Navalny did not die in vain!
Even in death, Alexei Navalny continues to serve his masters in the Western Deep State
Alexei Navalny, darling of the anti-Russian liberal establishment, has died in a Russian prison. On its face, this would not normally be surprising, but the timing of the event perforce raises suspicions about foul play, with the hidden hand of the “secret services” most likely to blame.
Who was Alexei Navalny?
More than anything else, Alexei Navalny was someone who wanted to be relevant, who wanted to play an important role in his country’s history. And in the end, he succeeded, although not in the eway that he would have liked.
Dissident and “opposition leader”-?
Western governments and media love to refer to Navalny as “Putin’s primary political opponent”. This is absolute hogwash. Yes, Navalny was able to scrape together a political party — actually several — but none of them ever made it out of single digits.
The CIA-funded Levada Center, which is associated with the US-based University of Wisconsin (Madison) but is actually a project of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a CIA “cut-out”, cvonducts polling and analysis in Russia.
The Levada Center polling shows vanishingly little support for Navalny:
Even Navalny’s political party, Yabloko, rated very low in the election results:
An operative of the CIA and MI6
We know from various State Department documents published by Wikileaks that the NED had been trying to foment a “color revolution” in Russia for many years. Following the so-called “Rose Revolution” in Georgia in 2003, the “Orange Revolution” in Ukraine in 2004, and the “Tulip Revolution” in Kyrgyzstan, various protest groups in Russia started agitating to try an achieve a color revolution there as well.
Among these groups was “Da!” or “Democratic Alternative”, which we know — thanks to Wikileaks — was funded by groups like NED and USAID. Navalny co-founded Da! in 2005, which was probably when he became “groomed” by Western intelligence operatives in the CIA and MI6.
His recruitment was capped by a stint at Yale’s Jackson School of Global Affairs, the CIA’s “boot camp” for colour revolutionaries.
Upon his completion of the Yale program in 2010, Navalny returned to Russia and partnered with Leonid Volkov (another Yale program graduate) to found the “Anti-Corruption Foundation” (ACF) in 2011, a western-funded NGO for which Navalny would be best known.
The following year (2012) Navalny and Volkov also founded the “Russia of the Future” political party. This party would serve as a platform for them to promote a potential colour revolution in Russia, a sort of “Moscow Maidan” that their MI6 and CIA paymasters dreamed of.
The dynamic duo ran into trouble when Vladimir Ashurkov, the Executive Director of their Anti-Corruption Foundation, was caught on video soliciting funding from a known MI6 officer named James William Thomas Ford in 2012.
In the 2012 video, Ashurkov tells the MI6 agent that with $10-$20 million they can “do a lot more” in terms of propaganda, etc. to generate a colour revolution such as was done in Ukraine and Georgia.
Not surprisingly, Navalny managed to scrape together to launch a markedly unsuccessful campaign for the Moscow mayor’s office the next year. Moscow, of course, is the one place in Russia where Navalny ever had any sort of support rising above single digits, but he was still only able to capture 21% of the vote.
It is also not surprising that Ashurkov, the man shown in the video shaking down MI6, sought and received political asylum in the UK in 2014.
Navalny the Nazi
I have written extensively about the affinity our Western intelligence services have for Nazis and other far right fascists. It seems that when it comes to their blind hatred of Russia, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is the only rule that CIA and MI6 live by.
The CIA and the Banderite Nazis
Why Russians Fear Nazis So Much
It is no wonder, then, that Alexei Navalny is himself a dedicated fascist, a rabid ethno-nationalist with close connections to the Neo-Nazi movement in Russia. As Russian writer Katya Kazbek explains:
[Navalny] identified openly as a nationalist and attended nationalist rallies. He started in the liberal, market-oriented party Yabloko but was kicked out for his nationalist views. He then created his movement “The People” aimed against illegal immigration and recorded blatantly xenophobic videos where he compared people from South Caucuses to dental cavities and migrants to cockroaches: one of these videos is still on his verified YouTube channel.
Below is a link to the “Muslims are cockroaches” video posted on Navalny’s own YouTube Channel:
Journalist Jade McGlynn told Euronews:
“[Navalny] used to attend the Russian march, a very far-right nationalist group generally behind the slogan of ‘Russia for ethnic Russians’. Anybody who expects Navalny to be an ideal Western liberal Democrat has been mistaken”.
