Article is interesting but some key points that are inaccurate / missing context: -The points about Great Russia/other nationalistic/jingoistic things are true

Article is interesting but some key points that are inaccurate / missing context: -The points about Great Russia/other nationalistic/jingoistic things are true, this is the one thing that a big proportion of Russians like. The problem is that there is a certain population that lived through the periods from 1991 to about 1998 for whom the current period is objectively better than back then. Putin still maintains a significant "he is not Yeltsin" aura which sounds really dumb but makes older people/retirees kind of not objective about what his record is. -Points about clergy/politicians are all true, but IMO one should be sceptical about how effective this is, Navalny has been doing these reports for a long time now and has shown much worse things than 40k watches. -Anybody who tells you that the state turns a blind eye to discriminations of Chechens/Dagestanis is just outright lying. Whether people admit it or not, the majority of ethnic Russians dislike Chechens/Dagestanis quite a bit. The current Putin government actively promotes integration of Chechens way beyond what an "ordinary" ethnic Russian would want. I do agree with the overall premise of the article though, there has to be stronger demonstration of alternatives to what Putin has to offer, but they need to be very carefully curated. The much better solution would be for the West to make the war impact the average Russian, i.e one who doesn't go to Europe for holidays and doesn't drive European cars.