Does the Kremlin want Alexei Navalny to die in prison?
economist.com
economist.com
PS: I'm writing anti-putin because it is not clear that Navalny is actually going against the soviet system in general. For example he supported Crimea invasion, he supported Georgia invasion in 2008, he voluntarily invited russian terrorist Girkin a few years ago for the interview, and during that interview said that it is not a war crime to kill Ukrainian soldiers.
>deprived both of sleep and of medical care
Thats exactly what us is doing in its prisons. How is he deprived? How is it any different from what his foreign handlers do at home?
Was there a single article on torture Maria Butina had to endure in US prison?
shame cheap pieces like that show up here.
I'm sure there is still some bias being applied, but the whole "russophobe" narrative is a bit tiresome and seems to be engineered by the Russian state to a large extent.
Also I'm not sure how you arrive at the conclusion that both parties are equal, while also claiming that "Russian state owned media is way more biased than most Western media". My point is that there are no major alternative platforms in Russia. There's a reason why the few critical Russian news outlets locate outside of Russia.
So what did the Americans do? In my opinion: It wasn't military invasion, it wasn't sanctions, it was they have built a better, more free, system (at least that's how it was largely perceived), and opened their doors for people who wanted to emigrate and live there. Often these were intellectuals, who then "spread the word" about how it works in the U.S. back to the land they were born.
I think with America coming to neoliberalism in the 1980s, this approach was lost. (Freedom turned into an ideology, and that neutered the pragmatic consideration of different human values.) But in some places, it never really existed, in Latin America, or Middle East, Americans often supported dictatorships.
So here you have it, this is what you can realistically do. Build a better system, create an example, let people (from Russia or elsewhere) come and see why it is really better.
Very similar to what Great Britain is doing with Hong Kong. [2]
[1] https://www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=202004021...
[2] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-hongkong-security-britain...
Russia will fail eventually (as the USSR did before it), its only a matter of when.
It's worth reminding that despite the sorry state of USSR economy when communism ended, it still contracted by almost 1/3 during the 90s neoliberal era. And Putin improved on that, despite being authoritarian ruler. So the failure of the state is not at all given.
"Hope for the best, prepare for the worst."
Regardless if your post is serious or not, this post is the dumbest "dare" to Americans I ever seen.
That wasn't even done by another major power, I think. (I'm no good at history.) Presumably there's a reason why major countries don't usually murder the heads of state of other major countries. I imagine it has something to do the military having standing orders to retaliate in such cases.
Then you have the question of whether the surviving second in command decides to just eat the loss and surrender his country to the United States without firing a shot, or .. fire a shot.
The bare minimum is probably the televised execution of all US embassy staff in Russia; the maximum retaliation is, of course, nuclear war.
Are you suggesting that the Kremlin wants to escalate into full scale war with the US?
That seems like the kind of problem the UN would have run into and found a solution for within about the first 5 years it existed, instead of leaving it inaddressed for three-quarters of a century.
Oh, that’s because it is: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assem...
Personally annoying leaders and oligarchs by preventing them to move around, if only to bring their kids to Disneyland, is not flashy but is convincing Putin's inner circle that he is turning Russia into a third world country.
Hit at the wallet. Especially at the personal one.
See Cuba or Venezuela, they live on sanctions for decades but show the oligarchs can live well on them, the people is struggling and has not any possibility to fight against their regimes
And when you find a business front of one of these, you have a legal reason to destroy millions from their wealth.
Angry oligarchs are probable more scary to Putin than protests in the streets of Moscow.
You see the same behaviour with Snowden and the US. The US security industry for sure would prefer this man to be quiet and away from any spotlight, but all they can do is make up some rumours about how he's just a disgruntled employee or maybe a pedophile fleeing for that reason or a rapist. Obviously it doesn't gain traction but I've seen those attempts.