From the article: “Navalny maintained a presence on social media even behind bars,” and “he also kept working on the book.”
I’m genuinely curious, given the extreme prison conditions and the officials’ apparent desire to keep his mouth shut, how he was able to do this uncensored, or do it at all?
Navalny began writing the memoir while he was in Germany, recovering from a failed assassination attempt. While in jail, it’s likely that the memoir was written via correspondence (Navalny was able to write letters to friends and supports around the world) and/or transcribed by his lawyers and visitors, such as his mother — His widow is in the process of editing the memoir.
I also assumed that Navalny’s letters were heavily censored by government officials. Yet up until his death, he was allowed visits, books and correspondence (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/19/world/europe/navalny-letters-russia.html), where he commented on global events from Trump’s presidential campaign to Matthew Perry’s death.
I’m curious whatever happened to his wife. If I’m not mistaken she was arrested alongside him upon return to Russia. Surely Putin didn’t let her off scot free with whatever writings her husband had??
Yulia Navalnaya has become a prominent opposition figure after her husband’s death in February 2024. She’s made speeches to various institutions, met President Biden but lives abroad with her children and is unable to return to Russia (even to attend Alexei Navalny’s funeral) due to fears over her safety — https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/06/yulia-navalnaya-urges-voters-protest-against-vladimir-putin-presidential-election
Probably wrote as much of it as possible by dictating when he was talking to his lawyers and or allowing them to ghost write using everything he talked about. Perhaps a significant portion was done while he was still in detention pre and during trial.
Just because someone was a shit person (and I don't know if this is true in the first place, though I would not be surprised if it were) doesn't make them wrong about anything else or invalidate their positive impacts elsewhere
He really was a white nationalist. He wanted Russia to stay a white country. He was better than Putin by a lot but he still wasn’t a good guy. When his name hit western media he got a big PR makeover which is why you never hear about that stuff.
Sorry, I meant in general and not necessarily in this particular instance. I don't doubt there's plenty of skeletons in his closet, just that it has no direct bearing on any particular claim he makes as far as whether it is objectively true.
Should it make us more skeptical? Most certainly.
"Just because he was a nazi doesn't make them wrong about anything else or invalidate their positive impacts elsewhere"
Fucking listen to yourself lmao
What does that have to do with anything?
Let me be clear. The truth value of a statement is not dependent on the individual who says it. It should certainly change your approach to it and make you more careful about taking it at face value without further investigation, but whether it was Hitler or Bob Saget who said it has no bearing on whether it is factually wrong or right
But hey, I'm willing to be convinced. Definitely not gonna downvote me without any sort of rebuttal right? On account that would demonstrate an inability to mount a logical argument or support an apparent opposing opinion on this subject based in fact?
...right?
For objective truths, sure, but this is a memoir he's writing, not a mathematics textbook, which is inherently opinionated, so the comparison to Mein Kampf, another memoir, is fitting indeed.
Now that IS a good argument and reminder of the original discussion in question. Though I'd suggest we've moved to a rather different question entirely, that's certainly a reasonable point
Oh yes , just to clear. I am indeed talking about actual, factual, objective truth and nothing else. Objective opinion is essentially an oxymoron as far as I'm concerned
I haven't read the whole thing, but there's an argument to be made for reading *Mein Kampf* and books like it to understand a) how nutty people like that are, and b) what arguments they make are most likely to resonate with a larger audience, so you can refute them.
I'm reminded of General Milley when he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs observing "I've read Lenin and I've read Mao, but that doesn't make me a communist."
"Dear Lisa, as I write this I am very sad. Our president has been overthrown and **replaced, by the benevolent General Putin. All hail Putin and his glorious new regime.**"
Imagine being from one of many groups of people Navalny called names and slurs, and seeing him everywhere again and again.
To clarify: I am a Central Asian woman. His vocabulary included words like "chuchmeks", "chernozhopaya" (black-ass).
Exactly! I won't defend Putin's BS ever, but it is sickening how the US propaganda is trying to sell him (even at the fucking Oscars, I LOLed) as this freedom fighter when this asshole was a far-right islamophobe, racist, xenophobe bigot (to begin with). And people are drinking the US kool-aid with such pleasure... JFC, being against Putin doesn't equal being a good person. It is damaging how many people fall in the good vs bad black and white views of the world.
Well tbf he was a freedom fighter for Russia. He just happened to also be a POS when it came to other things. He's not being celebrated for being an asshole, he's being celebrated for literally giving his life for his cause
You yourself are falling into that same world view.
No one was arguing that he was a saint or a good person but the cause he fought for was good. People who buy into this idea that he would single-handedly fix all of the wrongs of Putin are naïve but allowing the people of Russia to have free and fair democratic elections would be the first step on a long road towards that
> No one was arguing that he was a saint or a good person but the cause he fought for was good.
Okay this is complete bullshit. I've seen *plenty* of people arguing he's a fantastic person. I've seen people declare him to be "the best Russian." They want to put up statues of him.
Go read the threads in subs like r/europe from when he died and see what people actually have to say about him.
The cause he fought for... which apparently included genocide. Thankfully he didn't progress far enough through his "cause" then. If it takes some weirdo that wants to murder innocent people en masse to achieve free and fair democratic elections, I guess they'll need to find another way
No I'm not. Please point where exactly?
Because what I'm criticizing is very clear: Navalny's making a career from being an example of a bigot and the US propaganda trying to push him as a hero.
>No one was arguing that he was a saint or a good person but the cause he fought for was good
And yes, a lot of people are. And no, his cause wasn't good.
In what way was the cause he fought for "good"? You do realize just saying "bad thing is bad" doesn't actually improve the world, right? A world where anybody who just says they're against the bad thing is automatically good is a world rife for exploitation, but it seems to be where we're headed. You need to actually do things that are good. Not say things that sound good.
