Alexei Navalny was murdered by Vladimir Putin’s regime and this is yet another bloody victim of criminal Russia. The oppositionist himself has not yet had a reliable biography, which, in the context of his changing views, would be an invaluable basis for further assessments. So what did he ultimately think about the people of Central Asia? Did he regard them as subhuman or was he merely concerned about their insurance status during his emigration to Russia? Did he cheer for Yeltsin’s election fraud or was he a sincere democrat? Did he want a great Russia or just a Russia free of corruption? These issues will one day undergo credible investigation.
The texts of Polish commentators and politicians, written on tear-stained paper, are certainly not reliable enough. Donald Tusk, Paweł Kowal, Adam Eberhardt, Agnieszka Romaszewska and many others cry for Navalny. The former head of the OSW broke the bank by rhetorically asking whether Ukrainians in Russia would choose Navalny over Putin. The presidential delegate to Moldova therefore does not know the mood of the Ukrainians at the front, who prefer the current Volodya because he has weakened the country and the army with corruption and kleptocracy. That is why the idealization of the murdered oppositionist went too far. What is this actually about?
Complainants scoff at conspiracy theories that Navalny was an FSB agent and part of a staged spectacle, while the more moderate theory that he was a tool of the Kremlin is difficult to refute. When they wanted, they poisoned him, when they wanted, they arrested him and when they wanted – during the Munich Security Conference as the symbolic recipient of this dark gesture – they killed him. Navalny showed courage by returning to Russia from the relative safety of Germany, but he also demonstrated something much more important to some Western elites: with his vision of Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok.
Michnik’s student
Navalny cannot deny this view, as he personally confessed it to… Adam Michnik, during meetings in Moscow in the summer of 2015.
Although the Russian himself admitted that every second of his life was being recorded by the FSB, he miraculously met the editor-in-chief of “Gazeta Wyborcza” and conducted a series of conversations with him without any disruption.
The whole thing was written down in a rather pathetic book called “Dialogues”, in which the head of GW dozens of times expresses his approval and admiration for the views of the Russian activist. They agree on that Jarosław Kaczyński is a Russophobethat Russian culture and science are beautiful, that the Russian language should resonate on the Vistula River (with poetry, not military orders), but also – mind you – that a referendum should be held in the Donbas and Crimea to let its residents decide whether they want to be part of Ukraine or Russia.
Michnik: I think the only good solution to the Crimean issue is to organize a referendum under international control. I even admit that something similar could happen in the Donbas.
Navalny agreed to this solution. What stands out about Navalny’s views is the belief that he would like to achieve many of Putin’s goals, but he wanted to achieve them through different methods. ‘Democratic’, ‘legalistic’ or simply easier for the West to swallow. Navalny emphasized that he wanted Russia to expand culturally and protect the Russian language in Ukraine and the Baltic states – but democratically. Putin wanted the same thing – only with shouting and tank running.
Although the many hours of conversations between Michnik and Navalny are a matter of mutual admiration and compliments, it is a painfully polished and polished interview, but Navalny’s imperialism and a dangerous concept for Poland stand out. At one point the Russian goes so far in Russian armament expectations that even Michnik has to say: “I don’t agree with it.” Navalny wants nuclear equality between Russia and the US, he wants to guarantee his compatriots ‘security’ with an appropriate nuclear arsenal.
FSB at the “round table”
A very interesting thread is the conversation about the Polish Round Table. Michnik convinces Navalny, and he automatically accepts the advice If he comes to power, the Russian will have to make an agreement with part of the state apparatus, especially the services. Here we come to the collision of the fairy tale about Navalny with the harsh reality – even something as impossible as the presidency of an oppositionist would not bring sainthood to Russia, but another hybrid of post-Soviet reality. If we add to this the statement that Navalny does not want the de-Stalinization of the state, because this will happen more or less automatically, we have here a monster that the USSR will transfer to the new Russia better than the Polish People’s Republic to the Third Polish Republic. .
Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok
But the most serious common thread is Michnik and Navalny’s vision regarding the accession of a “democratic” Russia, the Russia of the future, Navalny’s Russia, to the European Union. A space of happy liberalism would then emerge, and the admiration of both interlocutors for this concept is almost intimate.
Navalny says:
Russia is almost four times larger than Poland in terms of number of citizens, so if we assume that Russia will join the European Union in its current management system and on the basis of the current principles of the formation of the European Parliament – under the same conditions if the other members – then her role would simply be gigantic. And it would change the entire EU.
Russia, with its greatness, which in its own way is changing the European Union from within, is a bleak dream for Andropov, Gorbachev and Putin. And the latter murdered a political prisoner, so that in the coming Reset 2.0, Western elites would have to swallow not the European face of Navalny, but the Asian face of Vladimir Vladimirovich. Those who canonize Navalny today are crying about the fact that they will have to dirty their hands in talks with Putin’s team.
ALSO SEE:
Source: wPolityce