Guantanamo detainees sent to their homes. Putin declares amnesty after olympic delegates of US olympic committee to be staffed by homosexuals. Is this some sort of geopolitical game foreshadowing chilling of relations?
I can't believe Putin turned him loose, honestly. That guy has got to be dangerous. He has had nothing to do for several years but sit around stewing about how to put one over on Putin. Should be interesting to see what happens next.
That assumes he actually wants to put one over on Putin. But there are other ways to have a good life, especially if one is a very capable entrepreneur.
Yeah, it is surprising. Must be a reason for it. Clearly he's lost most if not all of his money, but Im sure he has some public appeal which would be dangerous for Putin. Or maybe he just agreed to come to Europe, buy a football club and shut up.
This, together with the release of Pussy Riot and the Greenpeace activists, has been speculated as being Russia's attempt to clean up its image for the 2014 Olympic Games. Given the timing, it's not surprising.
When you put it that way, the situations begin to sound more parallel than I would have thought. There are rules to being an oligarch, though the payoff is a lot better, and Khodorkovsky should have had a more sophisticated understanding of the terms of the deal.
There's a bit of a difference between running afoul of the dictator and getting 10 years in jail on a show trial and joining the military and getting jail term for leaking actual secrets you took the oath not to disclose.
General humanitarian principles (specifically against torture -- as Ms. Manning was indisputably subjected to) have far greater precedence over any country's military justice code.
I wouldn't use a blanket statement like that, it's actually a lot more complicated. First of all, the tax system in Russia is set up that it's impossible to run a business without violating one tax law or the other. That setup is intentional, put in place specifically so anybody who's in Putin's way can be put away for tax crimes. That's exactly what happened here, and tax charges are bogus.
Having said that, you couldn't become a billionaire "new Russian" in the early 90's without doing something horrible, which I'm sure Khodorkovskiy has done at some point. So he probably is a criminal. However, the ONLY reason he was put in jail is that he dared to defy Putin. Everything else was bogus - charges were fabricated, judges had direct orders to convict him, etc.
Yes. I did not intent to defend Putin. I've edited my post. The reason for posting here in the first place was that I was baffled about the media reaction here. No mention of his past action anywhere.
I am sure Khodorkovsky did not make his fortune by legal means. Simply because legality was a murky concept during the time when he built his empire. On the other hand, Putin is a warlord, there is no doubt and if Khodorkovsky supported Putin instead of opposed him things would be very different for him.
Some random thoughts on political situation in Russia:
Dictatorships are more efficient in handling some issues, and less efficient in handling others (lower to mid level official corruption). Are his methods correct in terms of Russian mentality? History will tell.
One thing is certain, empires of warlords often were in turmoil when they passed on [1]. I think Russia is in for interesting times when Putin will be stepping away (And taking rest of the world along with them for a ride due to Russia's status as a nuclear superpower).
[1] It could be argued that fall of USSR was catalyzed by a string of weak leaders after some of more prominent warlords passed away.
As someone from former USSR, here's my take: the reason Khodorkovsky went to jail is because he violated the law of thieves, he stood up to Putin's bullying. If there was an across-the-board principled anti-corruption effort it would be a different matter, but there wasn't. I am tired of hearing Western's justify Putin's thuggery.
I personally come from Belarus, where a president that was democratically elected on anti-corruption charges assumed the role of a dictator. This was well expected by most of the intelligentsia: on the day of the run off election where Lukashenko's win (against another shitbird, of course, who ended up siding with Lukashenko afterwards) was confirmed my brother called us and told us to lookup 'Sulla' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulla) in a history book. The practice of using "crusade against corruption" to assume dictatorial role is as old as democracy itself.
That said Putin is far more pernicious than Lukashenko: with Lukashenko there is no longer any more of a pretense of democracy than there was under, e.g., Saddam in Iraq (there are elections with mythical sounding figures and no campaigns). Putin is far more cunning: he's able to maintain the facade of democracy while having unchecked and unelected power. With recent revelations about "enhanced interrogations", NSA and FISA kangaroo courts, US -- while light years far from turning into a Russia or Belarus -- is starting to show some of these very same dangerous signs of police state(1) tactics via plausible deniability.