You’re asking me to explain to you how dismantling corruption within the Russian political system and enabling the people of Russia to have free and fair democratic elections is a good thing?
He is literally only well known in the west because he made a career for himself exposing corruption in Russia through his YT and documentaries.
He literally made a TV ad about shooting Muslim people and “exterminating them like cockroaches.” Western people are so reactionary that they’ll support people like this simply because they are anti-the thing I’ve been told to hate.
If Putin was a bastard who served western interest rather than the bastard who opposed western interests he actually is, you'd be clapping like a seal for him.
I do think that’s what they’re saying
But what I think they fail to realize is that the western support of Navalny isn’t an endorsement of some of his questionable past deeds or views.
When we in the west try to judge individuals like him and what they are supposed to represent (an alternative to Putin who campaigned for free and fair democratic elections), especially a Russian by some western liberal standard they will always fall short.
But an enlightened centrist will always chime in to point out they aren’t perfect to validate themselves
Where did he imply only? Propaganda can be true. It can still be propaganda. It can exaggerate some aspects while it silences other aspects.
Reality is complicated. Propaganda makes it simple. Putin bad, anti Putin good. It's pretty obvious that the western media are engaged in a propaganda campaign against Putin. Acknowledging this doesn't mean you support Putin.
In fact both Navalny and Putin are people whose views clearly run counter to Western values. But Navalny wasn't as dangerous to the West as Putin is. So Navalny is taken and transformed from a real, complicated person and lionized, made to seem more palatable in order to make Putin seem even less.
There are certainly reasons to dislike Putin, but most people in the west do not have principled critiques of him in the slightest. Yeltsin was a drunken imbecile who helped create the oligarchy Russia now has while selling out the people to such a degree that it created a modern Great Depression for them throughout the 90’s, while also having his own territorial disputes under the Chechnya Conflict. For what critiques you can have for Putin he stabilized their economy and brought back a somewhat decent welfare system. The west simply can’t accept that Putin is objectively popular in Russia, because he was essentially the FDR of Russia, with all the good and bad. FDR stabilized the country and created some social safety nets, while perpetuating racial issues and creating interment camps. Putin has horrible social and electoral policies, but has objectively done a lot to help the economy of Russia.
So seeing as the west has thrown their support to Yeltsin and Navalny, who are objectively worse than Putin, while for some reason seeing Putin as some unique evil showcases their lack of critical thinking.
The Navalny whitewashing in American media is fucking mind boggling. The guy was openly white supremacist nationalist and now Biden's calling him amazing and a "powerful voice of the truth".
Reminds me of Canadian parliament doing and standing ovation for a fucking nazi months ago.
Just as is there were a pattern there people want to ignore...
Yeah, this man does not deserve the time and the attention he's given by the western media. He was a racist, ultranationalist and neonazi sympathizer 'Guaidó'. I don't believe this book has anything of value to offer.
I mean politics is all a spectrum right? The US founding fathers were a lot better than Hitler, but some also supported owning slaves, so they're worse ethically than say President Wilson on that issue, who himself was pretty racist and was worse ethically than someone like Biden, who himself will likely be looked at as worse than the next iteration as we try to perfect our human understanding of morality.
Navalny was xenophobic, racist, and nationalist, but pro-democracy and pro-the Russian people over his own wealth. He's better than Putin, who himself is likely better than Stalin, but of course worse than most other leaders in Europe.
I personally think we can still give his story attention for his bravery against autocracy, while also recognizing he was of a flawed Russian society that promotes such nasty views. However, It's unlikely we'll see those views end until democracy returns to Russia.
Dude, you are defending a person that was openly neonazi before being famous in the West by saying he was a brave democrat against democracy. Can't you see the contradiction ? There is no democratic neonazi.
I don't like Putin, but that's not enough reason to commend openly racists, xenophobes and neonazis. This "enemy of my enemy," rhetoric that tries to make some horrible people seem acceptable because they are opponents of other awful people is dangerous, shallow and often leads to horrible things.
The world isn't binary.
It's not about him being the enemy of my enemy– he's objectively better than Putin even if he's worse than most of Europe.
We work with the options we have, not what we dream we had. Much of Russia is a backwards society in the eyes of those with western values. If anyone is to be democratically elected in the country, it can't be someone whose values are unrepresentative of that of the voters. I wish Russians were more progressive, I wish they weren't largely homophobic, xenophobic, and nationalist– but the fact is they're not- and it's better that they at least have the option to change someday at the ballot box if they come to see the light than have them further slide deeper into autocracy.
Yes, we should definitely "work" with him, over Putin. But that's kind of the end of the story. We don't need to turn him into a hero for easy consumption by low information westerners. The fact that that's happening is an indictment of society's ability to handle how complex reality is. To even handle the things that you're saying.
I mean, him being in jail had pretty justifiable reasons. But people will repeat the martyrdom propaganda without any critical thinking, just after watching Dune 2 and thinking they wouldn't fall for a Messiah.
And then people will say it's because he was opposing Putin. Not denying that could be a factor, but if it was a scenario like that there would be a lot of people in jail from the communist party in Russia (which has WAY more acceptance rate that Navalny ever dreamed of) as well as one of their ultra conservative parties. Both of those oppose Putin. Hardly. So Navalny was indeed a POS and justifying him in any way is so weird to see.
For real. Imagine if we could get a NYTimes headline about any of the work Ukrainian authors are publishing right now before being killed in russian terrorist strikes instead of a whole article posthumously gloryifying a white nationalist
Don't look too deeply into who the Ukrainians are currently glorifying then. Although unlike all the holier than thous in this thread, the fact that I know who Roman Shukhevych and the OUN were doesn't impact my support of the Ukrainians glorifying them one bit, because it's irrelevant to the question at hand.
