He seems to be alleging that the author of this piece is potentially responsible for as much misery and destruction as the people who killed the lawyer in the story, and that this undermines the moral legitimacy of the article.
Whether osipov himself condones what happened is completely irrelevant.
Even if the author is responsible for misery and destruction, which is debatable, it still doesn't mean we should marginalize his accusations or condone the actions.
If everyone is doing it, why does the hypocrisy matter?
Don't know, it's not my argument. I was objecting to what seemed to be an attempt to make an issue of osipov's feelings on the matter. Arguments whose topics include the emotional state of one of the participants rarely end well.
There also seems to be a lot of presumptive sorting into binary opposition; osipov disliking the author of the article doesn't mean he supports the "other side", and my objection above doesn't mean I agree with osipov (in fact I don't, though it sounded like you and rbanffy assumed I did).
Aren't you confusing messenger and message? The fact the messenger is partially responsible (and that is debatable) for some misery has no influence on the legality of the acts described in the article.
I would also add the corruption of the 90's benefited some of the same government officials that ate being accused here.
He seems to be alleging that the author of this piece is potentially responsible for as much misery and destruction as the people who killed the lawyer in the story, and that this undermines the moral legitimacy of the article.
Whether osipov himself condones what happened is completely irrelevant.