I'll leave this quote out there on the topic of rule by robber barrons (which the oligarchs were plain and simple) vs. rule by thugs on a moral crusade:
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
- C.S. Lewis
(1) Here I am using the historical definition of police state: while today it's equated with totalitarianism (and neither Russia nor Belarus -- much less United States even under the worse scenario -- are totalitarian states, as anyone living in those countries who has also lived under Soviet rule can attest), the original meaning contrasted a 'polizeistaat' (rule by decree without any constitutional limitations) with a 'rechtstaat' (rights state -- constitutionally limited rule of law).
As a side note, it is unfortunate that the privatization process was botched enormously in USSR and its successor states. I always thought that the right approach to privatization should have been to follow the old Leninist slogan _literally_: factories to workers, farms to peasants, i.e., give the employees non-trivial amounts of shares/options in their workplace. Instead it became "factories and farms to corrupt middle managers and old Soviet elite".
Interestingly had Russia not seized and broken up Yukos, Khodorkovsky might very well be the richest man on earth today (and most certainly in the top 10). He was worth an estimated $15 billion in 2003 according to Forbes. The price of oil was about 30% what it is now, and it's very plausible Yukos' fortunes would have climbed with the recovery in Russia's economy (and assuming general business expansion).
What is not clear from all the reports: Has his partner Platon Lebedev been pardoned as well or is he still imprisoned? As far as I know they were facing much the same charges.
I thought they're about to canonize him at the end of the article :)
I really feel for the guy. He took the stand, went to jail - but he's far from a "prisoner of conscience".
Many high profile criminals use dislike of Mr Putin in the west as a safe getaway from Russia. They commonly claim that Putin is after them and they're the opposition.
One case in point is Andrey Borodin - former president of a major bank in Russia. He made multiple billion dollar loans to himself through affiliated fly-by-night firms in the offshore. When he was caught, he fled to the UK and suddenly turned opposition overnight. Eventually granted an asylum and lives happily in Oxfordshire in his newly acquired 140 million pounds mansion.
This happened in 2011. In the 90s, when Khodorkovsky operated, things were a lot less clean. He got nabbed. Many others found a way to avoid imprisonment. A lot of them now are "respectable" businessmen ranked high up in the Forbes list.
Yes, Borodin is an excellent example. Never participated in politics in any form or shape. Set a new record for the most expensive house ever sold in Britain. Verdict? Victim of political persecution by evil Putin the mobster/warlord/thug/KayGeBee/whatever...
The thing is in the 90s everyone (oligarchs) was playing below board. But Putin only targeted (for prosecution) people who opposed him (or were potential threats). People who were willing to subjugate to him, of course, didn't face charges. I'd rather you not try to compare Borodin with Khodorkovsky. It diverts from the discussion the strongarming politics in Russia.
> But Putin only targeted (for prosecution) people who opposed him (or were potential threats).
Which is why I express my cynicism at the timing of Khodorkovsky's pardon. There must be a reason for letting him out now, so I can not help but think that Putin wanted to remind someone (or many someones) what he can do to politically inconvenient opponents.
The beauty, if one can use such a word in this context, is that the reminder comes in a form of letting a person out of the prison. So much more convenient.
The article said in a narrow sense that the charges on their own had a healthy foundation. It is very clear that the decision to prosecute a tax violation in a tax code designed to force businesses to skirt the law to remain competitive was politically motivated.
The business environment is why there have been massive amounts of capital outflows in recent years. Everyone understands the game being played here, you get to play by Putin's rule are you get your toys taken away at the minimum or get sent to a siberian penal colony.
> It is very clear that the decision to prosecute ... was politically motivated.
No, the opposite is clear.
The ECHR court "found no basis that the case against the two was politically motivated, as Khodorkovsky and Lebedev alleged in their complaint" (direct quote).
The supra-national court is in no sense a pro-Russian organisation, and the judges were perfectly aware of the political implications of their ruling. They did note several improprieties of the trial (keeping defendants in cages etc.), and even ordered Russian state to pay some compensation to the defendants, but that did not change their core conclusion.
Khodorkovsky was enriching himself by defrauding the state and the Russian public (most of the social security is funded through oil taxes). This was the reason for his prosecution, regardless of what "everybody understands" thanks to various PR campaigns.
Of course he did receive a fair trial. The only unjust thing here is that all other oligarchs went away free. It is understandable why this had to be that way, every country has to go through the period of original accumulation of capital.
Copy & paste from a friend who called this over 2 weeks ago:
"12/3/13
>Free pussy riot!
