X Close

Don't fall for Putin's enemies Westerners are deluded to expect the Kremlin's critics to be heroes

'I'm here to talk about trans-rights' (Photo by KIRILL KUDRYAVTSEV/AFP via Getty Images)

'I'm here to talk about trans-rights' (Photo by KIRILL KUDRYAVTSEV/AFP via Getty Images)


March 15, 2021   6 mins

Until recently I was under the impression that it was a bad thing for dictators to imprison their opponents on trumped-up charges. Indeed, I thought this was a principle that all right-thinking people could agree upon, even in these hyper-polarised times — that regardless of your beliefs, you shouldn’t be tossed in jail for opposing tyranny.

Then I learned that the moral philosophers at Amnesty International had discovered a distinction between “nice” dissidents and “not nice” dissidents, and that “not nice” dissidents do not deserve the title of “prisoner of conscience”. They are, it seems, simply prisoners — like people who get done for robbery or arson, presumably. I learned this, like so many others, when Amnesty stripped Alexei Navalny of the title of “prisoner of conscience” after it discovered what anybody who pays a modicum of attention to Russian politics has known for a really long time: that Vladimir Putin’s most indomitable opponent is a Russian nationalist who has used unsavory rhetoric when talking about immigrants. Not to worry, Amnesty explained in a rather desperate-sounding press release; they would continue to support Navalny, despite having just denounced him as an extremist and, in doing so, providing Putin with some rather excellent propaganda.

I suppose it’s theoretically possible that the good folks at Amnesty don’t read newspapers and know nothing about Russian politics. More likely, however (and despite their protestations to the contrary) they were caught off guard by a coordinated online campaign to discredit Navalny and panicked. Regardless, the fact that Navalny really is a Russian nationalist, and really did call for the expulsion of Georgians from Russia during the war in Ossetia, raises interesting questions. Who exactly do we in the West think we are cheering on when we venerate the opponents of despots we despise? And what do we think would happen if they ever came to power?

Navalny, unsurprisingly, is a product of his own culture, which makes it unlikely he would ever be a liberal democrat. Yes, the Russian opposition includes principled liberals, but most of us have not heard of them because their platform is incredibly unpopular within Russia. Anybody seriously looking to rally opposition to Putin is unlikely to latch on to ideas that were so thoroughly discredited by Yeltsin, the oligarchs and their Western enablers in the 1990s, when the president shelled his own parliament and male life expectancy dropped from 65 to 57.

At the start of his political career, Navalny joined what was possibly the “nicest” of all the liberal parties, Yabloko, which was led by Grigory Yavlinsky, a vocal critic of Yeltsin’s disastrous policies. Navalny was thus granted the privilege of drinking deep from the cup of abject failure: he was a member in 2003 when Yabloko fell just short of the 5% threshold that would have won the party seats in the Russian Parliament. He might still have been in 2007, when the party’s share of the vote fell to 1.6%, had he not been kicked out of the party a few months earlier for “nationalistic activities”.

Whether or not Yabloko were the victims of election fraud, as many argued, was beside the point: they were the poster children for the idea that nice guys finish last, especially in a system controlled by a ruthless operative such as Putin. And with the other opposition parties coopted by the Kremlin’s “managed democracy”, Navalny’s choices for political ideas around which to rally opposition to the corrupt elite were limited: either revanchist communism or some kind of nationalism.

Communism was a non-starter: not only was Navalny old enough to remember the rotted, senile variant of the ideology which had prevailed during his formative years, but the post-Soviet communist party was useless. Like Yabloko, it could never be mistaken as a serious vehicle of opposition, even if it was still able to rally armies of angry grannies to turn up for protests against the government.

Instead, he turned to nationalism. The field here was more open, with several parties vying for territory. Russia’s most famous nationalist politician, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, was a buffoon fully integrated into Putin’s corrupt system, and not to be taken seriously. Another nationalist, the scandalous author Edward Limonov of the National Bolshevik party, established his oppositional bona fides after a stint behind bars in the early 2000s for allegedly attempting to raise a militia to invade Kazakhstan.