Below is a clip of Navalny with his neo-Nazi supporters:
In addition to his neo-Nazi leanings, Navalny was known for homophobic remarks, which generally fit in with his “Russia for Russians” philosophy.
Navalny was no fan of democracy
Despite the name of his CIA-funded movement “Democratic Alternative”, Navalny was actually a totalitarian fascist. His biggest beef with the Putin government was its corruption. He did not criticise Putin for a lack of democratic norms; rather, he attacked the Russian government for “corruption”.
Mish Rahman, a UK Labour Party leader, referred to Navalny’s “far-right” past:
“Navalny took part in the Russian March, an annual demonstration that draws ultranationalists, including some who adopt swastika-like symbols,” Rahman tweeted. “He has never apologised for his earliest xenophobic videos or his decision to attend the Russian March.
No friend to Ukraine
Although he is half Ukrainian, Navalny took the side of the Kremlin when it came to Ukrainian independence. In this he shared many world views with Putin, according to a Washington Post profile:
Indeed, Ukrainians have accused Navalny of embracing Putin’s concept of Russkiy Mir — a Russian world. “Being anti-Putin doesn’t negate Navalny’s imperialist and chauvinist views,” the Ukrainian journalist Ostap Yarysh wrote.
In fact, the article says that Navalny was compelled to “change and clarify” earlier statements that appeared to deny Ukrainian nationhood in a way that was very Putin-sounding.
Navalny also expressed the idea — also embraced by Putin — that Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians are all one people, and that Crimea was an integral part of Russia wrongfully given to Ukraine by a Soviet leader (a common Putin talking point).
Navalny even said:
“Of course, it would be great if now we lived in one country with Ukraine and Belarus, but I think that sooner or later it will happen anyway,” Navalny said in 2011, expressing sentiments that could just as easily have passed Putin’s lips.
Apparently his handlers in the CIA and MI6 were willing to overlook some of these views. More important for them was the fact that Navalny would be willing to play ball with the West and serve up Russia to western financial and business interests in a way that Putin would not.
Navalny was useful to the West — until he wasn’t
Alas, even a great intelligence asset like Navalny eventually outlives his usefulness.
While he was in the public eye, Navalny served as a lightning rod for anti-Putin propaganda. He personally embodied the argument that Putin was a thug, a strongman, a corrupt dictator who was disliked by his own people.
Navalny played a crucial role in the Western narrative
Let us not forget that the Western narrative against Russia is based on the precept that Putin is disliked, unpopular, and that there is a vast popular movement waiting to topple him from power.
This narrative posits that we only need to make life difficult for the average Russian in order to see a groundswell of revolutionary spirit and the makings of a “Moscow Maidan” that would send Putin packing — and see him replaced by a pliable, pro-Western client regime.
A one-man opposition movement
Navalny was the protagonist in this story. His presence alone meant that there was opposition to Putin, a pro-Western “liberal” force for democracy. Never mind that Navalny was an ethno-nationalist who was at heart just as much a totalitarian imperialist as Putin. His opposition to Putin — who embodies all that is evil — meant that Navalny must perforce embody all things good.
But Navalny’s usefulness dissipated once he was sent off to prison on a decades-long sentence. No longer could he be seen marching with his supporters; no longer could he rail against Putin’s corruption from a public podium.
Once he was sent to languish in a remote prison north of the Arctic Circle, Navalny fell out of view — and out of favour with is Western taskmasters.
Navalny’s death is no mystery
Once you accept that Navalny was an asset for Western intelligence services, it is easy to see who would want to see him die at the exact time and manner in which he did.
The West had lost control of the narrative
For years, Western powers completely controlled the narrative about Russia and Ukraine. They leveraged the complete blackout of all Russian media outlets to promote a story of the victorious Ukrainians destroying the oafish hordes of the evil Putin.
They convinced everyone in the West that Putin’s Special Military Operation was “totally unprovoked” and constituted a “full-scale invasion”; that Russians were committing war crimes on a massive scale; that Putin ordered the kidnapping of children, and so on.
The interview that shook the world
That Western narrative, however had been recently disrupted by Vladimir Putin’s marathon two-hour interview with Tucker Carlson. The video of the sit-down, which appeared across most social media channels, garnered a billion views in the first week alone, and had sparked interest and debate across the global political spectrum.
