> Limiting free speech, banning political opposition, arresting dissidents, persecuting people for their sexuality, invading neighbour sovereign states etc, etc.

I'm no fan of Russia, but many of these things you mentioned could be applied to the US and UK too.

Sure, neither totalitarianism nor democracy are binary things, and there are no razor-sharp definitions. I'm sure you can find examples of those things in many countries that are generally considered "democratic". However, in Putin's Russia this is common practice and happens on a regular basis (with the exceptions of invading other sovereign states I guess, which has only happened a couple of times), which is why I don't think it's controversial to call Russia "totalitarian".

Maybe I missed out on the news about the US and UK, so please fill me in. What free speech has been limited? What political opposition has been banned? Which dissidents have been arrested? Who has been persecuted for their sexuality? Which neighboring countries have been invaded?

> Limiting free speech

This accusation is very vague and it could mean anything. It's surely more limited than, say, in Sweden. It way less limited than in Saudi Arabia.

> banning political opposition

Russian parliament consists of 4 parties, 3 of those are oppositional. I'm sure there is a number of banned NGOs, but totalitarian countries usually don't have this kind of political plurality.

> arresting dissidents

Notice they don't arrest people for being a political dissident? Khodorkovsky was brought up on tax evasion charges (which he undoubtedly committed). Pussy Riot was charged with hooliganism (which they undoubtedly committed). Were the trials politically motivated? Sure! Is it unique to totalitarian states that people who oppose the establishment come under higher scrutiny? Please...

> persecuting people for their sexuality

Now we are venturing into the cool-aid area. Modern Russia never prosecuted anyone for their sexuality. Homosexuality means attraction to the same sex and people are free to act on their attraction in Russia. There are a number of openly gay public figures. Russia has laws protecting LGBT minorities from discrimination. I would venture further - Russian government's policy right now is as progressive on LGBT rights as possible in Russia. The populace is hugely homophobic, ranging from 'being gay is a disease' to 'gay must be stoned'. It's the same in most of the former Soviet republics - even in the Lithuania over 80% of people consider homosexuality a perversion [1].

And by misrepresenting the fact about the state of the LGBT community in Russia the Western media only make Putin's life easier, since he can present it as a 'them-versus-us' issue internally. Compare [2]

> invading neighbour sovereign states

Is the emphasis here on 'neighbour'? Because if invading other countries is a sign of totalitarianism than the list of totalitarian countries will have some very surprising names on it.

> I don't know about you, but I think "totalitarian" draw a more correct picture

Which is your good right. I just don't see enough facts to support your opinion that Russia is a ' state [which] holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible.' [3]

[1] http://www.delfi.lt/news/daily/lithuania/apklausa-daugiau-ne... (use google translate)

[2] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/05/russia-...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism

> This accusation is very vague and it could mean anything.

Oh, it's pretty bad. Basically all television is state-controlled. All major papers as well. Any opposition site that becomes prominent is quickly banned. Unsanctioned street protests are banned even if they are as few as two people with banners. Lone opposition protesters are routinely attacked by pro-Kremlin "activist" crews which are promptly released even if they are ever detained by the police.

> Russian parliament consists of 4 parties, 3 of those are oppositional.

Those 3 "oppositional" parties have been tamed and groomed by Putin's administration since he came to power. They never criticize Putin, they vote for every law introduced by his administration, they never stage any protests against him. The true opposition leaders, in the meantime, are either spending their time in jail or exiled/dead.

> Notice they don't arrest people for being a political dissident?

Of course they don't, but that doesn't make them democrats. They sentence political prisoners on made up charges all the time - see Navalny, Savchenko, Murtazalieva and hundreds of others across Russia.

> Russian government's policy right now is as progressive on LGBT rights as possible in Russia

This is not true. Homophobia of its people is the cornerstone of the Russian government's anti-Western propaganda (especially anti-EU).

> ... that Russia is a ' state [which] holds total authority over the society and seeks to control all aspects of public and private life wherever possible.

Not yet, but they are getting there, or at least trying to. Russia is still an authoritarian state which is rapidly transforming into a totalitarian one.

Haha, less than Saudi Arabia. That's like less than hell.

And again, without a single reference? Is it a joke?

General discussion typically does not try to list references for things that are obvious. But of course it can be done.

Limiting free speech: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press_in_Russia "the Russian government exerts control over civil society through selective implementation of the law, restriction and censure." "In 2013 Russia ranked 148th out of 179 countries in the Press Freedom Index from Reporters Without Borders."

Banning political opposition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_Party_(Russia) "On 28 April 2015 the party was deprived of registration."

Arresting dissidents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexei_Navalny

Persecuting people for their sexuality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_LGBT_propaganda_law

Invading neighbour sovereign states: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Georgian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Ru... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014%E2%80%9315_Russian_milita...

An we could add to the list. But it would be pointless, wouldn't it? Since we know that the first step is "you don't have any references", and the next step is "here's some mud flying at you and your references".

The amount of information about the mentioned issues, available on the web is enormous. Anyone who want to read up on it can just use a search engine. I believe most users should be able to evaluate the credibility of the sources found themselves and I don't think me cherry-picking a few articles would add much credibility to the comment.