Limonov, however, was too weird to become a mainstream phenomenon; he was a political provocateur who glamorised both Che and Khomeini, chanted “Stalin Beria Gulag!” at rallies and called for the introduction of polygamy to Russia. He also wrote lyrical memoirs, including one structured around his memories of bodies of water that had won a prestigious literary prize. Despite his weirdness, however, he succeeded in attracting young people to his party, and they won a reputation for their fearless opposition to Putin and his cronies.

Putin was also casting around for a founding ideology around this time, and likewise saw the attraction of nationalism. When he started to resurrect Soviet symbols, and “Volgograd” was replaced with “Stalingrad” at the eternal flame monument outside the Kremlin walls, this immediately led to anxiety among some Kremlinologists that Putin was out to restore the old USSR. This was naïve; Putin had no interest in taking back the Baltics or Central Asian Republics. He was, however, looking for a unifying idea that could inspire pride in all Russian citizens, and settled upon the USSR’s victory over Hitler in the Second World War.

Aside from the fact that “We beat Hitler” is always a winner, there was another appeal to this idea. Soviet propaganda had always stressed the multinational aspect of the Soviet war effort, that it was the combined forces of all the Soviet peoples that had brought down Nazism. If you visit the Republic of Kalmykia in southern Russia, for instance, you will see that the war monument in Elista, the capital, features not Slav faces but Mongolians — and this despite the fact that Stalin actually deported much of the population to Siberia during the War for fear that they were untrustworthy. It was easy for Putin to take this pre-established model and apply it to multiethnic Russia as the successor state.

With Putin having annexed the “imperial nationalist” position, and all other positions discredited in the eyes of voters, that left ethnic nationalism as the last powerful idea up for grabs. And that is what Navalny began to advocate, and continues to advocate unapologetically, because his main constituency is not Amnesty or western liberals but people inside Russia who are disgusted by Putin.

If Navalny’s politics were transplanted to the UK or US, they would most certainly offend all good progressive people — and so it was that Amnesty suddenly found itself embarrassed to be associated with them. But is it so surprising that dissidents we admire for their bold opposition to tyrants also hold ideas that would not win them invites to dinner parties at Martha’s Vineyard?

Consider the most celebrated of Russian dissidents, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. He was a man of ferocious principle and extraordinary bravery; but he was also a conservative Russian Orthodox nationalist who lambasted the West for its decadence and lamented the loss of Ukraine and Belarus following the dissolution of the USSR. Then there’s Lech Walesa, a devout Catholic and trade unionist who hated communism but may also have been a secret police informant. And this is to say nothing of the once-saintly Aung San Suu Kyi, or the once-upon-a-time heroic freedom fighter Robert Mugabe, or the Ayatollah Khomeini who was memorably described as “a Gandhi-like figure” by the US ambassador to Iran. We all know how well that one aged. In fact, with a few notable exceptions such as Nelson Mandela and Vaclav Havel, great dissidents often prove to be disastrous national leaders, at least as bad if not worse than the system they overthrew.

This is not to say that Navalny would be worse than Putin. In fact, Yevgenia Albats, a Russian liberal who has known Navalny since 2004, argues that his main political goal was always to win over moderate nationalists, and that he has expressed regret for his past rhetoric. But there can be little doubt that ethnic Russian nationalism is a potentially destabilising force in the country. The multinational USSR died in ethnic violence, and multinational Russia was born in ethnic violence, and when Putin came to power, he inherited the war in the Caucasus. He bought off some separatist leaders and killed others, but their submission is not permanent, and it is almost certain that once he exits the scene there will be some in the regions who will want to test the new leader.

