I thought it would be interesting to compare the reactions of various targets of state attacks to the fact of the attack, especially since there have been several multi-level examples recently.

The Libertarian Party of Russia has been recognized as a foreign agent organization

Reaction:

• LPR members are wondering which of the two LPRs specifically.
• The LPR(s) posted an official statement: “we are patriots and condemn this decision.”
• Those not in the LPR congratulate both LPRs on the state recognizing their existence.
• Montelibero reminds about the assistance program for moving to Montenegro.

A popular Ukrainian defense minister has been dismissed

Reaction:

• The dismissed official posted a report on the work done and held a
  press conference.
• Like-minded people of the dismissed official in the troops publish public statements in his support.
• Foreign officials express bewilderment.
• The general public: protests in support of the dismissed official.

Balaji Srinivasan’s Network State was subjected to swatting

Reaction:

• The founder politely asks on Twitter whether Malaysia would like capital flight from this toxic jurisdiction to more welcoming ones for such startups, such as Kazakhstan.
• The founder’s like-minded associates specify exactly how much has been invested and how much will be withdrawn if Malaysian officials do not swear that it was a stupid mistake and that they will not dare do such a thing again.

Commonalities in all three reactions

• No one expresses any doubt that the state is committing overt aggression against the interests of its citizens.
• The targets of the attack officially express loyalty to the state, although they condemn its decision.
• The targets of the attack try to convince the state to revoke its decision amicably.

The uniqueness of the reaction in one of the cases

Only the founder of the Network State communicates with the territorial state as an equal.

Conclusion

The state is effective in violence. The targets of state attacks prefer not to give it a forceful response in order not to provoke escalation. Nevertheless, they lean towards an asymmetric response. In the case of the LPR and the Network State, this is emigration, meaning the deprivation of the state of economic resources. In the case of the dismissed minister, it is the delegitimization of the decision through public pressure.
I have arranged the cases in increasing order of the probability that the toxic decision will be overturned. In the case of the LPR, the probability is vanishingly small. With Fedorov, I think the probability is about thirty percent. With Balaji, about seventy percent. I will follow the last two cases.