Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
July 18, 2013


Today a judge in Russia found Alexey Navalny, together with two others, guilty of defrauding a state company. It was alleged that the boss of a state forestry company colluded with some broker to sell state owned wood for lower-than market prices to the broker who then sold it at market prices to other companies. Navalny was the one who brought the broker and the company boss together, arranged the business and allegedly got illegal profits from it.

I have no idea if Navalny is guilty or not. Neither have, judging from their "Navalny Über Alles" pieces, so called journalists who write in the "western" media. They claim, without presenting any evidence, that Navalny was only accused and judged guilty because he had become a nuisance to the Russian Federation state and its president Putin.

Navalny gained some notoriety when he, in 2011 and 2012, arranged for some rather small demonstrations in Moscow. "Western" media often call him a blogger who is muckracking about alleged bribes and improprieties in various state institutions. They claim that he is a popular opponent of Putin.

But Navalny is not popular, at least not in Russia. Out of those 47% of Russians who have at all heard of him twice as many have a negative view on him than a positive opinion one. Since that Pew poll his popularity has shrunk further.

Navalny certainly has some dark sides. He was expelled from the liberal Yabloko opposition party for colluding with the Russian neo-Nazi movement. Navalny is a arch nationalist who wants "Russia for the Russians" excluding all other ethnic groups. Only last week he publicly endorsed a race riot against Russians of Chechen heritage.

As said above I have no idea if Navalny is guilty or not. A Russian court found him guilty and that is about all we known about the case. But I do have an idea what Navalny is not. He is not a serious politician with some laudable program who a majority of Russians would vote into any office. He is rather a racist, rightwing authoritarian who, for the best interests of the Russians and the "west", should be kept as far from any public office as possible.

Posted by b on July 18, 2013 at 18:01 UTC | Permalink


Navalny's "popularity" is a mythical creation of the highly Russo phobic western media. In the current mayoral race in Moscow, he's currently polling at 4% - YES - That's FOUR PERCENT. Yet, every single article I've read thus far in the US mainstream media paint him as some sort of "threat" or "front-runner" to Putin. They scream that he'll have to drop out of the mayoral race because of the conviction since a "victory" in the mayoral race would threaten Putin, even though Navalny had as much chance of winning the Moscow mayoral race As "PSY" (Gangnam Style) has of becoming UN Secretary General.

Most of these Putin hate pieces always steer clear of posting actual polling data, because the last thing they want for you to believe is that the western-backed stooges are very unpopular in Russia and Putin is very popular. Wages, GDP, standard of living, healthcare, and just about everything else has taken quantum leaps under Putin. So much so in fact, that if any politician were to run with Putin's record in the US, no one would even bother running against him. A few days ago, Russia overtook Germany as Europe's largest economy but there was nary a mention of this in the western media. They've been predicting imminent doom for Russia's economy for ten years now, so anything that doesn't feed into this nonsense is ignored.

Posted by: RC | Jul 18 2013 18:33 utc | 1

Today's NYT article (online) about Navalny has an unusually large number of anti-Putin comments....

Laughable headline!!!

Posted by: georgeg | Jul 18 2013 18:45 utc | 2

It's going to be hard to turn the Navalny case into an anti-Putin/Russia story. The great unwashed in America can only dream of a Govt & Judiciary with the wit and will to track down and prosecute the greedy assholes responsible for the Sub-Prime fraud.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 18 2013 18:48 utc | 3

as usual, west loves to hack opposition to pieces (snowden the latest) while condemning others, such double standards..

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 18 2013 18:55 utc | 4

If you go here and type 'navalny' into the site search box, you'll see four results, in each of which Tony Cartalucci has characteristically pasted many of the same blocks of information, but also various different observations of the moment. You should look at this one too, because it contains a very entertaining video of four so-called opposition leaders stealthily arriving one by one at the US embassy to meet Ambassador Michael McFaul, presumably to receive their instructions and or payment.


