I vaguely remember that it's because it's up to each regional government to figure it out? So some award a car and others a sack of potatoes.

Are you responsible in some way for the war in Ukraine? If yes, then you're part of a democracy. If no, then you are not.

When I say strong political engagement I mean a large percentage of a population having strong political opinions and perfectly willing to denounce the head of state. Of many completely willing to protest outside of legal boundaries if given enough of a reason to. Of people openly calling for a revolution to topple the government being allowed to voice their opinions. You're not seriously actually going to try and claim that Russia is a democracy are you? Surely you recognize that the legal framework of Russia is entirely ignored by your own government? Do you actually believe your constitution is given any reverence at all?

Do the things on Russia-1 not strike you as absolutely absurd? The propaganda designed not to mobilize a population politically but instead convince it to stay out of politics and throw their hands up because they can't figure out the truth? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood

>just as anyone in US who voted for the government that lost an election.

You're missing some perspective. There is an insane lack of political engagement in Russia. It's not seen in a democracy as wrong to protest or disobey a law that you see as immoral, regardless of whether you lost an election or not.

Even within the context of elections, the result of losing an election and a law you disagree with being passed isn't to just give up and accept obeying the law, but to fight to change it.

This used to just be my regular commute.

Many autocratic regimes have entire multiple competing militaries, not simply divisions of a single military. It makes it harder to overthrow a leader by simply taking a single institution, but the competition also causes infighting like we are seeing in Russia.

The question started with "if patriots are ok then why not other weapons" but I imagine the answer would apply to any kind of military assistance seen as "too offensive."

There was the recent press conference where Biden sorta hinted/implied that they were limited in the weapons they could send due to concerns from some EU members in NATO. Even mentioned how doing so could risk the breakup of the EU and NATO somehow.

I don't think he hinted over what kinds of concerns they were beyond escalation though.

You just pivoted from "evil Ukrainians are executing Russians" to "Russians are being harassed."

But even if we pretend and take you at your word 100%, does that somehow justify an invasion, attempted annexation of territory, and persecution of LGBT people within Russia? That's on the same level as "Russians are being harassed?" An invasion of a country with a native Russian-speaking President that opposed the very language laws you'll say are the source of the harassment? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-parliament-language-idUSKCN1S111N

Do you support the invasion of any country with ultranationalists in it? Because I can name a few.

Hey, LGBT people are being harassed in Russia. Does that give everyone the clear to invade Russia and seize territory?

I'm assuming you're trying to refer to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Odesa_clashes

Where violent clashes resulted in both sides of a protest throwing molotovs at each other, with at least one starting a fire.

Wording it the way you did makes it sound like a group just rounded some innocent people up into a building and set it on fire and leaves out the very contextually important violent clashes.

>This rally was later attacked by an anti-Maidan mob of 300 from the group Odesskaya Druzhina armed with bats and firearms at Hretska Street.

>Following the attack on the pro-Maidan rally, numerous fights broke out. Both sides fought running battles against one other, exchanging stones and petrol bombs, and built barricades throughout the city during the afternoon.

>According to OHCHR both sides had various kinds of helmets, masks, shields, axes, wooden or metal sticks, and firearms. According to OmTV there were mostly air pistols and the first actual firearms use was by Antimaidan activist Vitaly Budko ("Botsman") who opened fire with an AK-74 rifle using 5.45 bullets.

>While defending the building, militants on the roof tossed rocks and petrol bombs at the protesters below. BBC News said that the situation was unclear, with multiple sources indicating that both sides had been throwing petrol bombs at each other.

Calling it "a house" makes me think you literally didn't even know the first thing about this incident and just heard the name "Trade Union House fire."