Запитання: What does the US have to gain by other countries not being authoritarian?

With the current situation in Venezuela, it seems like the US is once again weighing in against a leader that is textbook socialist or communist that is also a dictator. I understand the hardships that dictators in these situations often do and why, from a humanitarian point of view, we should want to hope for a free and capitalist Venezuela. However, I am wondering, from a USA first point of view, why we would want that. With socialism making countries less competitive on a world stage, wouldn’t that be good for our economy, due to the fact we are more competitive relative to them? Again this is not a point of view I take, but I would love to hear a USA-first philosophy that suggests we should intervene and spend money.

Being a Socialist state is not a crime by itself. There are plenty of countries in today's world that can be called more or less socialist: consider Nordic model, informally known as Swedish Socialism.

Dictatorships, on the other hand, tend to build Socialist or Communist economies because the Socialism assumes a bigger fraction of the nation's means of production and gross domestic product controlled and redistributed by the ruling regime. See, for example, Lenin: „The Dictatorship Of The Proletariat“ (1919).

Simply speaking, it is easier to rule over the poor than the rich; it easier to be a dictator if your economic system is a Communism.

The biggest concern is that dictatorships — Communist dictatorships — also commit other crimes against human rights and international law, which is seen intolerable by the US:

Stack Exchange sites should use official toponyms, accepted by the United Nations (UNGEGN). Any other naming would inevitably become disputed.

Moreover, a misleading spelling at a Travel site can lead the travelers straight into the trouble.

The other answer suggests to use Wikipedia, but open sources have some natural drawbacks that virtually eliminate the possibility to use them in official context — the only context which makes Stack Exchange a source of quality content, unlike forums, blogs, and other Q&A sites.

One vivid example is the disgraceful situation coming up around the Wikipedia page for Kyiv, the capital of Ukraine.
The United Nations (UNGEGN) has accepted the only possible English-language transliteration, Kyiv. There is no "or", "a.k.a.", or "alias" here.
However, the Wikipedia page has a detractive name "Kiev" which has its roots in centuries of Russian occupation and forced russification. There have been a whopping 9 (nine!) attempts to rename it, and, to the shame of the Wikipedia community, none were successful.

In the light of numerous accusations of a certain country committing a massive number of cyberterrorist acts in the recent years, successfully penetrating the most protected sites like presidential elections and national referendums, it is not surprising that the same force could easily penetrate the less-protected community-driven sites like Wikipedia.

And now it is on the way to penetrate the Stack Exchange, too.

There are good thoughts posted in comments above, I'll take my liberty to put it into this post:

• Since Stackexchange is an English-language website hosted in America, shouldn't we use whatever is the official name accepted by the US government? – JonathanReez
• The Kiev/Kyiv question is clearly resolved on the embassy website, for example: https://www.usembassy.gov/ukraine/ – JonathanReez

We do not force the users to obey this rule in their posts because it's impossible to enforce, but the site itself should follow the internationally-accepted (the UN) convention of spelling toponyms. This includes keeping the proper spelling of tags, UI (dropdown selectors), etc. This would make Stack Exchange a source of quality content, helping people learn, and avoid any misleading content.

I am a citizen of Russia. I am planning to visit Crimea in summer 2018 to attend an educational camp. Apparently, I'm in the clear from the point of view of Russian authorities. I'm not sure if Ukrainian authorities may have issues with this. I don't want to lose an opportunity to visit Ukraine on later and separate trips.

1. Do I risk being denied entry to Ukraine anytime later if I visit Crimea as a Russian citizen?
2. Are there any documents I should file to the Ukrainian authorities?

Yes, you are risking of being denied. However, the actual threat depends on who you are, what position you obtain, and what other crimes you have committed besides¹ the illegal entry.

By 13 January 2018, about 1,500 foreign citizens were denied entry to Ukraine after they have illegally visited the temporarily-occupied Crimea — the Border Service of Ukraine (link, in Ukrainian).

