[Rugoz]

I would argue that expressing sympathy for race rioters goes a little further than an alliance of convenience.

But this is precisely the problem: he is incredibly vague about where he actually stands on a lot of issues, but what he has said is pretty bad. This is why I am saying people should be wary, and not accept at face value that he is a nice cuddly liberal.

That's a weird thing to say, because he's essentially anti-system (i.e. anti-Putin and anti-United Russia). "Issues" are irrelevant.

[noemon]

Gladly!
1. I said Navalny has ties to the far right. The Russian far right has a lot of neo-Nazis. Neither of these things are really in question among honest people, and I stand by it 100%. You chose to dismiss the evidence - which even western liberal commentators have acknowledged - by saying Putin is worse. That isn't really the point, but fine, that's your business. After your hagiography of Navalny in this thread, I accept that acknowledging his dark side might be... a bit difficult.

I have no problem acknowledging that Navalny is a nationalist politician. I already have after all. I do however point out your hypocrisy in trying to undermine the Russian Opposition Leader by trying to taint him with the "neo-nazi" label which you explicitly used, when Putin is far worse on that particular regard based on the articles that you yourself brought forward.

But to say there is "no evidence", and even that you had "thoroughly dealt with" my "partisan source" when I presented you several different sources, including direct quotes of him supporting a race riot, is absurd.

There is no evidence Navalny is a neo-nazi or that he has neonazi connections as you claimed.

Plus, at no point did I actually say "Putin is the antidote," defend Putin's response to that race riot, or, indeed, defend Putin for anything at all in this thread. You have completely invented that, while introducing some embarrassingly inaccurate comparisons like calling Alexei Navalny - a right wing populist! - the "Keir Starmer of Russia".

Compared to Putin, he is the centrist of Russia. Unfortunately for you, this is not an abstract vacuum where entities merely flow in hyperspace. Navalny obviously needs to be viewed through the prism of Russian politics and in relation to the main antagonist, Putin.

2. As for me allegedly calling Navalny a "CIA stooge". Read the paragraph you quoted. It literally doesn't mention Alexei Navalny once. It is entirely about Ukraine. I was talking about the 2014 Ukraine coup d'etat as a "CIA and MI6-supported sham revolution", not saying "Alexei Navalny is a CIA stooge".

This is totally disingenuous and dishonest. I have heard everything in here and does not move me at all. You 're that guy now.

You were drawing a parallel of euromaidan with Navalny, the implication obvious. But good that you retract your own statements and openly state that your analogy is not applicable. Or no? which button is the right one?

(Note, also, that I haven't actually used the word "stooge" in this thread, so you continuing to put it in direct quotes is, yes, a lie. On the other hand, you have accused me of doing "agitprop for Putin", which is a ridiculous smear.)

You are an agitprop for Putin, your argumentation has no other purpose or cause. You consider Navalny a stooge of the CIA, MI6. If you want to retract that also and say openly that you do not consider him an MI6, CIA stooge, feel free and I will say I misunderstood you.

3. As for my "evidence" allegedly being "the FT likes him, so he must be": apparently you struggle with the idea of rhetoric. I said the FT and the Economist singing Alexei Navalny's praises is a red flag, not prima facie "evidence". I stand by it 100%.

Red flag of what? of being a "CIA-MI6 stooge?" But you never said that!! And "I'm a liar" for imagining it!!!

Make up your mind please.

If the Financial Times, Economist, or the New York Times - publications all deeply embedded in the western political establishment - are cheerleading a "revolutionary" figure, I usually think this is a red flag. The Economist, infamously, supported Augusto Pinochet's coup against Salvador Allende, while the FT and NYT both strongly supported the military coup against Morales in Bolivia last year.

If you want to cling to this and claim I said it was "proof" or "evidence", that's your business, but I think any honest person reading the thread can probably understand the point I was making.

He is not a "revolutionary" figure, he is a Russian person trying to run for the elections in his own country, he has been tripped again and again, has been vilified, imprisoned, poisoned and imprisoned again.

Certainly our media will take notice and report on it. Western media, from the FT, Telegraph, Independent, Guardian, Politico all have reported on Navalny all the information they have, good or bad. That is not "cheerleading", you are trying to run propaganda against him with unsubstantiated "neo-nazi" & "cia" keywords. Hoping that if you repeat "MI6, CIA and neonazi" too often you might actually cause a shit stain on the windscreen.

You are a far worse cheerleader than those you claim are "cheerleading" Navalny and you 're not even getting paid for it, at least so I believe.

To sum up, if you actually expect me to delete my post calling you a liar, you are sorely mistaken. Now, you can apologise for deliberately misrepresenting me, or not. But I'll lose any respect I had for you if you choose the latter route. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I quoted your post so that you can never delete it. If you think your trashy behaviour will be sweeped under the rug you are clearly mistaken.

Why does anyone need to pay attention to twisted conspiracies by anti-Putin Greek trolls that make no sense whatsoever and are talking out of their arseholes?

My arguments stand, you have not made any.

[Heisenberg]

I have no problem acknowledging that Navalny is a nationalist politician. I already have after all.

You said he was an "angel", a "garden variety conservative", and the "Keir Starmer of Russia".