Note: I've given the "" version of the URLs because that's the only one my server will let me have. You may find you need to change it to "". AFAIK, this only happens with blogspot, and it can be a real nuisance, if you are trying to copy pieces of story text with links.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jul 18 2013 19:10 utc | 5

Mr. Navalny was a Yale World Fellow and created a group in Russia that received money from the National Endowment for Democracy/CIA.

He is a traitor to his country.

Posted by: jim | Jul 18 2013 19:37 utc | 6

Insider's comment from Moscow:
1) Navalny is *not* popular indeed. In a sense that very few ppl would vote for him.
2) Navalny *is* a threat to Putin long-term.

He acts more or less like a suicide bomber - he reveals crimes of the ppl in power and the direct relation b/w crimes and power. The problem is that he's not powerless (or was not) himself. That's smth ppl identify easily - and they *do* change their opinion about gvmt/system but it doesn't help Navalny at all.

As the matter of fact, nobody knows if he's guilty on this case or not but he did all the best to make it look like this.

Posted by: Sergey | Jul 18 2013 21:30 utc | 7

From RT on Navalny:

Posted by: ben | Jul 19 2013 0:19 utc | 8

"It's going to be hard to turn the Navalny case into an anti-Putin/Russia story. The great unwashed in America can only dream of a Govt & Judiciary with the wit and will to track down and prosecute the greedy assholes responsible for the Sub-Prime fraud." Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jul 18, 2013 2:48:11 PM | 3

Exactly what I was thinking while reading the post.

Posted by: JessicaJessica Sager | Jul 19 2013 3:20 utc | 9

A piece in the NY Times by Robert Mackey sympathetic to this dissident, similar to other pieces on Chinese dissidents etc, and also what one might see in these countries regarding US dissidents. All government-driven propaganda.

Chants of ‘Russia Without Putin’ Ring Out as an Activist Blogger Goes Down Tweeting

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jul 19 2013 3:32 utc | 10

So, given MSM propaganda expertise, I don't see any big change from the latest news.

U.S. Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News to Americans

What's the difference between VOA & RFE and NYTimes & WaPo?

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jul 19 2013 3:43 utc | 11

So Mr b. and all the other usually very well informed commentators and political analysts on this website "do not know" whether Mr Navalny is "guilty or not" but nevertheless have a strong condemming opinion on everybody who just says that todays judicial system in Russia is nothing short to a democratic and legitimate system. Like in the case of the so-called iranian presidential elections in June for b. and most of the people here it is sufficient that there is a "law" being made without any consideration of the doubtful legitimation of the law-making body.

In the case of Navalny it would be very easy to at least find a lot of doubts in the judgement: the prosecutors had alredy unsuccessfully tried to get any evidence during the last years on this special case and had closed it, obviously only opening up again on the direct command by the Kremlin.

It is just too many very fishy cases like this where outspoken opponents of the regime of whatever kind are tried and sent into the labour camps of the Far East. But nearly all of the the real thieves and murderous gangs who enriched themselves in the phases of the primitive accumulation of capital since the Jelzin years, but continued during Putins reign as well are still enjoying their life in Russia and all the other fancy places in the Carribean, the Mediterrean etc.

This accumulation in early Russia occured through violence, plunder, robbery of ordinary people of their shares of state property after dissolving the USSR, extortion and theft. The capitalist mode of production requires that people be forced to work in value-adding production for someone else, and for this purpose, they must be cut off from sources of income other than selling their labor power.

It's exactly like the neoliberal accumulation by dispossession which defines the neoliberal capitalist policies in many western nations, from the 1970s and to the present day, as resulting in a centralization of wealth and power in the hands of a few by dispossessing the public of their wealth or land. These neoliberal policies are guided mainly by four practices: privatization, financialization, management and manipulation of crises, and state redistributions.

