Oh well, that's too bad. I guess it'll stay that way until the Sun swallows the Earth.

It's an incredibly difficult thing to do, and it can't come from the outside. Russians have to collectively decide that they don't accept the situation anymore, and that they're prepared to pay the price with their blood. They did in 1918, and I wish I could support them to do it again.

Of course it's easier said than done. And yet I'm not claiming that it's easy, quite the opposite.

Ukraine was also a non-democratic country, until the people decided otherwise. And yes, it was pretty brutal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity

> Ukraine was also a non-democratic country, until the people decided otherwise

That's not true. The President of Ukraine who was overthrown in 2014 (Yanukovych) was democratically elected in 2010 in an election that international observers called fair, truly competitive, and an impressive display of democracy.[1]

That President was supported mostly by the people of eastern Ukraine and opposed by the people of western Ukraine.

1: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/feb/08/viktor-yanukov...

True that he was democratically elected. But it's hard to call a government democratic when they shoot and kill protesters.

I'd say instead that it shows that being democratic doesn't preclude being corrupt and authoritarian.

Democracy is first and foremost about peaceful transfer of power after elections. Anything on top of that is luxury. The only alternative is a series of civil wars.

I like to think its a step wise progression with the ideal being leaders can change without requiring a revolution or war to happen.

Walling themselves off from (edit: potential) protesters at taxpayer expense is still good, though?

> Russia is a non-democratic country...

So was Nazi Germany. Everyone there still had to accept thorough "de-Nazification" after WW2, though.

(This makes it doubly ironic how exactly that is what Putler claims to be doing to Ukraine.)