Shishkin is a dual national Russo - Swiss. and now lives in Basle.
He builds Navalny into something of a hero, and I have to admit, Navalny had raw courage in returning to Russia, though I do wonder why he did. Perhaps he wanted to become a martyr.
But Navalny was not only an opposition to Putin, but had a very unpleasant history of right-wing, neofascist populism and serious racism. The ides that he'd be any improvement in charge of Russia than Putin bears no realistic examination. He'd probably oversee the disintegration of the Federation - but as Shishkin admits, who knows how he'd function in such a role.
But the bigger question is this - why does the "west" but particularly the US and the UK consider it their duty or right to "correct" the misfunctioning of other states or to protect vulnerable populations in such states - lighter by sanctions, supporting opposition organisations however perverted they themselves are, or direct military action? Why is the media in the west so certain that we're allowed to do this, and so supportive of such mischievous action - because it always ends in disaster and seriously harming the very people we say we're trying to protect. I suppose it basically is the colonial mentality racism, and unstated xenophobia in modern guise.
There's this continued pious hope in the west that changing the leadership will bring a more compliant country which the west can then bring down to size and exploit more easily. Navalny as another puppet to control, Russia as another country to ransack, which of course we nearly did until Putin put a stop to it.
If we really wished to support Navalny, we would not be making Putin ben more powerful than he was by threatening the very existence to the Russian state.
This ideology is incredibly deep seated. Perhaps it will only disappear when another nation tries the same trick on us.
"But the bigger question is this - why does the "west" but particularly the US and the UK consider it their duty or right to "correct" the misfunctioning of other states or to protect vulnerable populations in such states - lighter by sanctions, supporting opposition organisations however perverted they themselves are, or direct military action? Why is the media in the west so certain that we're allowed to do this, and so supportive of such mischievous action - because it always ends in disaster and seriously harming the very people we say we're trying to protect. I suppose it basically is the colonial mentality racism, and unstated xenophobia in modern guise. "
-You've got it bad John: Its never the intention of the west to bring improvement to the governance of any nation nor benefits to the well-being of its citizenry. The aim is to avail ourselves of its wealth and raw materials: usually mineral....all the rest is mainly PR flannel, although a local "benefit" in creating a sustainable "comprador" middle class to run the show for you is acceptable.
Yes, I actually know all that, (there was an infected note of irony in my posting) but how is it that the "powers that be", whoever they are, get away with it? How is not blindingly obvious to the citizenry of our countries, that this is what is happening. I mean, why do you know it, why do I, but so few others?
"why do you know it, why do I, but so few others?"
No-one wants to be in the "awkward squad" cos there's no money nor social cachet in it: quite the contrary. The media otherwise presents a fully serviceable set of facile acceptable opinions for the lazy, the incurious or those otherwise too busy to investigate any issue.