Premise: it is not on me to comment on Russia’s internal matters. I believe the Russians are perfectly capable to decide for themselves, who’s going to lead their country. I don’t contest the Russians their choice of placing Putin in power (because contrarily to what Western media tells us, Putin does enjoy popular support in his own country). When I comment on Russia I merely comment what Russia does on the international stage - wether they keep their commitments, wether they start demented global wars (can you even imagine Putin trying to convince the Russian population that we’ve got to declare war to Terror, and Terror can be anywhere, hence expect our army to have to invade and conquer any land, where we decide that Terror hides? Not a chance that he could finish the sentence before the population would start rolling on the floor with laughters), wether they’re trying to rule my own country (my own countries I guess) and wether they’re a danger to global stability or not. BUT, in this case, I will make an exception, because as I mentioned, the pawn is being used as an excuse for Europe to not keep their business commitments with Russia (which affects economically my country Finland, as a part of the pipeline is laid under Finnish waters, which means that when the project is completed, the Finnish State will increase its revenues, which is undoubtedly positive in the midst of an economic recession of gargantuan proportion). More in general, Navalny's current plan seems to be to damage and weaken EU-Russia relations; hence, it is within my right to complain about him, his actions, and his stances.
In this piece I'll outline first, why Navalny's popularity is Western, more than Russian; we'll then give an overview of the alleged poisoning, we'll briefly discuss why there seem no actual scientific grounds on the fact that a WMDs was used, then we'll see how Germany breaches international law, and finally, we'll discuss what seemed to have actually have happened, and we'll give an overview over Western interferences in Russia.
So let’s go.
1) Navalny is a political non-entity in the Russian political panorama
The first time I realised that the aura of heroism of Navalny was completely fabricated, it was because I noticed the discrepancies in between Finnish and Italian press. While all public national broadcasters have to engage in pro-NATO / pro-US reporting (you can actually notice the consistency in rhetoric across channels and across countries) it would seem clear to me that some nations like collaborating with NATO more than others; and in fact we see how the Finns lie a lot, especially about Russia, while the Italians stubbornly persevere in occasionally telling the truth. Finnish YLE has been calling Navalny “the Russian main opposition leader” while Italian RAI has called him a blogger, an activist, a dissident, a high-profile dissident and similar things (and we recall how RAI's correspondent from Moscow goes around freely writing that Russiagate was politically motivated and not proved). Now, this Navalny has polled at 3% for the past decade (and we need to note how it is Levada Centre, a statistical institution which gets funds by the West, and has been declared a "foreign agent" by the Kremlin who gives us this numbers, so even Western readers should trust it); so he’s obviously not the opposition leader (no hei YLE mä haluaisin vaan tietää, että onko “Liike nyt” Suomen tärkein oppositiopuolue??? mitä v*ttua). The other interesting thing about this individual, is that while he is hailed as a Glorious Western-style Liberal, he was in fact expelled by liberal / left wing / pro-European Union party Yabloko in 2007 because of his numerous xenophobic statements and his mingling with nationalists; and you can see him on video advocating for violence both against the government and against other Russian minorities (which is, IMHO one of the reasons why he has hardly any support, as the Russian population is a largely peaceful population). Another thing which is interesting, is that he ran for Mayor of Moscow back in 2013, and the Muscovites didn’t even bother going out to vote (United Russia’s candidate, Sobyanin, won the elections, but the total turnout was 30%, so, literally the people didn’t even bother to go out and vote for him). And it is understandable, as he doesn’t seem to have any actual political program or anything. He has carried on one major anti-corruption investigation, and some subsequent minor investigations on corruption, which people appreciated, but this has apparently not being enough to earn him the population’s liking (it did create some anti-establishment sentiment though). And I did read some of his posts, and I have to say, that he's making Russia look very mundane; there is probably some Italian-style corruption, but nothing on the level of the United States or Germany (who we recall used public money to foment the civil war in Syria and give weapons and training to the "moderate" opposition in order to overthrow the Syrian government).
His main success seems to have been in relation to creating a “smart-voting” system; so him and his people would individuate which candidate was most likely to beat United Russia’s and vote for them (which showcases, if anything, that he really doesn’t have any proposals for the country; it’s just “whoever, as long as it’s not United Russia”).
So this person, who’s a political non-entity in Russia, is hailed as “Putin’s main opponent” by Western media (and I would guess that he was chosen for his good looks, wasn’t he? And obviously, also because the real Russian opposition to Putin’s United Russia wouldn’t really be liked by the Westerners - there’s the Communist Party, the ultra-nationalist Liberal Democratic Party of Russia and the far smaller democratic-socialist Fair Russia (only the Communists have an English language page); if only the Westerners would know, that Putin is the moderate one in the country). And moreover; left-wing, pro-European parties do exist in Russia (like the aforementioned Yabloko); the issue there is that no one votes them. And this is not unbelievable; I am a European Union citizen and I believe that the European Union is trying with all means to screw Russia over, and some Russians must have noticed that for themselves. They're Russian, not stupid.
To give a parallel, we might recall how the Movement Five Stars in Italy was born out of the anti-establishment push brought on by comedian Beppe Grillo; he had these “Vaffanculo Days” when he would just organise rallies to tell the government to fuck off, fundamentally (Fuck the banks! Fuck the political caste! Clean Parliament! Corrupt politicians out of the Parliament!). Yet Beppe Grillo realised, that simply raising the middle finger to the establishment wouldn’t have been enough to change anything; and thus the M5S was born, and they created a political program which people could believe in, and vote for (they were a complete scam, obviously, and they're now as inefficient as the rest of the bunch). This Navalny however, seems to be stuck at the “vaffanculo” part, really. Hence the low popular support is completely understandable.
So we seem to have, politically, someone who doesn't have any party in Russia who's willing to work with him anymore (as we will see, even his main financier is running to publicly distance himself from Navalny, even though there is reason to believe that they still work together) ; we have someone who doesn't have the support (or really the interest) of the population. We have someone who needs to be rescued here, haven't we?
From Time magazine, July 15, 1996. Although the article is not accessible anymore on Time website, there is a copy of the magazine archived at the internet archive
2) Am I supposed to believe that the Russian Security Service (FSB) is run by complete demented idiots or what?
So we get to the “poisoning” (sic). This story is just so narratively non-sensical, that if I was sitting in a cinema watching this spy-movie, I'd be asking for my money back out of indignation. Secret Services, in theory (or practice), have a wide array of ways to kill "undesirables"; they can for example shoot them from roofs, burn their apartments, place dynamite under their cars, shoot down the plane they're travelling in, putting effective poison (like arsenic, for example) in their food; they can follow them in the subway and push them under an incoming train. In the West, they just torture them openly for years. In Russia, however, they apparently try to kill people by spraying around forbidden chemical WMDs as liberally as I spray perfume on myself before I go out for a Saturday evening party. Is your budget so low that you can't even afford guns anymore, poor things?
