Russia - worrying?

[Steve_uk]

He has at last acknowledged Navalny, which suggests to me that the latter will be a force to be reckoned with at the next presidential election. https://www.thedailybeast.com/putins-vacation-retreat-inflamed-protesters-so-putin-denies-owning-the-billion-dollar-palace?ref=home?ref=home

[Steve_uk]

Shouldn't we just face the truth that Russia is a Police state..https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/alexei-navalny-s-brother-arrested-during-police-raids-on-moscow-apartments/ar-BB1d9o6N?ocid=msedgntp

[nugnug]

we should face there truth tht the uk is a police state.

[guest29835]

Shouldn't we just face the truth that Russia is a Police state..https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/alexei-navalny-s-brother-arrested-during-police-raids-on-moscow-apartments/ar-BB1d9o6N?ocid=msedgntp

May I just direct you to the Covid-19 thread, in which you and others are giving very vocal support to an actual police state in our day-to-day lives?  Before we start casting aspersions on other countries, we should get our own house in order, don't you think?

And have you ever been to Russia?  I have but personally claim no specialist knowledge of Russia the country or Alexei Navalny that would qualify me to pronounce that country (or any other country, for that matter) to be a police state.  It is a habit of the English chattering classes, who think of themselves as morally astute and informed, to go round pointing the finger at other countries based on very general information that, more often than not, is quite inaccurate and reflects the agenda of some powerful person.  These same people are always quick to accuse others of chauvinism and bigotry without stopping to consider their own ignorant ravings.

I don't suggest that Vladimir Putin is a nice man, but what leader is?  And since when was that a qualification?  Mr Putin has been set up as a sort of villain in the West and, as far as I can tell, the outrage that surrounds him is largely astro-turfed.  It is essentially an Establishment agenda, and whatever the merits or otherwise of Putin and Russia's political system, I am always puzzled as to why we should be morally concerned with the domestic political arrangements of other countries.  My impression is that the people who are most vocal about Putin are either those who do know something about the country and have a vested interest in either attacking him or defending him, or it is Westerners who know nothing about the country - in some cases, have never even been there - but follow whatever the media tell them. 

Meanwhile, I cannot leave my house more than once without running the risk of official questioning.  This, in Britain!  And you support it!

[David1819]

May I just direct you to the Covid-19 thread, in which you and others are giving very vocal support to an actual police state in our day-to-day lives?  Before we start casting aspersions on other countries, we should get our own house in order, don't you think?

And have you ever been to Russia?  I have but personally claim no specialist knowledge of Russia the country or Alexei Navalny that would qualify me to pronounce that country (or any other country, for that matter) to be a police state.  It is a habit of the English chattering classes, who think of themselves as morally astute and informed, to go round pointing the finger at other countries based on very general information that, more often than not, is quite inaccurate and reflects the agenda of some powerful person.  These same people are always quick to accuse others of chauvinism and bigotry without stopping to consider their own ignorant ravings.

I don't suggest that Vladimir Putin is a nice man, but what leader is?  And since when was that a qualification?  Mr Putin has been set up as a sort of villain in the West and, as far as I can tell, the outrage that surrounds him is largely astro-turfed.  It is essentially an Establishment agenda, and whatever the merits or otherwise of Putin and Russia's political system, I am always puzzled as to why we should be morally concerned with the domestic political arrangements of other countries.  My impression is that the people who are most vocal about Putin are either those who do know something about the country and have a vested interest in either attacking him or defending him, or it is Westerners who know nothing about the country - in some cases, have never even been there - but follow whatever the media tell them. 

Meanwhile, I cannot leave my house more than once without running the risk of official questioning.  This, in Britain!  And you support it!

I think the clip below more or less sums Putin up.

https://streamable.com/1z2z2c

[Steve_uk]

May I just direct you to the Covid-19 thread, in which you and others are giving very vocal support to an actual police state in our day-to-day lives?  Before we start casting aspersions on other countries, we should get our own house in order, don't you think?

And have you ever been to Russia?  I have but personally claim no specialist knowledge of Russia the country or Alexei Navalny that would qualify me to pronounce that country (or any other country, for that matter) to be a police state.  It is a habit of the English chattering classes, who think of themselves as morally astute and informed, to go round pointing the finger at other countries based on very general information that, more often than not, is quite inaccurate and reflects the agenda of some powerful person.  These same people are always quick to accuse others of chauvinism and bigotry without stopping to consider their own ignorant ravings.

I don't suggest that Vladimir Putin is a nice man, but what leader is?  And since when was that a qualification?  Mr Putin has been set up as a sort of villain in the West and, as far as I can tell, the outrage that surrounds him is largely astro-turfed. It is essentially an Establishment agenda, and whatever the merits or otherwise of Putin and Russia's political system, I am always puzzled as to why we should be morally concerned with the domestic political arrangements of other countries.  My impression is that the people who are most vocal about Putin are either those who do know something about the country and have a vested interest in either attacking him or defending him, or it is Westerners who know nothing about the country - in some cases, have never even been there - but follow whatever the media tell them. 

