Does the Kremlin want Alexei Navalny to die in prison?(economist.com)
economist.com
Does the Kremlin want Alexei Navalny to die in prison?
https://www.economist.com/europe/2021/04/10/does-the-kremlin-want-alexei-navalny-to-die-in-prison
123 comments
im surprised stackoverflow readers would buy political pieces like that.
>deprived both of sleep and of medical care
Thats exactly what us is doing in its prisons. How is he deprived? How is it any different from what his foreign handlers do at home?
Was there a single article on torture Maria Butina had to endure in US prison?
shame cheap pieces like that show up here.
>deprived both of sleep and of medical care
Thats exactly what us is doing in its prisons. How is he deprived? How is it any different from what his foreign handlers do at home?
Was there a single article on torture Maria Butina had to endure in US prison?
shame cheap pieces like that show up here.
Yeah, they do want that. Tried to kill him multiple times using their FSB goons, almost succeeded. Now it's time for good old one - persecute on false charges, and let the penal system do its work. Not as effective or flashy as Nemtsov, or Politkovskaya, or Estemirova, or Litvinenko approach, but truly battle tested way of dealing with journalists or political opponents.
Without picking any sides here, I think it is somewhat funny that both parties in the comments think the other party is indoctrinated by state propaganda about their own country...
It is pretty funny. However it gets a bit skewed when you talk about Russian media vs "western media". One is largely state controlled with very rigid guidelines and directives and the other is an amalgamation of hundreds of outlets in dozens of countries, with differing viewpoints and generally good independence. Some might be louder than others, absolutely, but they can all be heard.
I'm sure there is still some bias being applied, but the whole "russophobe" narrative is a bit tiresome and seems to be engineered by the Russian state to a large extent.
I'm sure there is still some bias being applied, but the whole "russophobe" narrative is a bit tiresome and seems to be engineered by the Russian state to a large extent.
I'm sure that Russian state owned media is way more biased than most Western media. However, if you factor in that for instance a large part of the US only watches Fox, OAN or Breitbart, I don't think one party is much better off in the news department. A lot of people have access to independent media, but actively choose not to use them.
I'm not sure those conservative outlets are necessarily part of an aligned state agenda. Especially considering how they are directly opposed to the current administration.
Also I'm not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that both parties are equal, while also claiming that "Russian state owned media is way more biased than most Western media". My point is that there are no major alternative platforms in Russia. There's a reason why the few critical Russian news outlets locate outside of Russia.
Also I'm not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that both parties are equal, while also claiming that "Russian state owned media is way more biased than most Western media". My point is that there are no major alternative platforms in Russia. There's a reason why the few critical Russian news outlets locate outside of Russia.
I was always courious about this "state control". Seriously, I've heard this hundrends of times. And EVERY single person failed to explain how he thinks that happens.
At the same time reading all this banned criticism almost always left the impression of very poor analysis of the situation, usually non constructive and biased. The "state controlled" part of media also feels biased but more often than not it looks like a better job done when it comes to the situation analysis.
You can look at the NTV takeover for a good example of how this can happen. In cases where the state doesn't end up directly owning the media company, suspiciously often the majority of shares ends up owned by Kremlin loyalist oligarchs. On top of this there is a widespread general culture of self censorship, where there is fear of covering certain topics because of possible government interference. This was even confirmed in an official Russian report in 2004. I'm not saying this is without exception, but it would seem that the government has very large influence over media in Russia compared to many other places.
Yes, I know about it. BTW, as a result of this takeover "Эхо Москвы" which critisize Kremlin quite hard now belongs to the state owned company Gazprom. So, this is a way more tricky than you might think.
I mostly believe in self censorship - do not touch "dangerous" subjects etc. This is a main force behind censorship rather than directives from some dedicated goverment department.
The US will do nothing except threaten more sanctions.
What else can the US realistically do about this situation?
I was born in socialist Czechoslovakia. Everybody hated Russians (they had an army stationed there), and everybody loved Americans. (This "everybody" excludes about 20% of the population that are authoritarian conservatives, who exist in similar numbers everywhere.)
So what did the Americans do? In my opinion: It wasn't military invasion, it wasn't sanctions, it was they have built a better, more free, system (at least that's how it was largely perceived), and opened their doors for people who wanted to emigrate and live there. Often these were intellectuals, who then "spread the word" about how it works in the U.S. back to the land they were born.