>But I hear he's giving them amnesty. Khordokovsky too. All hail Putin!"
Look for Pussy Riot to be the next to be released...
One can only wonder how fast Germany issued a visa to a criminal convicted of economic crime ( when anybody just half-knowledgeable about USSR/Russia 198x-199x history has no doubts about the crimes) .
Calling him a "prisoner of conscience" is total disrespect and offense to real prisoners of conscience who stand up and suffer for their principles (like Pussy Riot girls for example). He stood up for his wealth and power refusing to accept the reality that the new rising thief at the time - Putin and Co. - become stronger than him. He challenged Putin and lost. Will Putin be called a "prisoner of conscience" when/if some new guy send Putin to a Siberia camp?
Pussy Riot, really? They would have been thrown in jail in most western countries for what they did too. Hell, in Canada they may have even been charged with a hate crime...
The only reason anyone cares about them is because they also happened to criticise Putin...
nobody said that western countries don't have prisoners of conscience or laws which would make them. Aaron Swartz. Chelsea Manning. Or look at Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act laws. ...
Vandalizing private property and hate speech have nothing to do with conscience... It's a piss poor justification... Just like people who bomb pipelines and spray paint swastikas on synagogues. Belief doesn't make a wrong a right...
Really? They committed a crime using the same type of justification as eco-terrorists and racists use. The only difference is the social 'acceptability' of each 'belief'. ie. it's ok to insult Christians but not Jews...
>the same type of justification as eco-terrorists and racists use.
former promote co-existence while latter - exclusion. How can you even put them together in one sentence?
> The only difference is the social 'acceptability' of each 'belief'. ie. it's ok to insult Christians but not Jews...
Russian Orthodox church going out of its way politically supporting Putin (and immensely benefiting from that financially and politically) isn't a doing of Jesus work, and challenging the church on that isn't an assault on Christianity.
> former promote co-existence while latter - exclusion. How can you even put them together in one sentence?
It has nothing to do with what each supports - rather that you can't justify harmful behaviour, period.
> Russian Orthodox church going out of its way politically supporting Putin (and immensely benefiting from that financially and politically) isn't a doing of Jesus work, and challenging the church on that isn't an assault on Christianity.
Challenging the church regarding their supposed support of Putin isn't the problem, using it as a justification for illegal behaviour is. What Pussy Riot did would be illegal in pretty much every reasonably civilized country in the world.
In Canada, people spray painting political graffiti on a synagogue is a crime, even if the content of the graffiti isn't necessarily insulting to Judaism. The point is that you can't arbitrarily allow some types of crime, and disallow others based on the ideology behind it...
>It has nothing to do with what each supports - rather that you can't justify harmful behaviour, period.
what harm is coming from "eco-terrorists"? Lesser availability of whale meat? I doubt whales would see it as a harm. Or people who worked for decades to restore whales population. Or people who are just disgusted by whale killings.
>What Pussy Riot did would be illegal in pretty much every reasonably civilized country in the world.
i'm wondering what do you think they did? Do you seriously think that tresspassing and non-violent disturbance of peace - the minor crimes in reasonably civilized countries - are the "2 year in prison" crimes in Russia? Or calling upon God to chase away a President is a crime "in pretty much every reasonably civilized country in the world"?
> The point is that you can't arbitrarily allow some types of crime, and disallow others based on the ideology behind it...
You seem to be saying that no illegal behaviour can be justified. Well, you've mentioned swastikas and Judaism before. That reminds about the most known and indisputable today example when illegal behavior was rightly justified - i.e doing right thing toward Jews for example was illegal in Nazi Germany and doing legal thing was terribly wrong.
> what harm is coming from "eco-terrorists"? Lesser availability of whale meat?
You know, things like harm to property and people... Eco terrorism isn't just whale protests. Here they bomb pipelines...
> i'm wondering what do you think they did? Do you seriously think that tresspassing and non-violent disturbance of peace - the minor crimes in reasonably civilized countries - are the "2 year in prison" crimes in Russia?
What they did and said qualifies as hate speech here, so yes 2 years would be within the scope of the law.
> That reminds about the most known and indisputable today example when illegal behavior was rightly justified - i.e doing right thing toward Jews for example was illegal in Nazi Germany and doing legal thing was terribly wrong.
Really? I mean really? The laws are hardly unfair in this case...