Meanwhile, I cannot leave my house more than once without running the risk of official questioning.  This, in Britain!  And you support it!

I've never been to Russia, but I'll let ordinary Russians speak. This guy was the precursor of Alexei Navalny: https://youtu.be/vM04zNbsaJg

Why do we intervene in other countries? To make our streets safer, though sometimes we do get it wrong. But should we have left al-Qaeda shielding behind the Taliban in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks?

The invasion of Crimea, the Salisbury incident, the Alexander Litvinenko poisoning, the MH17 disaster. Has the penny dropped yet..https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-53367425

[guest29835]

I've never been to Russia, but I'll let ordinary Russians speak. This guy was the precursor of Alexei Navalny: https://youtu.be/vM04zNbsaJg

Why do we intervene in other countries? To make our streets safer, though sometimes we do get it wrong. But should we have left al-Qaeda shielding behind the Taliban in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks?

The invasion of Crimea, the Salisbury incident, the Alexander Litvinenko poisoning, the MH17 disaster. Has the penny dropped yet..https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-53367425

Personally, I disagree on principle with all interventions in other countries, except in very exigent circumstances.  I don't believe it makes us any safer.  I think the onus is on you here to prove otherwise.  I have plenty of facts that tell me everything we have done in these countries has worsened those countries and made our own streets less safe.

All it achieves is to create enemies and it makes us look like arrogant hypocrites.  You admit you've not been to Russia, so to bolster your case you offer us the partial opinions of Russians who are set against Putin.  It's not very convincing.  I like to consider both sides of the argument, not just what Sky News says.  I'm sure Putin has done lots of bad things.  I do not, for one moment, suggest that he is a pleasant individual.  He is the leader of a major world power.  He can't be a nice person.  He wouldn't be able to function in the role if he spent his time making daisy chains, brewing herbal teas and writing to his pen-pal in Accrington.  Yet so far on this thread, nobody has provided proof of Putin's involvement in any of the malign actions alleged, or even the involvement of the Russian state.  Nevertheless, you think we should set ourselves against Russia and its people.  What action do you propose?

If it's more military intervention, direct or by proxy, will you go and fight?  Or is this like the vaccine in that you want somebody else to take the risk?  I'm not volunteering to go and fight on your behalf.  Perhaps you would be good enough to volunteer? It's always best, in my view, if those who shout the loudest about these things go and do their own fighting.  I've always found it distasteful that we send naive young men on these unnecessary expeditions, who in their naivety, aggression and enthusiasm, don't sensibly weigh up the risk of coming back in body bags or with missing limbs.  Being young, they also don't consider whether the mission they are being sent on is actually necessary to defend the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom and British territories, which is what our armed forces are supposed to be for.  That is the primary objective of armed forces, especially standing armies, and in my view, it should be their only objective. 

In short, I do not believe our armed forces should be used in wars.  They should only be used in national territorial defence.  That is the difference between an interventionist, like yourself, and a non-interventionist such as myself.  You believe in wars and support wars.  I don't. I only support defence.

[guest29835]

I think the clip below more or less sums Putin up.

https://streamable.com/1z2z2c

What specifically is wrong with Putin's reply in that clip, in your view? 

[Steve_uk]

What specifically is wrong with Putin's reply in that clip, in your view?

Quite simply because anyone accused of treason wouldn't get a fair trial in Russia. It's Putin's justice. As for #516 you go off on a tangent and fail to mention specific circumstances where in my opinion it was right to intervene ( Northern Ireland 1969,Afghanistan after 9/11) and where it would have been right to send British troops (Hitler's occupation of the Rhineland 1936 or the Bosnian enclave of Srebrenica in 1995).

[nugnug]

i see no real diffrence bettween putin and are current prime minster other than putin seems far more competent.

[Steve_uk]

Maybe Biden's presidency will turn out to be principled after all..https://www.thedailybeast.com/team-biden-weighs-fresh-sanctions-on-russia-for-poisoning-and-jailing-alexei-navalny?via=newsletter&source=BI-end-week-digest

[guest29835]

Quite simply because anyone accused of treason wouldn't get a fair trial in Russia. It's Putin's justice.

Assuming that's even true, what has it got to do with us?

As for #516 you go off on a tangent and fail to mention specific circumstances where in my opinion it was right to intervene ( Northern Ireland 1969,Afghanistan after 9/11) and where it would have been right to send British troops (Hitler's occupation of the Rhineland 1936 or the Bosnian enclave of Srebrenica in 1995).

