https://theins.press/en/inv/290235 - Lost in translation: How Russia’s new elite hit squad was compromised by an idiotic lapse in tradecraft
https://theins.press/en/inv/287837 - The mob’s humanitarian backdoor: Ramzan Kadyrov’s mafia connections reach deep into German critical infrastructure
I always wonder about Navalny - why did he go back to Russia? Did he really believe that he could do some kind of Nelson Mandela thing? Or that the Russian people would flock to his cause? I believe that the man was an idealist, I don't think you expose yourself to that much danger without being an idealist at least on some level or thinking that the possible personal rewards make the danger worth it, and I don't get the sense from Navalny that he was after personal rewards primarily. But with his experience in Russian politics, I feel like he should have known that the chance that his return to Russia would bring about any serious political change was extremely small. Not returning to Russia would have hurt his chances of causing political change as well, since that would have made him seem like just an agent of the Western powers. But returning to Russia at the cost of his life also did not accomplish political change.
I think you just have to accept that he was built different from someone like you. I think it's kind of a form of disrespect to say "why would someone do that?" We know exactly why he did it, he had a level of passion you don't. It's okay for you to not be passionate about anything on the level of giving up your life, but you shouldn't act like that doesn't exist or is an odd weird thing you're could never understand
I know it exists. I'm asking why he went on an extremely dangerous mission that had very little chance of success instead of using his energy on something that would have been more likely to achieve success, or on something that would have been equally unlikely to achieve success but at least would not have been extremely dangerous.
Navalny saw exile as a betrayal of both his country and his ideas and convictions. I think he mentioned that an opposition that is staying outside of Russia would lose moral legitimacy in the eyes of Russians too, or something similar.
It would be a noble cause if it were true. You need to really think sinister thoughts to get a glimpse of what really transpired there.
Don't think noble causes. Think money, blackmail. When thinking of timing of his death think of what else was going on in the west at that time. Think Tucker/Putin interview.
Your point doesn't come across here? And doesn't seem to have any direct reactions to the comment above. Any proof or source for your claims would help. Also no reason to be rude.
I talked to young Navalny supporters. They are ignorant and don't have much regard for what others feel or think. Their speech is violent.
I read what his circle wrote and writes. On their main news outlet, "the echo of Moscow", closed aftrr the war started, they did not allow anyone of opinion different from theirs to speak (comments were filtered just as they are in the west, so much for "freedom of opinion"). But besides that, many comments were allowed to pass through which were racist anti Russian. "How can Russians be racist anti Russian?". Well, these people were not really Russian, you see, and I will not expand on this more.
Then, his circle is not some naive intelligentsia. No, these are people actively collaborating with western "entities". They know what they are being paid for (payment is not necessarily a bank transaction). And they know what revolutions mean in Russia.
In retrospective they would mean saving 400k+ young men from dying, approx. 200k+ on each side. But Navalny wasn't a revolutioner (his mistake: if you have a death wish, there are more effective methods than peaceful protesting).
Did he have a choice but to go back? Opposition taking money from interested parties has a long history. Lenin was provided with financial support by the germans. Revolution is business, people pay revolutionaries and opposition to do what they do, and once they take the money they need to deliver.
Navalnyj had very low popularity at home. He was mostly a made up hero for the western audience.
Ordinary russians not only gave no-f-f about Navalnyj but considered him a traitor or a trojan horse.
I've wondered the same. A look at his contemporary media quotes gives maybe a hint. From Navalny: "It is difficult for me to understand exactly what is going on in [Putin's] mind. [...] 20 years of power would spoil anyone and make them crazy. He thinks he can do whatever he wants."
If this quote is genuine, as opposed to wistful, it suggests Navalny's evaluation of Russia was that Putin couldn't, in fact, do whatever he wanted there. As best I can tell, such an evaluation would have been pretty damn close to completely inaccurate.
The choice to return to Russia as a catastrophically-failed gamble based on that premise is what makes the most sense to me.
If he was an unscrupulous adventurer who was sure that his Western support would prevent him from being killed, then that leads to two questions:
1. Why exactly would he have been so sure that his Western support would prevent him from being killed? The Russian elite is not exactly made up of people who are squeamish about killing, and the risk to the elite from killing him would have been small.
2. Why not just stay in the West and do the unscrupulous adventuring from there? Sure, maybe the Western backers would not have quite as much use for you that way, but you'd still have a lot of influence and a cushy life.