Worst of all, the interview provided a platform from which Putin could address Western audiences directly, unfiltered and unhurried. Putin was able to explain the origin of the conflict in Ukraine from his side; he told the story of how he had negotiated the Minsk Accords in good faith, only to be deceived by his Western interlocutors; he explained how the Russians and Ukrainians had reached a peace deal in April 2022 in Istanbul, only to see Zelensky throw it all away at the behest of Boris Johnson and Joe Biden.
Most of all, Putin came across as thoughtful, earnest and reasonable — a far cry from the slavering madman that Western media had portrayed.
This, for the leaders of MI6 and CIA, was unacceptable.
Other developments were piling on
In addition to Putin’s becoming a sympathetic figure to millions, other Western narratives were faltering. The situation in Gaza was becoming critical; Israel’s impending ground assault on Rafah was drawing universal condemnation; it was becoming harder and harder to simply make the claim that Israel “has the right to defend itself”.
Calls of “genocide” were proliferating, and dozens of countries were lining up at the International Court of Justice to issue their own official complaints against Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine.
Biden’s re-election was in peril
The fascination with the Putin interview and the public concentration on Gaza were also hurting Biden’s re-election campaign, which was based on maintaining the war effort in Ukraine against the evil Putin regime, and even more importantly, maintaining the illusion that “victory is around the corner”.
But Congress was balking at the proposed $61 billion funding package, which was necessary to keep the Ukrainians fighting through the November election.
Clearly, something needed to be done to crush the interest in Putin, distract from the Gaza genocide, and re-ignite interest in funding the Ukraine proxy war.
In death, Navalny performed one last service
One can only imagine the distress that must have permeated MI6 and CIA as they felt their grip on the Western narrative slipping away. Project Ukraine was in danger of crashing and burning — literally.
Someone, somewhere in the bowels of Langley or Vauxhall Cross must have then hit upon the solution: let’s get one more news cycle out of Alexei Navalny.
Was Navalny a “Sacred Sacrifice”?
The concept of a “sacred sacrifice” in intelligence circles is the practice of killing, or “sacrificing” one’s own agent or asset in order to achieve a desired outcome.
In 2021, following Navalny’s alleged poisoning and recovery in Germany, Russian political scientist Sergei Markov gave an interview to Fontanka.ru in which he discussed Navalny’s “future scenarios”.
NOTE: What Markov said in 2021 is quite interesting as he worked as a “consultant” to the National Democratic Institute (NDI) during the 1990’s. The NDI is a sister organisation of the National Endowment for Democracy and, like the NED, is a CIA cut-out. In fact, the Kremlin now considers NDI to be the main sponsor of Russia’s “fifth column”.
First, when asked whether Navalny was a foreign agent, Markov stated decisively:
“Navalny is an agent of the US intelligence services, because in all fundamental political aspects, in fact, Navalny’s position coincides with the position of the American intelligence services. US intelligence agencies believe that Ukraine has a normal, democratic and legal regime, while there is an obvious junta there. And Navalny considers that regime normal and democratic. US intelligence services believe that there are no problems with the suppression of Orthodoxy, the Russian language, and those who are for friendship with Russia in Ukraine. And Navalny thinks the same way. The United States believes that there are no problems with discrimination of the Russian language in the Baltic countries and NATO countries. And Navalny definitely thinks so. US intelligence agencies believe that Russia should get out of Syria. And Navalny thinks so. Tell me at least one fundamental political issue where the position of the US intelligence services differs from the position of Navalny?”
Why was Navalny “untouchable” under Russian law?
Markov also weighed in on Navalny’s (previously) uncanny ability to escape incarceration.
But most Russians are perplexed: “What is this constant and too soft attitude towards Navalny, who is constantly being shielded from the Russian law?” “Why is Navalny an untouchable?”
Unprecedented! He was on probation once. Then he again received a suspended sentence, and again a suspended sentence. Under punishment, he constantly travels abroad, rests, and receives treatment…Where is the law? Why is it not fully applied to Navalny?
The answer, according to Markov, was that the Kremlin did not want to make a martyr out of Navalny, and di not want to give his followers a chance to organise around his incarceration. Also, Russia is being “pressured by the demands of foreign politicians who do not hide their hostility towards Russia…The more hostile they are to Russia, the more they support Navalny”.
When asked whether Navalny was “safe” from further assassination attempts, Markov answered as follows:
“The technique of “sacred sacrifice” is part of the colour revolutions. Therefore, I personally admire the courage of Navalny, who can always be killed by either one or the other… Or, as a sacred sacrifice, he can be killed by his own leadership.”