Posted by: thomas | Jul 19 2013 7:11 utc | 12

Quite so, Thomas, but which side is Navalny on: the side that tries to protect Russia as an economic organism, or the side that simply wants to squeeze Russia dry and expatriate the profits? I should say that Putin's party is the lesser of the available evils, in that it is strong enough to fend off the worst of the expropriators, but no-one can defy them altogether. Putin's party has to allow certain groups to continue to pay themselves off at Russia's expense. But Navalny would sell the whole lot, Yeltsin-style. He's a fraud, politically, whether he is actually guilty of thios particular criminal offense or not. IMHO.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jul 19 2013 7:25 utc | 13


"Like in the case of the so-called iranian presidential elections in June for b. and most of the people here it is sufficient that there is a "law" being made without any consideration of the doubtful legitimation of the law-making body."

"So called"? "doubtful legemitation"?

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 19 2013 7:51 utc | 14

Putin's record on Russia aside, I must say that I really don't agree with this verdict. Navalny should've received a suspended sentence or community service for this crime. There are oligarchs and other people in far more powerful positions than Navalny who have done far worse (like the ex defense minister) who are walking free. Stuff like this only give the west more ammunition In which to beat Russia over the head with.

Posted by: RC | Jul 19 2013 8:31 utc | 15

@11: why do I have to choose sides between murderers and robbers?

Posted by: thomas | Jul 19 2013 8:43 utc | 16

Why indeed, Thomas? Why didn't Soviet Communism manage to solve the social problems of central Asia? Personally, I think the heritage of 18th and 19th century materialism was somehow inadequate to the task of understanding the believing masses. So gradually the Party apparatchiks became cynical and started treating the masses with contempt. And the logical result of that was that religion made a major comeback, with the help of the CIA. So now we're back within capitalism, which is intrinsically a criminal system. It relies on organised crime in order to function at all.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jul 19 2013 9:15 utc | 17

Something else I suspect could be fishy is this story about a Ship bound from Cuba to North Korea being intercepted in the Panama Canal and being found to be loaded with spare parts for NK rockets etc.

The story might be true. But why would NK be importing re-engineered Soviet-era stuff from Cuba (who I didn't know did weapons re-engineering). Why put this whole trade in danger by routing it through a point - the Panama Canal - where it can be intercepted by pro-American forces?

Why not simply route it straight across the border from China or by the very short (and uninterceptable) sea route from Russia.

Posted by: johnf | Jul 19 2013 10:13 utc | 18

thomas (10)


There have been multiple cases where navalnu has played dirty. Being a lawyer though he was smart enough to not be caught easily.

The current case is one where the prosecution has solid material and navalnu will, no doubt, lose his appeal.

And navalnu has made himself many enemies, Putin is by no means the worst, if only because besides a lot of media noise in the west navalnu actually is quite insignificant for Putin.
Having had his fingers in many pots and having more than once played "smart" there are, no doubt, quite some people who wouldn't shed tears if he some day simply got a bullet into his head; chances are that sooner or later someone will actually do it.

johnf (16)

But why would NK be importing re-engineered Soviet-era stuff from Cuba (who I didn't know did weapons re-engineering). Why put this whole trade in danger by routing it through a point - the Panama Canal - where it can be intercepted by pro-American forces?

Why not simply route it straight across the border from China or by the very short (and uninterceptable) sea route from Russia.

It's too early to know much about it.

There are different scenarios I can imagine (like China currently being somewhat angry with NK) but the most probably one imo is that someone is playing the west by overy obviously pointing to NK.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Jul 19 2013 10:49 utc | 19

@17: bullshit is very healthy, I think what we really have to fear is pragma - shit. poisonous discharge of an authoritarian and dictatorian small intellect, not caring for any observation of the rules of law

Posted by: thomas | Jul 19 2013 11:18 utc | 20


mind replying to #12?

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 19 2013 11:46 utc | 21

"I think the heritage of 18th and 19th century materialism was somehow inadequate to the task of understanding the believing masses..."
I think that it was inadequate as a means of understanding the political and social implications of imperialism.
The great weaknesses of Marxism, as Marx seems to have been aware, are its not very critical acceptance of stadial theories of historical development and the sheer inadequacy of the empirical information available to western scholars.
The theory of oriental despotism is nonsense, and Morgan's anthropology though pioneering was superficial and, often, simply wrong.
Marx was a very bright man and a very decent one who sacrificed himself for humanity, but, too often, he succumbed to eurocentrism.