After the Secret Services (following orders from the government of course) sprayed some WMDs over the Holy Martyr's hotel room in Tomsk (Siberia), and he felt bad on a plane (20th of August 2020), the Russian government, instead of letting the Martyr die on the plane, did everything they could to save him. The plane he was traveling onto conducted an emergency landing (do you do an emergency landing every time a passenger feels bad, in Russia, or was it special treatment for Navalny?) in the city of Omsk, and this notwithstanding the fact that a server from Germany warned of a bomb threat in the airport; he was looked after by Russian doctors in Omsk for two days in the city's hospital (couldn't the Secret Services send someone to finish him off there, if they wanted him dead so badly? You just send a spy in, and you pull the plug. Or you just send an agent in his room and smother him with a pillow. Or you just order the doctors to let him die, with one swift call from the omnipotent Kremlin. Et voila', dead). And after all this assassination mismanagement, the Russian government even allowed him to be flown to Germany, on the 22nd of August 2020, for further care (now, if they indeed had poisoned him, why would they have sent him to Germany? To allow the heroic German Secret Services to declare he was poisoned?).
The Saintly Marionette was thus transported to Germany where the Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, declared him her personal guest (pity you don't care about Assange but yes, Navalny is uncovering corruption in Russia, while Assange is uncovering war crimes in the Middle East, definitely one is more worth of your attention than the other). In the matter of days, on the 25th of August, the verdict was in; the Saintly Marionette was poisoned with the super-secret, totally unknown to the West, Soviet Novichok. They swiftly and quickly recognised how the super-secret, never seen by the West nerve agent was structured and they saved the Marionette. Ah, the heroes, the geniuses! For two years they've been telling us how secret and unknown Soviet Novichok is, yet in August they managed not only to recognise it, but to map its chemical composition and save the Saint in just three days. Amazing, isn't it? Almost unbelievable I daresay.
But in any case, thanks to the heroic prowess of the German and Swedish laboratories (who have already distinguished themselves for their work in discovering Assange's crimes) the truth came out; the Russian Secret Services are fully inefficient and the whole of the Kremlin is run by headless chickens. If they can't even kill one man, they're obviously not a threat to anyone. I mean imagine these idiots trying to run an entire intercontinental torture operation, like the CIA does. They cannot kill one person in their own country, can you imagine them trying to transport from abroad and torture multiple individuals at once? (are you going to be offended now, FSB? Shall I be worried you'll send the GRU to have a Novichok-party at my place?).
What came after the verdict was a farce deign of Goldoni, or Molière. A comedy of errors where the errors were committed on purpose, and the misunderstandings were created ad hoc.
The story the Western countries proposed us is that the Russian secret services placed some Novichok in a plastic bottle, Navalny drunk from it, and he went into a coma.
Yet, this version of the story doesn't even make any sense. We'll address the logical-causal narrative fallacies first, and then we'll analysed how did the diplomatic exchanges during the aftermath developed; and we'll see, who is really the party not respecting international law.
3) Why is this story narratively absurd?
Apparently the chemical weapon produced for mass murdering (we recall that originally Novichok was produced by the Soviet Union with the aim of bypassing NATO’s anti-gas equipment, back in the 80’s) was simply placed on a water bottle in Navalny’s hotel room. This hyper-poisonous substance has been lying around the hotel for days, then it has been apparently carried off from Tomsk to Novosibirsk in a car, it then travelled on a commercial flight, from Novosibirsk to Omsk and then (apparently) travelled on the German planes, to finally land in Berlin to be analysed by German secret services and whatnot - in a plastic bottle. IN A PLASTIC BOTTLE. A poison specifically created to kill people even when they were wearing anti-gas equipment has been just carried off and traveled thousands of kilometres in a plastic bottle, and no one of those who were around this WMD felt even a bit bad. And Navalny, who has apparently been directly exposed to this bottle poisoned with a substance which is estimated to be 7 or 8 times more poisonous than the poison that North Korean leadership (allegedly) used for assassinations, just woke up and did not have any significant damage to his nervous system (as he was doing photo ops from the hospital, and he has now even been discharged, and goes on with his life happily).
According to the BBC, there are two different types of nerve agents; those like Sarin, which are broken down in water (= they lose efficiency when mixed with water, but can resist in the environment for years after they've been spread in dry environment) while the other type the "VX", "persistent" type, of which Novichok is part, lingers in the air for hours, and requires full body anti-gas coverage to be worn in order to get close to the zone where it is spread to find its container, which remains fully poisonous for an undetermined amount of time. An expert in toxicology interviewed by the BBC claims that:
"More persistent" nerve agents were produced to enable the military to contaminate areas for some time - thereby denying access to the enemy unless suitably clothed in protective gear.
The recent hot weather in the UK illustrates how difficult it would be for soldiers to operate in such an environment.
Those involved in searching for the Novichok container were able to remain in their protective suits for only about 30 minutes at a time.
(red highlight mine)
And yet, this nerve agent just lingered in a plastic bottle for days in a hotel room first, and was transported in a plastic bottle for thousands of km after, without anyone wearing any anti-gas equipment around it, and we repeat, no one got armed. And even more that this; a research paper thrown out specifically to tell us how Bad Russian Gas Attacks are, claims that the Skripals survived only because it was straight away understood, that they were poisoned with a (super secret) nerve agent. Yet, Navalny was in a Russian hospital how long, two days (the exact amount of time should be 40 hours, if I recall correctly)? So either the Russians themselves knew that he was poisoned with Novichok and were treating him for it already (which would imply that Putin doesn't have all of that power over everyone, as they tell us it's him who wanted Navalny dead, yet a bunch of doctors apparently defied his "assassination orders" and saved him) or what are we talking about here?
And then, no report actually says that it was Novichok; they say that they found traces of a "cholinesterase inhibitor". This substance is a chemical compound which is present, besides in nerve agents, in Alzheimer's medications, insecticides and other household items. It is a substance which breaks down enzymes in the body.
Now an additional layer of ridiculous related to this poisoning is that the OPCW itself claims:
This cholinesterase inhibitor is not listed in the Annex on Chemicals to the Convention.
so we see that even the OPCW itself says that the substance provided by German and Swedish laboratories contains traces of what could be or could not be a nerve agent devised for mass killings.