I do however point out your hypocrisy in trying to undermine the Russian Opposition Leader by trying to taint him with the "neo-nazi" label which you explicitly used, when Putin is far worse on that particular regard based on the articles that you yourself brought forward.

Why do you keep capitalising "Russian Opposition Leader", lol? It isn't an official title, and even if it were, it wouldn't make him above criticism. this is just more histrionics.

There is no evidence Navalny is a neo-nazi or that he has neonazi connections as you claimed.

Yeah, this just isn't true. Here's an interview he did back in 2011 explaining why it's OK to collaborate with Nazis at those infamous "Russian Marches".

I know twitter links tend to annoy people on this forum, but here's a good thread, if you care to read it. It includes links to videos and tweets made by Navalny, including his connections to a guy named Ilya Goryachev, a neo-Nazi who is now serving life in prison for murdering two anti-fascists. Navalny, who used to attend Russian Marches with this esteemed gentleman, has never denounced him or his views.

It also, by the way, includes a link to an interview with the Guardian where he is asked about his past statements, such as comparing migrants to rotting teeth and cockroaches. Asked if he has any regrets about these videos, he says no.

The video was a hamfisted smear attempt, but Navalny does have questions to answer about his nationalist views. Several years ago, he released a number of disturbing videos, including one in which he is dressed as a dentist, complaining that tooth cavities ruin healthy teeth, as clips of migrant workers are shown. In another video, he speaks out in favour of relaxing gun controls, in a monologue that appears to compare migrants to cockroaches.

I ask him if he regrets those videos now, and he’s unapologetic. He sees it as a strength that he can speak to both liberals and nationalists. But comparing migrants to cockroaches? “That was artistic license,” he says. So there’s nothing at all from those videos or that period that he regrets? “No,” he says again, firmly.

In case this still isn't enough to convince you that he isn't an "angel", here is an article on his blog talking about how "if Europe has an “orgy of tolerance” towards Islamists, in Russia it’s the Sodom & Gomorrah of lies, hypocrisy, corruption & direct encouragement of aggressive Islamism".

You were drawing a parallel of euromaidan with Navalny, the implication obvious. But good that you retract your own statements and openly state that your analogy is not applicable.

I love that the best you can do is to keep putting words in my mouth and attacking babyish strawmen. I haven't "retracted" anything.

Since you are struggling to grasp the point, let me explain the parallel to Ukraine again: western liberal intervention often ends up unleashing forces that it can't control. This happened in Ukraine, when the United States and United Kingdom openly interfered in the "euromaidan" protests, including logistical support from the CIA. The plan was to install Petro Poroshenko as the "pro-western" figure, but they lost control of it and the "Right Sector" ended up making huge gains. I worry that the same thing will happen if the west backs Alexei Navalny - they may think he is a Yeltsin or Poroshenko type figure, but his connections and personal views suggest we could see a similar dynamic emerge. You can disagree all you like, even forcefully, but please, for the love of God, stop lying about what I've said.

You are an agitprop for Putin, your argumentation has no other purpose or cause.

Again, just a really childish, ugly smear.

Red flag of what? of being a "CIA-MI6 stooge?" But you never said that!! And I'm a liar for imagining it!!!

A red flag that he is not necessarily the hero we are led to believe he is, or even the good guy.

And, yet again with the fake quotes! This is pathetic stuff.

"You said he was a CIA stooge!"
"Actually, I didn't"
"Oh, so now you retract your statement!"
"Er, no. I never actually said it."
"Your statement is clear for all to see! *Quotes completely different paragraph*"
"See, I didn't say it"
"Good to know you retract it!"

It's like arguing with a pigeon.

I quoted your post so that you can never delete it. If you think your trashy behaviour will be sweeped under the rug you are clearly mistaken.

I don't want it swept under the rug. I absolutely stand by what I said.

[noemon]

@noemon
But here you're showing your Westernized philosophical and cultural/spiritual bias, in that you make the assumption that the ''Enlightenment'' was such a good thing. Then, you switch gears and insist that the Russians were at the very forefront of the ''Enlightenment'' efforts during the Romanov era, hardly noticing that I'm in agreement with you on that, but not in agreement with you that it was a positive development.

It doesn't matter whether we agree if it was positive or negative, the fact is Russia is European, as European as any other European country. Let me remind you that your argument is not whether that's good or bad but you used that rather poor article to claim that you 're fundamentally different. Russia is not fundamentally different from another European country and has the same distance with other European countries as they have with each other.

As I said, the ''Romanovs'' were Westernizers, and that process of Westernization ultimately wound up costing them their Throne and in many cases, their lives.

Are you seriously claiming the communists were more "Russian" than the Romanovs? The same communists that killed Orthodox priests, imprisoned them, banned a whole bunch of Russian culture and tried to turn you into new atheist Soviet men?

Have you seriously gone there?

They preached Orthodoxy,

Actually they didn't, they preached both Orthodox and Catholic christianity as at the time the 2 churches were still 1. They were instructed to go to Russia by the Patriarch of Rome(aka Pope).

Unfortunately, from my perspective anyway.

Russia cut off her religious relations with the Greek Orthodox world because we recognised Ukraine as an independent Church. A recognition we have afforded to Russia, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, Ethiopia and a whole host of national churches.