Northern Ireland was, and is, part of Britain.  It is not a foreign intervention.

We were wrong to intervene in any country after 9/11.  We should have kept well out of it, as we rightly kept out of the Vietnam War.  We should have left the United States to pursue these disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan while lodging our protest at their total disregard for the basic principles of national self-determination and pointing out that it was the United States' own policies and doctrines that caused 9/11 - in particular, its attachment to Israel and the pursuit of mass immigration into the United States, which harms the American people and creates security problems.  We would be a better country had we adopted that stance.

Besides, you still haven't demonstrated how intervening makes us safer.  I think the onus is on you in that respect, since you're the one who wants young men to come home in body bags or with missing limbs.  Tell us about all the terrorist attacks we've had here since 9/11.

I also disagree with you about Hitler and the Second World War.  We should have kept out of that too.  As did Ireland.  As did Sweden.  As did Spain.  And we should have kept away from the former Yugoslavia - an intervention that was based on a completely ignorant understanding of the situation. It was none of our business. 

Our great failing as a country since the early 20th. century has been a belief that we have the right to intervene in the affairs of other sovereign countries and meddle in their problems and disputes, which almost-always makes matters worse, and also that we should import foreign problems here through the madness of mass immigration.

[lookout]

We were wrong to go to Iraq in 2003 ! This was the start of the terrorist attacks in this country.

[Steve_uk]

This would be a joke if it wasn't so serious..https://youtu.be/5k_szrJPYn8

[guest29835]

This would be a joke if it wasn't so serious..https://youtu.be/5k_szrJPYn8

The allegation from pro-Navalny commenters seems to be that the Russian state is using its legal system, both civil and criminal, to harass Navalny.  I assume this is with the aim of neutralising him as an opponent of the Putin government. 

As I see it, there are three fundamental questions:

1. Was Navalny tried fairly for the underlying offences?
2. Were the civil cases heard fairly?
3. Is there any evidence of Russian state involvement in the poisoning of Navalny?

I can't comment informatively on 1 and 2 because the facts seem obscure, I don't speak much Russian and I have no knowledge of the laws of Russia.  The usual suspects in the West seem to think he has been treated badly, including most of the Western media and the ECHR.  Very frankly, I do not trust these sources on this issue.  In my view, they have an agenda against Putin, for a mixture of geopolitical and ideological reasons. 

Vladimir Putin is a Russian nationalist and Russian Orthodox social traditionalist.  The Western hegemony is liberal-internationalist and socially-liberal.  Putin favours a more traditionalist and conservative basis for Russian society than would be considered acceptable in the West. 

Putin's foreign policy strategy leans more towards non-interventionism.  He seeks to expand Russian influence among its immediate neighbours in the clear interests of Russia.  The most well-known example of this is the Ukraine.  This conflicts with Western strategic objectives, especially those of the United States, NATO and the European Union.  The West is aggressively interventionist. 

Putin's highest moral is the good of the Russian state, as moderated by God.  The West's super-moral orientation is less clear-cut.  Is the pursuit of equality and liberal-democracy as goals per se just a means to rationalise Western geo-strategy?  Or is the West truly in the thrall of these ideas?  Or is it a combination of the two?  In a sense, Russia is culturally a Western state because as a country it shares the Western Christian axiology, but what Putin stands for is more than a negation of Western liberalism, it is a radical departure grounded in Russian history: Russia's geographic position, its Slavic ethnic identity, the separation of Western and Eastern churches, the industrialisation and modernisation under Bolshevism, and so on.

This brings me to what I think is the central point: Navalny is a Western-facing Russian and in the pockets of Western liberal-interventionists who want to 'Westernise' Russia.  Putin is the ultra-parochial Russian resisting this, instead favouring illiberal non-interventionism (i.e. nationalism).  This is why I am willing to defend Putin and don't trust Navalny or his defenders.  I don't believe Britain should be getting involved.

In regard to 3 above, it is common ground that Navalny was hospitalised in Russia itself after falling ill on a flight, but from this point the facts become doubtful. It is said that he was poisoned, but some pro-Putin commenters are denying this.  The evidence of the state's involvement in poisoning him is thin on the ground.  Was Navalny poisoned?  Why did he have to seek treatment in Germany? 

His sentence was for breaching the conditions of an earlier suspended sentence for embezzlement. His defence must be that having been poisoned, he couldn't comply with the conditions, and I suppose he would defend his decision to leave Russia on the grounds that he believes the Russian state is trying to have him killed.

I am no expert, but given all the facts, an English criminal court could activate a custodial sentence in similar circumstances; it would depend on whether the poisoning had occurred as a result of activity that was in itself in breach of the conditions and also whether, having been poisoned, he was acting on reasonable medical advice in leaving the country to seek specialist treatment.