It's almost exactly two years since his death. I'm curious why this information is coming out now. Read the article but maybe I missed it? Did they just test it now? Did they know before and are...
It's almost exactly two years since his death. I'm curious why this information is coming out now. Read the article but maybe I missed it? Did they just test it now? Did they know before and are just releasing it now? Does it just take that long to test for these sorts of toxins (I really have no clue).
Anyways, his death really stayed with me at the time. As someone who studied/studies a lot of history, it's always strange to be reminded that the things you read about that feel like distant memories of the past, like war and slavery and the purging of political dissidents, are actually still going on regularly with absolutely no end in sight.
I still vividly remember his phone call with the agent who poisoned him where he pretended to be the guy's higher up and was grilling him about why he fucked up the assassination, and getting the guy to explain exactly how he carried out the poisoning (the whole toxin in the underwear thing). Crazy stuff.
At the time when he turned himself in I really hoped his imprisonment (and eventual execution) would lead to some lasting change, but it seems that was not the case sadly. A real-life martyr if I've ever seen one.
I wonder if they could detect he was poisoned based on physical symptoms, but wanted to determine which poison it was exactly before making a definitive announcement? Harder for Russia to deflect...
I wonder if they could detect he was poisoned based on physical symptoms, but wanted to determine which poison it was exactly before making a definitive announcement? Harder for Russia to deflect responsibility when they can't even name the exact poison. I suspect poison dart frogs' neurotoxins aren't part of the typical screening process. This may be the first time I've heard of an actual murder committed with their toxins (at least, outside locals in their native regions using their toxins to coat weapons).
Thinking about it, the announcement also serves as a subtle warning to Russia that they will know to test for that specifically in the future. So, Russia is unlikely to use it again since it will be a dead giveaway given how unusual it is. Seriously, have there been any other murders or assassinations with this? Search results so far just bring up the generic "these frogs' poison is very deadly" articles or mentions of the show High Potential using it in one episode.
I still vividly remember his phone call with the agent who poisoned him where he pretended to be the guy's higher up and was grilling him about why he fucked up the assassination, and getting the guy to explain exactly how he carried out the poisoning (the whole toxin in the underwear thing).
That was a prior poisoning. Here's the Wikipedia page, and the section "Telephone conversation with an FSB agent" details a phone call Navalny himself made to an operative involved with it, while...
That was a prior poisoning. Here's the Wikipedia page, and the section "Telephone conversation with an FSB agent" details a phone call Navalny himself made to an operative involved with it, while posing as someone else, to get him to confess. Pretty crazy stuff, I forgot about that phone call.
Yup someone else posted the wiki page, here is a BBC clip on it. It's basically exactly what it sounds like. He called up the dude who poisoned him, spoofing his number to pretend to be one of the...
Yup someone else posted the wiki page, here is a BBC clip on it.
It's basically exactly what it sounds like. He called up the dude who poisoned him, spoofing his number to pretend to be one of the guy's superiors, and practically interrogated the guy on why he failed his mission, getting both a confession as well as the details of the failed assassination in the process (at the time they did not know how the poison was applied).
Like imagine you're a hired assassin, you fail to kill a guy, and then your boss's boss calls you and asks you how you managed to fuck it up. You then explain to him how you went about doing it and why you failed your mission. Except unbeknownst to you it's not your boss's boss on the other line, it's the guy you tried to kill. Sounds like something right out of a Hollywood spy thriller.
Well there's a full video posted by Navalny himself with English subtitles (turn on youtube subs) if you'd rather see that than the summaries that others have posted. It is quite worth a watch.
Well there's a full video posted by Navalny himself with English subtitles (turn on youtube subs) if you'd rather see that than the summaries that others have posted. It is quite worth a watch.
Just for reminding, Navalnyi was just the other side of the same coin: the same chauvinist and imperialist as Putin. Keep in mind, that any authorian power often eats their opponent with the same...
Just for reminding, Navalnyi was just the other side of the same coin: the same chauvinist and imperialist as Putin. Keep in mind, that any authorian power often eats their opponent with the same ideology — Russia is a good example itself: one group of communists killed other not-enough / over-enough / not-their communists.
