By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Readers are encouraged to submit news tips to The Daily Beast. The submission process is straightforward and confidential. Tips can be submitted through a designated online form or other means (if specified). All submissions are reviewed, and credible tips may lead to investigative journalism.
Read the original article here
The assertion that there are “two sides” to Vladimir Putin’s killing of dissidents is deeply troubling. It suggests a level of moral equivalence that is simply unacceptable. The act of silencing opposition through murder is inherently wrong, regardless of any purported justification. There’s no room for nuance here; it’s a clear violation of human rights and international law.
This attempt to create a false balance completely disregards the victims and their families. Their suffering, their loss, is not something that can be casually weighed against any supposed political advantage or strategic reasoning. The focus should be on the brutal reality of state-sponsored assassinations, not on finding some imaginary “other side” to the story.
The suggestion of two sides implies a level of complexity that doesn’t exist. There’s the side of the perpetrator, who uses violence and intimidation to maintain power, and the side of the victims, who are silenced and murdered for expressing dissent. This isn’t a debate; it’s a condemnation.
This framing of the issue normalizes and minimizes the gravity of Putin’s actions. It creates a dangerous precedent, suggesting that such acts are acceptable or at least worthy of consideration. It undermines the very foundations of justice and accountability.
Furthermore, the idea that there are “two sides” echoes a disturbing pattern of minimizing the actions of authoritarian regimes. It’s a tactic often employed to downplay human rights abuses and to excuse acts of violence against political opponents. This attempt to create a false balance only serves to embolden those who seek to silence dissent through violence.
The comparison to other historical events, such as the crucifixion of Jesus, is profoundly insensitive and inaccurate. While both situations involve the killing of a dissident figure, the contexts are vastly different. To equate the state-sponsored murder of political opponents with a religious event is to trivialize the very real human suffering involved.
It’s essential to recognize that there is a fundamental difference between legitimate political discourse and the targeted assassination of political opponents. One is a core tenet of democracy; the other is a hallmark of tyranny. The intentional blurring of these lines is a dangerous precedent.
This rhetoric also reflects a dangerous trend towards authoritarianism, a trend that diminishes the significance of human rights and the rule of law. To accept this false dichotomy is to accept the normalization of violence and oppression. We must firmly reject this attempt to create a false balance and instead focus on holding those responsible for these crimes accountable.
The casual dismissal of the victims’ lives with such a glib and dismissive remark underscores a troubling lack of empathy and a dangerous disregard for human life. It’s a symptom of a broader erosion of ethical standards and a growing acceptance of authoritarianism.
The attempt to legitimize Putin’s actions through this type of rhetoric is not only morally reprehensible but also strategically dangerous. It emboldens autocrats while undermining the very principles of democracy and international cooperation.
It is critical to maintain a clear and unwavering stance against violence and oppression. The silence or attempted normalization of such actions only emboldens those who commit them. We must clearly and consistently denounce state-sponsored murder and work towards a world where such acts are not just condemned but actively prevented. The idea that there are “two sides” to this issue is a false and dangerous narrative that must be rejected outright.