Who Is Krasulya V. Russia?

“With power comes the abuse of power. And where there are bosses, there are crazy bosses. It's nothing new.” -Judd Rose (Brainyquote.com) Abuse of power is nothing new. Just like in The Family Romanov by Candace Fleming, abuse of power happens quite often and is not unexpected by either the readers nor the citizens in the book. This book tells a tale of abuse of power from many, most of whom are the rulers of Russia. The government is ultimately brought down by these rulers because of their incompetence and inactiveness. They easily ignore and look down at their citizens even though the citizens are the ones that make up the country. Nicholas ignores his people and instead gets caught up in family messes and chooses to focus on family problems. Alexandra is guilty of the same. There’s also Rasputin who uses his control and influence on these two to do whatever he wants. Then there’s Lenin and Stalin who claim that they are making a better government but are actually not improving anything and might actually be making the citizen’s lives worse, especially Stalin who because of equality, kills people and destroys lives and freedoms. Through these many examples, Fleming suggests that abuse of power, although easily happens, should not happen as it is the route to ruins, as the abuse of power happens often and tends to lead to loss of that power.

Other sources also reported on this particular government-centered, anti-Russian response to the court’s ruling. However unlike the previous cited articles, they assume the role of devil’s advocate, calling attention to a potential for harm if the

During the Communist regime in the former Soviet Union, life was very difficult. The people who lived within the countries controlled by the Soviet government experienced levels of oppression akin to slavery. They could not express themselves through any means and had to conform both body and soul to the views of the Communist Party. People could be arrested, imprisoned, shipped off to exile or executed often without trial. Some twenty million people died while Joseph Stalin led the USSR and for many years after his death it was still dangerous to dare criticize his regime, although some scholars put that number closer to forty million people who died. Now that the Soviet Union has broken up and Russia is its own country there is more freedom, but the people still live under the yoke of an oppressive leader who does not tolerate political or social challenges. The people do nothing to stand up to this government because they have all been scarred by the decades they lived under Stalin.

In their constitution, Article 21 states that no torture will be allowed (Levina, 2013, p.112) and the Criminal Code of Russia, Article 117 also criminalize any form of intentional injury (Levina, 2013, p. 113). Despite these two provisions, torture is actually very widespread and regularly used by the police force. For example, torture and violence were applied regularly towards the Chechen Republic in 1994 (Gilinskiy, 2011, p.164). Torture is also the preferred method of obtaining information from detainees as prison systems have "pressing huts" (Gilinskiy, 2011, p.164) where prison guards subject detainees who refuse to admit guilt to torture in order to extract a guilty confession from them and torture is also used to correct any misbehaviour by prisoners (Gilinskiy, 2011, p.164). The government also seems to have no desire to stop using torture methods (Gillinskiy, 2011, p.164), which is troublesome because Russia is still a superpower meaning that any change in torture policies will have to come within as it is unlikely that Russia will cave into international pressure. Therefore, it seems that the government is generally in favor of torture, while the population has a more anti view of it. This also speaks to the ability of the government to hide and suppress any negative views that the population may have, an action accomplished through media censorship (Malakhov, 2014,

The main function of law-enforcement agencies in Russia is not to protect the public from crime and corruption, but to shield the bureaucracy, including themselves, from the public” . The Russian police have been accused of getting paid to carry out jobs that benefit the image of the government. Both police forces are accused of using unnecessary force to complete corrupt motives. In Russia those who want to protest the government may have a tough time trying to come out without any injuries. An article from the New York time says “Many Russians seem to feel that they do not have much recourse in the face of police abuse and a result, motorists’ rights groups have sprung up. In October last year, The New York Times profiled a leader of one such group in Yekaterinburg, who was beaten in police custody after protesting corruption” . After protesting that the government was corrupt the leader was beaten and thrown in jail. This is evident that the police are there to protect the image of the government and if someone speaks out against the government they are liable to be victims of police brutality. This is similar to the cases of police brutality that occur in the United States, which have been connected to systematic discrimination. With the many protest that occur in the U.S, countless have been in result of police brutality cases against blacks. Most of the protest end with protesters being

In the first days of Putin's presidency, he made state media and private owned broadcast media under Kremlin surveillance, to filter what the Russian citizens are watching and perceiving. He began by destroying the NTV news, as the president of the station Dobrodeev was expelled from his position. Ostrovsky comments, “Tempting though it may be to portray NTV journalists as altruistic defenders of freedom and speech, this would be misleading as presenting their opponents as stewards of justice. Many of the journalists, spoiled and compromised by their inflated status and their own cynicism, which they had seen as an asset when they were in power, now invoked moral values in their time of need. 282. Furthermore, Putin begins his widespread propaganda movements with his now state-controlled media. The bombing of the apartments in Moscow by the alleged Chechen terrorists, instills fear in citizens as they realize the print and television towers will not protect them from danger. Therefore, the media influence began to self-destruct. Putin then begins to utilise his control panel, by using media as a tactic of spreading false but undeniably fearsome stories of ethnic cleansing of Georgian villages by South Ossetian irregulars. This was proved false, but the idea of Georgia as an aggressor and threat to the Russian people helped the

President Putin has control over all media in and out of Russia as he has shut down 11 of 12 media outlets in Crimea since March 2014. He does it in a matter that seems legal from certain stand points, the media outlets needed to apply for a

With the arrival of the second half of the 20th century, came the death of Stalin and a new age for not only Russia but the entirety of the Eastern Block as well. Russia, as always, stood in the face of adversity and, instead of crumbling, began to develop and progress in leaps and bounds. In the span of a mere 50 or so years Russia went from one political, social, and economic standing, (Stalinism) to its exact obverse. Despite the obvious changes a switch like this requires there are still some fundamental and intrinsically Russian sentiments and characteristics that were maintained throughout the change.