How would a president Navalny handle that? Amnesty, of course, has done its bit to help Putin and make sure we never find out. But the truth is that even were he to be released from jail, Navalny is unlikely to ever be leader of Russia, and not just because of his criminal convictions. According to independent polling, the Russian public’s trust in him remained at a lowly 3% between 2017 and 2020.

Yet Navalny keeps on going, despite harassment of his family, a poisoning attempt, and now imprisonment. His hatred and contempt for Putin’s regime is so all-consuming that it exceeds his concern for his own safety. To become a dissident — a real, outspoken, vocal dissident — is an extreme act. Navalny is not some keyboard warrior or posturing faux-radical; he is hardcore. And that is the role of the Navalnys of the world — to be hardcore, to tell the truth, regardless of the consequences, while the rest of us keep our heads down. And given all the suffering that being a dissident entails, perhaps it’s asking a bit much that they make us like them too.


Daniel Kalder is an author based in Texas. Previously, he spent ten years living in the former Soviet bloc. His latest book, Dictator Literature, is published by Oneworld. He also writes on Substack: Thus Spake Daniel Kalder.

Daniel_Kalder

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

40 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
J Bryant
J Bryant
3 years ago

I just want to thank the author for providing some interesting insight into Russian politics.
The version of Russian politics we’re routinely fed in the West is so binary and childish (Putin = bad; enemies of Putin = good). There is a whole history behind what’s happening in Russia and few in the West understand that history. It probably also helps to remember that Russia has no democratic past. From a political perspective, they really are very different from the West.
So far as any Russian politician holding ideas “that would not win them invites to dinner parties at Martha’s Vineyard” goes, I can’t imagine that anyone in Russian politics could care less about what Massachusetts liberals think of them, given the sad condition of the USA in recent years.

Simon Denis
Simon Denis
3 years ago
Reply to  J Bryant

Well said. I would merely add that the article also tells us much about the narrow minded stupidity of the modern western elite, which no longer understands either liberty or conscience. A prisoner of conscience need not be someone of whose views you approve. If a communist state imprisons a Buddhist, you don’t have to share his religion to object, nor do you need to be a socialist to mind the incarceration of a trade union leader by a military junta. Second, the real ideological posture of modern Amnesty is exposed by its very partial retractions of support. It speaks no more for Navalny because he’s a nationalist, the ultimate heresy to the self-hating ideologues in charge of western nations; but it says little to criticise the South African government when it proposes the expropriation of land from “white” farmers – a clear case of economic persecution on racial grounds. The leading institutions of the west are in the hands of illiberal, coercive, authoritarian leftists who twist and sometimes abandon their duty in the name of a deranged Utopia, familiar to anyone versed in the history of the modern world. We must elect politicians with the will to restore those institutions to faithful custodians; and we should oblige the leftists to gain control – if they can – by democratic rather than secretive, conspiratorial means.

Natalija Svobodné
Natalija Svobodné
3 years ago
Reply to  Simon Denis

stupidity Greed and opportunism of the modern western political elite. They would make deals with anyone that will trade at the right price. Regardless on how we as citizens on either side feel about it. This is after all about resources, growth based economy wanting cheap goods and labour, with the big countries messily pushing each other around. GDP goes up either way, in war or trade.

Richard E
Richard E
3 years ago

None of our business, especially when we have little understanding of what’s happening, and what the consequences for us will be whoever keeps or gains power.
I wish Russia would see, they are a European country, and their long term future prosperity and security lies with the West – whoever rules.
We need to give Russia incentives to work with us.
In reality China is our biggest threat.
In reality China is Russia’s biggest threat.
We have a mutual long term interest.

