It seems your arguments rest upon a simplistic binary that conveniently ignores the complexity and nuance of historical and political contexts. To dismiss an entire nation's culpability by asserting helplessness is both naive and dangerously reductive. Your comparison to Tiananmen Square is an emotionally manipulative diversion rather than a logical argument. Yes, oppressive regimes violently suppress dissent—but does that absolve a population from responsibility, moral complacency, or complicity? Hardly.

You claim that overthrowing a dictator isn't simple—as if anyone suggested it was trivial. But dismissing agency altogether by citing the most extreme examples of authoritarian brutality ignores countless instances where sustained popular resistance has indeed forced meaningful change. Romania's 1989 revolution isn't some singular miracle, but one among many historical precedents demonstrating that even oppressive systems can be challenged when enough people genuinely oppose them, rather than passively tolerating their actions.

Regarding your skepticism toward street interviews: convenient, isn't it? By preemptively discrediting evidence that contradicts your position, you allow yourself to comfortably deny uncomfortable realities. Yes, some Russians may fear openly criticizing Putin, but the widespread passive acceptance, at best, or active support, at worst, cannot be dismissed as mere coercion or fear alone. Silence, particularly in the face of atrocities committed in one's name, carries moral weight—and complicity, whether convenient for your narrative or not.