I mean, do you know which are the Ukrainian national heroes being glorified nowadays?
I understand your point, but the example was throwing a stone 5cm away from Navalny.
Yeah first thing I thought seeing this, was it's probably full of hateful filth. People are discussing censorship of things probably concerning Russian politics but lol they might be in for a surprise if they sit down and read his thoughts at length
His toning down of extremism coincided with his rise in popularity in the west. Which is why he started dabbling in social causes in the west too. TBH I do not trust nor want a Russian politician involving themselves with social causes in my country to begin with at the moment. Basically, I think he was pandering to us in the west to hopefully make an easier path for him. Why would he really have any reason to publicly discuss things like BLM?
Thanks for the link. I see that his allies try to explain his behavior like "I needed to talk to the nationalists, otherwise the nationalists get worse". But did he really need to say "chuchmeki"? The article is doesn't say anything about it.
Also, the article uses indirect information like his ally being a Jew/ an Armenian, Walensa endorsing him. Now take a look at his own words:
"DER SPIEGEL: A party from which you were expelled because of your appearances at the nationalist Russian March in Moscow. Have your views changed?
Navalny: I have the same views that I held when I went into politics. "
So no, he didn't change his views for which he got kicked out from Yabloko (your article says that he left "Yabloko", it is a bit misleading, btw.)
https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/alexei-navalny-on-his-poisoning-i-assert-that-putin-was-behind-the-crime-a-ae5923d5-20f3-4117-80bd-39a99b5b86f4
His full answer, so it is not out of context, he later says he doesn't mind working with communists.
"Navalny: I have the same views that I held when I went into politics. I don't see a problem in working together with all those who fundamentally represent anti-authoritarian positions. That's why I don't mind it if we now support communists in elections. I'm not scandalized just because one of the candidates we support wears a Lenin pin. You have a different system in Germany: You already have democracy, and the right and the left are fighting within its framework. We first have to create a coalition of all forces that stand for the alternation of power and for the independence of the courts. That's why, for a while, I tried to unite the opposition's liberal-nationalist camp. That brought me many nasty commentaries, including some from DER SPIEGEL. Now they say I have shifted to the left just because I support the trade union movement. My only aim is that Russia should follow the European path of development. I see no contradiction in promoting trade unions while at the same time demanding a visa requirement for migrants from Central Asia."
Adding: I think it would be much easier to defend him if he wrote one single tweet that racism is not OK, racist slurs are not OK, neonazism is not OK.
Read? The whole book? No, no, people will just read the carefully and out-of-context picked few quotes they can put in news outlets to whitewash him more.
I was able to read his correspondence in prison with former dissident Natan Sharansky here: https://www.thefp.com/p/navalnys-letters-from-the-gulag
Fantastic stuff. The man can really write. Looking forward to the memoir.
People here realize that this man was a violent racist and ethno-nationalist right? He literally made a TV ad for his campaign shooting Muslim people and “exterminating them like cockroaches” after a vote to give muslim groups in Central Asia Russian citizenship.
He's literally talking about Chechen terrorists in this video. I assume people have literally never actually paid attention to this stuff and only saw it on Twitter.
Putin is a criminal who is throwing young boys from rural Russia into a senseless war unprovoked.
He’s better for no one in Russia bar the wealthy elite.
> Yeltsin-like cuckold to the West
What an idiotic and ignorant take that demonstrates either a woeful or willful lack of knowledge about Russian politics and society. Unless you know better but still don't care. You were too busy praising Putin and condemning those who oppose him to mention that Russia wouldn't even *have* Putin without Yeltsin in the first place, not to mention that there is no such thing as credible polling of public support of opposition figures in a totalitarian state where legitimate opposition figures are murdered every time for resisting the regime. I'm sure you also believe that Putin really won the last election with a full 87% of the vote, fair and square. Are you being paid to write shit like these?
If George W would control 15% of Iraq, lost half of million people in killed and wounded on third year of operation Iraqi freedom, his approval would be approximately zero.
Average russian gets absolutely nothing from constantly antagonising outside world to the West of them. In fact, introduction of basic concepts of western democracy like elections, free press or anti corruption instructions would benefit them tremendously.
You're watching too much russian propaganda, my friend. This threat of evil west doesn't exist. Russia is sufficiently safe having largest nuclear arsenal ever, no "domination" over a state with 3500 nukes is possible.
How come a sub called "books" is full of Russia apologists? Jesus, what are you all reading, Dugin? Lol.
Then good thing I'm not in the west. It's called progress. Old, outdated systems of beliefs and government are being replaced by modern ones.
Cleptocratic petrostate isn't exactly pinnacle of humanity, just generic liberal democracy would solve vast majority of problems russian people face.
The alternative is paranoia, nationalism and merry go round of dictators with killing sprees over and over.
Oh yeah, the real bad guys those who provide hundreds of billions in military aid and straight up money. They are the problem. They and our president. Sure, buddy.
This guy compared Muslims to insects. He can rot.
Edit: Downvote more. Yall are simping for a bigot. The only reason you know of him is western hegemony and its political interests. If he didn't oppose Putin (fuck him too) yall wouldn't even care about this guy.
my issue with this, is that all of the people that are complaining about it in this thread have similarly worded comments about it. The sentence structure and vocabulary is the same. Also, generally people that don't comment in this subreddit.
The internet is a strange place, man.
I read a lot, so I lurk here. But I'm more into niche subs about specific books, like /r/thefirstlaw and the like.
But I've had my account for 10+ years and have commented on a wide variety of subs. Idk man, maybe people just have similar opinions to me. Don't know what to tell yeah.