Thus you shouldnʼt care about him [and his partners], but more about Ukraine. Not like our topic starter with those words:
I fully support Ukraine in the war against Russia, but I actually agree with the IOC in this particular case.
Aka, I support X, but… [actually not]. And, yeah, Iʼm not totallly surprised by his narrative & news here, (:
Their media converted anti-corruption → anti-Putinist, but as you see, politically itʼs not true. Another keep in mind: Lukašenko — if you forgot, a Belarusian dictator — also started his way as an anti-corruptioner. But Belarus politically didnʼt change so much from BSSR.
This is a pretty weird snipe. What terrorist acts against his or other populaces did he do? Any child oncology wards he bombed? How many political foes did he torture, poison, threaten the family...
This is a pretty weird snipe.
Navalnyi was just the other side of the same coin...
What terrorist acts against his or other populaces did he do? Any child oncology wards he bombed? How many political foes did he torture, poison, threaten the family of, or defenstrate?
This is a false equivalency. An extreme would be saying jaywalking is a crime and mass cannibalism is a crime, with no meaningful distinction to be drawn between them.
If you can't distinguish between bad and worse there is no reason not to be worse, to be monstrous. And whether it's by intimidation or corruption, there are huge incentives to be a monster.
Was Navalny flawed? Yes. The more so the further back you go. As far as I know anything recent you'll find has been very critical of Russian aggression and warm on normalizing EU ties, morales, and trade.
"Putin is waging a war of aggression against Ukraine under absurd pretexts."
"What are Russia's borders? They are defined by the internationally recognized borders of 1991."
Aka, I support X, but… [actually not]. And, yeah, Iʼm not totallly surprised by his narrative & news here, (:
Why find enemies where there aren't any? People who share your values and goals are going to disagree with you on how to get there, and you accomplish nothing by insulting them or assuming bad faith off the bat.
At least take a minute to look at cfabbro's comments on any of the past Russia/Ukraine threads?
...also started his way as an anti-corruptioner.
This is flawed logic. There have been authoritarians who rise using the convenient lever of disatisfaction with an existing regime before going on to be as bad or worse as their predecessor.
There are also plenty of cases where this has not happened. Or where problems like corruption or election fraud were at least reduced. Zelensky campaigned on anti-corruption, so is he fated to be the next Lukasenko?
The only one distinguish was only having power. You basically asked me: one man killed, and another supported it. Imagine other a close situation: one killed Jews, and other supported it. Now you...
The only one distinguish was only having power. You basically asked me: one man killed, and another supported it. Imagine other a close situation: one killed Jews, and other supported it. Now you shit me with false equivalency. Technically, yes, the former is worse than the latter, but I still donʼt want to see the latter in any political way, and I still wouldnʼt care, if the former killed the latter — I would just find it as funny irony. You know, nazi killed not only Jews, yeah? And Russians kill in Ukraine pro-Russians too; and in Russia (hello, Prigozhin) pro-war too. Wait, you would defend Prigozhin too, yeah?
And, nope, he was shit untill his death. I remind you, Putin asks to cancel sanctions, and normilize trading, ties with EU too. The same shit is with politican prisoners which just released from Belarus / Russia prisons: No-no, itʼs only Putin bad! Please, for making life better for people, cancel sanction. Please! So, yeah, Navalnyi and his circle were [and still is] just asking the same shit, what Putin wants. Am I suprised? Again, no, (:
Ehm, no? Itʼs not flawed logic. If Russia today would less corruptionned, Ukraine would be fucked a way more.
Zelensky campaigned on anti-corruption, so is he fated to be the next Lukasenko?
Yes. Do you know internal Ukrainian politics? Have you heard new corruption scandals? You can provide here more examples, for an example: Órban. The main difference between Ukraine & Belarus, at least for now, the former doesnʼt have resources, nor external power [basically canʼt rely on Russia, China; even on the current US] for making strong authorian structure.