Why he was sure? Since Putin and his circle, contrary to what your propaganda tries to picture, are acting rationally based on the information they have (which may be outdated or incorrect), just as your country, though the means they have are very much inferior to yours. Apparently at some point the perceived risk from Navalny outweighed potential punitive western measures.
Why not just "stay in the west"? And why hadn't Arafat stayed in Tunis and went to the west bank to be then poisoned there by the Mossad? (As the late Uri Avneri claimed)
Closer to the Russian reality, why hadn't Lenin stayed in Switzerland? And what was the end of prince Kurbskiy who tried to oppose Ivan "the terrible" from Poland?
I'm not claiming that Putin is acting irrationally, at least not any more irrationally than other leaders - after all, politicians are still human.
My question is why Navalny would have believed that it would not be rational for Putin to kill him.
Lenin entered Russia at a more advantageous moment than Navalny did. The February Revolution had already happened. The government was new. Navalny, in contrast, entered a Russia in which the government was stable and had been around for a long time.
He returned to Russia, as I just checked, in January 2021. The sanctions were already working, rouble was devaluating, the country was perceived to bow to western pressure, Ukraine was steadily preparing to enter Donbass and eventually take Crimea (yes, I know your media did not tell you that, but this was the end goal they had in mind, with western support of course). What is so stable about this situation?
You don't need to assume that I've been brainwashed by Western propaganda. I generally distrust both the Western and the Russian mainstream narratives about geopolitics.
Sport fan clowns always say you have to separate politics from the Olympics. Well guess what my own country is sponsoring athletes because the whole fucking show is just a way for countries to show off. Not sure what we are showing off to be honest- although I did clap for the nice Somali ex refugee lady who is now a professional athlete.
Indeed, but then not surprising. Russia haven’t ever had developed a mature democracy, it merely had a very brief chance at taking long road of becoming one, and everything went off the rails in just a decade or so. Kind of a handicap when it comes to keeping bloodthirsty politicians and siloviki in check.
Actually, a lot would change. Each one of the Ukrainian lives destroyed is a whole life destroyed. A damaged car is a setback for a family. There are whole cities and villages razed in Ukraine, fields polluted or rigged with explosives. Countless lives lost; each person's story and potential ended by some Russian's "command-following" drone or missile strike.
No, Russia isn't the only one, but _is_ a cause of a lot of suffering and resources wasted.
I am considering the absolute impact on those affected, which is the most relevant for this discussion. Millions are not "a few". And it's absolutely unnecessary, the aggressor has always been in the position to pull back and leave (or not attack at all). Everyone but _a few_ war profiteers suffers from war, because it requires hours of work (weapons) diverted towards destroying other hours of work (cars, houses, infrastructure), occupying workers' time by ordering them to kill future workers, all of which could go towards increasing production instead of decreasing it, which does affect global markets and thus people globally.
Had? Ukraine still has the option to capitulate and give up its territory, what kind of argument is that? Separatists who take up arms are a fair target, they are the ones violently changing the status quo. When both sides kill civilians in a war started by one side, that side's further escalation is not at all justified by "killing ppl of donbass", so let's not manipulatively paint a "both sides" picture as if there isn't a huge difference
You can debate if the 'Revolution of Dignity' was a good thing or not, but some other country impeaching their leader for human rights violations and holding new elections is a poor reason to invade it. Obviously Putin thought Yanukovych was his guy and if the Ukranians dared to kick him out and have democracy he'd just have to invade and install a new puppet but is that really a coup? Google has:
>A popular uprising is not typically considered a coup. An uprising is a broad, public, and often spontaneous mass movement aimed at social or political change, while a coup (coup d'état) is a rapid seizure of power by a small, elite group, such as the military or political insiders.
Yeah like the famous French Coup. You never hear a Ukrainian say our country had a coup. It's a Russian propaganda lie so they can feel better about murdering their peaceful democratic neighbours to try to steal their stuff.
> 2014 coup ousted democratically elected president
..whose forces killed unarmed protestors, and who abandoned the country (after the forces under his chain of command killed protestors, so he can mostly thank himself and his goons for "fearing for his life", don't try that "argument" on me). After years of straying Ukraine away from democracy, after democratically elected parliament decided "enough is enough" and even broke ranks to oust him, you dare to speak about democracy?
Some people "disagreed"? They took up arms. Terrorists. I would say the same about the Euromaidan protestors who killed the police, had the police not killed first. Again pro-russians are the ones to escalate violence.