And by logic now we shall ask, given the information provided by BBC and the information provided by the OPCW report itself - if the chemical WMD has been in a non-sealed plastic container for days, the plastic container has even been opened (he has drunk from it, thus releasing the chemical agent into the air), and if it has been carried off in a car first, and in a commercial plane after, without killing anyone who stood around it (and chemical WMDs are designed exactly to maximise the killing) then how it is even a WMD (weapon of mass destruction)? Where is the mass destruction part of it? One dude drank from a bottle and he felt bad. At max what they're describing is a poison, but not a WMD. Because no one of those who was around the WMD (hotel personnel, the witnesses who stole the "murder weapon" and carried it off to Germany, the airport security, the other passengers on the commercial flight, etc) actually felt even a bit bad. And that's not how a WMD works. Even according to the OPCW itself:
Screenshot from the OPCW's explanatory page on chemical weapons
And here we need to once again ask ourselves how did the FSB fail so spectacularly to kill Navalny, when this agent is so potent that just milligrams are needed to kill. So they introduced themselves in the room and they decided that "less is more"? You see very well, that this is a situation coming out of a comedy of errors!
This is how, according to Western "experts", Novichok has been not only given to Navalny, but this is how the chemical WMD has been transported for thousands of kilometers, without of course, contaminating anyone. Has anyone died in the hotel where the dangerous Novichock stained container has been lying for days? Maybe they have anti-gas doors? (Source, Der Spiegel)
But of course we should believe it, because Sweden confirmed it. Sweden, the country which, according to the world leading expert on torture, the UN Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer (who reports directly to the UN secretary general) has completely fabricated the rape accusation against Julian Assange in order to psychologically torture him and punish him for having uncovered war crimes committed against civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq by America. This is why it is important we believe Sweden - Sweden is a good American who loves the war and she is always ready to help in covering up war crimes. So if Sweden is saying that Navalny was poisoned by Russia, we should doubt it even more, because Sweden has a proven track-record of lying to favour American warmongering policies.
And there is more than this; while Western media in general is claiming that only the USSR was in posses of the original Novichok, and that Novichok is super-secret and totally unknown to Western countries, according to independent.ie (the Irish seem to be another population which occasionally manages to tell the truth, they’re just counting on the fact that no one is paying attention to them perhaps) and even according to Reuters, Germany obtained a sample of Novichock in the early 90’s and passed it on to Sweden “to be analysed”. When contacted by the Independent, Germany’s secret services BND refused to comment (surprise surprise).
Just in case: here is a screenshot of the aforementioned article on Reuters.
Just in case: here is a screenshot of the aforementioned article on the Irish Independent
4) The aftermath: diplomatic misdeeds and accusations with zero proof
When you have a trial, in a tribunal, there is a an accuser and an accused; the prosecution normally presents their case first, showcases all of the proof they gathered and the witnesses to the judge; then the defence has the chance to rebut and disproof the theory of the prosecution. That, in a normal tribunal; yet, there is a certain Kafkian flavour to the way Germany has accused and condemned Russia, without presenting any proof, without allowing access to any witness, and by breaching the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters.
So Germany, France and Sweden stated they knew it was the Russian government who poisoned Navalny. They said they had proof (the blood analyses) they said they had witnesses (Navalny's team, who transported the murderous plastic bottles containing the WMD with no precaution). Yet, when Russia asked, as it was their right given the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, to be able to access both the analyses and the witnesses, to see and hear for themselves what exactly did they stand accused of, Germany denied them this right. A bunch of Russian citizens are just kept somewhere, in secret, by Germany and the Russians cannot even have access to them to hear what these Russian citizens have to say about the matter (in the era of Zoom-ubiquity, Germany could make an effort to organise a video call, in compliance with the European Convention). Russian doctors also had blood analyses done on Navalny (in the two days he was in a hospital in Russia) and they offered to compare their analyses with the German ones; but the Germans are not interested in cooperating with the Russians at all, in blatant and obvious breach of international law.
To make matters more complicated, notwithstanding the fact that German and Swedish national laboratories carried on the analyses, Germany called on the OPCW to "manage" the matter (and I'll start mentioning here, and I'll elaborate further on, that the OPCW has been rocked by a huge scandal in connection with fabricating proof for the Douma attacks; here an interview with Bustani, the first OPCW Secretary General, who was ousted following threats from the US shortly before the illegitimate Iraq war started; and here some excellent material over the Douma attack itself). So the Russians contacted Germany, and they were told to go to the OPCW; they contacted the OPCW, and they were told that it was a German matter, and to contact the Germans. This is what Russian foreign minister Lavrov says about the matter:
We are required to conduct an investigation. No facts are provided to us. Claiming that this case is no longer bilateral, but international, Germany sent it to the OPCW. “They told them everything, they know everything there.” We file an inquiry with that organisation. First, they lied to us that Germany’s request had not been received and later admitted that it had. They reviewed the request for a month. In the end, they released a fairly short and dry statement to the effect that the discovered substance looked like something. They did not say “Novichok,” but the agent is not on the list of banned substances. When we asked if they could clarify what they had found and where the results of the analysis were, we were told that the request came from Germany, so this is a “German case,” and we need to “go to the Germans.” We went back to the Germans, and again, round and round the story goes.
A farce, fundamentally.
Dissident left-wing journalist Aaron Mate' comments on the UNSC trying to stop investigations over the OPCW's questionable conduct and lost impartiality
And now Russia has been found guilty, without any real trial; they are told "well defend yourselves" but they have nothing to go on about defending themselves with, because they don't have access to the very same proofs and witnesses which, according to Germany and Sweden, prove their guilt. Kafkian, as I mentioned.
Let's make a more a down-to earth example on what happened: someone accuses you of having poisoned their cat. You get a lawyer, of course, to defend yourself from the accusation, but the police refuses to tell you on the basis of what you're being accused. "We just know it's you". Then they prevent your lawyer from seeing the statement of the accusers; they say that they have witnesses, but they don't release the witnesses' statements to you; they don't even show you the cat's body and they don't release the cat's autopsy. The day of the trial, the prosecution comes in, and they say to the Judge: "well judge, as we told you, we have all of the proof, and animal protection agrees with our proof, so let's just send this sicko to jail". And the Judge says to your lawyer "do you have anything to say about this?" and your lawyer replies "Judge, we don't know what to go on about given that the prosecution refused to show the cat's corpse, the cat's autopsy, and they refused to present any witnesses or to share with us on the basis of what they are accusing my client" and the judge says "well, it is not necessary for you to know what the prosecution has on you. You should have investigated the matter yourself. GUILTY. Now cooperate with animal protection to see how many cats you've killed, you sicko cat murderer". EH.