But you still should support Ukraine — even if it was authorian — anyway, because itʼs not about corruption, but world international laws and security. Ukraine isnʼt the first, nor the last. Maybe you miss, but Russia has bad activities in many places, include in EU. Many of you usually calls it as hybrid war or in other words, while itʼs a actually war.
According to you. And you're convinced of that, but that does nothing for the rest of us. If you have evidence I'm happy to change my mind, but my admittedly limited exposure to Navalny over the...
The only one distinguish was only having power.
According to you. And you're convinced of that, but that does nothing for the rest of us. If you have evidence I'm happy to change my mind, but my admittedly limited exposure to Navalny over the past few years does not paint him as comparable to Putin or deserving to be tortured and killed.
Even if he was completely deserving of death the event/story is not a redemption of him, but an indictment of Putin. It is wrong to imprison adversaries on false pretenses and poison them as a principle. Navalny is dead and irrelevant, while Putin and company still commits those acts, with one more confirmation.
...one killed Jews, and other supported it
A good chunk of America has supported or enabled horrible things. Millions dead in the Middle East and unestimable future damage from the destabilization. The current administration is probably going to be even worse.
I hate it and feel shame about it, but I'm also not going to say that the average GOP voter is the same as a feckless politician supporting it, and they aren't the PNAC/Cheney's pushing for it or the torturers at Abu Ghraib.
I'm also never going to support the greater evil when they're also a subject. I get it, and I'm not going to criticize anyone for feeling that way, but the related sentiment of things like "anyone scammed by X deserved to lose their money" is bizarre to me.
Fine, we like seeing bad things happen to people we don't like or respect-- Liz Cheney can fuck off into obscurity. But the outcome is now a scammer has more power/wealth to expand, and any decent Russian has yet another reason to keep their head down and make the munitions, lest they and their family are tortured and killed.
Have you heard new corruption scandals?
I'm not an expert, but yes, I'm familiar, including the 2025 controversy. I used Zelenskyy as an example despite that because I assumed you wouldn't shrug him off as an inevitable Putin deserving to be tortured to death in a prison.
Instead I could have used Lee Kuan Yew, Teddy Roosevelt (despite his other flaws), or others more knowledgeable historians would know of. The point is there are anti-corruption/reformers who more or less were honest about their intents (or understand it as the source of their mandate) who have improved things.
Basing your views on what you think is going to happen or not separating minor and major corruption is a path to things getting worse.
Well, thatʼs exaclty my point. Almost. Why do you need more confirmation? Evil isnʼt enough evil? Whereʼs your limit? Sorry, I didnʼt know about, that Putin has something good thing or not enough...
Navalny is dead and irrelevant, while Putin and company still commits those acts, with one more confirmation.
Well, thatʼs exaclty my point. Almost. Why do you need more confirmation? Evil isnʼt enough evil? Whereʼs your limit? Sorry, I didnʼt know about, that Putin has something good thing or not enough evil. You should stop evil, not search another usless confirmation, in this case itʼs more usless, because itʼs not the first case of poising: very known novičok in UK (whichʼs far worse case, because it was non-Russian lands). The same shit is with this: he just says that heʼll kill you, but he havnʼt killed you. See? Heʼs not evil! Thatʼs what you say me. Sorry, Iʼm not you, and I would better think about it as real threatening.
If an average voter voted for this, then from my perespective they also should have reponsibility. For an example, Germany had it: all of them, not only nazi-supporter, paid reparations, and a very long time. Donʼt run from responsibility, and donʼt allow others to do this too. UK voted for Brexit? Well, even if they want to return to EU, they cannʼt return in quickly, while in other case they could. Etc.
anyone scammed by X deserved to lose their money
Just in case, I kinda repeat myseft. I didnʼt said it. I said: any, who was for scamming, scammed by X deserved to lose their money. Donʼt change my thesis.
This is an insane amount of black and white thinking. Navalny was the same as Putin, and he ran an anti-corruption campaign, which makes him similar to Lukasenko, who's a dictator, and clearly...
Zelensky campaigned on anti-corruption, so is he fated to be the next Lukasenko?