I already said what Minsk "agreement" is. A capitulation to Russia, not a just solution. Of course Ukraine would arm itself to reclaim its borders from the aggressor. You also missed a keyword here: _defensive_ war against Russia.
No. Foreign mercenaries killed the protestors. That's how revolutions are done, it's a ratchet event that doesn't allow the history to wind back.
Once there is blood spilled - full force ahead, no turning back.
Btw, you are forgetting that Ukranian police was torched by the protesters using molotov cocktails.
And that's weapons. According to your logic Police had the right to shoot, but they didn't.
They didn't because Yanukovich ordered not to shoot at the protesters.
You really need to do some reading pal.
Or try attacking police assuming you are in a USA - that will teach you a lesson about what happens in a real democracy when police is attacked. And I fully support such a response.
If Russia didn't want a war there wouldn't be one. I didn't make anything.
As someone living in a country with a hostile neighbour, I'm glad the governments currently continue to coexist, even if mine could get an economic advantage or "a safety buffer" by invading the other. NATO's peaceful expansion towards east is not just, but it isn't a sufficient cause of war either, far from it.
Ukraine needed to arm itself for protecting its borders and reclaiming its territory taken by Russian separatists. Decide whether you want to play the "Russia's captured territory" or "Lugansk and Donbas Republic" that were no Russian business card. Btw, you keep acting as if it all started in 2022. Since 2014. Russia has been the aggressor, and I won't waste any more time on your manipulative time-wasting, "both sides" rethoric that's frankly disgusting when I remember that you well know what it supports
The aggressors were the west and the Ukranian "nationalists" (I avoided using the right word) seeking to cancel the history of the people in Ukraine, replacing it with their own absurd version rehabilitating ukrainian nazi collaborationists, giving their imaginary version of the famine before the war (I heard a figure of "60 million killed" from one person), and seeking to cancel Russian language and Russian culture there. In particular in Crimea, where the absolute majority had no ties with Ukranian language or culture.
This is how "separatists" you are complaining about appeared in the first place. And then yes, Russia stepped in, while before it sought only economical and political influence. Just as your beloved west did. And tell me now who owns your land..
Right, the coup of 2014 ousted democratically elected president and part of a country disagreed. As far as russian vs ukranian... It's basically one nation. Many russians have ukranian blood in them, many ukranians have russian blood in them. There are million's of ukranians working in russia today. The divide was engineered from outside and it was well engineered. Divide and concur is an old strategy and the west is very-very good at it.
Russian and Ukranians are too gullible. Less so now, but in 2014 they were like children.
And Ukranians at Maidan were treated like children by Nuland who brought them cookies, quite fittingly.
> Right, the coup of 2014 ousted democratically elected president
As I said earlier. Everything was fine while he was just "democratically" elected. And when he _started_ eroding democracy. But he took it too far going against the will of the people after being democratically elected, that he was democratically ousted.
> part of a country disagreed
A part of country, militarily supported by neighbouring Russia, took up arms. Started killing. Terrorist separatists.
> As far as russian vs ukranian... It's basically one nation.
I have already heard that kind of fantasy propaganda applied to a similar aggression. Your tricks are old. And the claim is inconsequential for the discussion tbh.
> The divide was engineered from outside and it was well engineered. Divide and concur is an old strategy and the west is very-very good at it.
I like how you, after all this, decided it's the west that is the only one to be named as the perpetrator of divide and conquer. I'd be surprised if "the west" didn't have its influence, but the fast deterioration happening under Yanukovych didn't really need outside influence to gain opposition because it's not at all logical Ukrainians would want it. Russians would because his policies were very pro-Russian. But they have Russia for that—killing Ukrainians to secede from Ukraine makes them wrong.
ah, here comes whataboutism. And you are correct. It would be great if russia didn't destroy Afghanistan and Syria.
Also, equating conflicts is a very shallow and inadequate manipulation tool. For example, russians razed dozens of cities in Ukraine, establish torture and rape chambers, use rape, torture, execution of POW as policy today.
"all wars are bad" doesn't mean that whatever russia does is way worse.
Obviously something a bit more on the hyperbolic sensationalist side, but closer to the truth than the simplistic ignore-your-own-eyes contrarianism peddled by Russian propaganda. FWIW your comment is the type that makes me go back and upvote GP.
I don't condone doping in tested sports, but I think there needs to be recognition that preventing athletes from modifying their biochemistry turns most sports into a genetic lottery showcase.
Here is what I mean:
Suppose that two men are born, with identical brains, but very different bodies. Both of them have a single desire: to be the fastest sprinter in the world.
