Crime Russian opposition figure hospitalized

[Yevgeny]

Alright mate. You slided to demagogy as always. Making statements without providing any evidence to back them up. I've been following Russian politics for many years, I know whats driving it, what Kremlin can do and what it can't do. You clearly haven't.

You know its like arguing with a text generator:

It has always been an uncomfortable status quo, with both sides probably realizing that it would crumble at one point. The status quo was always maintained for pragmatic reasons; both sides were looking at each other with suspicion and were gathering ammunition for future clashes.

The status quo was breached by the state with its assassination attempt imo. I don't have an insight in the political calculations of the Kremlin for why they made that decision, but the fact that they undertook such operation means that some equation was changed.

I don't find that to be a particularly convincing argument. The likes of China, Iran and Russia have all made some risky domestic political decisions the past few years, which have had serious foreign policy repercussions, yet they did. The fact is that most authoritarian governments primarily act upon matters they consider to be existential for their ruling and domestic stability; energy projects like Nordstream 2 always come second.

and so on and on and on...

Pointless and boring.

 

[Mardonius]

We are not in a court of law; I don't have to present any evidence whenever I make some statement. Now if something bothers you from an empirical point of view, you can always ask for evidence in stead of whining about how you know so much about Russia and everybody else don't.

It comes across that you're deliberately ducking an argument because you're out of ammunition or out of your depth. Perhaps you are unable to have a professional and complex discussion regarding Russian politics?

 

[Yevgeny]

Ok I will answer to your "points" though its completely pointless because you will come up again with the same empty phrases. Just give me some time...

 

[Mardonius]

Spare yourself the effort. If you are unable to see the point I'm trying to make, and consider them to be empty phrases, it is worthless to continue the discussion.

Feel free to continue discussions with the other members; I'm done with it. This is the last time I'm reacting to you.

 

[nicememe]

@Mardonius

1. Ethnic Russians were absent in those color revolutions; Belarus changed the entire equation.
- Ethnic Russians are present in all post-Soviet states. Just FYI.

2. but the political movement he is building represents by far the most serious threat Vladimirovich has faced since his leadership.
- What makes you say that? Putin faced enormous threats during the start of his career, when he attempted to challenge the entire system left over from Yeltsin's years, going against the de-facto oligarchic rule over the state, cracking down on foreign proxies, and going "all in" in his game against domestic terrorism (quite a lot of which had foreign support)
Take fighting a war against an entrenched mafia that had near-complete control over the country, and compare that to whatever Navalny is.
This "Putin is facing the biggest threat in his entire career" is a headline I encounter regularly on western MSM websites, for the past 20 years or so, and all of these things are always "biggest threats" and always "new", but as several years pass, suddenly the entirety of the readership forgets about them, and is willing to fall for a new "biggest threat" article that's just around the corner. Goldfish memory, high time people woke up already. You including.

3. The status quo was breached by the state with its assassination attempt imo. I don't have an insight in the political calculations of the Kremlin for why they made that decision, but the fact that they undertook such operation means that some equation was changed.
- You state this as though it is fact, although this entire thread is about disputing the idea that Navalny was assassinated. Try to expand your mind horizons, don't simply repeat a mantra you're being indoctrinated with 24/7.

4. I don't find that to be a particularly convincing argument. The likes of China, Iran and Russia have all made some risky domestic political decisions the past few years, which have had serious foreign policy repercussions, yet they did. The fact is that most authoritarian governments primarily act upon matters they consider to be existential for their ruling and domestic stability; energy projects like Nordstream 2 always come second.
- Again, you act as though this is settled in factuality.
But you seem to have missed the note, that western MSM has been practicing its Orwellianism skills for quite a few decades now.

(a) Similarly to Sputnik V (which is one among tens of examples), first the entirety of the western political establishment and media fabricates a story about the vaccine being bad, dangerous or fake. But then when times get tough and they realize they need Russia's help to survive, they begin opening up to the possibility that in fact all of the BS stories they've been feeding you aren't actually true.