Now let's try to quickly analyse the legitimacy of Germany's actions, under the framework of international law and proper investigation practices. Russia is presented with an accusation; in order to defend themselves, they have to be able to investigate the matter. Yet, Navalny is in Germany chilling and giving interviews to major Western outlets, not in Russia; the associates who removed the bottle (Vladlen Los, Maria Pevchikh and Georgy Alburov) ran off to Germany and are unavailable (hidden by the German government); and the German and Swedish laboratories which conducted the analyses refuse to provide the "proof" they allegedly have (the blood analyses and the "murder Weapon"). So how is Russia going to be able to conduct any investigation when Germany has all the proof? Go to OPCW, they say, but it is not the OPCW which carried on the investigation. Germany (and Sweden, and also France) have. So it is not the OPCW which needs to cooperate, it is Germany who needs to respect international law and cooperate with Russia in this matter, by presenting the witnesses, the analyses, and more in general by collaborating as prescribed by the Convention.
And this is confirmed by the European Union herself. In the decision recently published (when they imposed sanctions on few Russian individuals) we see the situation described as such:
As we se here, at point 4, official EU legislation says, that Germany carried on an investigation relating to a crime which which is under the jurisdiction of Russia (which they had no right to do, because it is not Angela Merkel who is the President of Russia and it is not the BND who has investigative rights in the Russian Federation). So Germany has in their possession the blood analyses, the "victim", the witnesses, the "murder weapon" and they are not letting Russia see any of these "proofs" they have. In point 5, they say that given the fact that Germany carried on an investigation relating to something that is NOT under their jurisdiction, and they found them guilty Russia needs to "cooperate" with a third institution, the US-controlled OPCW. So while they're saying that Russia needs to "investigate" the matter and "find the truth" independently, what they're really saying is "we found you guilty on the basis of a series of proof which we don't want to show neither to you, nor to anyone else. Now that you've been found guilty without due process, you need to redeem yourself by going to this other institution, which we control, and submit to their will".
And they have been planning this very carefully; as their whole point was to transform a matter which was in the jurisdiction of Russia in an international matter, so that they can try to send some "inspectors" into Russia, and accuse them of whatever they want, thus creating animosity in between the population of Russia and the government of Russia, in primis, and paving the way for more punitive action, secondly. But the point remains - all of the proof is in Germany's possession, and they don't want to show them to anyone. Which for what concerns me it just means, that Germany has fabricated the whole story. PROOF OR GTFO, isn't that what they used to say on internet forums, Merkel?
And Germany is breaching international law here, not Russia. Because Germany cannot single handedly declare that they conducted an internal Russian investigation from Germany, and they cannot stonewall the Russian investigation itself. Let's see what is the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, and let's see why Germany is behaving in a wildly illegitimate manner. The Convention is a treaty signed in 1959 by the countries part of the Council of Europe, in order to strengthen trust and foster cooperation, as it is stated in its preamble:
Considering that the aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve greater unity among its members;
Believing that the adoption of common rules in the field of mutual assistance in criminal matters will contribute to the attainment of this aim; [...]
In simple words, this treaty delineates the legal framework around which one state (referred in the treaty as "requesting party") can ask for help to another state (called in the treaty as the "requested party") in order to carry on internal investigations, in the case where another state would have the possibility to do so (so for example, if a witness runs off to another state, the requesting party can ask the requested party to provide the witness). In article 1, in fact, it is stated that:
The Contracting Parties undertake to afford each other, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention, the widest measure of mutual assistance in proceedings in respect of offences the punishment of which, at the time of the request for assistance, falls within the jurisdiction of the judicial authorities of the requesting Party.
So we see that the Russian authorities are here referring to the correct legal framework; as the crime was (allegedly) committed in Russia, hence the investigation is an internal investigation. In this sense we already can mention how arrogant the German authorities are; it is not on Germany to investigate Russian internal matters and "punish the criminals"; it is Russia, who has the right, as a sovereign country, to be ale to carry on investigations on an alleged crime which happened inside her national territory.
The treaty specifies all the procedures by which documents, proof and witnesses can be provided from one state to another (how to request them, how to comply with the requests, exceptions, etc).
As soon as one reads the treaty text, one can straight away understand that there is indeed some shady, sketchy and underhanded action being committed by the German state. The convention in fact states:
Assistance may be refused:
a. if the request concerns an offence which the requested Party considers a political offence, an offence connected with a political offence, or a fiscal offence;
the Russian authorities have been requesting assistance from Germany already five times (August 27 and September 14, 24 and 28, 2020), and the replies they've been getting, as stated by multiple Russian officials, hinted to the fact that it was the OPCW they had to talk to, not Germany (under the legal framework, "this is an international matter not a bilateral matter" they said).
Now, if this would have indeed been a political offence (a crime committed by the Russian government to further its political objectives), the position of the European Union and of Germany, would be that Germany doesn't have to comply with the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters because this is a political offence, but as we've seen, that's not their position; their position is "go to the OPCW, who has confirmed Germany's analyses (which you can see only in a reduced form, available from a third institution)". And in this sense now finally I get to hammer the Holy Pawn himself, as in his blog he states:
Гражданин Навальный через своего представителя подает в суд на бездействие следователя. Суд гражданину Навальному отказывает. Понятно, почему: нельзя же расследовать преступление, совершить которое велел президент страны. Даже признать факт преступления нельзя, ведь иначе я смогу знакомиться с материалами, экспертизами и тд
Translation (with online translator): Citizen Navalny, through his representative, sues the investigator's inaction. The court refuses to citizen Navalny. It is clear why: you cannot investigate the crime ordered by the president of the country. You can't even admit the fact of a crime, because otherwise I will be able to get acquainted with the materials, examinations, etc.
And I would like to answer him that,
Ohi Navalny, guarda che le prove ce le ha tutte la Germania; sicche' invece di lamentarti con Putin, vai a chiedere a Frau Merkel di darti le prove, e gia' che ci sei falle vedere anche a noialtri
(translation: Ohi Navalny, you see very well that the the proofs are all on Germany's hands, so instead of complaining to Putin, go ask to Frau Merkel to give you all of the proof, and as you're at it, show them to us all as well -- translation in Russian, made with online translator: Навальный, вы очень хорошо видите, что все доказательства находятся в руках Германии, поэтому вместо того, чтобы жаловаться Путину, обратитесь к фрау Меркель с просьбой предоставить вам все доказательства, и пока вы это сделаете, покажите их всем нам как Что ж)
Citizen Navalny; the witnesses the Russian authorities need to interrogate are not at the OPCW like the Germans claim, they are not in Russia, like you claim, they are being kept hidden in Germany (and one of them might be in the UK, actually). The laboratory which carried on the blood analyses is not the OPCW laboratory, it is not a Russian laboratory, it is a German military laboratory (with the help of a Swedish and French laboratory). But you know all this, isn't it Citizen Navalny, because it is in Germany that Citizen Navalny is being hosted as a "personal guest of the Chancellor". So citizen Navalny, stop bullshitting us all, will you?