Do you think that is right on the behalf of the Russians to issue a decree for their people not to attend Greek Orthodox churches and services the world over?

Please answer directly to my question instead of trying to find round about ways to avoid it.

So I of all people am not ''scared'' of the vote of the Russian people. I think rather that the West should be ''scared'' of such a vote...

If you 're not scared, then why not support the bid of Navalny to run for office, unhindered, like normal?

You said he was an "angel", a "garden variety conservative", and the "Keir Starmer of Russia".

Compared to Putin, he is. Putin is far worse on that particular regard based on the articles that you yourself brought forward. Compared to Putin, he is the centrist of Russia. Unfortunately for you, this is not an abstract vacuum where entities merely flow in hyperspace. Navalny obviously needs to be viewed through the prism of Russian politics and in relation to the main antagonist, Putin just like all other politics like Biden/Trump, Trump/Hillary, Johnson/Corbyn or Starmer and so on and forth.

Yeah, this just isn't true. Here's an interview he did back in 2011 explaining why it's OK to collaborate with Nazis at those infamous "Russian Marches".

In case this still isn't enough to convince you that he isn't an "angel", here is an article on his blog talking about how "if Europe has an “orgy of tolerance” towards Islamists, in Russia it’s the Sodom & Gomorrah of lies, hypocrisy, corruption & direct encouragement of aggressive Islamism".

Both these articles are in Russian, the google translation extremely difficult to read. In the first article I tried to find the word "Nazi" somewhere in there and couldn't find it anywhere, in the second what am I supposed to be looking at? That he is accusing the Russian government of colluding with aggressive Islamism? What's his argument about?

Are you reading Russian now?

Once again, instead of actually posting any solid evidence, you are hoping that simply repeating your "neonazi" labels enough it may cause a shit stain on the windscreen of Putin's opponent, with what intent really?

This political personality has been tripped, imprisoned, poisoned and imprisoned again, now he returned to Russia and your sole contribution is to taint him with the "neo-nazi" label and draw parallels with euromaidan in order to taint him with the "CIA label" too, after all "the FT and Economist like him so he must be a repeat of Poroshenko" because that is a convenient narrative that may perhaps justify his treatment by Putin.

You can pretend all you like but your agitproping for Putin is transparent. The imprisonment, poisoning and general treatment is just "justice"; after all he is just a "neo-nazi and a "CIA stooge like Poroshenko".

A red flag that he is not necessarily the hero we are led to believe he is, or even the good guy.

Heisenberg: "I only mentioned the words 'nazi', 'neo-nazi', 'CIA', 'MI6', 'Poroshenko' for general education purposes and never intended to taint Navalny with these words I used. You have totally misrepresented me noemon, but I do stand by my words and I am also calling you a 'liar' for quoting the words I used to describe Navalny and his political 'revolution(which revolution?)' which I can see the writing on the wall of being a repeat of Ukraine. I am also calling you a 'liar' for saying that I think he is 'CIA-MI6 stooge', I clearly never said or implied any of that and only used these words to refer to Porosenko, nevertheless I will never say that I believe he isn't CIA or MI6, cause he smells like Poroshenko anyway."

Putin agitproping on the nth.

Since you are struggling to grasp the point, let me explain the parallel to Ukraine again: western liberal intervention often ends up unleashing forces that it can't control. This happened in Ukraine, when the United States and United Kingdom openly interfered in the "euromaidan" protests, including logistical support from the CIA. The plan was to install Petro Poroshenko as the "pro-western" figure, but they lost control of it and the "Right Sector" ended up making huge gains. I worry that the same thing will happen if the west backs Alexei Navalny - they may think he is a Yeltsin or Poroshenko type figure, but his connections and personal views suggest we could see a similar dynamic emerge. You can disagree all you like, even forcefully, but please, for the love of God, stop lying about what I've said.

How is that anyhow different than calling Navalny a "CIA-MI6 stooge"? You are saying Poroshenko had "CIA-MI6 support" and that Navalny is either Poroshenko or even worse than him a "neo-nazi" as well, that the west "may lose control of".

I am telling you the west has no control over him, the western press is not "cheerleading" him in any way, yet another false claim of yours, gone awry.

You 're calling me a "liar" for understanding the point you are explicitly making, again.

Serious question, wasn't Yeltsin the guy who sold Russia to the west? Wasn't Yeltsin the Russian Poroshenko?

Isn't Putin the hand-picked successor of Yeltsin?

Isn't Putin the "neo-nazi" guy that the west lost control of and the guy who imprisoned the migrants(instead of those beating them) during the race-riots as per the article you brought forward to "prove" that Navalny is the "neonazi"?



Isn't Putin the guy who is unable to bring even basic democracy in Russia, the guy who cannot lift Russia out of poverty despite an enormous amount of natural resources, technology and minds? Isn't Putin the very definition of a failure? The kind of failure you expect from foreign interference to keep a country down?

[Heisenberg]

@noemon, your last post genuinely reads like the ravings of a lunatic. I can't even begin to grasp what you're trying to say.