(b) Same exact stuff happened before the 2014 Olympics in Russia, where the entirety of the western MSM and political establishment did everything they could to portray the Sochi Olympics as the most horrible Olympics in history, marred with extreme hatred towards homosexuals.
Result? Olympics came out to be pretty awesome for everyone, and the global hysteria about gays in Russia SUDDENLY got memory-holed, nobody is talking about it anymore, most people don't even remember that hysteria existed. Gay rights in Russia are no longer a topic of interest for anyone. Funny, isn't it?

(c) How about the war in Georgia 2008? When the entirety of the western political establishment and MSM solidified in factuality the interpretation that Russia suddenly decided to attack Georgia, but later when European investigation group clarified that it was in fact Georgia to provoke an escalation, Georgia stories became less of a topical interest for the west.

(d) Same goes for many events that undertook in Syria and Ukraine.
You seem to have not yet realized, that the reality you've gotten used to over many decades is actually fabricated, and none of your perceptions of "tyrants" and "authoritarian regimes" are at all accurate.

You make a lot of presuppositions and pretend as though they are already facts settled in reality.
Protip: they're not.
And in fact, far more evidence testifies to the probability that his "assassination" was a sham. Please try and keep up.

 

[nemipuka_]

Last drop for Kremlin was Navalny accusing them of poisoning. He went too far this time...

And even survived. How dare he?! ?

 

[Yevgeny]

That is why mentioned ethnic Russians. I mean, look at Ukraine; the protests mostly took place in the western part of the country, where people consider themselves to be part of a different political and cultural hemisphere.

Im asking you the same question again - what ethnic Russians have to do with Belarus? You didnt answer it last time. Over 80% of Belarus population are Belarusians you know that right? They have their own language and so on. Just like Ukrainians do. Most of them indeed speak Russian. Just like Ukrainians do. Some of them like Russia while some of them don't. Just like Ukrainians do. So what actually makes the situation different from what happened in Ukraine earlier? I remind you that situation in Ukraine didn't change Kremlins attitude towards Navalny.

Another point you ignored is Navalny claims he was followed by FSB since 2017 long before protests in Belarus ever took place. Thats another proof that poisoning had nothing to do with Belarus. As you stated.

The Belarus protests took it much closer to home.

What you mean closer to home? I would recommend you to look at the map. Geografically both countries are very close to each other located west of Russia and sharing border with it.

It has always been an uncomfortable status quo, with both sides probably realizing that it would crumble at one point. The status quo was always maintained for pragmatic reasons; both sides were looking at each other with suspicion and were gathering ammunition for future clashes.

Can I ask you - this statement is based on what? As I said there is evidence of Navalny embezzling the financial support he received for years. On the other hand his "political program" was purely populistic. Most of the economists were laughing their asses out reading his "economic program". Thats just one example.

Another thing he was very moderate when it came to protests etc. Thats actually the main reason for his recent conflict with Khodorkovsky. Back in summer 2019 during Moscow City Duma election Khodorkovsky was pushing for mass protests across the country and urging opposition "to go until the end". On the contrary Navalny wasnt very active at that time and had argument with Khodorkovsky because of that. Subsequently some of liberal media outlets begun to cover Navalny in less favaroable light.

The bottom line is everything Navalny was doing was about making money not toppling the Russian government. A millionaire not gonna risk getting to jail for coup detat attemp. Kremlin knew it and was perfectly fine with it.

The status quo was breached by the state with its assassination attempt imo. I don't have an insight in the political calculations of the Kremlin for why they made that decision, but the fact that they undertook such operation means that some equation was changed.

What facts? Facts presented by Bellingcat, a CIA-backed NGO? The whole Bellingcats "investigation" is based on some phone billings, noone has ever seen the originals or know where did they come from. The only way BC could acquire this kind of evidence (if it does exist at all) is to work under cover of intelligence services. In that case you can't really call such investigation objective and trust it.

Another interesting thing is German government recently said that in late August 2020 few days after Navalny arrived to Berlin the US officials contacted Germans claiming they have evidence that FSB was behind the poisoning. It means less than one week after the poisoning took place Americans already had the whole picture and knew who was responsible. Long before the Bellingcats "investigation" was ever released. Strangely enough they didnt present the evidence to the Congress or to the Brussels or to the UNSC. They presented it to German government in the first place. And all of that is happening amid conflict over Nord Stream 2. Just food for thought...