Moreover, as this is an American matter (as they've been for long now tried to avoid any kind of partnership in between Russia and the EU), it is very indeed very likely that besides Germany, Sweden, France, and the other handful of Good Vassals, the other European countries are being kept in the dark (or they're just told what to say, and that's it). And we know, because in the joint press conference Di Maio - Lavrov in Moscow, Lavrov at some point says:
[...] as we know, during a Monday meeting of the EU Foreign Affairs Council, the participants discussed the need for imposing sanctions, but Mr Borrell assured me that before such a decision can be made, it is imperative to study the facts that Germany and France promised to provide as part of a certain technical group that is now being created. We very much hope that these facts will be presented not only to a narrow group of European countries, but also directly to the party that is being, without proof, accused of all conceivable sins and crimes.
and this seems to be a pretty correct reading of the internal dynamic of the EU. it is the Good Vassals who run the show, and they're the in-crowd, the ones who organise the civil wars, the torture of journalists and who even more irritatingly than that, they're the ones who commit all of these atrocities and then dare to lecture other countries about minor stuff (I mean Germany complains about Italy's mismanagement of public funds while they're using public money to keep a war going? Give me a break).
So now we have established that the Navalny case is not an internally political case, because if it was, Germany (and Sweden and France) who all received multiple requests for cooperation from Russia, would have replied so; but they did not (and we stress, Germany was requested five times and not once did they claim so, so now it's too late for that, Germany, you set your case already). It is, however, a political case, in the sense, that this is about a bunch of aggressive countries who are trying to interfere with the internal matters of Russia.
In a last instance, I would like to know wether it wouldn't be Germany, Sweden and France who should be investigated in regards to their military laboratories by the OPCW; they seem to be such experts, they definitely are conducting illegal activities in those countries. And more that this; we have Germany who praises and hangs around with the neo-Nazis in Ukraine, we have Germany who is running a rehearsal of Operation Barbarossa, we have Germany who obviously has researched a lot in chemical weapons in their military labs, and as a European, I need to be more afraid of Russia than I am of Germany?
5) Cui Prodest?
The Martyr has given an interview to Der Spiegel, where he claims that Vladimir Putin is so afraid of his 3% approval rating in Russia that he had to create a diplomatic incident and put the country at risk of more sanctions just to prevent him from going around saying that "Putin is Bad", which in itself is ridiculous, because Navalny's blog is available to read for the population already. Everyone heard what he had to say, and they still don't plan on voting for him. He states:
I have never been closely associated to Germany
Yet, Alexey, Germany is closely associated to the United States, perhaps you also read the joint Obama/Merkel op-ed "Stronger Together, Alexey? You don't even get the basics of the Transatlantic Alliance and you want to lead Russia? Are you sure you're qualified enough? And in fact Kremlin spokesperson Peskov didn't call you a BND pawn, he called you a CIA stooge, which is realistic given the EU's in general and Germany's in the specific complete subservience to the United States. So you being in Germany is no proof that you're not a pathetic little Western pawn, Alexey. Even though truth be told, this Navalny is not only associated to one Western country or agency; he is embedded in what I will keep on calling a circolo mafioso, a mafia-style circle, financed and pushed by both foreign governments and ex-oligarchs, who all work towards delegitimising the lawful government of Russia in order to take power themselves.
And I do believe the Russian authorities are actually investigating this as well; and they apparently had some kind of a lead, and a witness, but the witness set herself on fire. And we know that when witnesses set themselves on fire, it is not because of the prosecution, it is because they are afraid of what the defendant might do to them, or to their families, if they do testify (or this is the logical connection I make here; as I was born and grew up in Italy). On the 2nd of October 2020, independent journalist Irina Slavina, who ran the website koza.press, set herself publicly on fire in the city of Nizhny Novgorod; on her Facebook page, she claimed "I ask that the Russian Federation be blamed for my death". Now, this fact is very interesting, because this journalist was present to an underground meeting which happened in April 2019, the Free People Forum. This meeting's happening was apparently facilitated by a local businessman called Iosilevich, who is a the head of the "Golos" (voice) association; and the BBC itself claims that representatives of the organisation Open Russia were present at the forum.
The day before Slavina set herself on fire, Iosilevich, couple of his associates and couple of Navalny's associates were arrested; and authorities searched Slavina's house and called her in as a witness in connection to these events. EH. This is indeed very suspicious; because by logic, it would seem that this journalist, wether willingly or unwillingly, got to know something about something these people (Iosilevich&associates, Navalny's associates) were doing recently, together who put her in the position that death was better than giving testimony. And the investigation's timing seems to suggest that rather than caring about the Free People's forum in itself, which happened in 2019, and was about how to "monitor" the elections, it would seem to me, they were investigating something that the friends of this Iosilevich together with couple of Navalny associates, were doing around the second part of 2020, contextually / in or around to the regional elections which happened in September 2020, where by the way, establishment parties (partIES) won the overwhelmingly majority of the votes).
This "Golos" is an "NGO" which receives funds from both the European Union and the United States, and the EU herself seems to be proud of it, for some reason (does Russia fund NGOs who monitor the democratic process in the EU, by the way? And if they would, how would that be taken by the EU?); their aim is officially to monitor elections, but there is reason to believe that they train "activists" to fabricate the suspicion of fraud on social media, rather than actually monitoring anything. They also use a program, called Golos as well, which uses photos of ballots uploaded by "activists" which are then used to contest the official statistics. Now, while I haven't seen the app / software, coming from the field of media, I would say that this sounds very suspicious - you get one empty ballot image and you can easily create hundreds of thousands of them, yes, even with brand new metadata). No wonder they were praised by OSCE as it is "NGOs" like this which allow Western countries to try to overthrow legitimate governments in one way or another, like for example the US's "NGOs" whose trucks were full of weapons which were trying to get into Venezuela in 2019. (ohi OSCE btw shouldn't you actually go and do some work? I mean did you notice the latest US elections? In between voter-ID frauds, voter suppression frauds and in-mail ballots frauds, there is a lot to go and monitor in the Great Democracy of the US of A, isn't there?).