Last edited 3 years ago by Richard E
Well Noted
Well Noted
3 years ago
Reply to  Richard E

At the Russian Olympics a few years ago, the entire floorshow cultural program was about the literary, artistic, musical, dance, and other fine arts and humanities for which Russia is renowned. Not long after, Putin made a very pointed, terse, public statement, “After all, Russia is part of Western civilization, and that shouldn’t be forgotten.” It seemed as if the ship of humanities had departed without Russia, and he feared he would get stuck in the Romanoff dynastic traditions of envying Western aristocracy. More recently, Putin allowed a video of himself bathing in the freezing waters of a cross-shaped pool, entering and exiting the frigid pool repeatedly to genuflect and then repeat and dive back in. There are several web platforms so good they are being taken down one-by-one, but with the best, creativedestructionmedia.com, still online with daily blockbuster exposes on US-Russian stories and analysis. The pieces for verifiable peace exist, but were taxed to the limit by the seditious Democrat bloc who kept us as bristling enemies with Russia through their evildoing intgrigues over the Clinton State Dept, the UraniumOne mess, and general incompetence one would expect of a political party made up of large children.

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
3 years ago
Reply to  Richard E

Given the relentlessly ignorant and hostile approach of the EU, NATO and the US to Russia, you can hardly blame the Russians for moving closer to China.

Last edited 3 years ago by Fraser Bailey
Richard E
Richard E
3 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

I know, but it’s a mistake for them, and a mistake for us.
In reality, there was a missed opportunity with Yeltsin, but as Russians relate to the West more than anywhere else, and its people look to be able to travel to, visit and do business with the West, we should still be able to make it work.

Chris Scott
Chris Scott
3 years ago
Reply to  Richard E

Once you get out of Moscow and Petersburg, Russia begins to look less Western. Beyond the Urals, Russia is Asia.

Richard E
Richard E
3 years ago
Reply to  Chris Scott

East of the Urals is their empire.

Charles Stanhope
Charles Stanhope
3 years ago
Reply to  Richard E

Well said, spot on!

Paul Marks
Paul Marks
3 years ago
Reply to  Richard E

This is true – and siding with China against the West is, perhaps, Mr Putin’s greatest mistake. Of course Puppet Biden made the same mistake long ago – and for base reasons (Mr Biden, via his family, was bribed).

Seb Dakin
Seb Dakin
3 years ago
Reply to  Richard E

That’s something Trump realised but he could hardly pursue detente with Russia once that whole Russia-gate circus got going. The Democrats threw their own country’s geopolitical interests under the bus for some short-term political traction.

James Clander
James Clander
3 years ago
Reply to  Richard E

Re Russia – -treat them with respect & not lies.
Re China – That’s BS! The NO 1 World enemy is the USA War Mongers. They have killed & injured untold millions & destroyed numerous Countries. China is no treat to Russia – they will work together against a common enemy. Wake TFU.

Aaron Kevali
Aaron Kevali
3 years ago

Nelson Mandela and the leadership post-Apartheid are not an exception, the ANC are far worse than their predecessors, with starvation, corruption, water shortages, systematic murders, lawlessness, etc. being far worse than under the white-led National Party. Sure the country may be on it’s way to becoming a failed state but but at least they’re not racist*
*They are actually racist but it’s against whites so therefore not a bad thing.

Natalija Svobodné
Natalija Svobodné
3 years ago
Reply to  Aaron Kevali

Nelson Mandela net worth of $10 million (where do you amass such a fortune?)… and sure he was a nice guy to some extent, but it shows how embedded corruption is. Nepotism, which is part and parcel of the South African government, is just an extension of tribalism.
https://theconversation.com/why-political-killings-have-taken-hold-again-in-south-africas-kwazulu-natal-143908

Last edited 3 years ago by Natalija Svobodné
mike otter
mike otter
3 years ago

Amnesty has been partisan and anti-western since the early 80s at least. Perhaps the useful idiots swallowed the race based theories of Edward Said. Perhaps its pragmatism considering Putin, Xi, MBS etc would be quite happy to do them harm. Its probably a mix of both but either way Amnesty is a spent force in the battle for Human Rights. Please remember this when they next beg for your cash.