In 2017, Ukraine has denied entry to Yuliya Samoylova, a Russian singer who has violated the border in the past and then was assigned to Eurovision 2017 song contest.
On the other hand, yet there are no consequences to Samoylova for traveling to other countries, she apparently still has the opportunity to visit the EU.

Criminal prosecution: Article 332-1 of Criminal Code of Ukraine states that illegal entry to the temporarily-occupied territories with the aim of causing damage to the interest of state is prosecuted by law, imposing imprisonment for the term up to 3 years.
By 22 August 2017, 24 persons were indicted on this crime.

According to The Guardian, President Trump was subject to criticism over his decision to congratulate President Putin on winning Russian elections in 2018:

Donald Trump defended himself against criticism over his congratulatory phone call to Vladimir Putin following the Russian president’s recent re-election, insisting on Wednesday afternoon it was in US interests to maintain a positive rapport with Moscow.

AFAIK, congratulating a President for winning the elections is typically an automatic diplomatic gesture that is performed throughout the world and it happened before even for US–Russia (source):

• "former president Barack Obama also wished Putin well after the Russian election on March 4, 2012"
• "Former president George W. Bush also called Dmitry Medvedev in 2008"

Another example is a Romanian President who did a similar gesture, and Romania–Russia relations are not exactly full of unicorns and rainbows (also this source).

Question: Why was President Trump congratulating Putin on winning the election heavily criticized?

Because the very elections are disputed, and congratulating Putin on winning these elections is a semi-official recognition of these elections.

In 2014, Russia has committed an armed invasion, military occupation, and subsequent attempted annexation of Crimea.
The vast majority of the world countries neither accept nor acknowledge the Russian sovereignty over Crimea. The US repeatedly condemn the occupation, too.
The 2018 elections were held in Crimea.
Hence, the legitimacy of Putin's presidency is disputed.
The White House national security team reportedly warned Trump, literally written in capital letters, "DO NOT CONGRATULATE".

Therefore, the criticism is based on the following reasons:

1. The legitimacy of Putin as a president is disputed. Any kind of diplomatic action should be carefully considered before the national security team can elaborate an adequate response.
2. Trump had gone against the advice of his own team, which indicates a deep schism even among the top WH officers.
3. This also makes stronger the argument of those who accuse Trump of The Collusion, and the accusations are now harder to deny;
4. The arguments about 2012 do not apply, as shown in existing answers to this question.

Why doesn't South Korea give up its claim on North Korea?

By now it's completely obvious that the Korean peninsula won't be reuniting any time soon. It's also quite likely that the South wouldn't want a full reunification anyway given the enormous economic differences between the two countries.

So why won't South Korea officially abandon their claim to the North of the peninsula? What benefit is there in maintaining the charade?

Simply because abandoning territorial claims will do nothing:

1. It will neither eliminate the military threat of the "North" Korea, nor would it relax the tensions.
2. It requires enormous amounts of legal work, including adopting amendments to the Constitution of Korea.

This is why:

1. Both governments claimed sovereignty over the whole Korea, however in a different manner:
   • Constitution of Korea (Article 3) claims that Republic of Korea has sovereignty over entire Korean Peninsula;
   • Constitution of "North" Korea (Article 1) claims sovereignty over all Korean people. Article 2 talks about "the liberation of the homeland" (obviously, including the Southern Koreans) from "imperialist aggressors".
2. There is no peace treaty signed yet (the 1953 Agreement deals with armistice only);
3. Retracting the territorial claims can be done on a mutual basis, probably as a part of Peace Treaty, when both sides to retract their claims;
4. There are reasons to think that the "North" Korea is not going to keep with its promise, should any be given.
5. Most likely, adopting amendments to the cornerstone articles of the Constitution would require conducting a National referendum and convincing the majority of the citizens. We could safely assume that there is a powerful lobby against that: the Wikipedia article for Korean reunification contains some introductory links that indicate controversy in public opinion.

smugastyi_kit

Но почему-то давно у Вас хочу спросить, а чем лично Вам этот чел несимпатичен? Конструктивно.

