plan passed may have distracted people from the investigations into his ties to the Kremlin, but this puts them back on everyone's radar. If he doesn't condemn his alleged ally Putin for his gross oppression of his own people, well, Americans will want to know why. If he does condemn... well, that's so unexpected I won't even speculate.

I wonder if the Trump administration will offer a rebuke to Putin's arrests of political opponents. Hmmm, difficult question . . .

As long as it's peaceful, they shouldn't be arrested. People should have the right for peaceful protest

It seems someone definitely doesn't want Navalny on the media. Last week, someone assaulted his face with green liquid - and no one has been arrested yet. (And why is it that whenever someone gets assaulted, arrested, or even killed, it's always the critics of the government? It's so one-sided that it would convey suspicions on the government side)

If Navalny is in an anti-corruption drive, this should make people think it's someone in government who doesn't want one's corruption to be exposed. That should be the people's priority - to expose the one(s) who doesn't want his/her corruption to be exposed. That's where the spotlight should be

Some Russian state news media gave relatively cursory reports on the demonstrations, while the state news TV channel Rossiya-24 ignored them altogether in evening broadcasts.

Mature governments shouldn't own state-controlled media or channels - that's a sign that they're not confident enough of themselves to stand on their own. And that includes the NHK

The U.S. government condemned the arrest of Navalny and of peaceful protesters, calling for their immediate release.

Laughable. The U.S. government should notice that most of the rallies were unsanctioned (where they were sanctioned there were no clashes and arrests), and in Moscow one police officer was attacked and almost killed by "peaceful protesters". As usual, Western mainstream media provides carefully manipulated facts.

I just imagined how U.S. cops would react to aggressive unsanctioned rallies and having one of the cops injured. And just imagine the news title: "The Russian government condemned U.S. police brutality at Ferguson and demanded the release of all arrested".

AsakazeMAR. 27, 2017 - 08:08PM JST I just imagined how U.S. cops would react to aggressive unsanctioned rallies and having one of the cops injured.

The "aggressive" bit is just your speculation (or possibly propaganda to support a potential pro-Russian agenda) but uh... do you know what "sanctioned" means? Are you familiar with the US Constitution?

Because US cops would react to an unsanctioned rally the same way they would react to a sanctioned rally. The US government isn't in the business of deciding who has the right to protest and who doesn't.

@lostrune2

Mature governments shouldn't own state-controlled media or channels - that's a sign that they're not confident enough of themselves to stand on their own. And that includes the NHK

What about Great Britain, is it "mature" with its BBC?

@katsu78

The "aggressive" bit is just your speculation

A police officer gets a very strong blow in his head that knocked him unconscious and almost dead. Very peaceful rally, certainly.

do you know what "sanctioned" means?

Sure. The "Occupy Wall Street" movement was not sanctioned. Do you remember how the police dealt with these people?

The US government isn't in the business of deciding who has the right to protest and who doesn't

Tell this wondeful story to the people of Ferguson and others.

Mature governments shouldn't own state-controlled media or channels - that's a sign that they're not confident enough of themselves to stand on their own. And that includes the NHK

What about Great Britain, is it "mature" with its BBC?

The BBC too, though BBC at times criticizes the government, which can't really be said about NHK or the other typical state-owned media

But yes, the BBC too. Government should leave the media to private realm and stand on their own