Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Russia opposition politician Boris Nemtsov shot dead

Maybe enemy of Putin seeking to discredit Putin by murdering opposition politician to make Putin look even worse? All conspiracy theories welcome, I guess?
No, it was Jihadi Mohammed's mate Islamist Ivan, apparently.
Russian officials investigating the murder of opposition politician Boris Nemtsov have claimed Islamist extremists may have been behind his death.

Other possible motives listed by the Investigative Committee, which has Vladimir Putin as its executive, included an attempt to destabilise Russia, the Ukraine conflict and his personal life.
 
The real reason does not matter, the world view outside Russia will be that Putin had him taken out. Few will bother with an in depth study of the situation in Russia as it is now.

genuine question, but is that not an unreasonable view to take?

certainly there could be half a dozen other potential causes that make the Kremlin entirely innocent - mistaken identity, robbery gone wrong, outraged husband etc.. but if i assumed that the most likely, by some margin, cause was either the Kremlins' (at arms length) involvement, or just the atmosphere of intolorence to any opposition fostered by the Kremlin, and carried out by some lone-wolf nationalist loon thinking he's doing Mother Russias' work, why should i be way off the mark?
 
Maybe enemy of Putin seeking to discredit Putin by murdering opposition politician to make Putin look even worse? All conspiracy theories welcome, I guess?

Yup, basically it comes down to which conspiracy theory one prefers, the one where a political dissident is gunned down in the street by the state... or the one where a political dissident is gunned down in the street to frame the state by a third party. Fact could always be none related to either theory but then still the question is what will be made of the killing?

Personally I think a state gunning down dissidents in the street can only be seen as a sign of weakness. A government like Vladimir Putins would deal with undesirables "legally", let alone government that enjoys his popularity in Russia. I think this idea that it's to make an example to others sounds like a bit of a stretch, I'm sure in Russian they react to that the same as when they see Russian gangster stereotypes portrayed in Hollywood movies.
 
It may be weakness or even lawlessness but a lot of opposition figures seem to meet untimely deaths. A lot just end up in jail of course, simply because they are found to be corrupt.
 
genuine question, but is that not an unreasonable view to take?

certainly there could be half a dozen other potential causes that make the Kremlin entirely innocent - mistaken identity, robbery gone wrong, outraged husband etc.. but if i assumed that the most likely, by some margin, cause was either the Kremlins' (at arms length) involvement, or just the atmosphere of intolorence to any opposition fostered by the Kremlin, and carried out by some lone-wolf nationalist loon thinking he's doing Mother Russias' work, why should i be way off the mark?
Putin is so perfect for his role that he could play himself in a film & he has used tv in Russia very effectively. Its difficult to imagine that he does not have blood on his hands on this. Its certainly possible though that Nemtsov could have just shagged the wrong Oligarches wife. Even if the culprits are apprehended which is unlikely it makes a better story if Putin's involvement is suspected but everything else could be subplots in the same story. Not that long ago Russia appeared to be opening up to the west & now it's all going cold war again. To me this is reading like a cold war spy novel, the plot is better than fiction & I doubt the truth will ever be known.
 
So what - just because something is not unfortunate, does not mean it's fortunate.

Nemtsov's murder is just another example of oligarchic thieves feuding it means nothing more than that.

Being (former) leader of an outfit calling itself Сою́з Пра́вых Сил doesn't deepen my well of grief tbh. Culling neo-liberal stooges has a certain appeal.
 
He was a believer in the neoliberal economic reforms that devastated Russia socially, sharpened inequality to insane levels and helped create the situation he and his fellow liberals found themselves opposing a few years later (those earlier organised criminal interests now tied to a stronger government and state).

He rose to prominence during the dying days of the Soviet Union and oversaw the privatisation of industry and the creation of new small businesses in Nizhny Novgorod in the following years, his constituency being the people balanced between the new small businesses of shop owners and other services locally and the connected former Soviet bureaucracy who had been in control of the heavy industrial enterprises of Soviet times (this became useful to him when police and state security would undermine his rivals in the city and surrounding area (oblast) while presenting himself as someone who had been the victim of such forces while a Communist Party-opposing democrat).