This Iosilevich was just found guilty of having colluded with Open Russia, which is an association created by oligarch Khodorkovsky (there are two versions of it; the first one registered in the UK, the second one registered in Russia). Now, he denies the connection but I believe that there are obvious connections; not only because Open Russia was present at the "Free People" forum (which does imply commonality of intent); but also because the same people seem to be hanging around the both organisations. For example in the aftermath of the Belarusian elections (which OSCE didn't monitor because "the request came too late" by the way) a Russian activist, Artyom Vazhenkov, was repatriated by the Russian authorities, and he is described as being the coordinator for the Tver branch for both Open Russia and Golos. This individual, while bringing on some commendable community-based initiatives, works not only for Open Russia, not only for Golos, but also for Memorial, which is another European Commission funded "NGO" which aims at teaching the Russians that the Nazis were the good guys and the Soviets the bad guys (I mean we have an unelected German leader funding associations which aim to spread the idea that the Nazis were the good guys, this doesn't sound like impending doom at all, does it). What we gather from this is that, while Western media tends to analyse these "movements" under the aspect of "there is a lot of pro-Western opposition in Russia, it is just that they are not organised" it would seem to me that it's the few handful of people who go around every single one of those organisations but they all say they belong to just one. I mean at the "great revolts" organised by Navalny in Moscow in 2019 only 750 people showed up, and 750 people in a city which has 12 millions inhabitants is nothing. Literally nothing. A summer festival in the park probably gathers more visitors.
And in fact Navalny himself either in person or by proxy (=through associates), is hanging around every single one of these "movements" as well, and more than this; his "anti-corruption fund" was funded entirely by ex-oligarch Khodorkovsky. EH. I mean you're running an anti-corruption fund with the money of someone who systematically looted Russia in the 90's? Are you serious, mate?
Khodorkovsky however, publicly distanced himself from Navalny after the failure of the 2019 protests; now he goes around claiming that Navalny is an authoritarian, borderline fascist anti-democratic character. While I do agree that he is, in fact, a wannabe authoritarian I don't believe that that's why Khodorkovsky distanced himself from Navalny. It is in my opinion, either because Navalny is so disliked by the average Russian that he thought that being associated with him was a spot on his image especially after 2019, or more likely because Navalny seems to be more dear to Western press than he is, and this is not good, because after all, they're both running for the same position - they both want to be the next Putin without having Putin's popular support.
But who is this Mikhail Khodorkovsky? We need to make a digression here, so that the whole context is clear. He is one of the scruple-less people who made billions in the general and widespread looting of Russian resources which happened in the 90's. Contrarily to what Western journalists claim, in fact, the 90's in Russia were not about democracy and fairness; it was about bandits harassing babushkas and a lot of people making a lot of money in less than honourable manners. What happened, shortly? Communism was a governance system were the economic initiative was reserved to the State, and the management of natural resources fell in that category; the State had management of the oil / gas resources and all energy companies (and other companies, like banks) were state companies. Then the Soviet Union fell; and Boris Yeltsin became president. Besides getting a new constitution approved by sending tanks to the (Russian) White House in 1993, in 1995 he launched the program "loans for shares" (which was proposed to him by a banker, Potanin, who's now the richest man in Russia) in order to finance his re-election campaign. Basically he sold off pieces of what is the Russian people's property (as natural resources do not naturally belong to anyone, they belong rather to the collectivity) to some rich pals, for bargain prices. The auctions were (surprise surprise) rigged and corrupt and a bunch of rich people became even richer. Through his bank Menatep, Khodorkovsky acquired at basement prices oil company Yukos, which made of him the richest man in Russia and the 16th richer man in the world (in the early 2000's this company managed by itself 20% of the total of Russian oil output). Basically a high-level thief.
At the end of the 90's, Yeltsin stepped down from power (and he was subsequently granted immunity, in my opinion, only because he stepped down quietly, as I personally cannot see him being seriously popular in between the Russian political class), and Putin started to crack down on all of these corrupt, thieving oligarchs and brought oil companies under state management again (Rosneft, Russia's largest oil company, which is state owned, re-acquired Yukos stocks at a bargain price, in a sort of Dante-esque contrappasso, penalty of retaliation for Khodorkovsky's lack of respect towards the nation and her people).
While I started this piece by saying that I do not want to comment on Russia's internal matters, I have to briefly comment on the fact that, in my opinion, the choice of re-nationalising companies was obviously a macro-economic choice which was beneficial to the nation as a whole; as it is by using these kind of policies that Russia not only managed to pay the outstanding debts of the Soviet Union; they also replenished their coffers and avoided getting into the vicious circle of long term loans from institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank. Someone might here say that the Russians' average and median salaries are lower than the Westerners, but in primis, the country has been existing for less than thirty years (ten of which were only about some thieves looting and pillaging, with a systematic disrespect for the collectivity); and in a second instance, their core issue right now seems to be to increase people's participation into economic life (by for example starting companies) which is currently, in my opinion, more of a cultural issue than an economic one (as entrepreneurship is a cultural concept, before than being an economic one, and in the Soviet Union economic initiative was prohibited, hence this culture didn't even exist before three decades ago); so their issues don't stem from bad management or corruption; they stem from the fact that it is a very new nation-state which had to fully rebuild their economic structure. It is also pretty clear that having your finances in order and not having to have your economy controlled by third institutions strengthens your independence (and your sovereignty as a consequence).
In this sense we can say that if the United States and the West loved so much the 90's in Russia it was because of its intrinsic corruption rather than because of "democracy"; as when companies which manage natural resources are in the hands of oligarchs (=private individuals), they are controllable (as you can corrupt an oligarch) but when they are in the hands of the state they are less exploitable by external players, as they are managed not with the idea to make the owner richer, but with the idea that the revenues will be used to enact state policies. This is also the case of Venezuela (and Iran); and in fact, the United States is bullying them because they nationalised their oil resources (Venezuela is a socialist country, and the State planned to use the revenues from the extraction and sales of natural resources for enacting socialist policies, aka providing the basic services for the citizens, such as education, health care etc for free). In regards to Russia, they are systematically sanctioning all of the CEOs of the state owned energy companies; their aim is to cripple their operations (sanctioned individuals cannot conduct business outside of Russia, hence putting all of the financial weight on the Russian state) - if we can't have it, then so won't you.
So here we see that the dislike that Khodorkovsky has towards Putin is not because of Putin's misdeeds; it is because of their different interests - Putin is interested in managing natural resources in a way that the revenues will make the state "richer" (more macro-economically resilient is a more apt definition, but let's say "richer" for the sake of simplicity) while Khodorkovsky is interested in managing natural resources in a way that the revenues will make him the richest man in Russia and the 16th in the world again. EH. And we know that this is true; because when Khodorkovsky was managing the assets now under Rosneft, not a cent from that was going to the state, as everything was going to his pocket. Wether someone in Rosneft is taking some bribes or not, nowadays, they're not taking everything, like Khodorkovsky was doing, as in the twenty years Putin was in power the state did become more resilient and richer. This is a fact.