[Rancid]

"Navalny is a CIA neo-nazi plant"

[noemon]

@noemon, your last post genuinely reads like the ravings of a lunatic. I can't even begin to grasp what you're trying to say. The saddest thing is you genuinely seem to think you're making perfect sense.

This is the third time I think you are trying to insult me directly instead of addressing my arguments. Mmkay.

Is this the paragraph you 're having troubles with:

Serious question, wasn't Yeltsin the guy who sold Russia to the west? Wasn't Yeltsin the Russian Poroshenko?

Isn't Putin the hand picked successor of Yeltsin? Isn't Putin the "Russian euromaidan gone wrong"?

Isn't Putin the "neo-nazi" guy that the west lost control of(unlike Yeltsin) and the guy who imprisoned the migrants(instead of those beating them) during the race-riots as per the article you brought forward to "prove" that Navalny is the "neonazi"?



Isn't Putin the guy who is unable to bring even basic democracy in Russia, the guy who cannot lift Russia out of poverty despite an enormous amount of natural resources, technology and minds? Isn't Putin the very definition of a failure? The kind of failure you expect from foreign interference to keep a country down?

Isn't Putin the guy who has imprisoned Alexei Navalny for uncovering corruption in Russia?

[Heisenberg]

This is the third time I think you are trying to insult me directly instead of addressing my arguments. Mmkay.

Every time I address your "arguments", such as they are, you simply ignore the substance of what I've said, caricature it in the most ridiculous way imaginable, and accuse me of doing "agitprop for Putin". What's the point? Do you actually expect me to keep trying to have a serious discussion with you?

And don't you dare pretend you've been a paragon of decency in this thread. You started this by baselessly claiming that I think "Ukrainians and Russian are unworthy to be trusted to elect their own leader and require a Putin to set them straight". Get your head out of your arse.

[noemon]

Every time I address your "arguments", such as they are, you simply ignore them and say I'm doing "agitprop for Putin". What's the point?
And don't you dare pretend you've been a paragon of decency in this thread. You started this with your ludicrous post that I think "Ukrainians and Russian are unworthy to be trusted to elect their own leader and require a Putin to set them straight". Get your head out of your arse, you poor helpless lamb.

That is what I understood and you still have not made a single statement calling for democracy in Russia. You have not addressed anything and you are only trying to ad-hom me at this point.

You have made several posts that indicate that you believe that "the west may lose control of their Slavic puppets and that as a consequence the 'neo-nazis' in these countries may take over" like it happened in the Ukraine. So what is the conclusion of this narrative? That what?

[annatar1914]

@noemon ;

It doesn't matter whether we agree if it was positive or negative, the fact is Russia is European, as European as any other European country.

Saying it and even insisting on it doesn't make it so. Modern Russian figures as widely apart as Alexander Solszhenitsyn, Igor Sharefevich, and Andrei Fursov say otherwise, not to mention thinkers of other eras like Fyodor Dostyoevsky and all the Slavophiles of the 19th century.

Let me remind you that your argument is not whether that's good or bad but you used that rather poor article to claim that you 're fundamentally different. Russia is not fundamentally different from another European country and has the same distance with other European countries as they have with each other.

Saying that Russia has been saddled with a dominating Westernizing minority for some time now does not prove your point. Quite the contrary. I have lived in the West long enough, and have been in Russia long enough and known Russian people long enough, that however much they sometimes painfully and ludicrously try to conform to Western civilization, they most definitely are not Western at their core.

Why? Because by the time the West and it's Modernity is fully embraced by a people, they won't have a real core left. Look at Western Europe and North America for perfect examples of that fact.

Are you seriously claiming the communists were more "Russian" than the Romanovs? The same communists that killed Orthodox priests, imprisoned them, banned a whole bunch of Russian culture and tried to turn you into new atheist Soviet men?

Have you seriously gone there?

No, I haven't, are you suggesting a strawman there with these comments? In fact, quite the contrary, this Western Cult of Marxist Leninists, these ultimate Westernizing fanatics, absolutely failed at their task, even despite the friendliness of the Russian people towards Communalism.

For it was from the West that Atheism came to Russia, and everything that comes with Atheism too. For the unstable foundation of the West lies in the rejection of God, in materialism and secularism.

Actually they didn't, they preached both Orthodox and Catholic christianity as at the time the 2 churches were still 1. They were instructed to go to Russia by the Patriarch of Rome(aka Pope).

There was a time when Old Rome was Orthodox, now sadly long gone although remnants of that time still cling to her.

Russia cut off her religious relations with the Greek Orthodox world because we recognised Ukraine as an independent Church. A recognition we have afforded to Russia, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, Ethiopia and a whole host of national churches.

Do you think that is right on the behalf of the Russians to issue a decree for their people not to attend Greek Orthodox churches and services the world over?

Please answer directly to my question instead of trying to find round about ways to avoid it.

There's no evasion on my part, I'm with traditional Orthodox Christians as I mentioned, the ''official'' crypto-papist and ecumenist ''World Orthodoxy'' fight all the time for worldly favors and scraps... The Phanar is infamously a hive of Western intelligence since at least the Cold War, for example. Few are following the Canons on almost anything, it's terrible.

If you 're not scared, then why not support the bid of Navalny to run for office, unhindered, like normal?

