Russia opposition politician Boris Nemtsov shot dead

[Idris2002]

A Russian Trot writes:

In the 1990s millions of ordinary working Russians passionately wished for Nemtsov, Chubais and Gaidar to meet their bullet or their noose somewhere by the Lobnoye Mesto, next to the Kremlin Wall. In the case of Nemtso, this wish has only now been realised. But in this death there is neither justice nor redemption. On the contrary, even with his violent death Boris Yefimovich managed to cause great harm to the country he lived in. Nemtsov’s assassination will inevitably lead to serious negative consequences – a toughening of the Putin regime; an increase in activity by the liberal opposition, which now has its own Gongadze [Ukrainian journalist assassinated in 2000]; and a sharp deterioration of relations with the EU and the US.

And for all these “Games of Thrones” to which the prince of the Russian liberal elites - Boris the Second who never was - fell victim, it is the Russian workers who will be made to pay.


http://www.marxist.com/russia-nemtsov-a-symbol-of-the-right.htm

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Suicide, no doubt!

Or a bad case of the flu.

 

[camouflage]

Looks like is was the Chechens wot did it in relation to Nemtsovs utterances re Carlie Hebdo:

http://www.vancouversun.com/touch/story.html?id=10872019

 

[camouflage]

.

 

[camouflage]

.

 

[laptop]

Looks like is was the Chechens wot did it in relation to Nemtsovs utterances re Carlie Hebdo:

http://www.vancouversun.com/touch/story.html?id=10872019

Maybe. Maybe not.

A close ally of murdered Russian opposition politician Boris Nemtsov says he is "totally sceptical" that the two men charged organised his killing.

"The trigger man will be blamed, while those who actually ordered the killing will go free," Ilya Yashin, co-founder of Mr Nemtsov's party, said on Sunday.

His comments came after two men of Chechen origin were charged with his murder and three others arrested.

Mr Yashin rejected suggestions radical Islamists were behind the murder.

"The investigators' nonsensical theory about Islamist motives in the killing suits the Kremlin and takes [President] Putin out of the firing line," Mr Yashin said on Twitter (in Russian).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-31792844

 

[phildwyer]

Looks like is was the Chechens wot did it

Just as it looked like Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK.

 

[Greebo]

Just as it looked like Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK.

You've got other urgent things to do off line.

 

[phildwyer]

You've got other urgent things to do off line.

Thank you. Off I trot...

 

[camouflage]

Just as it looked like Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK.

Yes but Occams Razor etc. to be fair to Putin; if you want to have a relatively minor political irritant killed-off as an example to others, why would you then make lot's of noise about how the killing is actually a 'provocation' by foreigners trying to make trouble for your government? And then further muddy the waters by having it be known that the guy was killed by Islamic Jihadi's because Charlie Hebdo... and had nothing to do with anything else... bit of a n00b attempt at political terror if you ask me.

Lesson One of Political Terror: Be sure to have a Clear Message, so that everyone understands what it is you're on about. If you're going to start confusing the issue by making out it was someone else who had the guy killed for some other (totally believable) reason or that it was actually a move against you then I think the effectiveness of your political-killing has just been wasted. Or at least you now have to share the 'benefits' of it with homophobic jihadis now.

Anyway if Vladimir Putin wanted to rub out a dangerous opposition leader... how comes it's not a Communist leader that got whacked, why is it some guy that only Guardian and Economist readers think have any day-to-day relevance to your average Russian? Someone on here suggested Nemtsov was like a sort of Russian Nigel Farage... but Farage is far more popular and relevant in British politics apparently than Nemtsov was to Russian politics.

 

[SpookyFrank]

to be fair to Putin; if you want to have a relatively minor political irritant killed-off as an example to others, why would you then make lot's of noise about how the killing is actually a 'provocation' by foreigners trying to make trouble for your government?

Classic false flag operation. You get rid of someone you don't like then use it to fuel hatred of someone else. In this case it works doubly well because Putin can use the official version of events as an excuse to bomb Chechnya or just generally persecute muslims, while at the same time everyone knows it was really him that had Nemtsov killed and so he's still got a handy deterrent against other potential dissidents.

It could all be just what it looks like of course, the choice of target just seems a little too convenient. Plenty of people have expressed support for Charlie Hebdo, not many have stood up to Putin.

 

[camouflage]

Classic false flag operation. You get rid of someone you don't like then use it to fuel hatred of someone else. In this case it works doubly well because Putin can use the official version of events as an excuse to bomb Chechnya or just generally persecute muslims, while at the same time everyone knows it was really him that had Nemtsov killed and so he's still got a handy deterrent against other potential dissidents.

It could all be just what it looks like of course, the choice of target just seems a little too convenient. Plenty of people have expressed support for Charlie Hebdo, not many have stood up to Putin.

Frustrating this whole not-speaking-Russian thing, everything posted above sounds like the kind of thing you have to read the Economist or be a believer of things that General Breedlove says to think any of that reflects reality.

 

[SpookyFrank]

Frustrating this whole not-speaking-Russian thing, everything posted above sounds like the kind of thing you have to read the Economist or be a believer of things that General Breedlove says to think any of that reflects reality.

