https://theins.press/en/inv/290235 - Lost in translation: How Russia’s new elite hit squad was compromised by an idiotic lapse in tradecraft
https://theins.press/en/inv/287837 - The mob’s humanitarian backdoor: Ramzan Kadyrov’s mafia connections reach deep into German critical infrastructure
I always wonder about Navalny - why did he go back to Russia? Did he really believe that he could do some kind of Nelson Mandela thing? Or that the Russian people would flock to his cause? I believe that the man was an idealist, I don't think you expose yourself to that much danger without being an idealist at least on some level or thinking that the possible personal rewards make the danger worth it, and I don't get the sense from Navalny that he was after personal rewards primarily. But with his experience in Russian politics, I feel like he should have known that the chance that his return to Russia would bring about any serious political change was extremely small. Not returning to Russia would have hurt his chances of causing political change as well, since that would have made him seem like just an agent of the Western powers. But returning to Russia at the cost of his life also did not accomplish political change.
I think you just have to accept that he was built different from someone like you. I think it's kind of a form of disrespect to say "why would someone do that?" We know exactly why he did it, he had a level of passion you don't. It's okay for you to not be passionate about anything on the level of giving up your life, but you shouldn't act like that doesn't exist or is an odd weird thing you're could never understand
I know it exists. I'm asking why he went on an extremely dangerous mission that had very little chance of success instead of using his energy on something that would have been more likely to achieve success, or on something that would have been equally unlikely to achieve success but at least would not have been extremely dangerous.
Navalny saw exile as a betrayal of both his country and his ideas and convictions. I think he mentioned that an opposition that is staying outside of Russia would lose moral legitimacy in the eyes of Russians too, or something similar.
It would be a noble cause if it were true. You need to really think sinister thoughts to get a glimpse of what really transpired there.
Don't think noble causes. Think money, blackmail. When thinking of timing of his death think of what else was going on in the west at that time. Think Tucker/Putin interview.
Your point doesn't come across here? And doesn't seem to have any direct reactions to the comment above. Any proof or source for your claims would help. Also no reason to be rude.
I talked to young Navalny supporters. They are ignorant and don't have much regard for what others feel or think. Their speech is violent.
I read what his circle wrote and writes. On their main news outlet, "the echo of Moscow", closed aftrr the war started, they did not allow anyone of opinion different from theirs to speak (comments were filtered just as they are in the west, so much for "freedom of opinion"). But besides that, many comments were allowed to pass through which were racist anti Russian. "How can Russians be racist anti Russian?". Well, these people were not really Russian, you see, and I will not expand on this more.
Then, his circle is not some naive intelligentsia. No, these are people actively collaborating with western "entities". They know what they are being paid for (payment is not necessarily a bank transaction). And they know what revolutions mean in Russia.
In retrospective they would mean saving 400k+ young men from dying, approx. 200k+ on each side. But Navalny wasn't a revolutioner (his mistake: if you have a death wish, there are more effective methods than peaceful protesting).
YOU are the cause of their dying. And you can rewrite all the history books you want, falsify reality with llms and fake documents, shutting prople's mouths as you do now, and the rest of what you have in your arsenal of lies. But we will remember what happened.
Did he have a choice but to go back? Opposition taking money from interested parties has a long history. Lenin was provided with financial support by the germans. Revolution is business, people pay revolutionaries and opposition to do what they do, and once they take the money they need to deliver.
Navalnyj had very low popularity at home. He was mostly a made up hero for the western audience.
Ordinary russians not only gave no-f-f about Navalnyj but considered him a traitor or a trojan horse.
I've wondered the same. A look at his contemporary media quotes gives maybe a hint. From Navalny: "It is difficult for me to understand exactly what is going on in [Putin's] mind. [...] 20 years of power would spoil anyone and make them crazy. He thinks he can do whatever he wants."
