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
Most of their supporters are ignorant (though they themselves do not think so), frustrated, and violent young people, which your country hopes to use as one of the ingredients to start a civil war inside Russia.
So, brushing away your propaganda about "idealists" and like, this is more or less the bare truth (which you will probably call "Russian ptopaganda", ignoring history, evidence, and common sense).
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.
Imagine if all Americans put their energy into making world a better place, instead of killing their neighbours, raping, stealing and corrupting. Sad.
Imagine if all countries would put their energy into building peace and prosperity. That would make a difference.
No, Russia isn't the only one, but _is_ a cause of a lot of suffering and resources wasted.
The rest is (mainly) lies you continue telling the people living in Ukraine, encouraging the Ukranian nationalists just as the germans did in WWII.
As someone living in a country with a hostile neighbour, I'm glad the governments currently continue to coexist, even if mine could get an economic advantage or "a safety buffer" by invading the other. NATO's peaceful expansion towards east is not just, but it isn't a sufficient cause of war either, far from it.
Thanks, that gave me a chuckle.
Why were they expanding? Why did they have biolabs in Ukraine? Why did B. Johnson halted peace talks? Why did Merkel say Minsk agreements were only meant to buy Ukraine time to arm itself? Arm for what?
Things are more complicated, I don't think either country had a choice.
Also, equating conflicts is a very shallow and inadequate manipulation tool. For example, russians razed dozens of cities in Ukraine, establish torture and rape chambers, use rape, torture, execution of POW as policy today.
"all wars are bad" doesn't mean that whatever russia does is way worse.
Oh reeeaaaaally? Interesting comment history you have too.
2. To this day, it remains unclear who actually slightly poisoned Navalny and to what end.
3. As of last week, we have an on-camera confession [2] from Leonid Volkov of Navalny's FBK [1], in which he states that it is very disappointing that USAID funding is no longer available. The videos are in Russian, but you should at least care and be capable of translating them with AI. If not, don't even bother raising your propagandized, brainwashed takes.
I have nothing to say about the OP-linked site other than that it is a trashcan of lies.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Volkov_(politician) [2] https://www.jpg.wtf/c54omx.mp4
Billionaires and Tech Executives from CA do it all time too.
Heck one even threatened to eliminate me because I was working on competing ad tech low latency system. I was much younger back then completely shook.
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.
That's what the Olympics is. The men's 100m final pits against each other the fastest 8 men who are in their physical prime, full of fast twitch muscles, with West African descent. With some minor noise.
If you want to watch people from other genotype buckets run 10-50% slower, you can watch the women's event or the Paralympics or, like, the All-Vietnam U-16 event. It seems churlish to complain that not every bucket is on TV at a convenient time for you.
In general, the statement “if they got a medal, they cheated” is true so much of the time that it becomes a sensible default assumption. And it sucks for the few that didn’t cheat.
> The Olympics is just watching the people who won genetic lotteries.
So? The olympic games should be the pinnacle of human performance (fed by their nation's interests). Of course it is lotteries all the way from the genetics, to what country you're born in, right to the national lottery putting money in to sports.
Your alternatives are either a proliferation of categories or random people assembling every four years to roll dice to determine the winner. Neither is exciting.
Genetics are necessary to a point, and are not at all sufficient.
Any follower of a sport knows of athletes with incredible genetic blessings who accomplish little or nothing because they lack the hard work, discipline, focus, skill, emotional management, teamwork, etc. to succeed. And that sample omits far more athletes whose non-genetic limitations caused them to drop out or fail out before making it to the level where public is aware of them.
At the same time, the GOATs (greatest of all time) in many sports were not particularly blessed genetically, relative to other top atheletes:
* Football / soccer: Lionel Messi: 5'7", ~160 lbs., and had growth hormone deficiency [0], and is small, and not particularly fast or strong. "Messi’s “software” is what often gives him a head-start on those who physically should have the better of him." If you're interested, this article describes it in some detail: [1]
* American football: Tom Brady was notoriously unathletic, setting records for poor performance in the NFL's scouting 'combine' where draft prospects are compared in standardized tests. Also didn't have a strong throwing arm.
* Basketball is an exception: Michael Jordan was supremely athletic.
* Baseball: Babe Ruth was overweight, not known to be particularly fast or athletic, and played a position for relatively poor athletes who could hit: right field (gets the fewest plays, usually doesn't require more than running to a spot and throwing).
* Hockey: Wayne Gretzky was relatively small, not very fast, didn't have a hard shot.
* Tennis? Boxing? Cricket? Rugby?
These people are far more athletic than ordinary people, of course; I'm comparing them to other professionals in their sports.
[0] Wikipedia
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/4008225/2022/12/16/lionel-m...
> What's the point of this post?
Hard pass.
To me the decision to take PED's doesn't feel different than being an alcoholic or having an abortion.
I wouldn't recommend anyone become an alcoholic, but it's their life and people ought to have the freedom of choice.
Current idea of sports is that athletes wreck themselves for mere performance value (and money to the people who set it up, with a bit trickling down to athletes for enabling it all). As far as I understand, nothing they directly do is otherwise reusable to anyone else.
I’d rather watch a live commercial for human enhancement industries. At least that’s something that eventually becomes available to everyone.