>What they did and said qualifies as hate speech here, so yes 2 years would be within the scope of the law.
Hate speech laws, while may sound like a reasonable thing in theory, on practice naturally allow for very selective enforcement (mostly due to their inherent vagueness - any political speech can be qualified as hate speech if there is a strong will to do so) and thus are used as extremely effective tool for oppression of political opponents by the powers-to-be while people like you (who seems to not understand or know that selective enforcement of laws is a form of tyranny and such enforcement actually voids those laws) are blinded by the fog-screen of declaration of "illegality". For example, nobody was arrested (less sent to prison) for publicly praying to God in support of Putin and his regime which is as much a hate speech toward the Putin's opponents as a public prayer to God to chase Putin away is a hate speech toward Putin and his supporters.
As result, in their application in real life, hate speech laws is mostly very unjust and unfair laws and mostly used as a tool of unjustice. A right and just action like challenging powers-to-be on their unjust actions or statement of facts unpopular with the powers-to-be may very well result in conviction under such laws. And even without actual convictions, such laws result in unjust chilling effects on political opponents of the powers-to-be.
Btw, this is why one of the greatest thing that US have and that sets US so far apart and ahead (as this thing is missing in the rest of the world) is the freedom of speech, the 1st Amendment.
His trial was a farce and highly publicized in Germany at the time. Germany is also trying to get Timochenko out of Ukraine, even though (from the point of view of some Ukranians I spoke to) she cheated the country in negotiating some contracts.
I'd rather say this goes with the Zeitgeist, so your question should probably be rephrased from "why him" to "why not also Snowden".
>Germany is also trying to get Timochenko out of Ukraine
yep, one more "prisoner of conscience" of Khodorkovsky type
>so your question should probably be rephrased from "why him" to "why not also Snowden".
as i already said, there is nothing in common between Khodorkovsky and people like Snowden. Snowden challenged the State, the Order of Things on the right/wrong principles, whereis Khodorkovsky being at the time among largest beneficiaries of the Order of Things challenged a specific person for personal [beneficial] position in that Order of Things.
What comes to mind, again, in the discussion if he is a criminal or not:
"“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. [...] One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
I don't know why media is circle jerking about this. I am not a fan of Putin and I can see that he wanted simply to get rid of Chodorkowski and that he may or may not got a real fair trial. But in the end Chodorkowski is a criminal who tried to illegally sell/exploit property of the Russian state.
I am not saying the other oligarchs surrounding Putin didn't do or tried the same, but Chodorkowski isn't a "Putin critic" for political reasons or somekind of activist. He was part of this whole game of corruption and mob crimes and he lost.
51 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 92.1 ms ] threadChilling? That's bad for business.
Let's see what happens next.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
1: http://books.google.de/books?id=q1F4otnSovMC&lpg=PA59&pg=PA5... and the following pages
Having said that, you couldn't become a billionaire "new Russian" in the early 90's without doing something horrible, which I'm sure Khodorkovskiy has done at some point. So he probably is a criminal. However, the ONLY reason he was put in jail is that he dared to defy Putin. Everything else was bogus - charges were fabricated, judges had direct orders to convict him, etc.
That necessarily includes Putin himself, who is alleged to have amassed a fortune that's in the billions.
Some random thoughts on political situation in Russia:
Dictatorships are more efficient in handling some issues, and less efficient in handling others (lower to mid level official corruption). Are his methods correct in terms of Russian mentality? History will tell.
One thing is certain, empires of warlords often were in turmoil when they passed on [1]. I think Russia is in for interesting times when Putin will be stepping away (And taking rest of the world along with them for a ride due to Russia's status as a nuclear superpower).
[1] It could be argued that fall of USSR was catalyzed by a string of weak leaders after some of more prominent warlords passed away.
I personally come from Belarus, where a president that was democratically elected on anti-corruption charges assumed the role of a dictator. This was well expected by most of the intelligentsia: on the day of the run off election where Lukashenko's win (against another shitbird, of course, who ended up siding with Lukashenko afterwards) was confirmed my brother called us and told us to lookup 'Sulla' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulla) in a history book. The practice of using "crusade against corruption" to assume dictatorial role is as old as democracy itself.