If this quote is genuine, as opposed to wistful, it suggests Navalny's evaluation of Russia was that Putin couldn't, in fact, do whatever he wanted there. As best I can tell, such an evaluation would have been pretty damn close to completely inaccurate.
The choice to return to Russia as a catastrophically-failed gamble based on that premise is what makes the most sense to me.
If he was an unscrupulous adventurer who was sure that his Western support would prevent him from being killed, then that leads to two questions:
1. Why exactly would he have been so sure that his Western support would prevent him from being killed? The Russian elite is not exactly made up of people who are squeamish about killing, and the risk to the elite from killing him would have been small.
2. Why not just stay in the West and do the unscrupulous adventuring from there? Sure, maybe the Western backers would not have quite as much use for you that way, but you'd still have a lot of influence and a cushy life.
Why he was sure? Since Putin and his circle, contrary to what your propaganda tries to picture, are acting rationally based on the information they have (which may be outdated or incorrect), just as your country, though the means they have are very much inferior to yours. Apparently at some point the perceived risk from Navalny outweighed potential punitive western measures.
Why not just "stay in the west"? And why hadn't Arafat stayed in Tunis and went to the west bank to be then poisoned there by the Mossad? (As the late Uri Avneri claimed)
Closer to the Russian reality, why hadn't Lenin stayed in Switzerland? And what was the end of prince Kurbskiy who tried to oppose Ivan "the terrible" from Poland?
I'm not claiming that Putin is acting irrationally, at least not any more irrationally than other leaders - after all, politicians are still human.
My question is why Navalny would have believed that it would not be rational for Putin to kill him.
Lenin entered Russia at a more advantageous moment than Navalny did. The February Revolution had already happened. The government was new. Navalny, in contrast, entered a Russia in which the government was stable and had been around for a long time.
He returned to Russia, as I just checked, in January 2021. The sanctions were already working, rouble was devaluating, the country was perceived to bow to western pressure, Ukraine was steadily preparing to enter Donbass and eventually take Crimea (yes, I know your media did not tell you that, but this was the end goal they had in mind, with western support of course). What is so stable about this situation?
You don't need to assume that I've been brainwashed by Western propaganda. I generally distrust both the Western and the Russian mainstream narratives about geopolitics.
Sport fan clowns always say you have to separate politics from the Olympics. Well guess what my own country is sponsoring athletes because the whole fucking show is just a way for countries to show off. Not sure what we are showing off to be honest- although I did clap for the nice Somali ex refugee lady who is now a professional athlete.
I don't condone doping in tested sports, but I think there needs to be recognition that preventing athletes from modifying their biochemistry turns most sports into a genetic lottery showcase.
Here is what I mean:
Suppose that two men are born, with identical brains, but very different bodies. Both of them have a single desire: to be the fastest sprinter in the world.
- Clinically deficient values of Testosterone, Growth Hormone, IGF-1. Prone to musculoskeletal injuries, possibly connective tissue disorders.
If these two men live an identical life, and put the same amount of effort into training, the second man still has no hope of making it to the Olympics.
Even doping would only be able to correct for hormonal deficiencies, not the genome-level disadvantages for power performance compared to the other athlete.
A truly "fair" sport would pit competitors against each other who had near-identical genetic and physical traits.
The Olympics is just watching the people who won genetic lotteries.
90 comments
https://meduza.io/en/news/2026/04/16/report-fsb-unit-linked-...
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2026/04/15/russian-websites-b...
https://theins.press/en/inv/290235 - Lost in translation: How Russia’s new elite hit squad was compromised by an idiotic lapse in tradecraft https://theins.press/en/inv/287837 - The mob’s humanitarian backdoor: Ramzan Kadyrov’s mafia connections reach deep into German critical infrastructure
Funny thing is, if 1999 went differently Lukashenka actually had a shot at being in the Kremlin today.
I think that unfortunately for him, his support inside Russia was probably never high enough to seriously challenge the existing leadership.