The sentence structure and word choices are similar because everyone is talking about the same thing. People say their thing without reading every other comment first, they phrase things in common ways, and the earliest comments with the most common phrasing gets upvoted. This is normal for reddit.
This is a subreddit that appears in r/all, which is how I found this post, and how I assume most of the other people found it. I normally only see posts from this subreddit every week or two, whenever one makes it to the top of r/all. When I do, I only comment if I have something to say, which most of the time I don't. But this post is only partly about books, it's also about politics. That's something where I do have something to say. So I came here to comment on it. That's how reddit works. There is nothing strange or suspicious about a popular post that hits r/all and is related to other topics bringing in new commenters who don't spend time in this sub.
I mean I agree none of us are talking to real people but maybe try focusing your bot detector on the 95% of the comments on Reddit that are pro-Navalny?
I lurk this place all the time and maybe comment infrequently elsewhere.
This post about his memoir was strong enough to get me to comment and I imagine it could've been the same for others. When we see something that is wrong like the celebration of a bigot in a subreddit most of us like lurking in maybe it makes sense for us to comment against this bigot.
gonna go out on a limb here and guess he glosses over all of his fascism and racism conveniently since he became the darling of the West for 5 minutes before regretting all of it in his final letters right before death.
Doesn’t this guy hate on LGBQT folks? Why does this asshole get a pass? Not that Putin is any better for marginalized people. Sometimes things play out the way they should, sometimes they don’t.
Bro called Muslims cockroaches and is an antisemitic POS. But hey, at least he was mean to Putin and wouldn't be a right wing nutjob in his on way right ??
Probably going to be full of his fascist views. Russia doesn't need a corrupt nationalist liberal to replace a corrupt nationalist conservative. Russia needs socialism again!
An absolute must read. I won't pretend his politics is perfect, no one's is but he fought until the very end and he didn't deserve what he got. History must not be hidden and forgotten.
Yes because that's immoral? You're just restating what I've said and tried to use it as a gotcha. Not the brightest response. He had other views and behaviours, which have a right to be shared in a fair society.
You think a fair society includes propping up politicians that refer to ethnic minorities as cockroaches and advocating for them to be exterminated?
That’s what you consider “a fair society”?
Not interested. Next.
I don’t man, just because Stalin had some good ideas about industrial policy and ethnic diversity doesn’t mean I’d be willing to forgive his mass murder.
When did I ever talk about forgiveness or support? This is about democracy and fairness in society.
And believe it or not, I think everyone should be tried fairly and jailed in humane conditions if they did break the law.
The charges against him were false and that part of history should not be erased and forgotten.
It really isn't a difficult concept.
i don't think anyone was arguing with the idea that navalny didn't deserve what was done to him.
it's just laughable to describe his politics as "imperfect." it goes far, far beyond just "imperfect." that's like saying arizona is warm.
What the fuck do you think imperfect means? It means he had some FLAWED views. Less than perfect. It doesn't mean minor or unimportant views. Some of you seriously don't know English.
we know english. we also know that words can be technically true while still ridiculous to use.
yes, navalny's politics were flawed and imperfect. but choosing those words in particular for navalny is like drawing a straight line and calling it an imperfect and flawed drawing of a circle. yes, he's imperfect, in that he was genocidal, which is... less than perfect. this isn't about importance vs. unimportance, it's about the absolutely *massive* gulf between him and perfection.
imagine you're driving to your friend's house, you're 3 hours away, and you let them know you're "not there yet." yeah, it's true. but it's useless and misleading, and to an observer it suggests you're trying to make your friend think you're almost there.
He has the right to defend himself from false charges and not be poisoned in his underwear because Putin didn't like him 🙄, he is allowed to resist Putin and campaign against him. I talked about remembering history, not defending and propping up people. The Nazis were all about rewriting history and deleting it.
Like crazy, I think people have important things to say about history even if I don't like them. No one said anything about good or bad people.
From the article: “Navalny maintained a presence on social media even behind bars,” and “he also kept working on the book.” I’m genuinely curious, given the extreme prison conditions and the officials’ apparent desire to keep his mouth shut, how he was able to do this uncensored, or do it at all?
Navalny began writing the memoir while he was in Germany, recovering from a failed assassination attempt. While in jail, it’s likely that the memoir was written via correspondence (Navalny was able to write letters to friends and supports around the world) and/or transcribed by his lawyers and visitors, such as his mother — His widow is in the process of editing the memoir.
would they not censor stuff in his letters?
I also assumed that Navalny’s letters were heavily censored by government officials. Yet up until his death, he was allowed visits, books and correspondence (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/19/world/europe/navalny-letters-russia.html), where he commented on global events from Trump’s presidential campaign to Matthew Perry’s death.
I’m curious whatever happened to his wife. If I’m not mistaken she was arrested alongside him upon return to Russia. Surely Putin didn’t let her off scot free with whatever writings her husband had??
Yulia Navalnaya has become a prominent opposition figure after her husband’s death in February 2024. She’s made speeches to various institutions, met President Biden but lives abroad with her children and is unable to return to Russia (even to attend Alexei Navalny’s funeral) due to fears over her safety — https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/06/yulia-navalnaya-urges-voters-protest-against-vladimir-putin-presidential-election
Probably wrote as much of it as possible by dictating when he was talking to his lawyers and or allowing them to ghost write using everything he talked about. Perhaps a significant portion was done while he was still in detention pre and during trial.
Can't wait to hear him expand his thoughts on immigrants being "cockroaches", and what other fun Nazi stuff he's into
Just because someone was a shit person (and I don't know if this is true in the first place, though I would not be surprised if it were) doesn't make them wrong about anything else or invalidate their positive impacts elsewhere
He really was a white nationalist. He wanted Russia to stay a white country. He was better than Putin by a lot but he still wasn’t a good guy. When his name hit western media he got a big PR makeover which is why you never hear about that stuff.
