Are you nuts? Navalny never ever had more than 2%.
Russian oppositon to Putin is the ex communists and the Nationalists, both far more hard core on being tough with the west (and ukraine) than Putin who has been seen as The soft liberal.
There is a 5% liberal group in Russia called yabloko, which absolutely refuses to have anything to do with the mad Navalny.
His usefulness in Russia ended some years ago. Taking a Pirivate plane to Germany when ill was evidence to remaining Russians that he was in it for the Western money rather than being one of the people. The fake Putin's Palace story by his team that emerged while he was "recovering in Germany" and was taken apart by Russian media (never Western media) meant he was only useful to influence the West that Putin was a bad guy. They (including wife and "supporters" sent him to Russia to be arrested and imprisoned for well known fraud charges on a French company). They probably poisoned him.
Just as Putin's interview with Tucker Carlson got over 150m views in the west (blowing apart the ratings of the official news programs) and many started to understand just what teh Ukraine BS has been for the past 16 years, do you really think Putin killed Navalny??
Thank you mr. Lieberman for your informative piece. I hope President Putin's star does not fall. I dont know much about Navalny but by your account he seems dishonest and even at a time collaborated with nazi people and was not sentenced for a long time. A one party state is probably not so bad if it bring security and prosperity fot its people dont you think? Thank you again.
I can’t find any “detailed substance” or “alternative take” in Scott Ritters rash opinions, posed as facts. Show me one statement he made that can be authenticated. Nor do I approve of commentators who use invectives — “little feminine boy”, “little soy”, “Navalny is a traitor”, “scum bag”, “racist”, “human scum”, and make statements without backing them up with credible information that others can access. He says, “Putin didn’t care about Navalny.” How does he know? Does he have a recording of Putin speaking to him? He showed little knowledge when he said, “Russia is a nation governed by laws more than we are.” He should read THE STATE OF THE JUDICIARY IN RUSSIA
REPORT OF THE ICJ RESEARCH MISSION ON JUDICIAL REFORM TO THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION on 20-24 June 2010
Lack of independence of judges and the interconnected problem of lack of confidence
of the public in the judiciary were pointed out as the main problems in the Russian
judicial system. While understandings of the depth or scope of the problem may
differ, the mission heard strikingly consistent views from a range of experts,
observers and participants in the judicial system and institutions of government
indicating that the judiciary was not in practice independent, or is at least not
perceived to be so. Lack of judicial independence, despite the Constitution’s
recognition of the judiciary as a “self-dependent” branch of state power, seems to be
Russia’s “Punchinello’s secret”.
There is no alternative take to my writings. I try to wrote without agenda, carefully research and authenticate information, present the facts as I learn them, and add an original analysis that I sense most observers may miss. I want to be true to myself and the audience and not cater to the audience. Facts and analysis can be legitimately challenged and, if the challenges are valid then the conclusions may not be correct and I stand corrected. Ritter and his cohorts who have their personal agendas start with the conclusions. If it does not fit their agenda, they shout and scream without contesting or proving anything wrong. I took no sides in this article, presented a bad side of Navalny and merits of Putin. I have written many articles highly favorable to Putin and Russia before starting the substack. The conclusion of Navalny’s and Putin’s historical relevance reflect an emotional moment and I am entitled to that. From the article, the audiences can draw their own conclusions. Ritter does not allow that; he tells you what you should think without giving a basis for thought.
If you have any challenges to facts or analysis, I welcome them.If you need clarifications, I’ll be glad to clarify.
Are you nuts? Navalny never ever had more than 2%.
Russian oppositon to Putin is the ex communists and the Nationalists, both far more hard core on being tough with the west (and ukraine) than Putin who has been seen as The soft liberal.
There is a 5% liberal group in Russia called yabloko, which absolutely refuses to have anything to do with the mad Navalny.
His usefulness in Russia ended some years ago. Taking a Pirivate plane to Germany when ill was evidence to remaining Russians that he was in it for the Western money rather than being one of the people. The fake Putin's Palace story by his team that emerged while he was "recovering in Germany" and was taken apart by Russian media (never Western media) meant he was only useful to influence the West that Putin was a bad guy. They (including wife and "supporters" sent him to Russia to be arrested and imprisoned for well known fraud charges on a French company). They probably poisoned him.
Just as Putin's interview with Tucker Carlson got over 150m views in the west (blowing apart the ratings of the official news programs) and many started to understand just what teh Ukraine BS has been for the past 16 years, do you really think Putin killed Navalny??
His handlers killed him, Brits like me.
Thank you mr. Lieberman for your informative piece. I hope President Putin's star does not fall. I dont know much about Navalny but by your account he seems dishonest and even at a time collaborated with nazi people and was not sentenced for a long time. A one party state is probably not so bad if it bring security and prosperity fot its people dont you think? Thank you again.
Putin didn’t care about Navalny because he was a spent force. His “memorial” in Moscow got 50 mourners.
The Russian economy has changed a lot in the last decade, thanks to western sanctions. Be careful not to repeat John McCain talking points
I can’t find any “detailed substance” or “alternative take” in Scott Ritters rash opinions, posed as facts. Show me one statement he made that can be authenticated. Nor do I approve of commentators who use invectives — “little feminine boy”, “little soy”, “Navalny is a traitor”, “scum bag”, “racist”, “human scum”, and make statements without backing them up with credible information that others can access. He says, “Putin didn’t care about Navalny.” How does he know? Does he have a recording of Putin speaking to him? He showed little knowledge when he said, “Russia is a nation governed by laws more than we are.” He should read THE STATE OF THE JUDICIARY IN RUSSIA
REPORT OF THE ICJ RESEARCH MISSION ON JUDICIAL REFORM TO THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION on 20-24 June 2010
Lack of independence of judges and the interconnected problem of lack of confidence
of the public in the judiciary were pointed out as the main problems in the Russian
judicial system. While understandings of the depth or scope of the problem may
differ, the mission heard strikingly consistent views from a range of experts,
observers and participants in the judicial system and institutions of government
indicating that the judiciary was not in practice independent, or is at least not
perceived to be so. Lack of judicial independence, despite the Constitution’s
recognition of the judiciary as a “self-dependent” branch of state power, seems to be
Russia’s “Punchinello’s secret”.
There is no alternative take to my writings. I try to wrote without agenda, carefully research and authenticate information, present the facts as I learn them, and add an original analysis that I sense most observers may miss. I want to be true to myself and the audience and not cater to the audience. Facts and analysis can be legitimately challenged and, if the challenges are valid then the conclusions may not be correct and I stand corrected. Ritter and his cohorts who have their personal agendas start with the conclusions. If it does not fit their agenda, they shout and scream without contesting or proving anything wrong. I took no sides in this article, presented a bad side of Navalny and merits of Putin. I have written many articles highly favorable to Putin and Russia before starting the substack. The conclusion of Navalny’s and Putin’s historical relevance reflect an emotional moment and I am entitled to that. From the article, the audiences can draw their own conclusions. Ritter does not allow that; he tells you what you should think without giving a basis for thought.
If you have any challenges to facts or analysis, I welcome them.If you need clarifications, I’ll be glad to clarify.