Because bad choices are bad choices, here or anywhere else, being ''scared'' has zero to do with it.

[Ganeshas Rat]

Isn't Putin the hand picked successor of Yeltsin? Isn't Putin the "Russian euromaidan gone wrong"?

The hand picked successor of Yeltsin got six bullets and died. Putin's initial popularity was based exclusively on the fact that Yeltsin's people lost their power and went to liberal opposition (which also explains why 'liberalism' word is obscene in Russia).

the guy who imprisoned the migrants(instead of those beating them) during the race-riots

What are those race riots you are talking about?

[noemon]

@noemon ;Saying it and even insisting on it doesn't make it so. Modern Russian figures as widely apart as Alexander Solszhenitsyn, Igor Sharefevich, and Andrei Fursov say otherwise, not to mention thinkers of other eras like Fyodor Dostyoevsky and all the Slavophiles of the 19th century.

You're not making an argument, nor a point, nor are you responding to any of the arguments made. If you claim these people consider Russia fundamentally different to other European countries, then bring evidence and context.

Saying that Russia has been saddled with a dominating Westernizing minority for some time now does not prove your point. Quite the contrary. I have lived in the West long enough, and have been in Russia long enough and known Russian people long enough, that however much they sometimes painfully and ludicrously try to conform to Western civilization, they most definitely are not Western at their core.
Why? Because by the time the West and it's Modernity is fully embraced by a people, they won't have a real core left. Look at Western Europe and North America for perfect examples of that fact.
No, I haven't, are you suggesting a strawman there with these comments? In fact, quite the contrary, this Western Cult of Marxist Leninists, these ultimate Westernizing fanatics, absolutely failed at their task, even despite the friendliness of the Russian people towards Communalism.
For it was from the West that Atheism came to Russia, and everything that comes with Atheism too. For the unstable foundation of the West lies in the rejection of God, in materialism and secularism.

You posted a diatribe that communalism is more Russian than western liberalism, you called the Romanovs foreign traitors so I naturally asked you if you consider the communists as more Russian than the Romanovs. A fair question that addresses your argument about "communalism" being more Russian than the liberal Czars.

Now you 're telling me that neither have been Russian and that both communalist communists and liberal Romanovs have been foreign traitors.

Putin is also the hand-picked successor of "Yeltsin the western traitor". So 3 questions here:

1) Who has not been a "foreign traitor" in Russia?
2) Why not elect a Russian guy directly?
3) How is Russia fundamentally different to other countries in the west?

Because bad choices are bad choices, here or anywhere else, being ''scared'' has zero to do with it.

What is a "right choice"?

There's no evasion on my part, I'm with traditional Orthodox Christians as I mentioned, the ''official'' crypto-papist and ecumenist ''World Orthodoxy'' fight all the time for worldly favors and scraps... The Phanar is infamously a hive of Western intelligence since at least the Cold War, for example. Few are following the Canons on almost anything, it's terrible.

You are still not answering my question:

Russia cut off her religious relations with the Greek Orthodox world because we recognised Ukraine as an independent Church. A recognition we have afforded to Russia, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, Ethiopia and a whole host of national churches.

Why shouldn't the Ukrainian Church be independent like all the rest of our Orthodox churches?

Do you think that is right on the behalf of the Russians to issue a decree for their people not to attend Greek Orthodox churches and services the world over?

Please answer directly to my question instead of trying to find round about ways to avoid it.

What are those race riots you are talking about?

An event Heisenberg brought forward that boomeranged:

Russia Responds to Anti-Migrant Riots by Arresting Migrants

https://world.time.com/2013/10/14/russia-responds-to-anti-migrant-riots-by-arresting-migrants/

[Ganeshas Rat]

https://world.time.com/2013/10/14/russia-responds-to-anti-migrant-riots-by-arresting-migrants/

Ah well, I thought something serious. Hopefully, there will be more of these news next years. If so, I'll even vote for Putin.

[Heisenberg]

That is what I understood and you still have not made a single statement calling for democracy in Russia.

If you want to play this game, you haven't made a single statement denouncing the Russian far right. In fact, you've gone to great lengths to downplay its existence, and Alexei Navalny's connections to it. I wonder why?

An event Heisenberg brought forward that boomeranged:

Quick reminder for anyone reading: In 2013, nationalist goons attacked a load of migrant workers, and the Russian government responded by arresting the victims. Alexei Navalny subsequently posted on his blog in support of the attackers, and did not denounce the arrests. @noemon apparently thinks this is a point in Navalny's favour.

[annatar1914]

@noemon ;

You're not making an argument, nor a point, nor are you responding to any of the arguments made. If you claim these people consider Russia fundamentally different to other European countries, then bring evidence and context.

They are ''evidence and context'', showing a thread of cultural and spiritual resistance, outside of the ''Old Russia'' of the ''Old Believers'' (who are the obvious and continuing proof of resistance to Westernization, btw, all in themselves) to Westernization that has been clear since the 1700's when Westernization began.

You posted a diatribe that communalism is more Russian than western liberalism, you called the Romanovs foreign traitors so I naturally asked you if you consider the communists as more Russian than the Romanovs. A fair question that addresses your argument about "communalism" being more Russian than the liberal Czars.