There is a sense in which Marx's mistakes are relevant to this question: all that we know about Navalny is that those currently lamenting his ill-treatment are the same as those who, for decades cried crocodile tears about poor suffering Russia while making every effort to boycott and starve it. And, when their sabotage had succeeded, they then proceeded to pillage the "poor Russian" objects of their sympathy to a genocidal extent. To enable this shock therapy to proceed without interruption, they saddled the country with an oligarchy of cynical thieves and drunken kleptocrats whose marks are still evident on the savaged body of the Russian Soviet Socialist Federation.
It behooves us, in the "west" to mind our own business, look to the lineaments of despotism in our own societies-which are far closer to dystopia than those to the east of us-and, if personal liberty and social freedom are our cause, to promote them by practising them, by pulling down the police states in which we live, rather than those the cops tell us exist elsewhere; and, above all, to uproot the system of exploitation which is the imperialism that our own societies have imposed on the world.
If anyone has any time left over to monitor the proceedings of magistrates' courts in Moscow" good luck finding an audience for your reports. I'm not interested.

Posted by: bevin | Jul 19 2013 11:56 utc | 22


Please respond with a reply to the questions I specfically asked.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 19 2013 12:10 utc | 24

why should I? bother and read there @ 32 and @ 57

Posted by: thomas | Jul 19 2013 12:20 utc | 25

Anon you are such an obnoxious prick.

Posted by: guest77 | Jul 19 2013 13:39 utc | 26

@Don "What's the difference between VOA & RFE and NYTimes & WaPo?"

The only difference I see is that these BBG outlets like VOA are STRICTLY meant for press releases. There isn't a soul - however browbeaten, weak, lazy, and disinterested a soul it might be - in between the government and the final output. Not a person to even do some basic fact checking. No one to even point out the most glaringly irrational statements. Most of their reporting will be foreign, but it will come straight back here. And since other outlets are restricting their foreign reporting it's clear what will get promoted.

Perhaps the only difference is in that the mask is gone. Now we'll have state-run media. That has happened a few times in the US with the Creel Commission and Reagan's Office for Public Diplomacy, but now it will be permanent.

Also, will funding for public broadcasters disappear (not that those don't have the same problems as the big guys)? You may start hearing "why should the govt. fund two outlets" and it will either be used to pull funding, or threaten funding.

I see exactly what you're saying Don, and I can't/won't deny it, I just somehow think - as bad as it is now (and it's really really awful) - this really will make it worse.

Posted by: guest77 | Jul 19 2013 14:03 utc | 27

Thomas, where are the 32 and 57 you refer readers to? Thnx. Must be another thread, right? Bcz this one is only at #24 right now.

Posted by: jawbone | Jul 19 2013 14:34 utc | 28

Latest on Navalny from RT:

Posted by: ben | Jul 19 2013 15:01 utc | 29

I'm still trying to inform myself as to who this Navalny charcter REALLy is. Proponent for the corporate new world order, or Russian nationalist? Should he run for Mayor, maybe it will be a clue about how much popular support he enjoys, at least localy. Also, How long before the Russian hierarchy is co-opted and captured by the global corporate coup. Money, as always, talks.

Posted by: ben | Jul 19 2013 15:42 utc | 30


Why? Because the link didnt answer my question.


Bury the hatchet now and stop being butthurt.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 19 2013 15:52 utc | 31

I posted something yesterday which seems to have vanished into the spam bin, which I thought was helpful. It was this: go to Tony Cartalucci's blog and put 'navalny' into the site search box. You should find four items, with largely overlapping content but good nonetheless. I also recommended this one, although it doesn't mention Navalny, because the video of the opposition leaders being ambushed one by one on their way into the US embassy to meet McFaul is so funny.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jul 19 2013 15:54 utc | 32

Anyone the Zionist media promotes is an enemy of his or her respective nation,as the Zionists care only about Israel and the riches they can rob from said respective nations.And Putin kicked ass on those oligarchs stealing Russia blind, and they hate him.
Where's our Putin?We need him,now!