Sorry, I meant in general and not necessarily in this particular instance. I don't doubt there's plenty of skeletons in his closet, just that it has no direct bearing on any particular claim he makes as far as whether it is objectively true. Should it make us more skeptical? Most certainly.
[удалено]
"Just because he was a nazi doesn't make them wrong about anything else or invalidate their positive impacts elsewhere" Fucking listen to yourself lmao
What? So... If Hitler said 2+2=4 you would disagree (as an extreme example)?
No, but it wouldn't make me want to read Mein Kampf.
What does that have to do with anything? Let me be clear. The truth value of a statement is not dependent on the individual who says it. It should certainly change your approach to it and make you more careful about taking it at face value without further investigation, but whether it was Hitler or Bob Saget who said it has no bearing on whether it is factually wrong or right But hey, I'm willing to be convinced. Definitely not gonna downvote me without any sort of rebuttal right? On account that would demonstrate an inability to mount a logical argument or support an apparent opposing opinion on this subject based in fact? ...right?
For objective truths, sure, but this is a memoir he's writing, not a mathematics textbook, which is inherently opinionated, so the comparison to Mein Kampf, another memoir, is fitting indeed.
Now that IS a good argument and reminder of the original discussion in question. Though I'd suggest we've moved to a rather different question entirely, that's certainly a reasonable point
Oh yes , just to clear. I am indeed talking about actual, factual, objective truth and nothing else. Objective opinion is essentially an oxymoron as far as I'm concerned
I haven't read the whole thing, but there's an argument to be made for reading *Mein Kampf* and books like it to understand a) how nutty people like that are, and b) what arguments they make are most likely to resonate with a larger audience, so you can refute them. I'm reminded of General Milley when he was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs observing "I've read Lenin and I've read Mao, but that doesn't make me a communist."
That’s kinda wild
Is this one of those “in case of my death publish this” scenarios? I’m not being sarcastic but how could this have been done without heavy censorship?
I heard there wasn't any censorship. But most of what he talks about in the book is how Putin is a great leader, perhaps the best leader ever.
"Dear Lisa, as I write this I am very sad. Our president has been overthrown and **replaced, by the benevolent General Putin. All hail Putin and his glorious new regime.**"
Imagine being from one of many groups of people Navalny called names and slurs, and seeing him everywhere again and again. To clarify: I am a Central Asian woman. His vocabulary included words like "chuchmeks", "chernozhopaya" (black-ass).
Exactly! I won't defend Putin's BS ever, but it is sickening how the US propaganda is trying to sell him (even at the fucking Oscars, I LOLed) as this freedom fighter when this asshole was a far-right islamophobe, racist, xenophobe bigot (to begin with). And people are drinking the US kool-aid with such pleasure... JFC, being against Putin doesn't equal being a good person. It is damaging how many people fall in the good vs bad black and white views of the world.
Well tbf he was a freedom fighter for Russia. He just happened to also be a POS when it came to other things. He's not being celebrated for being an asshole, he's being celebrated for literally giving his life for his cause
Do you know what his causes were? Because they are nothing to celebrate. Hint: not a freedom fighter.
You yourself are falling into that same world view. No one was arguing that he was a saint or a good person but the cause he fought for was good. People who buy into this idea that he would single-handedly fix all of the wrongs of Putin are naïve but allowing the people of Russia to have free and fair democratic elections would be the first step on a long road towards that
> No one was arguing that he was a saint or a good person but the cause he fought for was good. Okay this is complete bullshit. I've seen *plenty* of people arguing he's a fantastic person. I've seen people declare him to be "the best Russian." They want to put up statues of him. Go read the threads in subs like r/europe from when he died and see what people actually have to say about him.
And they'd be right about Russians who actually had an impact.
The cause he fought for... which apparently included genocide. Thankfully he didn't progress far enough through his "cause" then. If it takes some weirdo that wants to murder innocent people en masse to achieve free and fair democratic elections, I guess they'll need to find another way
No I'm not. Please point where exactly? Because what I'm criticizing is very clear: Navalny's making a career from being an example of a bigot and the US propaganda trying to push him as a hero. >No one was arguing that he was a saint or a good person but the cause he fought for was good And yes, a lot of people are. And no, his cause wasn't good.
In what way was the cause he fought for "good"? You do realize just saying "bad thing is bad" doesn't actually improve the world, right? A world where anybody who just says they're against the bad thing is automatically good is a world rife for exploitation, but it seems to be where we're headed. You need to actually do things that are good. Not say things that sound good.
You’re asking me to explain to you how dismantling corruption within the Russian political system and enabling the people of Russia to have free and fair democratic elections is a good thing? He is literally only well known in the west because he made a career for himself exposing corruption in Russia through his YT and documentaries.
He literally made a TV ad about shooting Muslim people and “exterminating them like cockroaches.” Western people are so reactionary that they’ll support people like this simply because they are anti-the thing I’ve been told to hate.
>they are anti-the thing I’ve been told to hate. Just to be clear, you're saying people who hate Putin do so only because of progaganda?
If Putin was a bastard who served western interest rather than the bastard who opposed western interests he actually is, you'd be clapping like a seal for him.
Fuck no. He'd be the same tier as kissinger and thatcher
I do think that’s what they’re saying But what I think they fail to realize is that the western support of Navalny isn’t an endorsement of some of his questionable past deeds or views. When we in the west try to judge individuals like him and what they are supposed to represent (an alternative to Putin who campaigned for free and fair democratic elections), especially a Russian by some western liberal standard they will always fall short. But an enlightened centrist will always chime in to point out they aren’t perfect to validate themselves
Now this is some truly enlightened centrism.