''fair question'' prefaced by ''diatribe'' characterizing what I said, addresses nothing. Bolshevism is at the very vanguard of active Western thought, Western philosophy in action if you will, the logical consequence of Western Enlightenment liberalism. The Romanovs produced them regardless of them realizing it or not. Tsar Peter himself was close enough to Bolshevism in spirit as it was.

Now you 're telling me that neither have been Russian and that both communalist communists and liberal Romanovs have been foreign traitors.

Yes, what survived out of what they did had organic roots among the people to begin with.

Putin is also the hand-picked successor of "Yeltsin the western traitor". So 3 questions here:

1) Who has not been a "foreign traitor" in Russia?
2) Why not elect a Russian guy directly?
3) How is Russia fundamentally different to other countries in the west?

Putin is not a traitor for sure, Yeltsin being enough of a patriot that he had the courage to quit and appoint the best man for Russia to finish Yeltsin's term and turn the country around no matter how long it took.

Everything else you ask has been answered already.

What is a "right choice"?



You are still not answering my question:

Russia cut off her religious relations with the Greek Orthodox world because we recognised Ukraine as an independent Church. A recognition we have afforded to Russia, Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, Ethiopia and a whole host of national churches.

Why shouldn't the Ukrainian Church be independent like all the rest of our Orthodox churches?

Do you think that is right on the behalf of the Russians to issue a decree for their people not to attend Greek Orthodox churches and services the world over?

Please answer directly to my question instead of trying to find round about ways to avoid it.

The official Russian Orthodox Church has said that what the Turkish reserve officer, Gregorian Pontifical University Student and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew did, and how he did it, was a schismatic and uncanonical act. If that is so, than those in communion with schismatics and violators of the canons of the Church... Are acting in a Schismatic manner themselves. Besides, the real reason this all occurred was so that the new ''church'' could then unite with the Uniates and submit to the Vatican.

[noemon]

If you want to play this game, you haven't made a single statement denouncing the Russian far right. In fact, you've gone to great lengths to downplay its existence, and Alexei Navalny's connections to it. I wonder why?

I have explicitly acknowledged twice that Navalny is a nationalist politician.

You keep insisting that democracy in Ukraine and Russia will result to these countries going "neo-nazi".

This reads to me like pathetic western arrogance that Slavs are incapable to rule themselves.

You are finding it impossible to say that you are for democracy in these countries.

I'm not playing a game with an agitprop for Putin just trying to untangle the web of propagandistic nonsense that only serve to agitprop Putin.

Quick reminder for anyone reading: In 2013, nationalist goons attacked a load of migrant workers, and the Russian government responded by arresting the victims. Alexei Navalny subsequently posted on his blog in support of the attackers, and did not denounce the arrests. @noemon apparently thinks this is a point in Navalny's favour.

I am pointing out your hypocrisy for denouncing Navalny and not Putin who arrested the migrants in the first place.

They are ''evidence and context'', showing a thread of cultural and spiritual resistance, outside of the ''Old Russia'' of the ''Old Believers'' (who are the obvious and continuing proof of resistance to Westernization, btw, all in themselves) to Westernization that has been clear since the 1700's when Westernization began.

They are not showing anything, just mentioning a couple of names of Russian writers does not mean anything, I can do it too.

Alexander Solszhenitsyn, Igor Sharefevich, and Andrei Fursov say Russia is as European as the other Europeans.

What now?

''fair question'' prefaced by ''diatribe'' characterizing what I said, addresses nothing. Bolshevism is at the very vanguard of active Western thought, Western philosophy in action if you will, the logical consequence of Western Enlightenment liberalism. The Romanovs produced them regardless of them realizing it or not. Tsar Peter himself was close enough to Bolshevism in spirit as it was.

I'm referring to that block of text you quoted(you did not say it yourself) it was a large quote from some blog and it was a diatribe that made no sense, calling Russians "integrators" as opposed to western "conquerors" and was contrasting Russian communalism to western liberalism. The question is fair indeed. Now you 're saying that the Communists were more Liberal than the western liberals. Okay, what does anyone say to that when words can apparently have any meaning even for the person using them from post to post.

Putin is not a traitor for sure, Yeltsin being enough of a patriot that he had the courage to quit and appoint the best man for Russia to finish Yeltsin's term and turn the country around no matter how long it took.

So all the Russian governments for the past 500-600 years were all western traitors but Putin who was directly appointed by the official western puppet Yeltsin is the only pure distillation of the Russian spirit. Okay mate!

Everything else you ask has been answered already.

They have not, please have the decency to reply to the questions of your interlocutor.

2) Why not elect a Russian guy directly?
3) How is Russia fundamentally different to other countries in the west?

The official Russian Orthodox Church has said that what the Turkish reserve officer, Gregorian Pontifical University Student and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew did, and how he did it, was a schismatic and uncanonical act. If that is so, than those in communion with schismatics and violators of the canons of the Church... Are acting in a Schismatic manner themselves. Besides, the real reason this all occurred was so that the new ''church'' could then unite with the Uniates and submit to the Vatican.