Posted by: dahoit | Jul 19 2013 16:44 utc | 33

RB @ 32: Thanks for links, especially the second.

Posted by: ben | Jul 19 2013 18:44 utc | 34

Doubting Thomas

Thomas, thank you for offering a different opinion and viewpoint. Hold fast to them and continuing arguing for what you believe amigo.
Concerning Navalny, I believe he is an American stooge.
He has nothing to offer to the Russian people, he is a crook and fraud.
He is what we can in Latin America; Un Pendejo, it can mean either your slick or your a fool. You can all pick as to what I'm referring to.
This pendejo, is a traitor to Russia, from what I know at least.
Putin has been consistent, he has supported and sustained the efforts made by his people to recover the prestige, honor and prosperity.

Anonympus is obnoxious but sometimes she brings up good points. We must be humble, kind and honest.
As they say in English" you gotta recognize".
You are one of the greatest thinkers on Moon of Alabama!
Come now girls, kiss and make up.
Un besito. Muahh

Posted by: Fernando | Jul 19 2013 19:52 utc | 35

Always funny how Russia and in particular Putin (along with everything vaguely connectable) is painted in the west - vs - how the west paints itself.

Recently a RT-linked photographer who had come for purely professional reasons (he was asked to go there) to near the zusa consulate in Frankfurt, Germany had a serious incident with the police.
Obviously the German police had been called or advance warned that some artist was about to light-project "united Stasi of america" onto the consulate.
The photographer had a gun pointed to his head by some cop and had his camera taken away and then been arrested for hours.

This happening in Germany, a strong zusa supporter (or, more honestly, a fully controlled satellite) the event has been mentioned in the european press only sparsely if at all.

If, however, a western payed social terrorist happened to really actually break the law in Russia, even a law that exists very similarly in the west, and were taken away by the Russian police (no guns involved, sorry) we would read "Putins police brutally beats down basic human rights!" in the western press.

The fact that in zusa pretty every cop is free to beat, rob, or simply shoot basically whomever he pleases is generously overlooked by the "free media of the democratic western countries".

Funny. When I talk to Russians, most of them either do hardly know nvalnu or, if they are informed, they despise him saying something like "He's a crook who goes against everything we value".

In the west though most people know basically nothing about nvalnu besides what their "media" force-feed them but they are telling that nothing pretty loudly.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Jul 19 2013 21:41 utc | 36

@Mr. P
You're absolutely right. The United States was so successful in painting the Soviet Union as a repressive hellhole (even while lynching African Americans, killing dissidents, and spying on it's citizen) that it can still beat that dead horse. But the accusations are becoming less and less believable everyday and for exactly the reasons you stated - because of things like the Travon Martin case, Snowden and Manning's revelations, police brutality etc etc.

"Where's our Putin?We need him,now!"
Sadly I don't think he exists, at least not in the United States. I think there is a better chance for Europe to throw off the corporate masters (though they have the added layer of left over nobility and technocrats that seems amazingly powerful) through a normal political process, but I'm afraid the United States is going to take a genuine revolution or a complete collapse.

He didn't want to answer your question, yet you continue to bug him. I'm glad he didn't let you lead him into another inane argument for all of our sakes. I hope you continue to get thomas' wise response from more and more people here.

Posted by: guest77 | Jul 19 2013 22:21 utc | 37

@Mr. Pragma

I agree.

I've also found it comical how everything that seemingly happens in Russia, no matter how insignificant, is always attributed to "Putin's thugs" in the western press. One gets the impression that Putin's this omnipotent all-knowing entity (with apparently no time to govern the country) who just happens to be involved in every event. If there's a demonstration in Moscow taking place without a permit being broken up, it's because "Putin sent his police thugs" to remove them. I live in Los Angeles, and I can assure you that the police are more than capable of breaking up demonstrations and making arrests without putting in a call or receiving one from the US president. It's taken as a given by western journalists that Putin was involved in the verdict in the Navalny case, but no one's provided a shred of evidence or even supplied a logical explanation as to why Putin would even be involved or care about Navalny for that matter.