That said Putin is far more pernicious than Lukashenko: with Lukashenko there is no longer any more of a pretense of democracy than there was under, e.g., Saddam in Iraq (there are elections with mythical sounding figures and no campaigns). Putin is far more cunning: he's able to maintain the facade of democracy while having unchecked and unelected power. With recent revelations about "enhanced interrogations", NSA and FISA kangaroo courts, US -- while light years far from turning into a Russia or Belarus -- is starting to show some of these very same dangerous signs of police state(1) tactics via plausible deniability.
I'll leave this quote out there on the topic of rule by robber barrons (which the oligarchs were plain and simple) vs. rule by thugs on a moral crusade:
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
- C.S. Lewis
(1) Here I am using the historical definition of police state: while today it's equated with totalitarianism (and neither Russia nor Belarus -- much less United States even under the worse scenario -- are totalitarian states, as anyone living in those countries who has also lived under Soviet rule can attest), the original meaning contrasted a 'polizeistaat' (rule by decree without any constitutional limitations) with a 'rechtstaat' (rights state -- constitutionally limited rule of law).
As a side note, it is unfortunate that the privatization process was botched enormously in USSR and its successor states. I always thought that the right approach to privatization should have been to follow the old Leninist slogan _literally_: factories to workers, farms to peasants, i.e., give the employees non-trivial amounts of shares/options in their workplace. Instead it became "factories and farms to corrupt middle managers and old Soviet elite".
I really feel for the guy. He took the stand, went to jail - but he's far from a "prisoner of conscience".
Many high profile criminals use dislike of Mr Putin in the west as a safe getaway from Russia. They commonly claim that Putin is after them and they're the opposition.
One case in point is Andrey Borodin - former president of a major bank in Russia. He made multiple billion dollar loans to himself through affiliated fly-by-night firms in the offshore. When he was caught, he fled to the UK and suddenly turned opposition overnight. Eventually granted an asylum and lives happily in Oxfordshire in his newly acquired 140 million pounds mansion.
This happened in 2011. In the 90s, when Khodorkovsky operated, things were a lot less clean. He got nabbed. Many others found a way to avoid imprisonment. A lot of them now are "respectable" businessmen ranked high up in the Forbes list.
Which is why I express my cynicism at the timing of Khodorkovsky's pardon. There must be a reason for letting him out now, so I can not help but think that Putin wanted to remind someone (or many someones) what he can do to politically inconvenient opponents.
The beauty, if one can use such a word in this context, is that the reminder comes in a form of letting a person out of the prison. So much more convenient.
This means Khodorkovsky was jailed for his economic crimes, not because of his anti-Putin stance.
Why Western media keeps referring to him as a 'political prisoner' and 'freed dissident' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25472250)?
This is from the linked article on Radio Free Europe site.
The business environment is why there have been massive amounts of capital outflows in recent years. Everyone understands the game being played here, you get to play by Putin's rule are you get your toys taken away at the minimum or get sent to a siberian penal colony.
No, the opposite is clear.
The ECHR court "found no basis that the case against the two was politically motivated, as Khodorkovsky and Lebedev alleged in their complaint" (direct quote).
The supra-national court is in no sense a pro-Russian organisation, and the judges were perfectly aware of the political implications of their ruling. They did note several improprieties of the trial (keeping defendants in cages etc.), and even ordered Russian state to pay some compensation to the defendants, but that did not change their core conclusion.
Khodorkovsky was enriching himself by defrauding the state and the Russian public (most of the social security is funded through oil taxes). This was the reason for his prosecution, regardless of what "everybody understands" thanks to various PR campaigns.
Could it be that our journalists have zero integrity?
Look for Pussy Riot to be the next to be released...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/music/2013/12/19/pussy-ri...
Calling him a "prisoner of conscience" is total disrespect and offense to real prisoners of conscience who stand up and suffer for their principles (like Pussy Riot girls for example). He stood up for his wealth and power refusing to accept the reality that the new rising thief at the time - Putin and Co. - become stronger than him. He challenged Putin and lost. Will Putin be called a "prisoner of conscience" when/if some new guy send Putin to a Siberia camp?
The only reason anyone cares about them is because they also happened to criticise Putin...
It has nothing to do with Pussy Riot. You're talking out of your a##.
> Just like people who bomb pipelines and spray paint swastikas on synagogues.
the same - it has nothing to do with Pussy Riot.
former promote co-existence while latter - exclusion. How can you even put them together in one sentence?
> The only difference is the social 'acceptability' of each 'belief'. ie. it's ok to insult Christians but not Jews...