I think you're trying to tell me I'm wrong but this sentence doesn't really make any sense so who knows.

I'm not saying Putin had Nemtsov killed, just that if he did then it's entriely conceivable that he would find some chechens to blame it on.

 

[camouflage]

I think you're trying to tell me I'm wrong but this sentence doesn't really make any sense so who knows.

I'm not saying Putin had Nemtsov killed, just that if he did then it's entriely conceivable that he would find some chechens to blame it on.

Yeah I re-wrote that post a few times and ended up with the bodge you see now. The essence is that yes, I think you're wrong but not because I think you're a twat or thick or have an agenda (I don't). I just think the post sounds like the sort of skewed picture of another society that is common in the West, and the media certainly plays a big role in that. I used to notice this a lot with how Africa is portrayed in the Western media (African background myself) you'd think the whole vast varied continent is all just Famines and Safari Parks. It's this basically simplistic and cartoonish idea we have of what other societies are all about, that is woefully bad considering the resources available to our media organizations anyway.

So like Russia, yeah- Putin wants to bomb Chechnya and oppress muslims some more. Chechnya has been locked-down by Kadyrov for a while now, the days of Russia feeling the need to bomb the place are long gone (note the incident a few weeks ago with those jihadists). Not sure why you think Putin needs to oppress muslims in Russia. We think of Russia as big, brutal and thuggish, and we actually believe that's how this vast and complex, deeply multicultural yet deeply xenophobic society (among a great slew of other contradictions) is actually run.

 

[SpookyFrank]

So like Russia, yeah- Putin wants to bomb Chechnya and oppress muslims some more. We think of Russia as brutal and thuggish, and we actually believe that's how this vast complex deeply multicultural yet deeply xenophobic society is actually run.

I think of Putin as brutal and thuggish, not all of Russia.

I'm a big fan of Russian culture as it happens, I speak a wee bit of Russian. I also have several Russian friends who say, with heavy hearts, that they're afraid they'll never be able to go home again, that Putin and his gangster mates will destroy everything they love about Russia.

 

[camouflage]

I think of Putin as brutal and thuggish, not all of Russia.

I'm a big fan of Russian culture as it happens, I speak a wee bit of Russian. I also have several Russian friends who say, with heavy hearts, that they're afraid they'll never be able to go home again, that Putin and his gangster mates will destroy everything they love about Russia.

What kind of things do they say he's done/doing? I've written off most of western media as any sort of useful source of information on Russia, China, the African continent or South America really (credibility deficit since at least 2003), so the closer to horses mouth the better really.

 

[SpookyFrank]

What kind of things do they say he's done/doing? I've written of western media as any sort of useful source of information, so the closer to horses mouth the better really.

Political activists are routinely attacked by government thugs. Nobody can really tell the difference between organised crime and the state; the gangsters prop up the regime while the regime helps the gangsters increase their wealth and power. A large chunk of the general public seem to think Putin can do no wrong, and are happy to accept that gay people and paedophiles are the same thing, or whatever the big lie is this week.

Nemtsov himself said that Putin was using the same kinds of methods that Goebbels pioneered in Germany, not necessarily with the same aims but with simillar tactics.

 

[camouflage]

Political activists are routinely attacked by government thugs. Nobody can really tell the difference between organised crime and the state; the gangsters prop up the regime while the regime helps the gangsters increase their wealth and power. A large chunk of the general public seem to think Putin can do no wrong, and are happy to accept that gay people and paedophiles are the same thing, or whatever the big lie is this week.

Nemtsov himself said that Putin was using the same kinds of methods that Goebbels pioneered in Germany, not necessarily with the same aims but with simillar tactics.

Hm... I know the Yelcin era was pretty bad in terms of gangsters and the state. My understanding is that Putin is generally credited with bringing the corruption and gangsterism down to todays considerable levels. Perhaps a large part of the general public like Putin because he's done something for them. There must be a reason why over 80% of the general public here in the UK don't/didn't think much of Cameron, or Bliar, or Major or Thatcher etc... the Russian public can't all be idiots can they? Obviously the image of The Leader can be worked on and enhanced, certainly a war might help- but even by those standards, can that sort of popularity really be sustained by use of a good little war somewhere for this long? Guys been in power over 12 years now and his popularity has increased.

Anyway, as far as homophobia, I doubt this is Putins very own evil plan, much of the world has the same attitudes. Actually much of our own society has those attitudes, mostly though they keep it to themselves now. It's pretty disingenuous actually trying to make out that the sort of conservatism that has prevailed across most of the Christian world through history should now be considered the result of one mans state policy. It's not very realistic either to not expect a change in such attitudes to take time, and For what purpose anyway, does Mr 80% Plus really need to pick on the gays in order to clutch the reins of power to himself? Things must be worse than we thought for his regime in that case, shaky as fuck.

