Nikitin said:
Czibor,
"-before his death Nemtsov said that he is afraid of being assassinated by Putin (was he also brainwashed by Western media?);"
Irrelevant point, but guess what, after that tweet anyone who wanted to hurt Putin could kill him. As for Litvinenko, it is not known who killed him and why, but even if the FSB killed him it was not because Litvinenko BSed about Putin. It would be because he betrayed state secrets.
Irrelevant point? :D :D :D
Honestly speaking I thought that irrelevant point would be the result of the whole investigation. Because that would be Putin chasing Putin.
Explain me this logic, because it's quite interesting. "As for Litvinenko, it is not known who killed him and why". Litvienko had no doubts. And you know, such Polonium is hard to buy.
No, I mean seriously. That what you say simply touches wilful blindness.
In Putin's Russia something like truth does not exist, doesn't it?Seems that Guardian reached that conclusion:
Nietzsche said it first: “There are no facts, only interpretations.” But Vladimir Putin has perfected it into a political strategy. Within hours of
opposition leader Boris Nemtsov’s murder on Friday, multiple explanations of what had gone on had been supplied to media organisations. It was because Nemtsov had forced his girlfriend to have an abortion. It was connected to Ukrainian nationalism. It was something to do with his business interests or his take on Charlie Hebdo.
Like so much electronic chaff dropped out of the back of a Tupolev bomber to confuse an incoming heat-seeking missile, the idea that there are multiple interpretations of the truth has become the founding philosophy of state disinformation in Putin’s
Russia, designed to confuse those who would seek out the truth with multiple expressions of distracting PR chaff. The tactic is to create as many competing narratives as possible. And, amid all the resultant hermeneutic chaos, to quietly slip away undetected.
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...rdian-view-russian-propaganda-truth-out-there
So you are saying Putin, who built up his support base by creating order and fighting crime, benefits from killing random opposition leaders. Why? Because apparently people will become too afraid to openly oppose him. Next you claim Russians will not suspect him of killing Nemtsov because propaganda.
No, clearly I'm not saying that he "who built up his support base by creating order and fighting crime".
He built base by:
- being lucky to have high enough oil prices to pay salaries /pensions
- burning Chechenya to ground (and presumably blowing up a few buildings before)
- consolidating state power, kept any other center of power in line (including oligarchs which is not s
- took over effectively all media to be able to brainwash his subject
-
What would Putin lose from this murder?
* His morality - nobody has claimed Putin is a psychopath.
Already perceived so from Chechen war and his infamous infiltration times.
* Massive media carnage, hate from the west.
By same logic he shouldn't have invaded Ukraine. Anyway, he is not hated for that one assasination but for more than 5000 dead in east Ukraine.
But he reduced price of vodka.
* Loss of order in society.
As you see - no result.
* Risk of getting caught (what if somebody talks and links the murder to the Kremlin?) that would spell his end.
In civilized country - yes. But in Russia? He so far pretends quite well not downing one Malaysian plane.
Don't you think if when brainwashed masses would immediately try to believe that Putin is innocent, then shooting a few more people is not so big deal.Anyway, you mentioned this "we don't know" concerning Litvienko. Does this relativism work both ways? I mean in cases where it's for example being claimed that Chcechen separatist did it, while are you ruling out Putin and his KGB buddies? Or you believe in relativism only in one way?