So you are saying that because the Greek Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarchate recognised Ukraine as the same status as Russia, Bulgaria, Albania, Czechia, Poland, Serbia and others; that was a schismatic act that deserves the announced Russian split with our Churches, and that you do not wish for the Russian and Greek people to attend each other's religious services or any other Orthodox services in fact as they all abide by the decision of the Ecumenical Patriarch.

You have no argument to justify that other than, the Head of my Church told me to break up with you guys, so I will!

Fabulous.

Why should the Ukraine, an independent nation not have its own independent Autocephalous Church, like Russia and all the other countries?

[Heisenberg]

I have explicitly acknowledged twice that Navalny is a nationalist politician.

That doesn't sound like a denunciation of the far right to me.

You keep insisting that democracy in Ukraine and Russia will result to these countries going "neo-nazi".

Please show me where I said this.

You are finding it impossible to say that you are for democracy in these countries.

Of course I'm in favour of democracy and self-determination in Ukraine and Russia, you absolute fucking helmet. That's why I oppose western intervention in foreign countries.

I am pointing out your hypocrisy for denouncing Navalny and not Putin who arrested the migrants in the first place.

Because the topic of discussion was Navalny's past statements and actions. For the avoidance of doubt, since you are apparently more dense than a brick wall: I wholeheartedly and unreservedly denounce the Russian government arresting the victims of these riots. Do you still think Navalny is an "angel" for supporting the attackers?

[noemon]

That doesn't sound like a denunciation of the far right to me.

Here: I denounce the far right.

Of course I'm in favour of democracy and self-determination in Ukraine and Russia, you absolute fucking helmet. That's why I oppose western intervention in foreign countries.

Well done mate! That wasn't that hard now, was it.

Now please tell me what you think about Putin trying to prevent Navalny and a whole host of others from standing in the democratic elections that you believe should take place in Russia.

I extend the same support to all other political prisoners in Russia.

Because the topic of discussion was Navalny's past statements and actions. For the avoidance of doubt, since you are apparently more dense than a brick wall: I wholeheartedly and unreservedly denounce the Russian government arresting the victims of these riots. Do you still think Navalny is an "angel" for supporting the attackers?

You denounce Putin you mean, mate! Good job. We 're getting there.

I do believe that Navalny is a much better candidate than Putin for the reasons described below in your own article.

This author of yours makes various claims based on his own opinions and prejudices about Navalny being either a "Putin mole to make him look good by winning against a real candidate" or the Russian "Trump"(both of which points I disagree with), nevertheless he proceeded to list his political program which is great:

After five years of more or less political calm in Russia, a growing movement has emerged in opposition to President Vladimir Putin and his authoritarian government. But while the last big wave of protests, in 2011 and 2012, contained a wide range of political groups demanding fair elections and democratic rights, the new movement is completely dominated by one man: the right-wing populist Alexey Navalny.

Other well-known opposition leaders have been eliminated in various ways. The radical Left Front leader Sergey Udaltsov was imprisoned five years ago. The prominent liberal Boris Nemtsov was assassinated in 2015. And other opposition figures, such as Gerry Kasparov and Ilya Ponomarev, have been driven into exile.

Navalny has survived the crackdown relatively unscathed, continuing his political campaigning in comparative freedom. But whether he will be allowed to challenge Putin in next year’s presidential election is another question.

Who Is Alexey Navalny?
After annexing Crimea in 2014, Putin enjoyed a boost in public support. But that spike has since subsided, and falling oil prices and Western sanctions have brought growing economic problems and everyday difficulties for most Russians.

Turnout in last year’s parliamentary elections dipped to a record low, signaling a lack of public confidence in Putin’s party, United Russia, despite its first-place finish. Putin knows he can’t afford such a Pyrrhic victory again. In 2018, he needs to claw back public support and secure a true mandate to continue governing under stable conditions.

One way of doing so would be to defeat a real opposition candidate, someone who could be presented as a public enemy and an external threat to Russia in the state-controlled media. That person could be Alexey Navalny.

Navalny has a background in the liberal party Yabloko, but has also been very active in far-right politics. He participated regularly in the annual ultranationalist “Russian March” in Moscow, and has made a series of racist statements about Muslims and people from the Caucasus and former Soviet Republics in Central Asia. Even worse, he expressed support for the 2013 Biryulyovo race riots, in which Russian skinheads attacked immigrants in a Moscow district.

Navalny is most famous, however, for his anti-corruption journalism. Together with a team of supporters, he has broken significant stories about the Russian political elite, first publishing on a private blog and now running a YouTube channel with well over a million subscribers. One of his most recent documentaries — which accuses Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev of taking millions in bribes from the country’s oligarchs — has attracted tens of millions of views on YouTube and triggered a 10 to 15 percent decline in public support for the Russian government.

Navalny has made it clear he intends to run in next year’s presidential contest. Despite attempts by the authorities to smear and obstruct him, he has started fundraising, opened offices in most major cities, and attracted more than three hundred thousand volunteers to register as campaign workers.

One explanation for Navalny’s growing popularity is that he has finally presented a clear political program, while speaking about the country’s social ills. During the 2012 protest movement, Navalny mixed neoliberal economics with nationalist rhetoric and was extremely vague about what policies he actually stood for. He declared his opposition to Putin, “illegal immigrants,” and corruption, but never articulated a clear alternative.

