@kravietz I'm pretty sure the reason for leaking the footage of Navalny's organization taking money from MI6 was to hang him out and make him look bad, but all the persons involved are named, so it's pretty hard to dismiss as evidence, regardless of what you think about RT.

@modrobert

Yes, except there's no "Navalny organization taking money from MI6" 🤷 If you take the video apart, it's a chain of unfounded accusations: you have Ford, who is a former UK diplomat, and "designated MI6 agent". Designated by whom exactly? By FSB of course, a very respected source. Married to Elizabeth Greenberg, again "designated as Swedish agent", which may sound convincing only from Russian villager's point of view where there's a "single evil West", but is otherwise nonsense.

@kravietz What initially got my skepticism going was how all of sudden the whole western mainstream media was calling out Russia for mistreatment of Navalny, a previously relatively unknown political figure in the west, it followed a similar pattern as Juan Guaidó (which was pretty much unknown even in Venezuela before mainstream media started its campaign). Why care so much about what happens to a politician in an enemy country, unless they have some other motive behind it?

@modrobert

If you periodically watched Russian and English-language media about Russia, you'd know it's simply not true. FBK activities received quite a lot of coverage for the last decade or so, so it was anything but "sudden".

@modrobert

Then you have Ashurkov who is asking for money, and you have Ford barely saying anything apart from "yes, yes".

And that's it - there's *nothing* else in the video, all the rest is RT narrative.

Can you now see how you were manipulated into believing what you saw was:

> footage of Navalny's organization taking money from MI6

@kravietz No, I don't see any manipulation except story bias, if this video leak was fake it would have been debunked all over western mainstream media, but it was not mentioned anywhere except RT and perhaps push back (or grayzone).

@modrobert

Let's me take that into parts for you:

* There's evidence for Ashurkov meeting a former UK diplomat for fund raising
* There's no evidence of Ford having anything to do with MI6
* There's no evidence of Ford actually committing to any funding to Ashurkov
* There's no evidence of Navalny coordinating that with Ashurkov

But if all you were able to see there was:

> footage of Navalny's organization taking money from MI6

Then it's clearly a manipulation, and a quite effective one!

@kravietz If the west (NATO) didn't support Navalny they wouldn't defend him in mainstream news, as simple as that. It's like Ukraine, similar methods, similar neo-nazi fractions.

@modrobert

As someone who was born in Poland and frequently visits both Russia and Ukraine, I call this narrative bullshit. Thousands of people are going out to the streets because their governments suck at providing them with reasonable life, not because they're paid by some "West" or "NATO". And calling Ukraine "neo-nazi fractions" only indicates that you never actually visited the country and 100% adopted the RT narrative.

@kravietz I have friends in Sweden from Ukraine, they confirm this, not only that, but it's not really neo-nazism, it's pure nazism since WW2.

@modrobert

Sorry, they are delusional and they lied to you. Go and fly to Kyiv, tickets are cheap and you will see for yourself. Hard to find a more cosmopolitan and liberal capital than Kyiv today in Europe. And, contrary to the bullshit in RT, you can freely speak Russian in Ukraine, which I do all the time as I hardly speak Ukrainian.

@kravietz Think I found the reason Navalny was initially being considered "useful" to the US: https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW2632_a.html

@modrobert

I can only say it's rather inconsistent for someone who quotes World Socialist Website to then engage in a fierce defence of current Kremlin oligarchs.

Go and *actually* read the WSWS article you referenced - they are equally critical of Navalny as the Kremlin oligarchic rule that exploits Russian resources and leads to massive income inequality.

Wikileaks cable actually describes Navalny inquiry into *exactly* the same issues - the corruption and theft in largest oil companies.

@modrobert

"The West" doesn't care - US and Europe happily trade with Kremlin and buy their oil and gas. Germany just completed a new pipeline from Gazprom, Poland imports most of its coal from Russia, so someone lied to you.

The point Navalny was investigating in all of his publications was specifically that the massive amounts of money generated by Russian gas and oil industry is being stolen and turned into luxurious mansions, yachts and lavish lifestyle by people close to Kremlin.

@kravietz Yes, I did read the article, and Navalny is a perfect pawn for the NATO agenda to undermine Russia, regardless of his own intentions being pure or not. Since when did NATO ever care about what happens to the people of countries after their regime change efforts? Recent examples are Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and Iraq.

@modrobert

Which Russia you think he's "undermining" exactly?

Because your logic seems to assume anything good for Putin is good for everyone in Russia, and any criticism of Putin is criticism of Russia as a whole.

Did that apply to Trump as well? Was criticism of Trump "undermining of USA"? Why not? And why are you then not applying the same standards to Putin and Russia?

@kravietz On the contrary, I'm hoping the Russian people get whatever president they vote for, ideally without corruption. I also hope that the candidate who gets elected is disliked by the west, because that means the Russian people have a chance of not getting their country taken over and destroyed.

@kravietz I do agree with you on this point about the oil industry investigation, and changed my views slightly about his background, but it also reinforced the case for him being used by the west.

@modrobert

If you like any of my comments you're free to quote them and use them for your own purposes, aren't you? But this doesn't mean you control me or made me post these comments. So yes, those in Russia and Europe who don't like Putin are naturally quoting Navalny and others, but it doesn't mean they control him. They may even make donations to FBK, as thousands of people did, but then — so what? If donate to FBK I'm not event free to tell him what to investigate next.

@kravietz I'm not trying to control you, or make you post anything. I was under the impression we had a discussion. We agree about some things, and also disagree, feels normal.

@modrobert

That was figurative, not statement of fact. I don't mean you control me — I'm giving an example, if you liked my comments and quoted them, it wouldn't be you controlling me. Same story with Navalny & Western media.

@kravietz Lets say Navalny gets out of prison, he continues his political goals and finally become president of Russia. Now what? The Russian oligarchs will be replaced by Western oligarchs (corporations) as the free market opens up more, but people in general will remain poor.

@modrobert

This again assumes Navalny is the only opposition politician in Russia, and that he will be somehow automatically made president to replace Putin.

He won't. Or he will, we don't know. In most countries this is decided in elections, and the most fierce fight for presidency we just saw recently in the US.

But there *was* that fight in the US. And the problem of Russia is not Putin or Navalny, but that after 1999 there was no way to tell any of them "you're wrong, go away".

@kravietz Interesting you brought up the election in USA, because if they really had democracy there it would most likely be a peaceful and prosperous country, but they have been controlled by the MIC (Military Industrial Complex) for several decades, maybe even longer, through lobbying and campaign donations (legalized corruption). Without war the only traditional industry they have left, defense/military with domestic production can't survive, so they will have to find new countries to invade and more military bases (besides the 800 based they currently have abroad).

@modrobert

Nonetheless, Americans had the freedom of first electing Trump and then removing him in elections. They changed their Congress completely as well. Russians didn't have this freedom since 1999.

@kravietz The president doesn't have much power in USA, that's one of the reasons not much changes between elections. If you want to know where the power is, follow the money. A good read on the subject is 'Giants' by Peter Phillips. The permanent state is controlled by oligarchs.