I don't find that to be a particularly convincing argument. The likes of China, Iran and Russia have all made some risky domestic political decisions the past few years, which have had serious foreign policy repercussions, yet they did.

More empty claims. Can you give examples of Kremlin screwing up relations with EU for no reason? Well, unless there was some big money at stake. I'll give a hint - there were serious financial interests behind the war in Georgia, Ukraine and Syria so these are going to be bad examples.

Please.

The fact is that most authoritarian governments primarily act upon matters they consider to be existential for their ruling and domestic stability;

Yep, and dont forget to add some traditional liberal cliches to your post.

energy projects like Nordstream 2 always come second.

On the contrary, mate. Money comes FIRST ALWAYS. In every country in the World. In case of Russia its oil and gas money. Oil revenues account for at least 60% of federal budget. Almost every major political conflict in Russia over the last 30 years is more or less related to oil industry. You can mention oil tycoon Khodorkovsky who was jailed after he exposed the corruption behind the deal between Sevneft and Rosneft and made it public. Or Economics minister Ulyukaev who was jailed for 8 years after he sticked his nose into a deal between Bashneft and Rosneft. Even in case of Navalny his first investigations 10 years ago were against Transneft and Rosneft. Thats means that initially someone just use him to target large state-owned oil companies. Oil everywhere...



Alright you can generate some text now.

 

[Ivan le Fou]

Hopefully you (@Yevgeny , @nicememe ) will soon realize that debating with either mardonius and or nemipuka is as pleasant and productive as masturbating with a rusted cheese grater.

 

[Mardonius]

Hopefully you (@Yevgeny , @nicememe ) will soon realize that debating with either mardonius and or nemipuka is as pleasant and productive as masturbating with a rusted cheese grater.

Those who have been doomed in this life to merely distribute tweets and articles of nonsensical and propagandistic nature - as a substitute for a lack of intelligence - should display humbleness when the big boys speak.

 

[Yevgeny]

Spare yourself the effort. If you are unable to see the point I'm trying to make, and consider them to be empty phrases, it is worthless to continue the discussion.

Feel free to continue discussions with the other members; I'm done with it. This is the last time I'm reacting to you.

You better comment on things that you know (on Dutch politics for example) instead of commenting on the things you know nothing about. Leave Russian politics for Russians.

Same goes for nemipuka.

Peace to both of you!

 

[Mardonius]

@Mardonius1. Ethnic Russians were absent in those color revolutions; Belarus changed the entire equation.
- Ethnic Russians are present in all post-Soviet states. Just FYI.

Tell me more about ethnic Russians challenging the remnants of the post-soviet political systems in which corruption and authoritarianism still thrive freely. I mean, before Belarus and outside the Russia's big cities in the same size as the past few weeks.

What makes you say that? Putin faced enormous threats during the start of his career, when he attempted to challenge the entire system left over from Yeltsin's years, going against the de-facto oligarchic rule over the state, cracking down on foreign proxies, and going "all in" in his game against domestic terrorism (quite a lot of which had foreign support)
Take fighting a war against an entrenched mafia that had near-complete control over the country, and compare that to whatever Navalny is.
This "Putin is facing the biggest threat in his entire career" is a headline I encounter regularly on western MSM websites, for the past 20 years or so, and all of these things are always "biggest threats" and always "new", but as several years pass, suddenly the entirety of the readership forgets about them, and is willing to fall for a new "biggest threat" article that's just around the corner. Goldfish memory, high time people woke up already. You including.

You obviously forgot to mention the extensive and powerful intelligence network that Putin was able to utilize to gradually eradicate the forces that were profiting from the overall lawlessness and the non-existent rule of law. And while these elements within the country might have threatened the overall well-being of the state and unity, they constituted by no means a direct threat to Putin's personal leadership. He was still a relatively unknown figurehead who tried to establish some order in an anarchic post-soviet Russia. The only real threat to his leadership at that stage was incompetence and lack of political effectiveness; the kind of threats which every politician experiences throughout their life.