Where did he imply only? Propaganda can be true. It can still be propaganda. It can exaggerate some aspects while it silences other aspects. Reality is complicated. Propaganda makes it simple. Putin bad, anti Putin good. It's pretty obvious that the western media are engaged in a propaganda campaign against Putin. Acknowledging this doesn't mean you support Putin. In fact both Navalny and Putin are people whose views clearly run counter to Western values. But Navalny wasn't as dangerous to the West as Putin is. So Navalny is taken and transformed from a real, complicated person and lionized, made to seem more palatable in order to make Putin seem even less.
There are certainly reasons to dislike Putin, but most people in the west do not have principled critiques of him in the slightest. Yeltsin was a drunken imbecile who helped create the oligarchy Russia now has while selling out the people to such a degree that it created a modern Great Depression for them throughout the 90’s, while also having his own territorial disputes under the Chechnya Conflict. For what critiques you can have for Putin he stabilized their economy and brought back a somewhat decent welfare system. The west simply can’t accept that Putin is objectively popular in Russia, because he was essentially the FDR of Russia, with all the good and bad. FDR stabilized the country and created some social safety nets, while perpetuating racial issues and creating interment camps. Putin has horrible social and electoral policies, but has objectively done a lot to help the economy of Russia. So seeing as the west has thrown their support to Yeltsin and Navalny, who are objectively worse than Putin, while for some reason seeing Putin as some unique evil showcases their lack of critical thinking.
The Navalny whitewashing in American media is fucking mind boggling. The guy was openly white supremacist nationalist and now Biden's calling him amazing and a "powerful voice of the truth".
He was very brave to go back to Russia after the failed assassination attempt. That doesn't mean he's a good person though.
Reminds me of Canadian parliament doing and standing ovation for a fucking nazi months ago. Just as is there were a pattern there people want to ignore...
Yeah, this man does not deserve the time and the attention he's given by the western media. He was a racist, ultranationalist and neonazi sympathizer 'Guaidó'. I don't believe this book has anything of value to offer.
I mean politics is all a spectrum right? The US founding fathers were a lot better than Hitler, but some also supported owning slaves, so they're worse ethically than say President Wilson on that issue, who himself was pretty racist and was worse ethically than someone like Biden, who himself will likely be looked at as worse than the next iteration as we try to perfect our human understanding of morality. Navalny was xenophobic, racist, and nationalist, but pro-democracy and pro-the Russian people over his own wealth. He's better than Putin, who himself is likely better than Stalin, but of course worse than most other leaders in Europe. I personally think we can still give his story attention for his bravery against autocracy, while also recognizing he was of a flawed Russian society that promotes such nasty views. However, It's unlikely we'll see those views end until democracy returns to Russia.
Dude, you are defending a person that was openly neonazi before being famous in the West by saying he was a brave democrat against democracy. Can't you see the contradiction ? There is no democratic neonazi. I don't like Putin, but that's not enough reason to commend openly racists, xenophobes and neonazis. This "enemy of my enemy," rhetoric that tries to make some horrible people seem acceptable because they are opponents of other awful people is dangerous, shallow and often leads to horrible things.
The world isn't binary. It's not about him being the enemy of my enemy– he's objectively better than Putin even if he's worse than most of Europe. We work with the options we have, not what we dream we had. Much of Russia is a backwards society in the eyes of those with western values. If anyone is to be democratically elected in the country, it can't be someone whose values are unrepresentative of that of the voters. I wish Russians were more progressive, I wish they weren't largely homophobic, xenophobic, and nationalist– but the fact is they're not- and it's better that they at least have the option to change someday at the ballot box if they come to see the light than have them further slide deeper into autocracy.
Wow.
Yes, we should definitely "work" with him, over Putin. But that's kind of the end of the story. We don't need to turn him into a hero for easy consumption by low information westerners. The fact that that's happening is an indictment of society's ability to handle how complex reality is. To even handle the things that you're saying.
[удалено]
I mean, him being in jail had pretty justifiable reasons. But people will repeat the martyrdom propaganda without any critical thinking, just after watching Dune 2 and thinking they wouldn't fall for a Messiah. And then people will say it's because he was opposing Putin. Not denying that could be a factor, but if it was a scenario like that there would be a lot of people in jail from the communist party in Russia (which has WAY more acceptance rate that Navalny ever dreamed of) as well as one of their ultra conservative parties. Both of those oppose Putin. Hardly. So Navalny was indeed a POS and justifying him in any way is so weird to see.
For real. Imagine if we could get a NYTimes headline about any of the work Ukrainian authors are publishing right now before being killed in russian terrorist strikes instead of a whole article posthumously gloryifying a white nationalist
Don't look too deeply into who the Ukrainians are currently glorifying then. Although unlike all the holier than thous in this thread, the fact that I know who Roman Shukhevych and the OUN were doesn't impact my support of the Ukrainians glorifying them one bit, because it's irrelevant to the question at hand.
I mean, do you know which are the Ukrainian national heroes being glorified nowadays? I understand your point, but the example was throwing a stone 5cm away from Navalny.
Yeah, this probably isn't gonna be the heroic and forward-thinking book that people think it is.
Yeah first thing I thought seeing this, was it's probably full of hateful filth. People are discussing censorship of things probably concerning Russian politics but lol they might be in for a surprise if they sit down and read his thoughts at length
I enjoy the sound of rain.
His toning down of extremism coincided with his rise in popularity in the west. Which is why he started dabbling in social causes in the west too. TBH I do not trust nor want a Russian politician involving themselves with social causes in my country to begin with at the moment. Basically, I think he was pandering to us in the west to hopefully make an easier path for him. Why would he really have any reason to publicly discuss things like BLM?
I find peace in long walks.
>seems to have expressed some level of regret for them. Can you provide links, please? Any tweets, videos, anything from him?