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
3 years ago
Reply to  mike otter

Yes, back in the 1990s when still quite young I joined Amnesty. But I saw through them after a couple of years.

Miro Mitov
Miro Mitov
3 years ago

Navalny was never a serious contender for the leader of the opposition role in Russia, nor a valid alternative to Putin and for people in Russia his overhyping by the Western media was at first incomprehensible and then outright ridiculous. His most recent glamorisation and linking to the new rounds of sanctions against Russia have damaged his reputation among the majority of Russians beyond repair. ‘Hey, Vanya, let’s go and vote for the sanctions guy’ – how likely is that to be heard on elections day?  Nevertheless, his anticorruption credentials were useful to present Navalny as a sort of liberal enemy of Putin, in whose name pressure can be exerted on Russia in the form of sanctions. Now that he is outliving his usefulness the woke wolves have been set on him, he will be duly labelled racist, Russian nationalist and white supremacist, and cancelled. It is very likely that he will serve his full sentence behind bars and when he comes out he will hardly be relevant anymore. I wonder what his views will be on his Western ‘backers’ when he doses come out. Probably he will still hate Putin, but I doubt he will be thankful for the Western ‘support’.
The problem with understanding Russia in the West is that the entire narrative is driven by an the old ‘good vs evil, Democracy vs Communism’ worldview, with no room left for any serious considerations of the other side’s motives. Even when token effort is made to present the Russian side’s view, these are limited to propaganda pieces by the likes of Navalny and his aides, Anna Nemtsova and Konstantin von Eggert, who are hardly the speakers for the Russians as a whole. Yet theirs is the narrative that is most often heard I Western media. Just check the names of the Russian authors of articles about Russia in the Western newspapers- you will see that it is always the same few people. It is quite possible that this is indeed intentional, but if that is the case then we should not be surprised if the level of understanding between Russia and the West not only does not improve, but continues to deteriorate.

Geoffrey Simon Hicking
Geoffrey Simon Hicking
3 years ago

You say all this, yet it was Putin that allowed a sloppy assassination job to come within inches of poisoning hundreds of Western citizens in Salisbury. Russian subs are often found “accidentally” disturbing or damaging underwater communications cables. That is very much a Western concern. Should we give Russia something to get them to stop that? Sounds a bit wet liberal to me!
Even if Navalny is a rotter, let’s not go too far in the Beatrice Webb view of the world and acclaim Stalin for getting rid of all those social-fascists.

Ian Perkins
Ian Perkins
3 years ago

There’s precious little evidence Putin or the Russian state were behind the Salisbury affair, let alone that hundreds of UK citizens narrowly escaped being poisoned.

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
3 years ago
Reply to  Ian Perkins

I am relatively pro-Russian at the moment, but I would be the first to accept that the Russians were behind the Salisbury incident, and various other such incidents.
The fact is that the Russian state will go to the ends of the earth to take revenge on those that have crossed it. If your country is home to those people, these incidents will occur.

Ian Perkins
Ian Perkins
3 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

I don’t see myself as pro-Russian, but I see little evidence for Russia being behind the Salisbury affair. Новичо́к does have a certain Russian ring to it, the Skripals are Russian, and a couple of Russians were up to something in Salisbury that day. Beyond that, any number of Western agencies could have been behind it. They had access to novichoks, at least as much access to the Skripals as any Russian agents, and generally demonising Russia, if not something more specific, as a motive.
Like you, I can accept that the Russian state may have been behind the Salisbury incident, but I see no reason to rule out others.

Last edited 3 years ago by Ian Perkins
Paul Wright
Paul Wright
3 years ago
Reply to  Ian Perkins

I agree; I think the two Russians were duped to come over to sort a deal with Skripal who wanted to return home. They were set up. It’s not like they’re going to admit they were fooled is it?

Matt Hindman
Matt Hindman
3 years ago

Wow, you mean terrible people sometimes have terrible enemies? Let me pretend to be shocked!