Russian Orthodox church going out of its way politically supporting Putin (and immensely benefiting from that financially and politically) isn't a doing of Jesus work, and challenging the church on that isn't an assault on Christianity.
It has nothing to do with what each supports - rather that you can't justify harmful behaviour, period.
> Russian Orthodox church going out of its way politically supporting Putin (and immensely benefiting from that financially and politically) isn't a doing of Jesus work, and challenging the church on that isn't an assault on Christianity.
Challenging the church regarding their supposed support of Putin isn't the problem, using it as a justification for illegal behaviour is. What Pussy Riot did would be illegal in pretty much every reasonably civilized country in the world.
In Canada, people spray painting political graffiti on a synagogue is a crime, even if the content of the graffiti isn't necessarily insulting to Judaism. The point is that you can't arbitrarily allow some types of crime, and disallow others based on the ideology behind it...
what harm is coming from "eco-terrorists"? Lesser availability of whale meat? I doubt whales would see it as a harm. Or people who worked for decades to restore whales population. Or people who are just disgusted by whale killings.
>What Pussy Riot did would be illegal in pretty much every reasonably civilized country in the world.
i'm wondering what do you think they did? Do you seriously think that tresspassing and non-violent disturbance of peace - the minor crimes in reasonably civilized countries - are the "2 year in prison" crimes in Russia? Or calling upon God to chase away a President is a crime "in pretty much every reasonably civilized country in the world"?
> The point is that you can't arbitrarily allow some types of crime, and disallow others based on the ideology behind it...
You seem to be saying that no illegal behaviour can be justified. Well, you've mentioned swastikas and Judaism before. That reminds about the most known and indisputable today example when illegal behavior was rightly justified - i.e doing right thing toward Jews for example was illegal in Nazi Germany and doing legal thing was terribly wrong.
You know, things like harm to property and people... Eco terrorism isn't just whale protests. Here they bomb pipelines...
> i'm wondering what do you think they did? Do you seriously think that tresspassing and non-violent disturbance of peace - the minor crimes in reasonably civilized countries - are the "2 year in prison" crimes in Russia?
What they did and said qualifies as hate speech here, so yes 2 years would be within the scope of the law.
> That reminds about the most known and indisputable today example when illegal behavior was rightly justified - i.e doing right thing toward Jews for example was illegal in Nazi Germany and doing legal thing was terribly wrong.
Really? I mean really? The laws are hardly unfair in this case...
Hate speech laws, while may sound like a reasonable thing in theory, on practice naturally allow for very selective enforcement (mostly due to their inherent vagueness - any political speech can be qualified as hate speech if there is a strong will to do so) and thus are used as extremely effective tool for oppression of political opponents by the powers-to-be while people like you (who seems to not understand or know that selective enforcement of laws is a form of tyranny and such enforcement actually voids those laws) are blinded by the fog-screen of declaration of "illegality". For example, nobody was arrested (less sent to prison) for publicly praying to God in support of Putin and his regime which is as much a hate speech toward the Putin's opponents as a public prayer to God to chase Putin away is a hate speech toward Putin and his supporters.
As result, in their application in real life, hate speech laws is mostly very unjust and unfair laws and mostly used as a tool of unjustice. A right and just action like challenging powers-to-be on their unjust actions or statement of facts unpopular with the powers-to-be may very well result in conviction under such laws. And even without actual convictions, such laws result in unjust chilling effects on political opponents of the powers-to-be.
Btw, this is why one of the greatest thing that US have and that sets US so far apart and ahead (as this thing is missing in the rest of the world) is the freedom of speech, the 1st Amendment.
I'd rather say this goes with the Zeitgeist, so your question should probably be rephrased from "why him" to "why not also Snowden".
As if there is any other kind of trial in Russia. Quick introduction on Russia trials : http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Tribunal_%28episode%29
>Germany is also trying to get Timochenko out of Ukraine
yep, one more "prisoner of conscience" of Khodorkovsky type
>so your question should probably be rephrased from "why him" to "why not also Snowden".
as i already said, there is nothing in common between Khodorkovsky and people like Snowden. Snowden challenged the State, the Order of Things on the right/wrong principles, whereis Khodorkovsky being at the time among largest beneficiaries of the Order of Things challenged a specific person for personal [beneficial] position in that Order of Things.
"“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. [...] One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."