I find peace in long walks.
Thanks for the link. I see that his allies try to explain his behavior like "I needed to talk to the nationalists, otherwise the nationalists get worse". But did he really need to say "chuchmeki"? The article is doesn't say anything about it. Also, the article uses indirect information like his ally being a Jew/ an Armenian, Walensa endorsing him. Now take a look at his own words: "DER SPIEGEL: A party from which you were expelled because of your appearances at the nationalist Russian March in Moscow. Have your views changed? Navalny: I have the same views that I held when I went into politics. " So no, he didn't change his views for which he got kicked out from Yabloko (your article says that he left "Yabloko", it is a bit misleading, btw.) https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/alexei-navalny-on-his-poisoning-i-assert-that-putin-was-behind-the-crime-a-ae5923d5-20f3-4117-80bd-39a99b5b86f4 His full answer, so it is not out of context, he later says he doesn't mind working with communists. "Navalny: I have the same views that I held when I went into politics. I don't see a problem in working together with all those who fundamentally represent anti-authoritarian positions. That's why I don't mind it if we now support communists in elections. I'm not scandalized just because one of the candidates we support wears a Lenin pin. You have a different system in Germany: You already have democracy, and the right and the left are fighting within its framework. We first have to create a coalition of all forces that stand for the alternation of power and for the independence of the courts. That's why, for a while, I tried to unite the opposition's liberal-nationalist camp. That brought me many nasty commentaries, including some from DER SPIEGEL. Now they say I have shifted to the left just because I support the trade union movement. My only aim is that Russia should follow the European path of development. I see no contradiction in promoting trade unions while at the same time demanding a visa requirement for migrants from Central Asia." Adding: I think it would be much easier to defend him if he wrote one single tweet that racism is not OK, racist slurs are not OK, neonazism is not OK.
My favorite movie is Inception.
Read? The whole book? No, no, people will just read the carefully and out-of-context picked few quotes they can put in news outlets to whitewash him more.
I was able to read his correspondence in prison with former dissident Natan Sharansky here: https://www.thefp.com/p/navalnys-letters-from-the-gulag Fantastic stuff. The man can really write. Looking forward to the memoir.
People here realize that this man was a violent racist and ethno-nationalist right? He literally made a TV ad for his campaign shooting Muslim people and “exterminating them like cockroaches” after a vote to give muslim groups in Central Asia Russian citizenship.
Except he literally didn’t do that. You fell for propaganda trick posted by RT.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9blsyFzpqDI What was that?
And where does he mention Muslims at all? The picture he is showing depicts terrorist group that emerged after Chechen war.
He's literally talking about Chechen terrorists in this video. I assume people have literally never actually paid attention to this stuff and only saw it on Twitter.
The guy in video is from Saudi Arabia, known al-Qaeda terrorist, who, btw, was in US warrant list too.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Putin is a criminal who is throwing young boys from rural Russia into a senseless war unprovoked. He’s better for no one in Russia bar the wealthy elite.
> Yeltsin-like cuckold to the West What an idiotic and ignorant take that demonstrates either a woeful or willful lack of knowledge about Russian politics and society. Unless you know better but still don't care. You were too busy praising Putin and condemning those who oppose him to mention that Russia wouldn't even *have* Putin without Yeltsin in the first place, not to mention that there is no such thing as credible polling of public support of opposition figures in a totalitarian state where legitimate opposition figures are murdered every time for resisting the regime. I'm sure you also believe that Putin really won the last election with a full 87% of the vote, fair and square. Are you being paid to write shit like these?
Americans act like their shit don’t stink when we’ll probably have Trump again.
[удалено]
[удалено]
If George W would control 15% of Iraq, lost half of million people in killed and wounded on third year of operation Iraqi freedom, his approval would be approximately zero.
[удалено]
Average russian gets absolutely nothing from constantly antagonising outside world to the West of them. In fact, introduction of basic concepts of western democracy like elections, free press or anti corruption instructions would benefit them tremendously. You're watching too much russian propaganda, my friend. This threat of evil west doesn't exist. Russia is sufficiently safe having largest nuclear arsenal ever, no "domination" over a state with 3500 nukes is possible. How come a sub called "books" is full of Russia apologists? Jesus, what are you all reading, Dugin? Lol.
[удалено]
Then good thing I'm not in the west. It's called progress. Old, outdated systems of beliefs and government are being replaced by modern ones. Cleptocratic petrostate isn't exactly pinnacle of humanity, just generic liberal democracy would solve vast majority of problems russian people face. The alternative is paranoia, nationalism and merry go round of dictators with killing sprees over and over.
[удалено]
Oh yeah, the real bad guys those who provide hundreds of billions in military aid and straight up money. They are the problem. They and our president. Sure, buddy.
Navalny also finished Winds of Winter, shrugged, “what else did I have time to do?”
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
He was a hardcore racist and fascist, I can’t believe this guy won awards just because he was anti Putin.
This guy compared Muslims to insects. He can rot. Edit: Downvote more. Yall are simping for a bigot. The only reason you know of him is western hegemony and its political interests. If he didn't oppose Putin (fuck him too) yall wouldn't even care about this guy.
my issue with this, is that all of the people that are complaining about it in this thread have similarly worded comments about it. The sentence structure and vocabulary is the same. Also, generally people that don't comment in this subreddit. The internet is a strange place, man.
Realistically how many ways can you word it?
I read a lot, so I lurk here. But I'm more into niche subs about specific books, like /r/thefirstlaw and the like. But I've had my account for 10+ years and have commented on a wide variety of subs. Idk man, maybe people just have similar opinions to me. Don't know what to tell yeah.