Now, if you're arguing that the poor attempt of Chodovorsky to challenge Putin constitutes as an enormous threat, then you are absolutely delusional.

That is why my claim, and of others in the infamous mainstream media, that Putin is facing his biggest threat in his career as a well-established political figurehead still rings true. Putin is facing an increasingly new generation of Russians who feel less attached to his kind of politics; people who growingly demand accountability of widespread corruption, lack of economic opportunities due to oligarchic dominance and political oppression that prevents new sentiments and perspectives to alter the socio-political nature of Russia in a fast-changing world.

Now, one could entertain and forward the political opinion that Russia, due to its geographical magnitude and peculiar culture and traditions, benefits and is in need of a strong authoritarian leader against the threat of anarchy and instability, but don't insult my intelligence by denying the fact that the most widespread protests in post-2000 Russia somehow doesn't constitute as Putin's biggest threat.

You state this as though it is fact, although this entire thread is about disputing the idea that Navalny was assassinated. Try to expand your mind horizons, don't simply repeat a mantra you're being indoctrinated with 24/7.

The fact that Navalny has faced an assassination attempt by the Russian state stands clear for me. Any other opinion, no matter how much I value a healthy doses of scepticism in this life, borders either naivety or disingenuity.

(c) How about the war in Georgia 2008? When the entirety of the western political establishment and MSM solidified in factuality the interpretation that Russia suddenly decided to attack Georgia, but later when European investigation group clarified that it was in fact Georgia to provoke an escalation, Georgia stories became less of a topical interest for the west.

You don't need to give me these historical lessons. In fact, I once told Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, the former Secretary-General of NATO, the same when he implied once that Russia was the initial aggressor during that conflict. I'm by no means invested in which political group or propaganda whatsoever. I'm for truth, no matter who tells it.

(d) Same goes for many events that undertook in Syria and Ukraine.
You seem to have not yet realized, that the reality you've gotten used to over many decades is actually fabricated, and none of your perceptions of "tyrants" and "authoritarian regimes" are at all accurate.

Spare me your patronising remarks.

 

[Mardonius]

You better comment on things that you know (on Dutch politics for example) instead of commenting on the things you know nothing about. Leave Russian politics for Russians.

Same goes for nemipuka.

Peace to both of you!

If you want to discuss Russian politics with Russians, my brat, I'll suggest VKontakte as the platform to be.

Да пребудет с вами мир.

 

[Yevgeny]

As to "complex and professional discussion" I asked you a couple of questions in Biden thread few days ago. Regarding Chinese oil interests in Iraq for instance. Not because I wanted to outargue you or something, it just happened Im interested in that kind of stuff. You just disappered...

 

[Mardonius]

As to "complex and professional discussion" I asked you a couple of questions in Biden thread few days ago. Regarding Chinese oil interests in Iraq for instance. Not because I wanted to outargue you or something, it just happened Im interested in that kind of stuff. You just disappered...

Text generator is offline sometimes. Excuse moi.

 

[Yevgeny]

You don't need to give me these historical lessons. In fact, I once told Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, the former Secretary-General of NATO, the same when he implied once that Russia was the initial aggressor during that conflict. I'm by no means invested in which political group or propaganda whatsoever. I'm for truth, no matter who tells it.

Are you a journalist or something? ?

 

[nicememe]

Tell me more about ethnic Russians challenging the remnants of the post-soviet political systems in which corruption and authoritarianism still thrive freely. I mean, before Belarus and outside the Russia's big cities in the same size as the past few weeks.

I don't know of any in the past, now, nor in the future. The "challenges" live rent-free in your head.

You obviously forgot to mention the extensive and powerful intelligence network that Putin was able to utilize to gradually eradicate the forces that were profiting from the overall lawlessness and the non-existent rule of law. And while these elements within the country might have threatened the overall well-being of the state and unity, they constituted by no means a direct threat to Putin's personal leadership.