- Clinically deficient values of Testosterone, Growth Hormone, IGF-1. Prone to musculoskeletal injuries, possibly connective tissue disorders.
If these two men live an identical life, and put the same amount of effort into training, the second man still has no hope of making it to the Olympics.
Even doping would only be able to correct for hormonal deficiencies, not the genome-level disadvantages for power performance compared to the other athlete.
A truly "fair" sport would pit competitors against each other who had near-identical genetic and physical traits.
The Olympics is just watching the people who won genetic lotteries.
> A truly "fair" sport would pit competitors against each other who had near-identical genetic and physical traits.
That's what the Olympics is. The men's 100m final pits against each other the fastest 8 men who are in their physical prime, full of fast twitch muscles, with West African descent. With some minor noise.
If you want to watch people from other genotype buckets run 10-50% slower, you can watch the women's event or the Paralympics or, like, the All-Vietnam U-16 event. It seems churlish to complain that not every bucket is on TV at a convenient time for you.
> preventing athletes from modifying their biochemistry turns most sports into a genetic lottery showcase.
Genetics are necessary to a point, and are not at all sufficient.
Any follower of a sport knows of athletes with incredible genetic blessings who accomplish little or nothing because they lack the hard work, discipline, focus, skill, emotional management, teamwork, etc. to succeed. And that sample omits far more athletes whose non-genetic limitations caused them to drop out or fail out before making it to the level where public is aware of them.
At the same time, the GOATs (greatest of all time) in many sports were not particularly blessed genetically, relative to other top atheletes:
* Football / soccer: Lionel Messi: 5'7", ~160 lbs., and had growth hormone deficiency [0], and is small, and not particularly fast or strong. "Messi’s “software” is what often gives him a head-start on those who physically should have the better of him." If you're interested, this article describes it in some detail: [1]
* American football: Tom Brady was notoriously unathletic, setting records for poor performance in the NFL's scouting 'combine' where draft prospects are compared in standardized tests. Also didn't have a strong throwing arm.
* Basketball is an exception: Michael Jordan was supremely athletic.
* Baseball: Babe Ruth was overweight, not known to be particularly fast or athletic, and played a position for relatively poor athletes who could hit: right field (gets the fewest plays, usually doesn't require more than running to a spot and throwing).
* Hockey: Wayne Gretzky was relatively small, not very fast, didn't have a hard shot.
* Tennis? Boxing? Cricket? Rugby?
These people are far more athletic than ordinary people, of course; I'm comparing them to other professionals in their sports.
No, the olympics are a doping competition, and a meta-competition of “who is better at not getting detected.”
In general, the statement “if they got a medal, they cheated” is true so much of the time that it becomes a sensible default assumption. And it sucks for the few that didn’t cheat.
So the olympic games do pit near-identical competitors against each other.
> The Olympics is just watching the people who won genetic lotteries.
So? The olympic games should be the pinnacle of human performance (fed by their nation's interests). Of course it is lotteries all the way from the genetics, to what country you're born in, right to the national lottery putting money in to sports.
Your alternatives are either a proliferation of categories or random people assembling every four years to roll dice to determine the winner. Neither is exciting.
Sure, adults should be able to take PEDs if they want to. But there's no reason to allow doping cheaters to enter sanctioned competitive events. It's no different from forcing all competitors to follow equipment rules. Like for the discus throw everyone has to use the same weight. Or for bike racing you can't install a motor.
Would you think it a poor dynamic if a company offered to pay people a good salary simply to be heavy sustained drinkers, but only for some limited amount of time? I'd say the problem is that the Moloch attractor tends to undermine this lofty ideal of "freedom of choice".
At least that produces tangible value for the rest of us this way.
Current idea of sports is that athletes wreck themselves for mere performance value (and money to the people who set it up, with a bit trickling down to athletes for enabling it all). As far as I understand, nothing they directly do is otherwise reusable to anyone else.
I’d rather watch a live commercial for human enhancement industries. At least that’s something that eventually becomes available to everyone.
What's the point of this post? You're missing the forest for the trees. It's like saying racing is driver against driver, not driver and car against driver and car. Motivation has NEVER made up for physical fitness, never will, and never should. The olympics are about the human body first.
I don't see the Olympics as a particularly "fair" sport in the first place, in the sense of "fair" meaning "without favoritism" because physical capability is a vast spectrum.
https://meduza.io/en/news/2026/04/16/report-fsb-unit-linked-...
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2026/04/15/russian-websites-b...
reply