It indeed seems very contradictory. But maybe that's the point? One more abstract possibility would be a rogue action of some RF service, but I doubt that under Putin, he has his powers strictly controlled.
Of course you can always construct an incredibly convoluted theory, even to prove that the earth is flat. But why would you do that?
The biggest red flag for me in this discussion, is that people who believe that Putin or the state was behind this assassination have only one excuse to justify this belief, and that's "Putin/state is stupid and/or evil."
A major red flag. Russia isn't a some banana republic with a population of 1-million and a political history of 30 years. (and probably even those countries wouldn't be this sloppy).
We're talking about a country with enormous territory, large population, huge nuclear arsenal, multiple regions/republics/ethnicities, difficult and dramatic history, hundreds of years of internal power struggles, war campaigns, conquests, space race, nuclear energy, and the list just goes on...
You need to be very gullible to believe that somehow this large country, with its extensive complicated history, is governed by idiots who can't 2+2.
It just goes against the laws of evolution and natural selection.
Pushing him of the roof is too brute
Pushing him off a roof is just a random example. My main point is that using a staged accident is much easier than using a WMD to kill someone you don't like. Car accident, gas explosion, even a bullet in the head by some thug on the street.
and would alienate more Russian citizens from Putin.
And certainly evidence that Putin poisoned Navalny, and provoked more sanctions against Russia that would hurt Russia's citizens - won't alienate them from Putin at all, not the slightest. He certainly picked the lesser of 2 evils...
That's not how it works. The US has no control over the EU and vice versa this also not the goal of either party. The point in parliamentary democracies is that no one exerts full power. Europe and the US are partners because of a multitude of reasons.
Yeah, I call bs on this one.
It doesn't matter what kind of parliamentary democracy you are or aren't. But a state remains a state by nature. It's like a business of sort, and the goal of any business is to secure its interests. Geography and geopolitical borders often play a definitive role in this.
What would happen if Russia would join NATO on equal terms? - given that Russia is located in Europe, and is the biggest military force and political giant of Europe, with a matter of few years NATO's HQ could be moved to Moscow, simply because USA is just too far away to compete for the throne in this case. Why rely on military supplies and logistics from overseas, if you can get them quicker and in larger numbers from mainland? Indeed, no reason to.
What would happen if Russia would join EU on equal terms? - given that Russia is located in Europe, and is the largest country, with largest territory and resources, it would immediately be pitted against Germany for dominance in the union.
What would happen if Russia wouldn't join neither EU nor NATO, but would develop deep inter-dependencies in energy, trade and politics with Germany? Well, again, with all things considered, USA's relevance on the continent would just be diminished. Just as today Germany is reluctant to cancel Nord Stream 2 (because it deeply benefits both Germany and Russia), in case of any deeper alliance, Germany would in fact be reluctant to oppose Russia in other economic, political or geopolitical decisions. And if we take into consideration that Russia's and USA's foreign policy tends to be exactly opposite to each other, this would diminish USA's ability to garner support for its own initiatives in Europe.
The nature of international relations is governed by human nature, or nature of human groups, and their needs/interests, not by fantasies about parliamentary democracies. No state sacrifices its resources just to benefit some other state without getting something in return for it.