Just your opinion. I don't see how that opinion should or could be viewed as fact.
Just because in your head Putin had this unlimited power over the entirety of the counter-intelligence apparatus, doesn't mean it's true. And it also doesn't mean that the counter-intelligence apparatus was alive and kicking in a Russia that was immediately post-USSR collapse.
You're again inventing a bunch of unfounded "facts" and are trying to push them for granted. That tactic won't work with me, sorry.

Now, if you're arguing that the poor attempt of Chodovorsky to challenge Putin constitutes as an enormous threat, then you are absolutely delusional.

"You're obviously delusional" is not an argument in a discussion. Just FYI.

That is why my claim, and of others in the infamous mainstream media, that Putin is facing his biggest threat in his career as a well-established political figurehead still rings true.

"You are obviously delusional, therefore I am right."

Again, doesn't work in a discussion. I don't know if you read through your own posts or not, but you have a lot of text with little substance. You should learn to condense things if you have little to say.

Putin is facing an increasingly new generation of Russians who feel less attached to his kind of politics; people who growingly demand accountability of widespread corruption, lack of economic opportunities due to oligarchic dominance and political oppression that prevents new sentiments and perspectives to alter the socio-political nature of Russia in a fast-changing world.

No.
Putin is facing an "increasing" volume of YouTube demagogues who are using manipulative tactics to gather a following, and cry about corruption or authoritarianism where there is none. They are the equivalent of the western "woke" brigades, where logic, rationality, objectivity and truth-seeking has no reign. Their best defense in a political argument is "you suck" or "your mouth is full of cocks".
If you think this represents a "new generation of politically-active" people, then you're the delusional one here.
Learn some Russian, and then attempt to reason with those guys. You'll quickly realize the threat is stupidity and excessive emotionalism - aka, psychology, not politics.

Now, one could entertain and forward the political opinion that Russia, due to its geographical magnitude and peculiar culture and traditions, benefits and is in need of a strong authoritarian leader against the threat of anarchy and instability, but don't insult my intelligence by denying the fact that the most widespread protests in post-2000 Russia somehow doesn't constitute as Putin's biggest threat.

Mate. I think you forgot about the "Snow Revolution" in 2011-2013, and Khabarovsk protests in 2020.
It is indeed hilarious you are singing the same songs today, as the sweet songs that were sung by MSM in those previous instances.

What threat are you talking about exactly? What can the people on the street do to Putin exactly?
Give me a 10-steps summary of how the protests could potentially threaten Putin in any way, beyond your watery paragraphs of non-substantiality.

The fact that Navalny has faced an assassination attempt by the Russian state stands clear for me. Any other opinion, no matter how much I value a healthy doses of scepticism in this life, borders either naivety or disingenuity.

Aka, translation: "I'm right, and everyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot."

Maybe you're just too convinced in your own fallacies, and this is preventing you from seeing the world in a more objective light?

You don't need to give me these historical lessons. In fact, I once told Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, the former Secretary-General of NATO, the same when he implied once that Russia was the initial aggressor during that conflict. I'm by no means invested in which political group or propaganda whatsoever. I'm for truth, no matter who tells it.

And I once told an acting advisor to the US nuclear forces that Trump is going to win the 2016 elections.
Your point being?

Spare me your patronising remarks.

Apparently you feel patronized (or maybe, more realistically, offended) by a remark that claims that the vision of the world you've gotten used to has been manufactured in the western political discourse, and is far from the objective truth.

I don't know what kind of person would feel patronized by such remark, other than someone who feels like his world is about to collapse. But such world-collapsing experiences are healthy and necessary for anyone who is actually interested in the truth, as you claim yourself to be.

 

[Mardonius]

Just your opinion. I don't see how that opinion should or could be viewed as fact. Just because in your head Putin had this unlimited power over the entirety of the counter-intelligence apparatus, doesn't mean it's true. And it also doesn't mean that the counter-intelligence apparatus was alive and kicking in a Russia that was immediately post-USSR collapse.

Your lack of knowledge of Russia's own history, for an outright apologist, is staggering mate.

