Last month, Putin called Navalny’s demise “sad” and said he had been ready to hand the jailed politician over to the West in a prisoner exchange provided Navalny never return to Russia. Navalny’s allies said such talks had been under way […] Washington had not absolved the Russian leader of overall responsibility for Navalny’s death however, given the opposition politician had been targeted by Russian authorities for years, jailed on charges the West said were politically motivated, and had been poisoned in 2020 with a nerve agent[, for which Russia also denies responsibility].
Reuters could not independently verify the Journal report, which cited sources as saying the finding had been “broadly accepted within the intelligence community and shared by several agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the State Department’s intelligence unit.”
He didn’t need to order is specifically. He was kept in prison in terrible conditions and died because of that. The outcome of his dying was still what Putin wanted (or at least didn’t care if it happened). No orders required.
This sort of reporting and claims from the intelligence community feels like obfuscation by using a technically true statement, but irrelevant to the overall issue.
“Won’t someone something something this priest…”
This sort of reporting
Ecaxlty. Imo it’s not of the best quality considering the original title and content form WSJ, " Putin Didn’t Directly Order Alexei Navalny’s February Death, U.S. Spy Agencies Find" WSJ article . Arch
" The assessment doesn’t dispute Putin’s culpability for Navalny’s death, but rather finds he probably didn’t order it at that moment(…) European intelligence agencies have been told of the U.S. view. Certain countries remain skeptical that Putin wouldn’t have had a direct hand in Navalny’s death"
At Reuters they like to add their own stuff quoting Ruzz officials and confusing the actual original content.
That’s irrelevant, he didn’t have to. Harsh conditions together with the aftereffects of polonium and lousy healthcare were sure to do it.
Putin was obviously behind poisoning him first, and putting him in jail second, that he MAYBE didn’t order him killed a third time is completely irrelevant, since we know he definitely ordered him neutralized at least twice.
Putin is a mass murderer, and that’s even without counting the wars.He probably didn’t order them to keep him alive, either.
I’m so filled with skepticism over here it’s spilling out of me and beginning to fill the room. I might drown in it if I don’t open a door soon.
Eh. On one hand Putin could have killed him at any point, and is fully capable without question, but on the other hand the quality of nutrition, hygiene, and healthcare for anyone incarcerated in Russia Is likely horrific — otherwise healthy people possibly die in these prisons all the time.
You could argue that Putin killed Navalny the moment he sent him to the prison camp.
And you would technically be correct.
Someone remind me who owns the Wall Street Journal again…
What does the owner of the WSJ have to do with messaging from Intelligence communities?
Did you miss the part where Reuters said they couldn’t verify what the WSJ is reporting? Why are you believing anything they say anything more than what Fox News says? It’s News Corp. They’re in the tank for Putin.
They are in the same tank that all other for profit news agencies are in. If they couldn’t verify the validity it’s journalistic malfeasance to repeat the story.
Then why did they come right out and say that they couldn’t verify it?
Yup, and Epstein probably killed himself.
Yes, exactly. We’ll never see an official order from Putin to off Navalny or a similar one from anyone who was in on the Epstein collusion so a claim like “Trump, Clintons and the British royals didn’t kill Epstein” can be always made
Navalny was in Russian custody, and his health was Russia’s responsibility. Putin still has blood on his hands for all the deaths in Ukraine.
Yeah, I’m skeptical of this story to begin with, but even if it is true it doesn’t make any real difference
It was actually Putin’s evil twin Paton, you can tell them apart because Paton has a mustache and they’ve never been seen together.
I think I’d want an official statement, not an anonymous statement from an unknown source.
The FSB had had the team following him for quite some time. We know from phone call records that those people were communicating with people pretty high up.
If it isn’t reaching Putin, then it’s some very high-ranking people in the his administration independently deciding to knock off his political opponents.
It’s not impossible that they’d do that, but given the domestic political ramifications, I have a hard time believing that they’d want to just do it without checking with Putin, because it could clobber him politically as well.
EDIT: Oh, they’re saying that him dying in prison shortly after being imprisoned rather than his earlier attempted murder by the FSB might not have been directed by Putin. I guess that that’s at least more-plausible. Doesn’t mean that he wasn’t murdered, but I could believe that Putin would have been fine with him just being permanently imprisoned.
While I could definitely see Putin wanting him dead, he does strike me more as the type to keep him alive to torment him and keep his wife in line.
She’s way more dangerous with Navalny dead than in prison.
Assuming that what WSJ reported is indeed true, that it is widely accepted hypotheses within intelligence community (Reuters could not verify they).
What and how intelligence community would know that? By the fact that someone was talking about exchange? And this preclude Putin from ordering execution before elections how? I actually do not believe that this “intelligence community” is that stupid to hold it as “wildly held belief”. That’s bad WSJ reporting.
What else do we know? That Russian officials deny that? The same officials that denied presence of Russian military when they captured Crimea? If anything, them denying from the first day shows opposite situation. Normally, one would investigate it, but it is as if they knew the answer from day 1.