Yes. Do you know internal Ukrainian politics? Have you heard new corruption scandals?
This is an insane amount of black and white thinking. Navalny was the same as Putin, and he ran an anti-corruption campaign, which makes him similar to Lukasenko, who's a dictator, and clearly that's Zelensky's future, so in a way there's a long equal sign between Putin and Zelensky.
I do know something about Ukraine's corruption problems, so I also know that while they're still big, they've been on a downward trend in the last 20 years or so, the time period I have any data from. Zelensky arguably failed as an anti-corruption leader, but saying that he's like Lukasenko in his goals/future/ambition just seems to be based on weird, incredibly narrowly focused or partially made up impressions. There simply aren't many commonalities.
edit: I see you're Ukrainian, so for context (it's located somewhere in my comment history a couple times, but probably too far back) I'm Czech and I have a few friends who have been working on and off in Ukraine on regional development for the last 20 years or so and watching many things slowly get better.
Regarding Navalny, the situation is more nuanced and I think it's necessary to perceive that nuance. For example in his position he simply had to be a strongman type of leader, something that most sane people in functioning democracies dislike, because the unfortunate reality of Russian culture is that nobody would take him seriously if he wasn't. I also think that the sole fact that he literally decided he's prepared to die for his country in hope to inspire change clearly separates his character from people like Lukasenko or Orban. That said I would like to see someone better than Navalny lead Russia, but realistically I don't think that's going to happen in the next few decades.
It's almost exactly two years since his death. I'm curious why this information is coming out now. Read the article but maybe I missed it? Did they just test it now? Did they know before and are just releasing it now? Does it just take that long to test for these sorts of toxins (I really have no clue).
Anyways, his death really stayed with me at the time. As someone who studied/studies a lot of history, it's always strange to be reminded that the things you read about that feel like distant memories of the past, like war and slavery and the purging of political dissidents, are actually still going on regularly with absolutely no end in sight.
I still vividly remember his phone call with the agent who poisoned him where he pretended to be the guy's higher up and was grilling him about why he fucked up the assassination, and getting the guy to explain exactly how he carried out the poisoning (the whole toxin in the underwear thing). Crazy stuff.
At the time when he turned himself in I really hoped his imprisonment (and eventual execution) would lead to some lasting change, but it seems that was not the case sadly. A real-life martyr if I've ever seen one.
Yeah not much detail given there
I wonder if they could detect he was poisoned based on physical symptoms, but wanted to determine which poison it was exactly before making a definitive announcement? Harder for Russia to deflect responsibility when they can't even name the exact poison. I suspect poison dart frogs' neurotoxins aren't part of the typical screening process. This may be the first time I've heard of an actual murder committed with their toxins (at least, outside locals in their native regions using their toxins to coat weapons).
Thinking about it, the announcement also serves as a subtle warning to Russia that they will know to test for that specifically in the future. So, Russia is unlikely to use it again since it will be a dead giveaway given how unusual it is. Seriously, have there been any other murders or assassinations with this? Search results so far just bring up the generic "these frogs' poison is very deadly" articles or mentions of the show High Potential using it in one episode.
???
That was a prior poisoning. Here's the Wikipedia page, and the section "Telephone conversation with an FSB agent" details a phone call Navalny himself made to an operative involved with it, while posing as someone else, to get him to confess. Pretty crazy stuff, I forgot about that phone call.
Yup someone else posted the wiki page, here is a BBC clip on it.
It's basically exactly what it sounds like. He called up the dude who poisoned him, spoofing his number to pretend to be one of the guy's superiors, and practically interrogated the guy on why he failed his mission, getting both a confession as well as the details of the failed assassination in the process (at the time they did not know how the poison was applied).
Like imagine you're a hired assassin, you fail to kill a guy, and then your boss's boss calls you and asks you how you managed to fuck it up. You then explain to him how you went about doing it and why you failed your mission. Except unbeknownst to you it's not your boss's boss on the other line, it's the guy you tried to kill. Sounds like something right out of a Hollywood spy thriller.
