|
> The article also doesn't really outline anything that makes sense as a motive. That is the whole point. You can't maintain a dictatorship if you let people get to the point of being a clear threat, because sooner or later, someone could slip through the cracks and take you out. You can't keep the leash this loose. As a dictator, you must go after people for seemingly small things, such as merely expressing the wrong thoughts, making the wrong kind of art, and so on. That sends a message to everyone that even small transgressions carry an unacceptable risk, so if your neighbor keeps criticizing the government, maybe you should report them, not join their discussion club that may become a real political movement. For a while after the revolution that established your regime, people are on their best behavior because you just finished summarily executing hundreds of thousands or millions for having the wrong views. But both in Russia and in China, it's been a long time since that happened, few people remember Stalin or Mao, and so you need to keep sending behavioral nudges in a different way. Also, modern-day Russia embraces a "budget" / "disposable asset" approach to terrorism. If you're important enough, they will send an elite squad to poison you. If not, they literally recruit people on the internet to beat you up, set a warehouse on fire, etc. So you also have to look at developments like as something that's cheap and largely risk-free. |
If this guy was having that sort of impact on the Russian discourse then the article is definitely missing a lot of important information.