Someone edited my question, which originally used "Kiev" to mean the capital of Ukraine, but edited into "Kyiv". I just briefly googled it and found that "Kiev" is a Russian word while "Kyiv" is a Ukrainian one.

I wonder if it is considered offensive, or otherwise not welcomed among Ukrainians.

I feel that people don't care about my pronunciation, so the issue would be only in the written context (e.g. chat with AirBnB hosts, ask help for a stranger on a smartphone, etc...).

So, is it offensive for locals? Or approximately how many people (in percentage) care about it?

You seem to be one of those who have approved the edit, so I guess (correct me if I'm wrong) this question's goal is primarily to confirm your original thought.

Also, "is it offensive?" seems to be a subjective term that can't be measured. I would say yes, someone else would say no, and we end up in a battle "word against word". So let me focus of facts only.

Official. According to UNGEGN (United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names), the only possible English-language transliteration is "Kyiv".
The same source confirms the proper spelling for Donets'k, Luhans'k, Kharkiv, and several others.

Other languages. Besides "Kiev", there are other spellings, including "Kiew", "Kijow" and even 《基辅》, pronounced — believe it or not — [ji-fu].

People's perception. Indeed, spelling "Kiev" is a direct transliteration of "Киев", the Russian word for Kyiv, and many Ukrainians (not all, however) associate this with the Russian occupation that happened in the past and the armed invasion and partial occupation that occurs at the moment.

Many Russian officials also insist on using an incorrect spelling "the Ukraine", see link below. This, multiplied to the fact that many Ukrainians speak bad English or don't simply care (like JonathanReez♦'s answer suggests), has some effect.

The following photo shows the very process of russification. "Little green men" in unmarked uniforms on a truck (right) "enforce the Russian spelling" on a road sign at the entry to the occupied Donets'k city by removing the "soft sign" so that «ДОНЕЦЬК» became «ДОНЕЦК».

Most obviously, this makes people who disagree with "Russian-styled" toponyms in Ukraine. Like myself.

More to go. Having several names for toponyms (for various historic reasons) happens in other countries, too: Burma/Myanmar, Mumbai/Bombay, Munich/München, Beijing/Peking, Saigon/Ho Chi Minh City, Bangkok/Krungthep Mahanakhon, Falkland/Malvin Islands, to name a few.

A Traveler's Rule of Thumb (mind you, we are at Travel.SE). A traveler should always consider the historical and cultural aspects in order to avoid being perceived as an ignorant person (and, in corner cases, as an enemy agent).

However, there is no problem if a foreigner uses Russian as their way of communication. Check this question for further details: What is the main spoken language in Kiev: Ukrainian or Russian?

Also, related: Does anyone want Ukraine to be called “the Ukraine”?

The polls I have seen showcase that at least 40%, perhaps a bit more, of the Catalan population oppose independence.

[…]

But where are the anti-independence foreigners joined by anti-independence Catalans? Why are they not being heard? 40% is a huge number. Why is their opinion not represented?

You needn't a political movement to force your country's police do their job

Apologies for a bit of bold title (in both senses), but this is precisely the answer.

In most national-liberation movements, the "pro-" secession faction is more active than their opponents. That's because the separatists need changes, while their opponents prefer to keep things the way how they are. In other words, if someone is "anti-"secession, they almost automatically become "pro-" the existing order:

Borders.
Type of government.
Country's affiliations and memberships (cf. the EU).
Law and Order.

Which is precisely the job of the National police, National Security service, etc.

Unless the anti-secession Catalans suspect their police of neglecting its duties, there's no need to protest. There are numerous reports that the Spanish police was not passive recently.

Also, the impression of "so silent" can be made because foreigners often look at the mass protests, street violence, and similar events. However, there are several political parties in Parliament of Catalonia who continue political struggle.
For one, "Citizens" is known for its opposition to Catalonian nationalism and the secession.
The above would also answer the question, "Why is their opinion not represented?" — in fact, they are represented.