Well there's a full video posted by Navalny himself with English subtitles (turn on youtube subs) if you'd rather see that than the summaries that others have posted. It is quite worth a watch.
Just for reminding, Navalnyi was just the other side of the same coin: the same chauvinist and imperialist as Putin. Keep in mind, that any authorian power often eats their opponent with the same ideology — Russia is a good example itself: one group of communists killed other not-enough / over-enough / not-their communists.
Thus you shouldnʼt care about him [and his partners], but more about Ukraine. Not like our topic starter with those words:
Aka, I support X, but… [actually not]. And, yeah, Iʼm not totallly surprised by his narrative & news here, (:
Their media converted anti-corruption → anti-Putinist, but as you see, politically itʼs not true. Another keep in mind: Lukašenko — if you forgot, a Belarusian dictator — also started his way as an anti-corruptioner. But Belarus politically didnʼt change so much from BSSR.
This is a pretty weird snipe.
What terrorist acts against his or other populaces did he do? Any child oncology wards he bombed? How many political foes did he torture, poison, threaten the family of, or defenstrate?
This is a false equivalency. An extreme would be saying jaywalking is a crime and mass cannibalism is a crime, with no meaningful distinction to be drawn between them.
If you can't distinguish between bad and worse there is no reason not to be worse, to be monstrous. And whether it's by intimidation or corruption, there are huge incentives to be a monster.
Was Navalny flawed? Yes. The more so the further back you go. As far as I know anything recent you'll find has been very critical of Russian aggression and warm on normalizing EU ties, morales, and trade.
Why find enemies where there aren't any? People who share your values and goals are going to disagree with you on how to get there, and you accomplish nothing by insulting them or assuming bad faith off the bat.
At least take a minute to look at cfabbro's comments on any of the past Russia/Ukraine threads?
This is flawed logic. There have been authoritarians who rise using the convenient lever of disatisfaction with an existing regime before going on to be as bad or worse as their predecessor.
There are also plenty of cases where this has not happened. Or where problems like corruption or election fraud were at least reduced. Zelensky campaigned on anti-corruption, so is he fated to be the next Lukasenko?
The only one distinguish was only having power. You basically asked me: one man killed, and another supported it. Imagine other a close situation: one killed Jews, and other supported it. Now you shit me with false equivalency. Technically, yes, the former is worse than the latter, but I still donʼt want to see the latter in any political way, and I still wouldnʼt care, if the former killed the latter — I would just find it as funny irony. You know, nazi killed not only Jews, yeah? And Russians kill in Ukraine pro-Russians too; and in Russia (hello, Prigozhin) pro-war too. Wait, you would defend Prigozhin too, yeah?
And, nope, he was shit untill his death. I remind you, Putin asks to cancel sanctions, and normilize trading, ties with EU too. The same shit is with politican prisoners which just released from Belarus / Russia prisons: No-no, itʼs only Putin bad! Please, for making life better for people, cancel sanction. Please! So, yeah, Navalnyi and his circle were [and still is] just asking the same shit, what Putin wants. Am I suprised? Again, no, (:
Ehm, no? Itʼs not flawed logic. If Russia today would less corruptionned, Ukraine would be fucked a way more.
Yes. Do you know internal Ukrainian politics? Have you heard new corruption scandals? You can provide here more examples, for an example: Órban. The main difference between Ukraine & Belarus, at least for now, the former doesnʼt have resources, nor external power [basically canʼt rely on Russia, China; even on the current US] for making strong authorian structure.
But you still should support Ukraine — even if it was authorian — anyway, because itʼs not about corruption, but world international laws and security. Ukraine isnʼt the first, nor the last. Maybe you miss, but Russia has bad activities in many places, include in EU. Many of you usually calls it as hybrid war or in other words, while itʼs a actually war.
According to you. And you're convinced of that, but that does nothing for the rest of us. If you have evidence I'm happy to change my mind, but my admittedly limited exposure to Navalny over the past few years does not paint him as comparable to Putin or deserving to be tortured and killed.