I think with America coming to neoliberalism in the 1980s, this approach was lost. (Freedom turned into an ideology, and that neutered the pragmatic consideration of different human values.) But in some places, it never really existed, in Latin America, or Middle East, Americans often supported dictatorships.
So here you have it, this is what you can realistically do. Build a better system, create an example, let people (from Russia or elsewhere) come and see why it is really better.
So what did the Americans do? In my opinion: It wasn't military invasion, it wasn't sanctions, it was they have built a better, more free, system (at least that's how it was largely perceived), and opened their doors for people who wanted to emigrate and live there. Often these were intellectuals, who then "spread the word" about how it works in the U.S. back to the land they were born.
I think with America coming to neoliberalism in the 1980s, this approach was lost. (Freedom turned into an ideology, and that neutered the pragmatic consideration of different human values.) But in some places, it never really existed, in Latin America, or Middle East, Americans often supported dictatorships.
So here you have it, this is what you can realistically do. Build a better system, create an example, let people (from Russia or elsewhere) come and see why it is really better.
Absolutely this. The US could accelerate Russia’s brain drain [1] using robust visa quotas and fast track immigration programs. This would be far more devastating for the future of Russia than any military action or sanctions.
Very similar to what Great Britain is doing with Hong Kong. [2]
[1] https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=202004021...
[2] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-hongkong-security-britain...
Very similar to what Great Britain is doing with Hong Kong. [2]
[1] https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=202004021...
[2] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-hongkong-security-britain...
I think you totally misunderstood my proposal and twisted it into chauvinism. I don't want to destroy them, I want to (indirectly) help them. Failed states, especially those with nuclear weapons, are far more dangerous.
I believe "Russia the government" is beyond redemption, but "Russia the people" aren’t, therefore the only path to success is helping Russian citizens emigrate to a country with better prospects for their future. This is help for the people, even if it shifts geopolitical power long term. The idea that Russians will take better systems back to a brutal regime and instill democracy or other improvements seems unlikely considering those who are in power.
Russia will fail eventually (as the USSR did before it), its only a matter of when.
Russia will fail eventually (as the USSR did before it), its only a matter of when.
They might transition to democracy through state failure, or they might not. My country, Czechoslovakia, did transition without it.
It's worth reminding that despite the sorry state of USSR economy when communism ended, it still contracted by almost 1/3 during the 90s neoliberal era. And Putin improved on that, despite being authoritarian ruler. So the failure of the state is not at all given.
It's worth reminding that despite the sorry state of USSR economy when communism ended, it still contracted by almost 1/3 during the 90s neoliberal era. And Putin improved on that, despite being authoritarian ruler. So the failure of the state is not at all given.
I hope nothing but the best for the people of Russia. I acknowledge Putin has provided some lift for them, while also acknowledging his significant shortcomings, many of which hold back more progress for those he governs.
"Hope for the best, prepare for the worst."
"Hope for the best, prepare for the worst."
I feel the same, but you started this thread suggesting that we "accelerate the brain drain". I don't think that's a good idea, it's going to make ordinary Russians worse off. The immigration policy should not serve as a tool to do that, but rather as a tool to help those who are not happy living in Russia. In practice this would mean, a genius professor of nuclear science, or a dissident coal miner, should be given the same chance to immigrate into the U.S.
It is not that they can, it is that the US used the freedom pretext to start wars all around. What about Russia?
They could take out Putin if they wanted to and spread some rumor that it was a Russian dissident.
Taking out the Archduke Franz Ferdinand went well, didn't it?
That wasn't even done by another major power, I think. (I'm no good at history.) Presumably there's a reason why major countries don't usually murder the heads of state of other major countries. I imagine it has something to do the military having standing orders to retaliate in such cases.
That wasn't even done by another major power, I think. (I'm no good at history.) Presumably there's a reason why major countries don't usually murder the heads of state of other major countries. I imagine it has something to do the military having standing orders to retaliate in such cases.
That is absolutely not realistic.
Why not?
Man has quite a lot of security against on-the-ground "deniable" attacks.
Then you have the question of whether the surviving second in command decides to just eat the loss and surrender his country to the United States without firing a shot, or .. fire a shot.
The bare minimum is probably the televised execution of all US embassy staff in Russia; the maximum retaliation is, of course, nuclear war.