You mentioned Goebbels, but "Blah Blah Something Something The West" has been quoting Goebbels to ourselves for years now, big lies repeated over an over again. Plus the famous legend "You've nothing to fear if you've nothing to hide", which seems to be quite a popular saying in the US these days. I know you know some Russians but I remain un-impressed if the above is all they've given you to go on.

 

[SpookyFrank]

The West has been quoting Goebbels to ourselves for years now, big lies repeated over an over again. Plus the famous legend "You've nothing to fear if you've nothing to hide", which seems to be quite a popular saying in the US these days. I know you know some Russians but I remain un-impressed if the above is all they've given you to go on.

There are degrees of it though aren't there? There are no free elections in Russia, much tighter state control of the press than Europe or the US. State propaganda becomes a much bigger factor in those circumstances.

I don't doubt that there was homophobia in Russia before Putin, but for him to enshrine in it law is a big step. Attacks against gay people seem to have escalated accordingly.

I'm not really sure what I'm arguing about here tbh. As I said before, I've no idea what the story was with Nemtsov's death. But I wouldn't rule out any involvement from Putin simply because I don't think him capable of it. He's quite happy to lie openly to the whole world about Russian involvement in the Ukraine conflict, he's clearly happy to do just about anything that suits his aims.

Whether Nemtsov's death actually helps him in any way is another question of course. But then you could argue that invading Ukraine hasn't done him much good either.

 

[seventh bullet]

Classic false flag operation. You get rid of someone you don't like then use it to fuel hatred of someone else. In this case it works doubly well because Putin can use the official version of events as an excuse to bomb Chechnya or just generally persecute muslims, while at the same time everyone knows it was really him that had Nemtsov killed and so he's still got a handy deterrent against other potential dissidents.

It could all be just what it looks like of course, the choice of target just seems a little too convenient. Plenty of people have expressed support for Charlie Hebdo, not many have stood up to Putin.

Why would he want to bomb Chechnya?

 

[seventh bullet]

Yes but Occams Razor etc. to be fair to Putin; if you want to have a relatively minor political irritant killed-off as an example to others, why would you then make lot's of noise about how the killing is actually a 'provocation' by foreigners trying to make trouble for your government? And then further muddy the waters by having it be known that the guy was killed by Islamic Jihadi's because Charlie Hebdo... and had nothing to do with anything else... bit of a n00b attempt at political terror if you ask me.

Lesson One of Political Terror: Be sure to have a Clear Message, so that everyone understands what it is you're on about. If you're going to start confusing the issue by making out it was someone else who had the guy killed for some other (totally believable) reason or that it was actually a move against you then I think the effectiveness of your political-killing has just been wasted. Or at least you now have to share the 'benefits' of it with homophobic jihadis now.

Anyway if Vladimir Putin wanted to rub out a dangerous opposition leader... how comes it's not a Communist leader that got whacked, why is it some guy that only Guardian and Economist readers think have any day-to-day relevance to your average Russian? Someone on here suggested Nemtsov was like a sort of Russian Nigel Farage... but Farage is far more popular and relevant in British politics apparently than Nemtsov was to Russian politics.

Political terror? What do you mean? It has often been a reaction to confusing, uncertain situations. If it's state-led, or initiated, then the Stalinists, for example, were scared. It's still speculation at present on government involvement in his death and the state terror narrative comes from the opposition and its western supporters does it not?

The only way we agree really is on matters of a reemergence of Russophobia and laughable stereotyping. Nemtsov wasn't dangerous (I also doubt the extent of public mourning as reported over here). Putin doesn't fear the liberals because of the electoral threat they pose, that's sewn up with the millions poured into 'political technology,' and the genuine support he receives from the much-maligned masses voting 'wrong.' What has scared the government over the last decade or so is the threat wealthy liberals pose with outside support in undermining his rule, but that too is an uphill struggle when it comes to the state of the liberal opposition beyond the professional classes. Putin's the same as the opposition economically anyway, just there are differences in how it should be administered and who among the elite benefits.

 

[camouflage]

Whether Nemtsov's death actually helps him in any way is another question of course. But then you could argue that invading Ukraine hasn't done him much good either.

Actually I argue that he hasn't invaded Ukraine at all.

 

[Teaboy]

Actually I argue that he hasn't invaded Ukraine at all.

Not even the Crimea?

 

[camouflage]

Not even the Crimea?

Certainly not Crimea, look into it.

 

[Pickman's model]

Actually I argue that he hasn't invaded Ukraine at all.

let's see your argument then.

 

[Teaboy]

Certainly not Crimea, look into it.

I have, I've looked at a map and it says it was part of Ukraine. Are you saying this has always been disputed by Russia?

 

[Pickman's model]

I have, I've looked at a map and it says it was part of Ukraine. Are you saying this has always been disputed by Russia?

i think russia would agree it *was* part of the ukraine.

 

[Teaboy]

i think russia would agree it *was* part of the ukraine.

Clearly camouflage disagrees though.

 

[Pickman's model]

Clearly camouflage disagrees though.

i think where you and he differ is over the apparently idiosyncratick understanding he has of invade.

 

[camouflage]

let's see your argument then.

You can, I think my posts all over on the Ukraine thread give you the general idea.