So now this Khodorkovsky, who obviously has his personal interests at heart, rather than the Russian people's interests at heart, has started this "Open Russia" association; he supported Navalny's anti-corruption fund (LOL); he's sending associates to work with this Golos association. He covers up his desire for going back to looting Russia with the usual gleaming, nice-sounding-words of "European values" but make no mistake, he just wants to transform Russia in a corporate-mafia-state controlled by big money, a bit like the United States, where for example Wall Street controls economic policies and the military industrial complex controls the US warmongering foreign policy. And as I'm at it, listen up, Khodorkovsky: I am European, and your thirst for money doesn't represent European millenary values. As a matter of fact, the last time someone looted Italy in such a blatant manner like you did in the 90's in Russia, we threw coins at him while he left his luxury hotel room to go to exile in Hammamet (Tunisia). Corruption is one thing (and it happens in every country on earth, oh yes it does), but openly looting, that is another thing, it is a whole new level of crap, Khodorkovsky.
1993: after the "Mani Pulite" investigation uncovered that an underground corporate-state network was actually ruling Italy, Italian politician Bettino Craxi got inundated with coins thrown by the Italian population, who is heard shouting "ladro, ladro" (thief, thief). The journalist is saying: "they are throwing all kind of stuff! Coins coins, we're getting coins on us as well!"
So of course the West likes this Khodorkovsky a lot; and in fact a whole set of European courts have strongly declared that Khodorkovsky's right to loot Russia is more important than the rights of the Russian people to see the revenues of the natural resources sitting under their soil to be used for the collective interest. I guess in some sort of perverse way this Khodorkovsky does really represent Western values - the values where rich people's interests are protected first, while the average citizen just sucks it up and hopes for the best. I mean let's face it; they are claiming that Russia broke the law because Rosneft acquired Yukos shares at a fraction of the price they were worth; yet Khodorkovsky himself acquired Yukos shares at a fraction of the price they were worth during a set of corrupt auctions which were meant to get fast money for the re-election of the United States' favourite candidate in Russia (whom they actually helped to be elected, as the Time's article showcased). I mean this is another level of shit, honestly. In Italy we'd call this whole matter mafia.
And now we see, that everything comes full circle; Germany, the US's little bitch, is helping this Navalny, who himself is connected to this Khodorkovsky; who is connected to this Iosilevich, and they are all connected to the European Union through the funds the EU gives to run part of this entire operation on one side and through the leveraging of a corrupt judiciary who does everything it can to help the oligarch to get back into possession of Russian resources on the other. They hope that if they help one of these two in power, they will re-privatise everything (which apparently this Navalny said that he wants to do) in order get the big bucks in the hands of a few rich people who will then control the government's decisions while giving the impression that they are "bringing democracy" to the people. Exactly like it happens in Washington, or in Bruxelles, their idea of "democracy" is that the both sides of the political spectrum are doing the bidding of the corporations, where the real power lies (I mean anyone remembers Obama's Citigroup emails?), so while people are happy and think that their votes really count, the policy is one, it is just presented with a different rhetoric. They link the idea of wild liberalisation with the concept of democracy; but this is obviously a false equivalence. Again, look at the last United States elections. It was a farce, a complete farce.
And this is why I believe that the witness who set herself on fire did it; because she was afraid of the retaliation from these individuals; because if you get to the core of the network, you don't take down one of them, you take down all of them and a bunch of Western governments as well. A bunch of true mafiosi, both the oligarchs and the governments who help them, I tell you.
So you see? This Navalny, as I mentioned is fully embedded in a whole foreign-financed network, which aims to destabilise Russia from the inside.
But if we go back to the issue of wether he is an American pawn or not, I do believe that he is; because it is mostly in American interests, not in European sovereign interests, to keep the divide and the distrust in between the Russian and the European populations well alive; and given that Germany is the Anti-Russia Coalition Commander in Chief, and at the same the Completely Unelected Great European Leader, the whole ordeal happening in Germany is of the utmost significance. It's a propaganda scam to make Germany look good, to make them seem like they are the leaders of a Just World and to make Russia look bad, and to make you gain some pity points with the Russian population.
And you know, Navalny, isn't it; you're into this scam just to gain pity points with your population, isn't it, and fuck actual international relations. A low level demagogue who doesn't have any way to try to get to power other than by damaging Russia herself and who needs to win popular support through the help of the United States of America and her allies. How pathetic.
Time magazine cover, July 1996
And in fact in this sense we have to note, that Der Spiegel accurately avoided asking him any questions about his policies and plans for Russia, they just asked him about Putin and corruption, and that is most likely because, if he'd be telling the truth (NATO is being aggressive towards Russia) the Westerners wouldn't like his pretty face anymore, but if he would claim as truthful the Western version of events (Russia wants to conquer the Baltic States, Europe, and the World) then he'd probably earn open opposition rather than the current disinterest from the Russian population. In other words, we know he doesn't like Putin, but why can't he ever tell us anything about his geo-political plans for Russia? Why doesn't he tell us his vision for EU-Russia relations? Why no one ever asks him?
Shall I do it? Ohi, pro-West Russian blogger, do you want to debate a pro-Russia European blogger? Let's forget Putin and Von Der Leyen (who's my nemesis, even though my road is steeper than yours, as in Russia you can at least vote for the President, while we just have to accept the one imposed over us), and let us debate Europe and Russia. Come on, it's going to be fun, people from both Europe and Russia are probably going to watch. It's so meta, isn't it?
After all, Alexey, if you really care about Russia as much as I care about Europe, then you must also be believing that we're assisting to a very dangerous escalation on the NATO side; if you care about Russia as much as I care about Europe, then you also must be thinking that possible military war and constant discord in between the European Union and the European side of Russia are not good for either side. For now you've been using the platform conceded to you by the West only to say that Putin is bad; wouldn't it be better to use it to say that Russia is Good? Or can you even do that? Can you publicly go to Der Spiegel to say that Russia is not the enemy of Europe and Germany should respect the Minsk Package (which all signed) and that they should also respect their commercial commitments (NS2), and the 1997 NATO treaty (and stop expanding Eastward?)? And what do you think about the free trade and humanitarian zone from the Atlantic to the Pacific, which was inserted in the Russian Foreign Policy concept for 2013? Will Der Spiegel let you tell the truth about your country, or are they just expecting you to lie about Putin, which you happily do, because deep down, you just want to be the next Putin? Which you can't be, because Putin came to power exactly, because him and (I assume) the majority of the Russian political establishment was sick of being told what to do by foreign countries (the United States, specifically), while you're making a point of having the Americans (Germans, same same but different) helping you to get into power, because no one except for those in the network of foreign money receivers, likes you enough to actually work with you or vote for you. You should be ashamed of yourself, Alexey Navalny. And how dastardly are you, sitting in Germany while Germany is rehearsing an invasion of Russia with US controlled NATO. You're sitting in Germany while they are helping some neo-nazis to bulldoze Russian minorities in Ukraine. You're sitting in Germany playing the American game while Vladimir Vladimirovich is the only one who has enough guts to stand up to the German bullies, who rule Europe just because they're the most aggressive of the bunch. You're a disgrace for international politics and you're a disgrace for Russia-EU relations, Alexey Navalny. And that's why I cannot stand you.