Then you have the question of whether the surviving second in command decides to just eat the loss and surrender his country to the United States without firing a shot, or .. fire a shot.
The bare minimum is probably the televised execution of all US embassy staff in Russia; the maximum retaliation is, of course, nuclear war.
We're already at war with Russia, it is just a cold war involving cyberattacks and attacks on the US election system. With Russia moving troops to the border of Ukraine they are going to keep testing the US until we are forced to act. Better be on the preemptive.
> until we are forced to act
Are you suggesting that the Kremlin wants to escalate into full scale war with the US?
Are you suggesting that the Kremlin wants to escalate into full scale war with the US?
I think they will work to destroy the US from within as much as possible until it is entirely possible for them to destabilize the US to the point that they spark a civil war. This last election was just a preview in my opinion.
Give US people some credit. I believe the White House event cleared minds of many right-wingers in regards to election rigging.
We shall see, but I think the left/right paradigm is something that has only gotten worse through time we need ranked choice voting an more participation from third-parties or we'll quickly end up right back where we were.
That’s right, if you want the job done, you have got to call the United Nations—then and only then—might they write and send a stern, toothless letter.
Russia has a veto voice in the security council. Not really much the UN can do here. The way the UN is set up is entirely broken and there's very little the organization can do against authoritarianism.
> Russia has a veto voice in the security council. Not really much the UN can do here.
That seems like the kind of problem the UN would have run into and found a solution for within about the first 5 years it existed, instead of leaving it inaddressed for three-quarters of a century.
Oh, that’s because it is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assem...
That seems like the kind of problem the UN would have run into and found a solution for within about the first 5 years it existed, instead of leaving it inaddressed for three-quarters of a century.
Oh, that’s because it is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assem...
Targeted sanctions work. Removing sanctions was the main goal of Russian "lobbying" (let's call it that way) of the Trump administration.
Personally annoying leaders and oligarchs by preventing them to move around, if only to bring their kids to Disneyland, is not flashy but is convincing Putin's inner circle that he is turning Russia into a third world country.
Hit at the wallet. Especially at the personal one.
Personally annoying leaders and oligarchs by preventing them to move around, if only to bring their kids to Disneyland, is not flashy but is convincing Putin's inner circle that he is turning Russia into a third world country.
Hit at the wallet. Especially at the personal one.
Problem with sanctions is that most likely they only affect normal people who is not then able to rebel against their leaders.
See Cuba or Venezuela, they live on sanctions for decades but show the oligarchs can live well on them, the people is struggling and has not any possibility to fight against their regimes
See Cuba or Venezuela, they live on sanctions for decades but show the oligarchs can live well on them, the people is struggling and has not any possibility to fight against their regimes
targeted sanctions. "Here is a list of 20 oligarchs who can't travel to US and EU anymore and can't transfer funds there." There may be a few false positives but that's much better than blanket embargo on a whole population.
And when you find a business front of one of these, you have a legal reason to destroy millions from their wealth.
Angry oligarchs are probable more scary to Putin than protests in the streets of Moscow.
And when you find a business front of one of these, you have a legal reason to destroy millions from their wealth.
Angry oligarchs are probable more scary to Putin than protests in the streets of Moscow.
Yes, but the way Alexei is going about it made it awkward for them.
A rare counter-example of Betteridge's law of headlines.
I don't think so; Russian government doesn't need a martyr, they will discredit him thoroughly before they make any kind of move on him at this point.
You see the same behaviour with Snowden and the US. The US security industry for sure would prefer this man to be quiet and away from any spotlight, but all they can do is make up some rumours about how he's just a disgruntled employee or maybe a pedophile fleeing for that reason or a rapist. Obviously it doesn't gain traction but I've seen those attempts.
You see the same behaviour with Snowden and the US. The US security industry for sure would prefer this man to be quiet and away from any spotlight, but all they can do is make up some rumours about how he's just a disgruntled employee or maybe a pedophile fleeing for that reason or a rapist. Obviously it doesn't gain traction but I've seen those attempts.
jules-jules(1)
anticodon(5)
PS: I'm writing anti-putin because it is not clear that Navalny is actually going against the soviet system in general. For example he supported Crimea invasion, he supported Georgia invasion in 2008, he voluntarily invited russian terrorist Girkin a few years ago for the interview, and during that interview said that it is not a war crime to kill Ukrainian soldiers.