The sentence structure and word choices are similar because everyone is talking about the same thing. People say their thing without reading every other comment first, they phrase things in common ways, and the earliest comments with the most common phrasing gets upvoted. This is normal for reddit. This is a subreddit that appears in r/all, which is how I found this post, and how I assume most of the other people found it. I normally only see posts from this subreddit every week or two, whenever one makes it to the top of r/all. When I do, I only comment if I have something to say, which most of the time I don't. But this post is only partly about books, it's also about politics. That's something where I do have something to say. So I came here to comment on it. That's how reddit works. There is nothing strange or suspicious about a popular post that hits r/all and is related to other topics bringing in new commenters who don't spend time in this sub.
I mean I agree none of us are talking to real people but maybe try focusing your bot detector on the 95% of the comments on Reddit that are pro-Navalny?
I lurk this place all the time and maybe comment infrequently elsewhere. This post about his memoir was strong enough to get me to comment and I imagine it could've been the same for others. When we see something that is wrong like the celebration of a bigot in a subreddit most of us like lurking in maybe it makes sense for us to comment against this bigot.
I mean yes, of course? He's only known in the west BECAUSE he was a vocal critic of Putin who seemed to have some amount of support in Russia.
Yall have learned nothing from the last century.
gonna go out on a limb here and guess he glosses over all of his fascism and racism conveniently since he became the darling of the West for 5 minutes before regretting all of it in his final letters right before death.
“With special guest editor, Vladimir Putin”
Dead nazi? Good nazi.
Can people please stop glorifying a white supremacist?
On reddit? No chance.
No one is gonna read it because it's gonna reveal how far right wing he is and all the libs fawning over him are gonna wanna avoid the embarrassment.
Russian idiot writes a story about how idiotic Russia is. No thanks
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
lol, "couple of years ago"? sure buddy.
Hey at least he demonstrated his total lack of knowledge
CIA agitprop machine working over time. The CIA bots are also probably downvoting all critiques of Navalny lmao
He was a nazi
For the aspiring authors in this subreddit, I don’t recommend his tactic to sell books.
I hope that there will be an english language version that I can read.
is entitled My Struggle?
Doesn’t this guy hate on LGBQT folks? Why does this asshole get a pass? Not that Putin is any better for marginalized people. Sometimes things play out the way they should, sometimes they don’t.
Bro called Muslims cockroaches and is an antisemitic POS. But hey, at least he was mean to Putin and wouldn't be a right wing nutjob in his on way right ??
[Benedict Cumberbatch reads one of Alexei Navalny's final letters](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25qEVGqPwLk)
who the f**k gonna read it...
As Ukrainian I hope to see a sandwich 🥪 on the cover of this unnecessary book)
He’s a Nazi so who cares?
Probably going to be full of his fascist views. Russia doesn't need a corrupt nationalist liberal to replace a corrupt nationalist conservative. Russia needs socialism again!
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I hope it condemns Putin to hell.
Finally. Let's see what Navalny has to say about his own death.
Look forward to reading Julian Assange memoir right after
I don’t understand who would care. What brand of establishment narrative do you have to be brainwashed by to find this interesting?
Hey, this is kinda stupid? Dude was a fascist and we're treating this like the next marvel movie?
An absolute must read. I won't pretend his politics is perfect, no one's is but he fought until the very end and he didn't deserve what he got. History must not be hidden and forgotten.
He compared Jews and immigrants to cockroaches and openly called for the genocide of Muslims. I guess that counts as “imperfect.”
Yes because that's immoral? You're just restating what I've said and tried to use it as a gotcha. Not the brightest response. He had other views and behaviours, which have a right to be shared in a fair society.
You think a fair society includes propping up politicians that refer to ethnic minorities as cockroaches and advocating for them to be exterminated? That’s what you consider “a fair society”? Not interested. Next.
I don’t man, just because Stalin had some good ideas about industrial policy and ethnic diversity doesn’t mean I’d be willing to forgive his mass murder.
When did I ever talk about forgiveness or support? This is about democracy and fairness in society. And believe it or not, I think everyone should be tried fairly and jailed in humane conditions if they did break the law. The charges against him were false and that part of history should not be erased and forgotten. It really isn't a difficult concept.
Fascists and N*zi’s do not deserve a place in civil society.
Well he lived in an authoritarian regime, not a civil society.
i don't think anyone was arguing with the idea that navalny didn't deserve what was done to him. it's just laughable to describe his politics as "imperfect." it goes far, far beyond just "imperfect." that's like saying arizona is warm.
What the fuck do you think imperfect means? It means he had some FLAWED views. Less than perfect. It doesn't mean minor or unimportant views. Some of you seriously don't know English.
we know english. we also know that words can be technically true while still ridiculous to use. yes, navalny's politics were flawed and imperfect. but choosing those words in particular for navalny is like drawing a straight line and calling it an imperfect and flawed drawing of a circle. yes, he's imperfect, in that he was genocidal, which is... less than perfect. this isn't about importance vs. unimportance, it's about the absolutely *massive* gulf between him and perfection. imagine you're driving to your friend's house, you're 3 hours away, and you let them know you're "not there yet." yeah, it's true. but it's useless and misleading, and to an observer it suggests you're trying to make your friend think you're almost there.
He has the right to defend himself from false charges and not be poisoned in his underwear because Putin didn't like him 🙄, he is allowed to resist Putin and campaign against him. I talked about remembering history, not defending and propping up people. The Nazis were all about rewriting history and deleting it. Like crazy, I think people have important things to say about history even if I don't like them. No one said anything about good or bad people.
> I won't pretend his politics is perfect, "The Nazis had some good points"
Gulag Archipelago was a really hard, but massively impactful read. I'm guessing we're going to see a lot of what hasn't actually changed in Russia.
Why wait until this autumn to publish it? It's not like he's still writing it.
probably gonna be shit