Last edited 3 years ago by Matt Hindman
robert scheetz
robert scheetz
3 years ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

Exactly. Only to add that critiquing almost anybody from the perspective of the West is a moral imposture worthy of the Dunciad.

  1. For dissident treatment one need only cite extended torture and likely death of Julian Assange. Not even mentioning Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, etc..,
  2. On the head of imperial aggression nothing in all of history even remotely compares with the last 75 yrs of Western military savagery.
  3. Political governance: oligarchic rule is so thoroughly perfected in the US and its satellites hardly anyone even notices the gross violations of its own rules as in twice cheating Sanders of the nomination, and the 3 yr long attempted coup by the National Security Apparatus against Trump.
  4. Institutional corruption –Government, Courts, Military, Press, Universities– all abjectly subservient to the elite 1%.
  5. Morale: Jeffrey Epstein is the measure of the decadence of the Oligarchs and their managerial class; while the vulgarity of the popular culture is barnyard standard.
Paul Wright
Paul Wright
3 years ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

What’s so terrible about him?

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
3 years ago

Yes, I had learned from The Duran that Navalny is not all that the western media supposed him to be, and that he has little support in Russia. Of course, this is hardly surprising given that the western media is profoundly dim and deceitful. That said, I do have a Russian friend who is a keen supporter of Navalny. As for Amnesty, I was once a member, in the same way that I once gave to ‘charities’.
Funnily enough I recently read that very entertaining, novel-style version of Limonov’s life by Emmanuel Carrere.
I think the key line from the article is:
‘Yes, the Russian opposition includes principled liberals, but most of us have not heard of them because their platform is incredibly unpopular within Russia.’
I think the Russians (and the rest of us) look at the West and its leaders and see that they are incompetent, two-faced and, increasingly, not even liberal. If The Duran is to believed, the new US administration (The Blinken Project) is angling for a conflict, proxy or otherwise, with Russia in Syria or Ukraine. I would certainly be supporting Putin in any such conflict.

Last edited 3 years ago by Fraser Bailey
David McKee
David McKee
3 years ago

_Excellent_ article by Mr. Kalder. We in the West look at leaders and would-be leaders around the world, and expect to see people like ourselves – nice, liberal, well-meaning people who are devoted to the common good and willing to be voted out of power. How we deceive ourselves.

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
3 years ago
Reply to  David McKee

As we have seen in recent years, and particularly over the last 12 months, there is nothing ‘nice, liberal and well-meaning’ about Western leaders, never mind the rest of them,

Ian Perkins
Ian Perkins
3 years ago
Reply to  David McKee

We expect to see nice, liberal, well-meaning people like ourselves. How we deceive ourselves.
That could, and I think should, be read in more than one way.

Keith Merrick
Keith Merrick
3 years ago

Terrific piece. Interesting and realistic.

Paul Marks
Paul Marks
3 years ago

The modern West is in the grip of an ideology that makes no distinction between conservative nationalists such as Navalny, and totalitarian Nazis and Fascists. That is why organisations such a “Amnesty” will not call him a Prisoner of Conscience – which is what he is.
This refusal to see the difference between a conservative nationalist and a Nazi even makes the modern Western left (which has such power in the institutions) see no difference between Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler – once they find out that Churchill was a conservative nationalist (which he was). The modern left sees even Donald John Trump (a life long friend of the Jewish community, who is a boastful salesman – but is also surprisingly open handed with people in need) as “literally Hitler”.
Navelny does not want to exterminate other peoples, he just his own people (nation) to prosper. And nor does he want the government to control every aspect of society. In power Navelny would most likely be the democratic governments of Brazil, Hungary or Poland – but then demented people (such as those who whisper into the ear of the senile Mr Biden) regard them as “totalitarian regimes”. And Nevelny would not meddle in the affairs of other distant nations – as Putin does in the Middle East and elsewhere. An inward looking Russia that concentrated on developing its own Orthodox civilisation, might be no bad thing.