His citizens respect Putin’s laws “for the desire of avoiding the harsh conditions of Russian penitentiaries” (CP Meta). When Putin came into power in 2000, he took control over the three main TV stations in Russia. In 2001 he took control of the two biggest TV channels and the state broadcaster was already under his control. Russia’s media is fully controlled by Putin, therefore, Russia only views the news from his perspective. He appoints editors and general directors, either officially or unofficially.

Such injustice is shown in the case of Alexei Anatolievich Navalny, a Russian politician, lawyer, human rights activist, and anti-corruption campaigner. Alexei Anatolievich is known for his remarkable bravery in publicly opposing and demoting policies and unethical behavior of both, Dmitri Medvedev, Russian Prime Minister, and Vladimir Putin, Russian President. In April of 2017, Alexei Anatolievich and other activists, such as Natasya Fyodorova, were attacked by “unknown assailants”, presumably for promoting the concept of “free speech for all” and that which benefits the people. Such benefits resembling the construction of “roads and hospitals” in place of “palaces for officials”(a direct accusation to Medvedev). The attacks were done with the antiseptic spray, Brilliant Green; an acid that left the victims physically deformed in the targeted areas. The brutality of the attacks begs the burning question; how is the world to prosper and follow the positive democratic ideals of public involvement , if those who are experienced, impassioned, and willing to change, are shut down by force, when their opinions are valid and shed light on a hateful and dark atmosphere. Alexei Anatolievich himself, spoke of “allowing everyone to run in elections, including nationalists, including you” to Igor Girkin (an opposing statesmen), engaging the ethos appeal by choosing to inform the people that there are other ideas to be had besides his own, it presents his disposed position on change for the better of the people. To silence these attitudes because you disagree, or find fault in them, is to destroy the foundations of progress. Alexei Anatolievich and others in rival opinions should be allowed to express

Ever since his introduction into politics in 1991, Putin has used his position to give special treatment to friends and allies by allowing organizations to create monopolies, using city funds for their own interests, and laundering money, receiving support in return (Ellis). This support allowed Putin to rise to the position of Prime Minister and then President. The support he receives from these oligarchs largely influences the decisions he makes as president, as Garry Kasparov argues, “There is no consideration of what is or is not good for Russia, or for Russians, only what is best for him and his close circle of oligarch elites.” This shows Putin’s aggression because he is willing to sacrifice political decisions and actions at the expense of his own people in order to stay in power. Therefore, his system of enriching the oligarchs that support him works well in his favor; and when an oligarch opposes his rule, he sees to it that they be crushed. Mikhail Khodorkovsky, one of Russia’s richest men who openly criticized Putin was imprisoned with a 14 year sentence for his opposition (Ellis). Khodorkovsky is not the only critic to have been silenced, however, as there have been many more instances of this. Ever since Putin’s rise to power, thirteen journalists have been murdered in Russia; all falling under mysterious

As I said earlier, I’m a citizen of two countries United States and Russia. When it comes to Russian government there is hardly anything like Constitution and democracy. The only power that is governing the government in money, literally who has enough money in his pocket can play as a politic. Although, this country seems to be free country or democratic country, it’s not really. As a citizen you don’t have a right to vote (even

When Vladimir Putin because the president of Russia in the year 2000, one of the most significant and arguably damaging results was his attack on free speech. Two years into his presidency, he passed the "On Counteracting Extremist Activity" law, put into place to outlaw extremism and terrorist activity, including intent to overthrow the Russian government, incite racial, religious, or social hatred, or organize terrorism (Gross 7). While such a law may appear to have nothing but the safety of the nation in mind, it and the many smaller laws to follow served to devastate news media and criminalize wayward opinions as a result. The repercussions of such silencing continue to harm Russian citizens today, as Putin goes into his 17th year of presidency.

111 people control 19% of all household wealth in Russia (Breslow, 2015). The centrally planned economy realigned to a capitalist order based on markets, private property and free enterprise. The ‘oligarchs’ or known as Russia’s richest 1%, own about 30% of the entire populations personal assets (Aven, 2013). A massive disparity in wealth that is purported to have held back Russia’s economic growth from its true potential (Aven,

Oligarchy as it is known in Aristotle’s politics; is a government run by a small group of people, ‘elites’. However, the oligarchy which this essay addresses is currently referred to in Russia as “a very wealthy and politically well-connected businessman...one who is the main owner of a conglomerate of enterprises and has close ties with the president” (Aslund and Dabrowski, 2007; 144). In the 1990s Russia’s economic reforms are said to have created the rise of a small group of oligarchs who gained an overwhelming amount of power and control. By 1997, this small group of previously unknown businessmen and bankers, often with gangster ties, had acquired control of many of the key parts of the Russian economy. Why did they emerge? It is argued by David Satter that three processes facilitated the emergence of the oligarchs. The first was hyperinflation and the social, economic and political consequences. The second was the process of privatisation, and finally the third was criminalisation (Satter, 2003). However, were these powerful oligarchs just a phase during the transition from Soviet to Post-Soviet Russia? Even with Putin’s efforts and declaration to distance the oligarchs from politics and power, and start a war against them exemplified by the Khodorkovsky affair, are oligarchs still significantly powerful in contemporary Russia? What is the role they play in Russia? It seems that the power of those original oligarchs of the 1990s has decreased or been concealed in