So … there you have it. Markov envisioned three years ago that Navalny could be assassinated by his own team, namely Western intel.
The decision to kill Navalny was most likely an MI6 suggestion: we know how the Brits have so skilfully handled alleged poisonings by Russians in the past, most recently the Skripals in Salisbury. They could easily create the narrative that would place the blame squarely at Putin’s feet.
A surprise visit from Navalny’s wife
No doubt the Brits wanted to use Novichok or other poison, but there remained the question of how to get it into into the prison.
I believe it was decided to have Navalny’s wife bring it to him. Indeed, two days before he died, (on Valentine’s Day no less), Navalny’s semi-estranged wife, Yulia Navalnaya, came to visit him in prison.
This was unusual, as Yulia had not seen her husband or bothered to visit him since 2022. In fact, Navalny’s mother called out Yulia Navalnaya on her unfaithfulness:
Did Yulia Navalnaya have a hand in her husband’s demise? Certainly there is reason to believe that she had already taken his place in the eyes of the Western intelligence services.
In fact, since 2021, Navalnaya had been hailed as the Russian version of Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, the famous Belorussian dissident leader whose popularity in the West rivals that of Navalny himself.
A new standard bearer for the anti-Putin Opposition
And so, what started in 2021 has finally come to fruition. The West has a new champion, Yulia Navalnaya, a woman who will carry on the fight against the evil Vladimir Putin.
The great potentates of the European Union have welcomed Yulia to their bosom:
For NATO’s part, Navalnaya already had a reservation at the prestigious Munich Security Conference, which kicked off the day after her husband’s death.
Naturally, she was invited to speak.
As The Guardian reports:
Standing at a podium usually reserved for senior politicians, Navalnaya said: “I thought: should I stand here before you or should I go back to my children? And then I thought: what would have Alexei done in my place? And I’m sure that he would have been standing here on this stage.”
It was an unusually emotional and personal moment at an event where prominent figures deliver often scripted political messages and participants are usually in a rush to get to their next appointment.
So brave, so woke, so utterly cliché — in other words, all the trappings of a Western psychological operation.
Navalny: serving the Deep State even in death
Maybe Navalny committed suicide. Maybe he was poisoned. Maybe he was assassinated some other way. In any case, Navalny’s death, based on its timing alone, is a positive BOON to the Western intel services and their promulgation of an anti-Russian narrative.
Within hours of the reported death, Western leaders from Joe Biden to Emmanuel Macron to Olaf Scholz were placing the blame on the evil Kremlin:
“Let us be clear, Russia is responsible,” the US vice-president, Kamala Harris, said at the annual Munich Security Conference where many leaders were gathered to bolster international unity against Russia’s two-year war on Ukraine.
An orchestrated media blitz was instantly launched. The four (four) top stories in February 16 edition of The New York Times were all about Navalny. Israel’s genocide in Gaza was pushed down to 9th place, and the massive defeat of Ukrainian forces at Avdiivka was nowhere to be found.
Meanwhile, Yulia Navalnaya received a premiere speaking slot at the Munich Security Conference, where she assured the gathered crowd that Putin had killed her husband, but she would carry on the fight.
“I will continue Alexei Navalny’s work … I want to live in a free Russia, I want to build a free Russia,” Navalnaya said in a powerful nine-minute video published on social media.
That video message was published jkust hours before Navalnaya addressed EU foreign ministers in Brussels, where Germany proposed yet another round of sanctions in response to Navalny’s death.
Reviving the call for more aid to Ukraine
A new sanctions package wasn’t the only benefit from Navalny’s demise. Navalny’s death is also being actively leveraged in the US to pass the $61 billion Ukrainian aid package.
“Navalny’s death prompts fresh calls for Ukraine aid in US”
“Biden, lawmakers hammer Ukraine aid holdouts after Navalny death”
“Biden says Navalny’s reported death brings new urgency to the need for more US aid to Ukraine”
And so on.
The $61 billion in aid had been languishing in Congress, seemingly on the verge of being rejected. Now, thanls to Navalny’s “sacred sacrifice”, the aid package has been given new life,
Mission accomplished!
#End.
An obvious CIA asset dies in a Russian prison, and is expended one last time to distract us from the sins of Empire in Gaza and the High Court in London, to name just two.
Great post.