Retreating to the emotional appeal of "look what they do to poor, little animals" is an ad hominem attack. If we assume they actually do any of that stuff (when you NEVER used it as justification for the Russian govt's clampdown, you used "desecration of a church" which never happened), that's between them groups as PETA and, strangely, PETA has been supporting Pussy Riot if you care to google it by demanding that the ladies be served vegan diets (at least one of them is a vegan) and Alicia Silverstone has also expressed her support for them and she too is a vegan. Read her letter, it's online, she claims that they don't harm animals.

Pussy Riot was killing puppies the same way they were desecrating a church. They never actually said anything against the Christian religion in their protest. They criticized the church for not living up to its religious ideals and criticized the church-goers for accepting the situation. Someone earlier said they replaced the word "holy" with "shit". They did not. They used the phrase "holy shit" to describe the joining of church and state (the phrase they used literally translates as "shit of god" which is the equivalent of out holy shit expression and which I'm sure was eagerly used in an attempt to turn people against them).

As for the church security being unarmed, does it make a difference? Ask Woody Guthrie what it's like to protest conditions and being met by unarmed security. A church should not have its own police force. Once again, that goes against the very ideals the Church itself claims to uphold. Quite simply, they serve to intimidate church members into conformity and it works.