Facts and emotions (and a touch of healthy conspiracy)
We do not need communication pundits to realize how the comments of major media outlets preceded any verified information and how a show was organized for the consumption of public opinion. We don’t need to be particularly smart to note that U.S./NATO’s Stoltenberg and Zelensky first commented unequivocally, taking for granted Navalny’s assassination, pointing out Putin as the sole possible culprit. Later, when asked what evidence they had about a deliberate assassination, all the Western leaders and mainstream media declared in unison that Navalny’s death should be considered an assassination regardless of how he died! This was the mantra repeated with the same devotion as the refrain of “an aggressor and a victim,” not to mention the “whataboutery” of “what about the October 7th attack”?
The numerous counterinformation interventions, primarily online, present a very different and articulated narrative of the Navalny case. Only some things they report are correct and reliable; some are just as propagandistic as the mainstream media. Yet, there is a substantial difference between the protesters and the official information. The formers try to be credible by providing a wealth of news, data, and verified information. The official information, on the other hand, is monopolized by comments and an attempt to provoke Russophobic emotions, simply identifying Putin as ‘a murdered and a son of a bitch,’ as Biden gracefully put it. The protesters need evidence to be believed; mass information is satisfied with emotions. So, whom do we trust? Where do we seek the truth?
In the Western mainstream media, no one has felt the need to examine the disturbing ideological background of Aleksei Navalny. The so-called primary opponent of Putin (false news, a wish but not reality) has advocated explicitly racist, xenophobic, and even Nazi positions in the past (confirmed by texts and videos). Is this the character the West clings to? Indeed, it wouldn’t be the first time. Let’s not forget that the US supported the coup d’état of Pinochet in Chile and numerous other bloodthirsty dictators.
The main opposition party to United Russia (led by Putin) is not Navalny’s party but the Communist Party, which challenges the Kremlin from the left. The hero, Navalny, was a right-wing extremist supported by the governments of the ‘free world.’ Perhaps he has converted to peaceful liberal democracy but comes from the far right.
Putin is an authoritarian leader, no doubt about it. However, he cannot do anything and has domestic opposition that doesn’t fit the Western bipartisan scheme. Putin is the leader of a large and diverse nation. His government is based on broad, widespread consensus and a mediation policy involving other politicians and some oligarchs. He uses an iron fist when he can and mediates when necessary. He navigates between scandals, corruption, limitations on civil liberties, and some violence… no more than what is practiced in the West.
The Western bloc’s alleged intention to undermine the Russian government to weaken Russia’s geopolitical power is understandable. Let them do it, but we cannot tolerate lies! There are too many inconsistencies regarding Navalny: if he was poisoned, why was he granted a visa to be treated in Berlin? Would he be hailed as a hero for demonstrating the courage to return to Russia and continue his opposition? Or was he forced and or paid? One thing is sure: he was convicted of financial crimes related to foreign funds. The mainstream repeats he was exiled to Siberia where living conditions are impossible, without mentioning that millions of people live in Siberia and beyond the Arctic Circle, not only in the Russian Federation but also in Finland, Sweden, Norway, United States (Alaska), and Canada. However, emotionally, this makes an impact!
Could it be that he was persecuted and killed or even poisoned (again)? His prison conditions were not oppressive. The word “Gulag” has even been brought up. Still, the prison where the dissident was held was not a labor camp, and his lawyers and Western intelligence services monitored his conditions… Western intelligence may not be completely innocent, neither in the first poisoning nor in his death. The culprit could be found among some rival oligarch’s internal opposition to Putin. Or, who knows, maybe it was just a stroke or a heart attack. We will never know, just as we do not know what happened in several other political murders like Kennedy, Palme, Dreyfuss (if we go back in time), and many other cases that remain shrouded in mystery.
Indeed, this death does not play in Putin’s favor. It did not suit him to kill Navalny now, just as it was unnecessary to kill Politkovskaya in the past. You don’t kill someone when they are politically already dead!
We do realize, however, how Navalny’s death is blatantly exploited to attack an enemy who is winning on the field, to justify military spending, and to divert public opinion from Gaza, where the worst atrocities seen in over eighty years are being committed. And this is a fact. As Goering said, “The people don’t want war… (but you can gain their support) by making them believe they are being threatened.” And so military spending increases, and the military gains more and more weight in our celebrated vanquishing democracies.
P.S.: With this article, I do not intend to support the Russian government or justify its possible crimes. My goal is to criticize the biased and emotion-driven Western media. I call for better and unbiased (or just less biased) information.
