Alexei Navalny dead

[ChicagoBlue]

It was Gorbachevs naivety in trying to spread the wealth that got us into this whole sorry mess.

Change requires vision. His vision opened up Europe as we know it today and created decades of economic growth. I’ll take such naiveté over the expansionist Soviet mindset of Putin and the Nationalist dictators.

The problem is not, nor was it ever, Gorbachov’s naiveté, but rather the old Soviet mindset of a group of ne’er do wells holding onto old notions of empire and their KGB operative from St Petersburg who doesn’t like the idea of it being so vulnerable to the west.

No-one gives a fuck about Russia, and certainly has no intent to attack or invade it, yet Putin believes that he can hide his power projection behind the idea that any old Soviet state is Russian land for Russian people. He is a paranoid multi-billionaire who will never get to spend or even enjoy his ill-gotten booty, because he is a dead man walking.

 

[BobKowalski]

As is your prerogative. Difficult to lend much weight to what he says though, as he is not to be trusted.

You mean the war in Ukraine is really about NATO expansion and Putin for some reason says it’s all about historic destiny and here is my 15th century map to prove that Ukraine is really Russian and this is why we invaded and we will kill any and every Ukrainian who doesn’t accept that.

Well, that makes sense. Although Ukraine wasn’t in NATO and was never getting in NATO and Putin did spend several hours lecturing Tucker on ‘Russian history‘ and not NATO, so maybe it never was about NATO? Just a thought.

Sometimes you just have to look at the evidence staring you in the face and accept it. And if you are puzzled as to why Ukrainians keep fighting - well, threatening genocide is a strong motivator.

 

[WestGorton]

Murder.

 

[John Wayne]

You mean the war in Ukraine is really about NATO expansion and Putin for some reason says it’s all about historic destiny and here is my 15th century map to prove that Ukraine is really Russian and this is why we invaded and we will kill any and every Ukrainian who doesn’t accept that.

Well, that makes sense. Although Ukraine wasn’t in NATO and was never getting in NATO and Putin did spend several hours lecturing Tucker on ‘Russian history‘ and not NATO, so maybe it never was about NATO? Just a thought.

Sometimes you just have to look at the evidence staring you in the face and accept it. And if you are puzzled as to why Ukrainians keep fighting - well, threatening genocide is a strong motivator.

After his first 30 minutes of a rambling Russian history, he did talk about NATO and the current Ukrainian government. But as I said earlier, I think I agree that this has strayed from the original topic, so I'm happy to bring it back to Navalny.

 

[domalino]

Weird time to kill him.

Politically Putin has never been safer at home.

Meanwhile the hold up of the latest massive Ukraine aid bill is daily news in the USA and Lord Cameron just wrote an oped as the UK foreign Secretary to the Republican Party telling them they must pass it.

Assassinating Navalny now could end up being what is needed to pass that bill and send $60Bn of weapons to Ukraine.


Thats the problem with putting people away in gulags though, they have a habit of dying and you don’t always control when.

It would also be deeply ironic if Navalny ended up helping Ukraine as he spent the last 10 years telling Ukrainians to give up on Crimea, undermining their independence and generally not winning any friends south of the border. Which is left out of 99% of news about him.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Weird time to kill him.

Politically Putin has never been safer at home.

Meanwhile the hold up of the latest massive Ukraine aid bill is daily news in the USA and Lord Cameron just wrote an oped as the UK foreign Secretary to the Republican Party telling them they must pass it.

Assassinating Navalny now could end up being what is needed to pass that bill and send $60Bn of weapons to Ukraine.


Thats the problem with putting people away in gulags though, they have a habit of dying and you don’t always control when.

It would also be deeply ironic if Navalny ended up helping Ukraine as he spent the last 10 years telling Ukrainians to give up on Crimea, undermining their independence and generally not winning any friends south of the border. Which is left out of 99% of news about him.

I’m not sure they killed him today, but they’ve been killing him slowly for years.

The timing is inopportune for Putin, but I’m not sure he cares that much. He throws kids at Ukraine to show his strength, but the world now knows Russia is a shell of its former self.

Decades of rot from the inside can no longer be hidden and it’s clear Russia is no longer a Superpower in the normal sense of the word, with only it’s nuclear arsenal and mineral resources helping it maintain any relevance in the geopolitical world.

Putin will die a rich man. The end.

 

[Iassel]

No he didn’t, he spent most of the time avoiding the question. What he did say was Crimea should have a referendum ran by independent advisors. Since the war, his stance changed and went to Ukraine should have its 1991 borders, which would include Crimea.

“I think that despite the fact that the Crimea was seized with outrageous violations of all international norms, nevertheless, the realities are such that Crimea is now part of the Russian Federation,” Mr. Navalny added. “So let’s not kid ourselves. And I advise the Ukrainians not to kid themselves, either. It will remain part of Russia and will never become part of Ukraine in the foreseeable future.”
Pressed on whether he would try to return Crimea to Ukraine in the event he became Russia’s president, Mr. Navalny, who finished a strong second in the race for Moscow’s mayor last year, asked rhetorically, “What, is the Crimea a ham sandwich or something that you can take and give it back?”

He answered: “No, I don’t believe so.”

Navalny’s Comments on Crimea Ignite Russian Twittersphere (Published 2014)

Aleksei A. Navalny, an anticorruption blogger, antagonized some of his fellow liberals by appearing to rule out the possibility of simply returning Crimea to Ukraine.

www.nytimes.com

We can all accept that he was a better man than Putin and would have done a better job as PM than Putin, but he was not the saint some wanted him to be.

 

[meltonblue]

Navalny’s Comments on Crimea Ignite Russian Twittersphere (Published 2014)

Aleksei A. Navalny, an anticorruption blogger, antagonized some of his fellow liberals by appearing to rule out the possibility of simply returning Crimea to Ukraine.

www.nytimes.com

Yes exactly, that’s what I was referring to, read the whole article, it even says in there that quoting him purely on the bit you have there was used as a distortion of what he was saying. His position at the time was there should be a referendum by the Crimeans. He wasn’t saying “no” as in it should just be kept by Russia.

He subsequently did change his position to say that Ukraine should be restored to its 1991 borders, like I said.

He wasn’t not a saint because of his position on Crimea.

 

[Postman Pep]

I get the concept of the enemy of my enemy is my friend but come on.

 

[discopop]

As ever Cold War Steve sums it up in what’s a dark image even by his standards.