He was seen for a time as a champion (regional rather than national government) of those interests, the frustrated nascent petit-bourgeois class wanting to be big bourgeois class who nevertheless did not too badly out of the reforms (misery for many millions of others) but bullied by bigger criminal fish connected to the central government.

The elitist liberals are also frustrated by the considerable support Putin still gets.

Economist Pyotr Lanskov predicted that Russia would soon see much wider unrest because of the economic slump which has been aggravated by western sanctions and the tumbling oil price. “The economy is getting bad. Soon even the stupid will understand that this is the fault of Putin’s regime if not through their brain, they’ll come to understand it through their stomach and join those who already figured it out.”

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/01/boris-nemtsov-murdered-politician-march-moscow

Those dumb provincials, and their long memories of poverty and insecurity. I think he'll be disappointed. They have no chance, which is good in one sense, but people still vote for Putin in large numbers. It's those who lost out by being screwed by Nemtsov's supporters and the big oligarchs where you need to look for future political change, the thick proles whose support the liberals Nemstsov represented need to have any political relevance but despise at the same time. Fuck him and them.
 
He really was a prick.

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/01/05/opinion/russia-s-best-bet.html

By Boris Nemtsov and Ian Bremmer

Some critics have questioned Mr. Putin's commitment to democracy. True, he is no liberal democrat, domestically or internationally. Under his leadership Russia will not become France. The government will, however, reflect the Russian people's desire for a strong state, a functioning economy, and an end to tolerance for robber barons -- in short, a ''ruble stops here'' attitude. Russia could do considerably worse than have a leader with an unwavering commitment to the national interest.

And it is difficult to see how to do better.

The reformers are back. Given that the Communists' support comes overwhelmingly from those over the age of 50, the party's clout will diminish with each passing year. December's elections were undoubtedly the last in which the Communists will receive a plurality.

At the same time, a new middle class led by small- and medium-sized business owners is beginning to assert itself. And Russia is finally developing a political system that can begin to shape the direction of change instead of simply damming its tide.

A framework for real market democracy -- property rights especially -- can now be put in place, making entrepreneurialism less expensive and therefore less beholden to the oligarchs who held far too much sway under Mr. Yeltsin.
 
I don't think it would be unfortunate if you and your children died

images
 
Mark Ames is a shit (and his paper was an execrable mess - by so obviously being a bunch of misogynistic Hunter S.Thompson wannabees, any real criticism they made of the Yeltsin era and what came after could be written off and ignored).

But this piece on Nemtsov skewers the reality behind his killing (and come on, it was most likely the wily Putin who gave the order):

http://pando.com/2015/03/02/boris-nemtsov-death-of-a-russian-liberal/
 
Last edited:
The real reason does not matter, the world view outside Russia will be that Putin had him taken out. Few will bother with an in depth study of the situation in Russia as it is now.
Not necessarily blaming Putin directly but fingering shadowy gangster politics and business forces which rely on Kremlin patronage. Just why these naive Westerners come up with these ideas is a mystery. No doubt a benevolent father of the nation like Putin will stop at nothing to find the smoking gun and produce a suspect.
 
Mark Ames is a shit (and his paper was an execrable mess - by so obviously being a bunch of misogynistic Hunter S.Thompson wannabees, any real criticism they made of the Yeltsin era and what came after could be written off and ignored).

But this piece on Nemtsov skewers the reality behind his killing (and come on, it was most likely the wily Putin who gave the order):

http://pando.com/2015/03/02/boris-nemtsov-death-of-a-russian-liberal/

Only talk of 'satire' in that article butchersapron posted up about censorship, not just being nasty pricks taking shit loads of drugs (Oh, that's naughty, do your mum and dad know?) and fucking (and mocking) teenage 'sluts' after picking them up in nightclubs.
 
Only talk of 'satire' in that article butchersapron posted up about censorship, not just being nasty pricks taking shit loads of drugs (Oh, that's naughty, do your mum and dad know?) and fucking (and mocking) teenage 'sluts' after picking them up in nightclubs.

That side of their behaviour came across more strongly in the actual hardcopy newspaper, not so much on their website.
 
Back
Top Bottom