I speak not to disprove what Brutus spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
(Afterthought: seriously mate though, do you understand what you are doing? Do you understand the grand-scale implications and the ramifications of your little game? Do you realise that if they manage to put you in power, which I personally doubt they will, they'll expect you to sell off the country, and if you don't do it, they'll find someone like you, which they'll use as a pawn to take you down with? I mean this is standard modus operandi after all; they take someone who's knowledgeable about some internal failings of a country, but who knows little or nothing about foreign policy and international relations, they elevate him/her as a "saviour" for that country, then they create / exploit some internal incident to which they can add an international layer - "bringing democracy" quite often, but "ending corruption" is also a good one, even though it is also hypocritical, given all the lobbying which goes on in Bruxelles, and then they start with sanctions / diplomatic punishment / etc. I think in any case that with this particular pawn they got it fully wrong; as there is really no proof that should Alexey Navalny get to power in Russia, he would actually shift Russian foreign policy one inch more West than it is now; as while we're told that Putin is an absolute leader who's deciding everything, I'd be really surprised to find anyone part of the Russian political panorama who would like to get back to the 90's, when America was electing their leaders and dictating their policies - it is about the most un-Russian thing I can ever imagine; when in history they've ever been pleased to be ruled by some other country? I mean one could argue that Catherine The Great was born in Germany, but make no mistakes, with all of the glamour and glitter paired to excellent military leadership, she was a Russian tzarina through and through. In this sense I'd advise people to educate themselves and read some Russian history or literature - because the Russia you're describing doesn't fit the historical of cultural framework offered by their literature or their history; get beyond the Soviet Union, which is nothing but a part of the kaleidoscope of complexity which is the Russian nation as a whole).
WHAT WOULD AUTONOMOUS EUROPE DO?
Well, first things first, we wouldn't have sold off our continent to a foreign country, so we wouldn't be pushing some unaware pawns to play the United States' military industrial complex game.
Second; we should stop exploiting internal matters of other countries (especially minor matters, I mean, find me one country on earth where there's no corruption, come on) in order to create diplomatic incidents of international proportions). And as we're at it, we're no superior to other countries; and we cannot arrogantly sanction and punish others for matters which are outside of the European Union's jurisdiction (of course another approach could be taken for serious matters, like wilful genocides and similar things, but that's mostly us committing them, so). We should also stop using public EU money to try to destabilise other countries through "NGOs".
Third; we should give our own political dissidents the same relevance on the press as we give to foreign dissidents; because in case anyone missed the irony here, we're propping up this blogger as a hero who needs to be listened by everyone while we're defining our own political dissidents as "Russian assets" - it would seem like the European Union approves of political dissidents only when they're not European.
Fourth; Germany should be compelled to respect international law! I mean they are systematically and blatantly breaching international laws, agreements and conventions and they have the shamelessness to try to teach Russia anything? Give me a break, unelected Dominatrix of Europe, get down from the pedestal and obey the same set of international rules all countries have to obey.
Fifth: the European Union should request the military laboratories of Germany, Sweden and France to be investigated in connection with their excellent knowledge of chemical WMDs, because given the superior knowledge displayed by these countries in this occasion, it would seem to me that there is ground to suspect they're producing chemical WMDs, which is forbidden by international law. Full transparency over these countries' activities in this field should be offered to all other European countries and to the whole of the international community.
The British newspaper The Guardian also published an "exclusive" about the Saintly Marionette; quite obviously the take everything seriously, because critical thinking doesn't seem to be too much The Guardian's forte. Rather than disproving their absurd argumentations (which I did already to some degree anyway), I shall recall to The Guardian's "journalists" that while they're busy telling how Russia uses chemical WMDs hidden in plastic bottles, sprays around chemical WMDs in full daylight in parks and (I'm not joking, it's in the article) uses radioactive cups of tea to silence dissidents, Julian Assange is literally rotting away in Belmarsh, and with him freedom of press rots away as well. So perhaps they should engage a bit more with how their country is torturing dissidents, given that the Holy Martyr Navalny is safe and sound in Berlin, probably hosted in some luxury accommodation courtesy of the German taxpayers and doesn't need as much help as Assange does. Western spies might say privately all kind of things about Russia, but the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture said very publicly what your country is doing to Assange. Why don't you report about that instead of engaging in unproven conspiracies?
FUN FACT FOR ITALIANS: the ex-spy they mention in the article, the one who was served a (sic) radioactive cup of tea is the one who went to the EU parliament to tell how Romano Prodi was (wait for it) a KGB agent. Which means that in the first elections I ever voted in, in 2006, my choice was in between Silvio "Putin's BFF" Berlusconi and Romano "KGB agent" Prodi. Basically an undercover oblast, no?
POST SCRIPTUM 2
And if someone should have gotten the idea that I support corruption, as a matter of fact I don't; but there is a difference in between some Russians scraping couple of millions to get an apartment in Bois de Boulogne, or a villa on Lake Como, and some Americans starting the worst humanitarian crisis of the decade (the Yemen war) because some pals from the military industrial complex so request, or some Europeans who use public money to keep a civil war going so that some corporate friends can take possession of other countries' natural resources; and all the while while also doing the same shit the Russians (or the Italians, because I heard a thousand similar stories to these coming from Italy) are doing - see Nancy Pelosi's stakes in the company behind Russiagate, and the millions which the CARE Act courteously donated to her husband's company while letting mom&pops shops go to shit. It would seem to me that here we're pointing our fingers at Russia for something that everyone does, and it seems to me that rather than being the most corrupt, the matter is rather than in countries like Italy or Russia the population is not engaging in collective denial, like it happens in countries like the UK, the US, or Germany.
And then of course, I'm dealing everyday with wars, invasions, indiscriminate bombings, torture and widespread murder of civilians and you come to tell me that I should be outraged about someone buying a fancy apartment? Come on. If anything, Navalny's blog makes Russia look like they're definitely not the major global threat, when their misdeeds are so damn mundane.