The extensive intelligence network that Putin had as a political resource was clear from the start. He not only became head of the FSB in 1999, which only further bolstered his authority and stature, but his rise to presidency was even called a triumph of the KGB at that time (by no one less than Kalugin).

Want some evidence for how the previous security state established dominance? Here you go:

In order to increase central control over the 89 subjects of the federation, Putin carried out a major overhaul of Russia’s federal system during his first year in office. Three features of this reform program stand out. First, Putin added a new administrative layer consisting of seven territorial “super-districts.” As Nikolai Petrov notes,the configuration of these districts was based on“a military-police pattern—that of the okrugs of the MVD [Ministry of Internal Affairs] Internal Troops.” Second, the Kremlin initially appointed siloviki—specifically, two army generals, two former KGB officers, and one MVD general—to head five of these seven districts; and five out of eight of Putin’s subsequent appointees similarly hailed from the power ministries. In other words, fully ten of the fifteen individuals who served as the president’s plenipotentiary representatives (polpredy) from May 2000 to May 2008 were siloviki

Yet another prominent use of the militocracy framework has been to describe the means by which the state has re-asserted control over various strategic (as well as highly profitable) sectors of the economy. For instanc, Kryshtanovskaya and White claim that Putin’s Kremlin inserted “agents of influence in business and the media” who fueled the creation of a “military-business complex.” “Since 2000,” writes Edward Lucas “veterans of the Soviet intelligence and security services have taken control not only of the Kremlin and government, but also the media and the commanding heights of the economy. Andrei Illarionov, Putin’s top economic adviser from 2000 to 2004, argues that“[w]ith the state as their base, the siloviki have taken over key business and media organizations as well. There are now few areas of Russian life where [their] long arm fails to reach.” Daniel Treisman goes even further bycoining a new term to describe Russia’s political-economic system under Putin. The“oligarchs”of the 1990s, he writes,“ have given way to a previously little-known cohort of executives, most from the network of security service and law enforcement veterans...who form the backbone of President Putin’s administration....In short, industrial and financial capital has fused with secret police networks to produce a new political and economic order,” which he calls “silovarchy.”

Source.

Remember how Prussia was once called ''not a country with an army but an army with a country''? One could perfectly and similarly make the argument now that Russia isn't a country with a security apparatus, but a security apparatus with a country.

And don't get me wrong. I love Russia, but I'm not blind to its political state and history.

Mate. I think you forgot about the "Snow Revolution" in 2011-2013, and Khabarovsk protests in 2020.
It is indeed hilarious you are singing the same songs today, as the sweet songs that were sung by MSM in those previous instances.

Not as widespread. Try again.

What threat are you talking about exactly? What can the people on the street do to Putin exactly?
Give me a 10-steps summary of how the protests could potentially threaten Putin in any way, beyond your watery paragraphs of non-substantiality.

I'm not going to give you a generic summary of how political movements with a charismatic figurehead raging against broadly loathed corruption can potentially threaten the leadership of a well-established authoritarian. Read history.

It appears pointless to engage in a discussion with someone who acts as your typical apologist and has no in-depth knowledge of Russian politics or history.

 

[Fluff]

Like 2 dinosaurs, crushing the last eggs, as they fight.......

 

[Mardonius]

Like 2 dinosaurs, crushing the last eggs, as they fight.......

Enjoy the activity, mate. It's scarce on this forum.

 

[morris]

On Friday, February 5, the magistrates' court began consideration of a criminal case on charges of A. Navalny in libel against a participant in the Great Patriotic War Ignat Sergeevich Artemenko.
In the summer of 2020, the founder of the Anti-Corruption Fund, recognized as a foreign agent, insulted the front-line soldier, calling him, among other supporters of the Russian Constitution, a lackey, a traitor, a shame of the country, etc.

It didn't stop there. Following A. Navalny, his supporters in social networks, as well as pseudo-liberal and foreign media, continued their line of humiliation of I.S. Artemenko.

Only complete scumbag would abuse a 94-year-old war invalid and it speaks volumes about immorality of Navalny and his supporters who try to present him as an innocent and heroic victim of an authoritarian regime.
Shame on Navalny and his supporters.