Matt Whitby
Matt Whitby
3 years ago

Russian people don’t want to be like us. It’s that simple. The problem then is they’ll be caught in the middle of the inevitable West Vs East economic war

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
3 years ago
Reply to  Matt Whitby

The East already appears to have won the economic, aided and abetted by the policies of the West’s politicians and the interests of the West’s financial and corporate bodies. And the Russians – at least under Putin – are too smart to be caught in the middle of anything. Right now, they are moving towards China, and you can’t blame them given the demented and counter-productive hostility of the EU, US and NATO towards Russia.

Last edited 3 years ago by Fraser Bailey
Matt Whitby
Matt Whitby
3 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

Seems to be the case in many respects but we don’t know what can happen in the next decade or so. The football league for example is on the verge of collapse due to overspending

Pierre Pendre
Pierre Pendre
3 years ago

In 1970-76 Walesa was an ordinary shipyard worker. Maybe he could have informed the SB (secret police) about the anti-communist sentiment among co-workers but what he said couldn’t have been worth much. If it were that the SB did sign him up, it would probably have been under duress. They did that to a lot of people. Walesa denied it happened and was cleared by the Polish courts but the smear is attached to him indelibly when he’s written about.
East European secret police were an active lot. The Stasi probably had more informers on their books than there were East Germans.
When I worked in Poland in the 1980s, a colleague came to me one day with his resignation because he’d had a visit from the SB who wanted inside knowledge about our office. I rejected the resignation and said I wasn’t surprised by the approach but trusted my colleague’s discretion.

David Otness
David Otness
3 years ago

Amnesty has received consistent funding from both Brit and U.S. intelligence agencies. Start from there, see if you can begin to figure out the games within games being played here. Navalny is connected to both as well. His education (including a stint at Yale) with Ivy League Establishment Cold Warrior policy-makers-in-the-making and his constant companion Maria Pevchikh—a well-funded and trained in colour revolutions veritable 21st century Mata Hari, make for further intersecting conclusions to be assayed.
Canadian Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland’s Ukrainian origins (her grandfather who was allowed to escape to Canada following WW II was a prominent Nazi propagandist,) only truly rose to the heights following über con man’s Bill Browder’s insertion of the “Magnitsky Act” into western parliaments of prominence after which, rather than pay US taxes, he chose to join his fellow Russian oligarchs in Belgravia after poisoning the waters internationally to cover his own $ billions of miscreant tax-avoidance in Russia. His *plight* oh-so fits the Cold War 2.0 necessary narrative.
Off-topic? Hardly. Merely right up there with Eliot Higgins’ rise to “trending’ status. Even unto these pages. There is a big picture here. Don’t get misled by the minor players du jour and their ‘details’ which the msm pounds into our waking hours so very incessantly.

Richard C
Richard C
3 years ago

For some more background, the following is interesting reading. https://thegrayzone.com/2021/02/20/reuters-bbc-uk-foreign-office-russian-media/ Navalny is referenced towards the end. All publications on the subject need to be taken with some salt, quite a lot usually, but it is certainly a very troubling piece.

Ian Perkins
Ian Perkins
3 years ago
Reply to  Richard C

I’d want a hefty dose of something a lot stronger than salt to believe Western agencies weren’t ‘meddling’ in Russia.

James Clander
James Clander
3 years ago

The British Govt has ahard on to denigrade Russia at every opportunity & does so with totally fabricated & laughable lies. The trouble is that many people belive the lies & think of Russians as monsters. The same lies are repeated here in Australia where we are unfortunately part of the 5 Eyes War mongers. 5 Eyes need an Enemy & Russia & China are the targets.
In my opinion Putin is the best & smartest leader in the World. If it wasn’t so cold there I’d think of immigrating.