Posted by: RC | Jul 20 2013 2:27 utc | 38

@37 RD: You're absolutely right. In fact there are more well founded suspicions regarding Obama's personal involvement in coordinating the nationwide Occupy crackdown than there is anything suggesting Putin was directly involved in something like the conviction of Pussy Riot or Nalvany.

Posted by: guest77 | Jul 20 2013 4:36 utc | 39


Please read what I wrote in post #31.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 20 2013 7:14 utc | 40

Isn't Navalny just another guy who went to Yale, got recruited by the NGO/intel system, and is on the US payroll? In other words, he's just a color revolution activist.

Posted by: Ozawa | Jul 20 2013 7:30 utc | 41


Concerning, people like Manning, Snowden, now the brutal murder of Trayvon. Which has dusted up a hornets nest in the black community. We seem to forget men like Chris Dorner. Former military, disaffected and socially conscious. Many good men and women are becoming very upset at what they are seeing and the emotions that this evokes from them.
Many people or rather many individuals grew up believing that America was a force for good.
They grew up believing like me, inspite of being an immigrant to USA, that this was the country of the good.
If this country was the good, then other countries who opposed were bad.
In a nutshell, a lot of people are not believing the mierda, the bullish!t.
Nobody likes to find out, nothing is more painful than to know; you have been living a lie.
Stay tuned.

Posted by: Fernando | Jul 20 2013 7:53 utc | 42

Doubting Thomas
I liked your comment, it was different.
Anonympus, why are you misbehaving you bad girl.

Posted by: Fernando | Jul 20 2013 7:58 utc | 43


Very likely, however quite funny how western leaders love this ultra-nationalist. :)

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 20 2013 9:22 utc | 44

A farmers prophecy for your great site

2 crows will fly ,birds of steel ,a wave of water,a dome of rock fallen,one will remain

brother against brother a birthright broken,shards scattered on the mountain

Posted by: mcohen | Jul 20 2013 9:50 utc | 45


Please choke.

Getting past even your insults, to your one line bit of nothing: "quite funny" how the west likes this ultra-nationalist? Yes, quite funny how they always seem to support "leaders" like your Muslim Brotherhood: sectarians who will tear the country apart instead of build it up. Quite funny indeed! Almost like that is the plan!

Please note that "ultra-nationalist" is a generous term for this clown. A more fitting moniker would be an "ultra-racist" whose plan to "cleanse" Russia and deport all non-white Russians would not strengthen his beloved "nation" but utterly weaken - if not completely destroy - it. As we see Egypt torn to shreds, so we will see Russia if it allows this man to use racism, perverted populism and piles of foreign (and corruptly gained domestic) cash to gain support. White vs Central Asian can be the new Sunni vs. Shia in a heartbeat.

Russia is not a homogenous nation like France, and never has been (or hasn't been for many many centuries). Over the centuries, but especially under the Soviets, the peoples of these disparate lands were brought together under the aegis of something bigger than a one language and one culture "Russia". The West using nationalism to dismantle the Soviet Union was the first step. The West using nationalism to destroy Russia will be the next. Madeline Albright's "Siberia is too large and rich to belong to one country" is not a flippant remark, its US policy. The West would like nothing more to see a couple more oil rich/population small/anti-Russian/completely corrupt statelets popping up.

The popularity of ANY Russian who proclaims "Russia for Russian" makes that dismantling inevitable. Quite "funny".

Posted by: guest77 | Jul 20 2013 13:28 utc | 46

Even "funnier": even where this sectarian feeling doesn't exist, there are attempts by ... someone ... to create it. See the following disinfo regarding fictitious "ultra-nationalist" statements by Putin:

Quite the contrary to the invented horseshit being put out above, Putin does, in fact, acknowledge that Islam and Muslims are an integral part of Russia - one has only to look at the Mosque in Kazan (truly one of the most beautiful buildings in the world) and know the history of the steppes to see this.