Even if he was completely deserving of death the event/story is not a redemption of him, but an indictment of Putin. It is wrong to imprison adversaries on false pretenses and poison them as a principle. Navalny is dead and irrelevant, while Putin and company still commits those acts, with one more confirmation.
A good chunk of America has supported or enabled horrible things. Millions dead in the Middle East and unestimable future damage from the destabilization. The current administration is probably going to be even worse.
I hate it and feel shame about it, but I'm also not going to say that the average GOP voter is the same as a feckless politician supporting it, and they aren't the PNAC/Cheney's pushing for it or the torturers at Abu Ghraib.
I'm also never going to support the greater evil when they're also a subject. I get it, and I'm not going to criticize anyone for feeling that way, but the related sentiment of things like "anyone scammed by X deserved to lose their money" is bizarre to me.
Fine, we like seeing bad things happen to people we don't like or respect-- Liz Cheney can fuck off into obscurity. But the outcome is now a scammer has more power/wealth to expand, and any decent Russian has yet another reason to keep their head down and make the munitions, lest they and their family are tortured and killed.
I'm not an expert, but yes, I'm familiar, including the 2025 controversy. I used Zelenskyy as an example despite that because I assumed you wouldn't shrug him off as an inevitable Putin deserving to be tortured to death in a prison.
Instead I could have used Lee Kuan Yew, Teddy Roosevelt (despite his other flaws), or others more knowledgeable historians would know of. The point is there are anti-corruption/reformers who more or less were honest about their intents (or understand it as the source of their mandate) who have improved things.
Basing your views on what you think is going to happen or not separating minor and major corruption is a path to things getting worse.
Well, thatʼs exaclty my point. Almost. Why do you need more confirmation? Evil isnʼt enough evil? Whereʼs your limit? Sorry, I didnʼt know about, that Putin has something good thing or not enough evil. You should stop evil, not search another usless confirmation, in this case itʼs more usless, because itʼs not the first case of poising: very known novičok in UK (whichʼs far worse case, because it was non-Russian lands). The same shit is with this: he just says that heʼll kill you, but he havnʼt killed you. See? Heʼs not evil! Thatʼs what you say me. Sorry, Iʼm not you, and I would better think about it as real threatening.
If an average voter voted for this, then from my perespective they also should have reponsibility. For an example, Germany had it: all of them, not only nazi-supporter, paid reparations, and a very long time. Donʼt run from responsibility, and donʼt allow others to do this too. UK voted for Brexit? Well, even if they want to return to EU, they cannʼt return in quickly, while in other case they could. Etc.
Just in case, I kinda repeat myseft. I didnʼt said it. I said: any, who was for scamming, scammed by X deserved to lose their money. Donʼt change my thesis.
This is an insane amount of black and white thinking. Navalny was the same as Putin, and he ran an anti-corruption campaign, which makes him similar to Lukasenko, who's a dictator, and clearly that's Zelensky's future, so in a way there's a long equal sign between Putin and Zelensky.
I do know something about Ukraine's corruption problems, so I also know that while they're still big, they've been on a downward trend in the last 20 years or so, the time period I have any data from. Zelensky arguably failed as an anti-corruption leader, but saying that he's like Lukasenko in his goals/future/ambition just seems to be based on weird, incredibly narrowly focused or partially made up impressions. There simply aren't many commonalities.
edit: I see you're Ukrainian, so for context (it's located somewhere in my comment history a couple times, but probably too far back) I'm Czech and I have a few friends who have been working on and off in Ukraine on regional development for the last 20 years or so and watching many things slowly get better.
Regarding Navalny, the situation is more nuanced and I think it's necessary to perceive that nuance. For example in his position he simply had to be a strongman type of leader, something that most sane people in functioning democracies dislike, because the unfortunate reality of Russian culture is that nobody would take him seriously if he wasn't. I also think that the sole fact that he literally decided he's prepared to die for his country in hope to inspire change clearly separates his character from people like Lukasenko or Orban. That said I would like to see someone better than Navalny lead Russia, but realistically I don't think that's going to happen in the next few decades.