4 ms·

Skepticism. Yes please.

mhh__ 6y ago
The line between Sceptic and useful idiot is subtle sometimes. I read some of Murray's doubts - some of them hold weight (as in they are noteworthy), sure, and it's almost certain that SIS cleaned up the story (They aren't the police - the only material that gets published is published because it's useful) but Murray has _zero_ insider knowledge here. If you are questioning that it was a poisoning at all you better have something to stand on. He has consistently been pointing in the opposite direction to the western line for years, and never correct in any case I can see. He claimed he had spoken to the "person" who leaked the DNC emails - if he actually thinks that he is either unbelievably naive or acting in bad faith. "The US and Saudi Arabia have every reason to instigate a split between Germany and Russia at this time. Navalny is certainly a victim of international politics. That he is a victim of Putin I tend to doubt." Make your own mind up. edit: -2 but no counterargument, wheres the fun in that
- pydry 6y ago
  Navalny had a LOT of enemies in Russia, not just putin. It's hardly an outrageous conspiracy theory to suggest that somebody more LDPR-aligned than Putin-aligned poisoned him, especially since they're the ones who made Litvinenko's killer an MP. It's interesting the ways in which our own domestic propaganda can inform our worldviews.
  - mhh__ 6y ago
    With Novichok? Why bother with a highly specialized nerve agent when you could use a gun? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/17/alexei-navalny-novichok-bottle-of-water-hotel-room https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/17/alexei-navalny...
    - pydry 6y ago
      Yes. You're skeptical that a far right Russian political network might have strong military connections who would have access? I would also be skeptical of this idea if I truly believed that Putin had the extreme iron grip over military/FSB that he tries to portray. I believe it's quite a bit more chaotic there than he'd want you to believe though. I'm sure their opsec is not as good as it is in the US. After the SU fell they even auctioned off arms. As to why not a gun - 1) it's quiet and surreptitious. 2) I reckon it might also be a message TO putin 3) I'm pretty sure they would want putin to be seen as responsible for the murder.
      - mhh__ 6y ago
        I would be sceptical that it was done "by" Putin if I believed that he was in control? Novichok is rare ("[there is not] a single case of such poison being sold illegally" according to the director of the Russian plant that manufactured it [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novichok_agent#cite_note-FP453-457-86 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novichok_agent#cite_note-FP453...]), and has only been observed in the wild in the hands of organizations like the GRU (at least in the west). Poisoning Navalny certainly should've required top level approval from someone, if not Putin then it's highly embarrassing - whose head is rolling?
        pydry 6y ago
        I'm pretty sure that the origin of the novichok is the Soviet or Russian military. HOWEVER As I said, after the fall of the Soviet Union there was a free for all on Russian arms. It was chaos. This was even documented in the Nicholas Cage movie God of war. I think it's fairly plausible that novichok was taken by Soviet military officers during that free for all and kept at home. Novichok is supposed to be stable for up to 50 years. Skripal was interesting coz he blew the covers of about 100 GRU agents and was part of a spy swap. There is cover in having 100 people with motives. Putin just after the poisoning was demanding (somewhat desperately I thought) that the UK send him evidence. I thought that was telling. It suggested he was just as keen to get to the bottom of it.
        mhh__ 6y ago

The line between Sceptic and useful idiot is subtle sometimes. I read some of Murray's doubts - some of them hold weight (as in they are noteworthy), sure, and it's almost certain that SIS cleaned up the story (They aren't the police - the only material that gets published is published because it's useful) but Murray has _zero_ insider knowledge here. If you are questioning that it was a poisoning at all you better have something to stand on. He has consistently been pointing in the opposite direction to the western line for years, and never correct in any case I can see. He claimed he had spoken to the "person" who leaked the DNC emails - if he actually thinks that he is either unbelievably naive or acting in bad faith. "The US and Saudi Arabia have every reason to instigate a split between Germany and Russia at this time. Navalny is certainly a victim of international politics. That he is a victim of Putin I tend to doubt." Make your own mind up. edit: -2 but no counterargument, wheres the fun in that

pydry 6y ago
Navalny had a LOT of enemies in Russia, not just putin. It's hardly an outrageous conspiracy theory to suggest that somebody more LDPR-aligned than Putin-aligned poisoned him, especially since they're the ones who made Litvinenko's killer an MP. It's interesting the ways in which our own domestic propaganda can inform our worldviews.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  With Novichok? Why bother with a highly specialized nerve agent when you could use a gun? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/17/alexei-navalny-novichok-bottle-of-water-hotel-room https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/17/alexei-navalny...
  - pydry 6y ago
    Yes. You're skeptical that a far right Russian political network might have strong military connections who would have access? I would also be skeptical of this idea if I truly believed that Putin had the extreme iron grip over military/FSB that he tries to portray. I believe it's quite a bit more chaotic there than he'd want you to believe though. I'm sure their opsec is not as good as it is in the US. After the SU fell they even auctioned off arms. As to why not a gun - 1) it's quiet and surreptitious. 2) I reckon it might also be a message TO putin 3) I'm pretty sure they would want putin to be seen as responsible for the murder.
    - mhh__ 6y ago
      I would be sceptical that it was done "by" Putin if I believed that he was in control? Novichok is rare ("[there is not] a single case of such poison being sold illegally" according to the director of the Russian plant that manufactured it [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novichok_agent#cite_note-FP453-457-86 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novichok_agent#cite_note-FP453...]), and has only been observed in the wild in the hands of organizations like the GRU (at least in the west). Poisoning Navalny certainly should've required top level approval from someone, if not Putin then it's highly embarrassing - whose head is rolling?
      - pydry 6y ago
        I'm pretty sure that the origin of the novichok is the Soviet or Russian military. HOWEVER As I said, after the fall of the Soviet Union there was a free for all on Russian arms. It was chaos. This was even documented in the Nicholas Cage movie God of war. I think it's fairly plausible that novichok was taken by Soviet military officers during that free for all and kept at home. Novichok is supposed to be stable for up to 50 years. Skripal was interesting coz he blew the covers of about 100 GRU agents and was part of a spy swap. There is cover in having 100 people with motives. Putin just after the poisoning was demanding (somewhat desperately I thought) that the UK send him evidence. I thought that was telling. It suggested he was just as keen to get to the bottom of it.
        mhh__ 6y ago