Don't think noble causes. Think money, blackmail. When thinking of timing of his death think of what else was going on in the west at that time. Think Tucker/Putin interview.
I talked to young Navalny supporters. They are ignorant and don't have much regard for what others feel or think. Their speech is violent.
I read what his circle wrote and writes. On their main news outlet, "the echo of Moscow", closed aftrr the war started, they did not allow anyone of opinion different from theirs to speak (comments were filtered just as they are in the west, so much for "freedom of opinion"). But besides that, many comments were allowed to pass through which were racist anti Russian. "How can Russians be racist anti Russian?". Well, these people were not really Russian, you see, and I will not expand on this more.
Then, his circle is not some naive intelligentsia. No, these are people actively collaborating with western "entities". They know what they are being paid for (payment is not necessarily a bank transaction). And they know what revolutions mean in Russia.
> And they know what revolutions mean in Russia.
In retrospective they would mean saving 400k+ young men from dying, approx. 200k+ on each side. But Navalny wasn't a revolutioner (his mistake: if you have a death wish, there are more effective methods than peaceful protesting).
Navalnyj had very low popularity at home. He was mostly a made up hero for the western audience.
Ordinary russians not only gave no-f-f about Navalnyj but considered him a traitor or a trojan horse.
If this quote is genuine, as opposed to wistful, it suggests Navalny's evaluation of Russia was that Putin couldn't, in fact, do whatever he wanted there. As best I can tell, such an evaluation would have been pretty damn close to completely inaccurate.
The choice to return to Russia as a catastrophically-failed gamble based on that premise is what makes the most sense to me.
1. Why exactly would he have been so sure that his Western support would prevent him from being killed? The Russian elite is not exactly made up of people who are squeamish about killing, and the risk to the elite from killing him would have been small.
2. Why not just stay in the West and do the unscrupulous adventuring from there? Sure, maybe the Western backers would not have quite as much use for you that way, but you'd still have a lot of influence and a cushy life.
Why not just "stay in the west"? And why hadn't Arafat stayed in Tunis and went to the west bank to be then poisoned there by the Mossad? (As the late Uri Avneri claimed)
Closer to the Russian reality, why hadn't Lenin stayed in Switzerland? And what was the end of prince Kurbskiy who tried to oppose Ivan "the terrible" from Poland?
My question is why Navalny would have believed that it would not be rational for Putin to kill him.
Lenin entered Russia at a more advantageous moment than Navalny did. The February Revolution had already happened. The government was new. Navalny, in contrast, entered a Russia in which the government was stable and had been around for a long time.
You don't need to assume that I've been brainwashed by Western propaganda. I generally distrust both the Western and the Russian mainstream narratives about geopolitics.
Imagine if all countries would put their energy into building peace and prosperity. That would make a difference.
Imagine if all Americans put their energy into making world a better place, instead of killing their neighbours, raping, stealing and corrupting. Sad.
Here is what I mean:
Suppose that two men are born, with identical brains, but very different bodies. Both of them have a single desire: to be the fastest sprinter in the world.
Man A)
- Predominantly fast-twitch muscle fiber composition
- Possesses ACTN3 RX genotype [0]
- Testosterone, Growth Hormone, IGF-1 levels at the very upper end of reference range
Man B)
- Predominantly slow-twitch muscle fiber composition
- Possesses ACTN3 XX genotype
- Clinically deficient values of Testosterone, Growth Hormone, IGF-1. Prone to musculoskeletal injuries, possibly connective tissue disorders.
If these two men live an identical life, and put the same amount of effort into training, the second man still has no hope of making it to the Olympics.
Even doping would only be able to correct for hormonal deficiencies, not the genome-level disadvantages for power performance compared to the other athlete.
A truly "fair" sport would pit competitors against each other who had near-identical genetic and physical traits.
The Olympics is just watching the people who won genetic lotteries.
[0]: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11014841/