From the beginning:
1. Politkovskaya was a renegade. While our soldiers were fighting with bandits in Chechnya she wrote tones of pro-Basaev's crap. She was talking about "brave highland warriors who fight for their independence". Look if your country has a fight somwhere you would support your army or the enemy? IMHO the guys who choose the last may be of some interest for qualified psychiatrist. After her conduct during war in Chechnya she couldn't have been taken seriously.
2. Litvinenko was a renegade too. He was selling his country. He was corrupt agent and his turning towards Berezovsky shows that completely (As you don't know maybe Berezovsky was one of those whose money helped to rise Doudaev's regime in Chechnya). But I think that if our spec ops have really retired him - they should have done it with more elegance - not to make such a noise of this operation. And better - he should have been taken back home to stand before Tribunal. Only thing I can blame our State in this case - for being ineffective in gathering investigation materials. But maybe this was impossible because Litvinenko was not a lamb - being criminal he was also a trained agent and and he wiped out his tracks as well as he could. In any case he has broken oath and there is an oppinion that he has got what he deserved.
3. As for Garry Casparov... Have you ever read what he says? It would be interesting to know oppinion of competent psychiatrist on his account too. And of course I cannot respect the subject who, pretending to be Russian leader, speaks English on his meetings... Whom he is adressing to? He and the likes of him would never gain any moral support until they would offer a constructive program. The only thing they do is their stupid "marсhes of discordant" (марши несогласных). They only criticise and criticise but when they would tell us how they are going to make our life better?
4. Hodorkovsky case is more complicated and there are some questions to our State. First of all he is most likely a thief and he is in jail for being thief. His company is guilty in concealment of taxable income in trilions of rubles (billions of dollars). What is worse they were arranging assasinations of concurents and mere people who were somehow preventing them from obtaining more concessions. What I don't like in this history? Well Hodorkovsky is definitely not the only one who gathered his wealth in such an unjust way. But he was the only one who went to jail. Why? Because he tried to make his way into state power. He began to buy local officials of higher and higher rank. Everyone in big business does it but Hodorkovsky has overstepped some line that in couple with his being №1 Russian billionaire made him an easy object for show trial. The other two evil ones Berezovsky and Gusinsky (strangely all their last names are ended with "sky"
) are unfortunately abroad. But what for the others who are home? They are not being facing the trial. Does that mean that the State made a deal with criminals of first wave of our new billionaires? I would never believe that our Office of Public Prosecutor couldn't have found any materials about tax concealment or fraud to imprison the remnants if it had its will. So we see double standart approach
But again we cannot blame the State for imprisoning Hodorkovsky. We can blame it for he is the only one.
Another interesting thing is for dealing with those "marсhes of discordant". First stone flies into garden of the ones who organize those marches. a) Their choice of the places for their flash mobs could have been more rational. Now it seems that they try to do everything to annoy people around: instead of coming into a park or some other place where they would not disturb everyday life they choose to come to central streets and squares, blocking the traffic, dropping garbage. They never ask for permission to do all that and they cry about end of free speach when officials try to stop them.
b) There are is one simple rule of making flash mobs that are being taught at schools on Fundamentals of Survival lessons (there is such object in Russian schools) : an action should never change its format. If it is a meeting - it should remain a meeting, if it is a march - it should remain a march. What was made in St Petersburg: at first it was announced that an action would be a meeting. The public gathered, than they suddenly decided that they want to march the streets... Police is trying to stop the crowd, the crowd cries that the Police are fascists (you need to have in mind that for Russian to be called fascist is a very hard offence because every family have suffered a loss in WWII) and that they are "feedom fighters". The Police are getting angry and then it comes to blows.
And here flies a stone into the garden of local officials:
a) The number of Police that are engaged (about 1000) is twice as more than the number of march members (about 500).
b) The type of Police forces is wrong - thay are OMON (Police special forces). They come in full ammunition with helmets heavy bucklets and they stand there under hot sun rays for hours during what was going to be there holiday.
When stupid march leaders are calling for crowd to go into streets from the square officials make a decision to block the entrance into square so the crowd could not brake through into the city.
You must take into account that this is a holiday and there are a lot of common people in the square too who are not taking part in the action and now they are blocked along with the flash mob guys.
Then action leaders are calling for their listeners to force the lines of OMON. They try to do so calling the OMON "fascists". After that the fight begins in which suffer innocent people who weren't let to get out of there.
Seems that both sides were acting to inflict a vexation from the common people. And they both had made a lot of mistakes.
Best Regards!