But now Navalny has begun to focus on some of the injustices that plague the country, and started inveighing against the oligarch class that has stolen the country’s wealth since the 1990s. He has come out in favor of an increase in the minimum wage and more generous pensions, and he says that health care and education, which have been hit hard by privatization in recent years, need more resources.

In many ways, Navalny appears more and more like a Russian version of Donald Trump. Just as Trump promised to “drain the swamp” in Washington and save the US economy using his business acumen, Navalny is promising to deal with the infamous Russian bureaucracy, reduce the influence of the state, and create a better-functioning capitalism. He blames a large part of Russia’s problem on “illegal immigrants,” and wants to establish a visa regime that would bar admission to former Soviet citizens from Central Asia — poor workers who come to Russia by the millions hoping for a better life.

And like Trump, Navalny’s anti-establishment veneer is just that. Several of those who now back Navalny come out of the Kremlin themselves, like the right-wing neoliberal Vladimir Milov, former deputy energy minister in Putin’s government, who designed Navalny’s economic policy program. Milov has been critical of Putin, but when it really mattered, during the protests of 2012, and Sergei Udaltsov became a popular left-wing voice of the movement, Milov publicly supported Putin instead of Udaltsov.

Another of these behind-the-scene characters is Leonid Volkov, Navalny’s campaign manager, who is working hard to persuade the oligarchs and the big companies that Navalny does not pose any threat to their property — unlike Udaltsov, who would seriously challenge their economic power.

In particular, Navalny is courting the section of Russian capital that is tired of Putin’s power monopoly and wants to see an alternative. Just like in the US and the European Union, there is a growing schism within the Russian elite between the neoliberal internationalists, who want to continue selling Russian raw materials like oil on the world market, and the classical industrial capitalists, who rely on the domestic market and are more inclined to support protectionist policies.

The End of Quiescence
During last year’s US election, Kremlin media made no secret about their support for Donald Trump, and his victory was at first greeted with cheer in Moscow. But now Putin is facing a challenge from Trump’s Russian doppelgänger, a figure who espouses xenophobic nationalism while attacking a group of rulers that many perceive as a corrupt political elite.

Young people in Russia can’t remember having a ruler not named Putin. But that doesn’t mean they are willing to accept it. It was the same generation — Millenials, as they say in the US — that refused to support Hillary Clinton, and instead flocked to Bernie Sanders’s campaign in droves. When Clinton won, it turned out to be a victory for Donald Trump.

So if Russia now has its own Donald Trump, is there a chance that a Russian equivalent to Bernie Sanders will appear?

Udaltsov — who will be released next month after five years in prison — would be the obvious candidate. However, another left-wing leader, Leonid Razvozzhaev, who was recently set free after four and a half years of imprisonment, has received a two-year ban on participating in demonstrations and other political events. It’s very possible that Udaltsov will get slapped with a similar proscription.

Meanwhile, Putin seems to be taking his power for granted. But the long period of political quiescence in Russia is coming to an end. The next year will likely be marked by a dramatic struggle for power.

Per Leander is a Swedish journalist and the author of two books about the Soviet Union and Russia.

Alexey Sakhnin is a Russian activist and a member of the Left Front. A political refugee living in Sweden, he was one of the leaders of the anti-Putin protest movement from 2011 to 2013.

[Heisenberg]

Now please tell me what you think about Putin trying to prevent Navalny and a whole host of others from standing in the democratic elections that you believe should take place in Russia. I also extend the same support to all other political prisoners in Russia.

I am opposed to political repression, so obviously he shouldn't be barred from running. I do not support him, I still think he's a prat, and I think anyone putting their hopes in him for a liberal future in Russia is deluded.

You denounce Putin you mean, mate! Good job. We 're getting there.

Given that I never actually expressed any support for him in the first place, and my alleged support for him was an invention of your imagination, your patronising tone is completely unnecessary.

I do believe that Navalny is much better candidate than Putin for the reasons described below in your own article.

I think the paragraph you ignored is a little more pertinent...

And like Trump, Navalny’s anti-establishment veneer is just that. Several of those who now back Navalny come out of the Kremlin themselves, like the right-wing neoliberal Vladimir Milov, former deputy energy minister in Putin’s government, who designed Navalny’s economic policy program. Milov has been critical of Putin, but when it really mattered, during the protests of 2012, and Sergei Udaltsov became a popular left-wing voice of the movement, Milov publicly supported Putin instead of Udaltsov.

Another of these behind-the-scene characters is Leonid Volkov, Navalny’s campaign manager, who is working hard to persuade the oligarchs and the big companies that Navalny does not pose any threat to their property — unlike Udaltsov, who would seriously challenge their economic power.

Couple this with his ties to some rather unsavoury figures on the Russian far right, which I think(?) you now acknowledge, and I worry it's a case of plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

[noemon]

I think the paragraph you ignored is a little more pertinent...

I posted the whole thing as it was and did not ignore anything, so please do not start with your pathetic personal insults and insinuations again.

Perhaps he's right. I would like to see open & democratic elections in Russia with all political prisoners available to run in a fair and free election.