From a Putin speech in 2012:

Islam is by right an inalienable part of Russia’s religious, social, and cultural life. Its traditions are based on the eternal values of goodness, mercy, and justice. Millions of people in our country practice this ancient faith. The Muslim community takes part in our country’s public life, is actively involved in a broad range of charity activities, helps to strengthen and promote family values, and takes a firm stand against religious intolerance and extremism.

"Quite funny" indeed. If they were to succeed in fracturing Russia on religious lines, the West (or at least the West's oil, mining, and timber corporations) would be laughing all the way to the bank.

Posted by: guest77 | Jul 20 2013 14:02 utc | 47

@46 Sorry, I just wanted to provide images of the Kazan Mosque. It really is one of the most spectacular buildings I have ever seen. I'd love to see it in person someday.

Posted by: guest77 | Jul 20 2013 14:04 utc | 48


Thats the issue, EU support ultra nationalists in Russia but when it comes to the same people in Europe they are smeared. However that EU have a secret plan that you seems to imply is naive, rather its more complex and general political discrediting of Russia.
Having said that this man is quite popular in Moscow but also St. Petersburg, again, democracy, not your ideological bias should set the premise. So if the russians choose this man as the mayor it must be respected.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 20 2013 14:06 utc | 49

lol. 8% is "quite popular" and supporting sectarianism is "quite funny"

I think you better brush up on your definition of "quite", anon. I must say that frankly I'm too not to worried about being called "naive" by someone who uses the word "democracy" like you do. Talk about lacking complexity.

"An opinion survey in early July by the independent Levada polling center showed Navalny attracting only about 8-percent support among likely voters in the mayoral election."

Posted by: guest77 | Jul 20 2013 14:32 utc | 50


If you look at my comment at #48 you see that I specfically said he was popular in Moscow and St. Petersburg. No one have claimed that he is popular in the whole of Russia.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 20 2013 14:50 utc | 51

@47 guest 77

I visited the Kazan mosque 3 years ago, it's beautiful and feels quite Russian.

Posted by: Crest | Jul 20 2013 14:54 utc | 52


"among likely voters in the mayoral election."


Can you read, you twit? 8% among likely voters in the mayoral election. Meaning he has 8% support IN MOSCOW.

Are you lying or stupid? Answer my question. I demand you do so this instant! (how does it feel, dopey)

Posted by: guest77 | Jul 20 2013 15:22 utc | 53

@Crest I'm envious! How was the rest of Kazan? How long did you stay? Was it easy to get around?

Posted by: guest77 | Jul 20 2013 15:23 utc | 54


Well thats what I said, no one have claimed that he is popular in all of Russia, being popular doesnt mean hes going to win automatically as you seems to believe. If you check Moscow, which is very anti-kreml to begin with, getting 8% percent (another reports have showed up to 30%) is quite interesting because this will be the first election for a decade. The past 2 mayors in Moscow have been appointed by Kreml, the mayor sitting today, is allied with Putin. Thats why he called early elections, since he would have better chance to win. However Navalny will have definately have a chance to win even if the sitting mayor will likely take it of obvious political, reasons.
You dont seem to know much about russian politics.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 20 2013 15:32 utc | 55

If you define having 8% support in ones home base as "popular" you are, once again, going it alone.

I don't know much of Russian politics? You don't seem to know the definition of basic words you are using, like "popular".

I'd like to see these 30% polls, they certainly aren't used by his supporters in the West. How odd. Can you provide a link please?

You seem to be saying that if he wins, that's "democracy" but if he loses, thats "obvious political" interference. Which is what I'd expect an ass kisser of the Empire to say: "Democracy is when our candidate wins".

Come Anon, now you're just embarrassing yourself. No one said he is popular in Russia indeed, because that'd be a bald-faced lie. Because if he is so wildly UNPOPULAR in his home base, Moscow, he could hardly be anything else among the bulk of the Russian people. You've been trying to tell us he is "popular" in Moscow, when he has 8% support there - by no definition is 8% support "popular".

Who do you think buys into your garbage? Anyone here?

Posted by: guest77 | Jul 20 2013 15:40 utc | 56

You've now made your disingenuousness completely clear Anonymouse.

You try to imply he has more than 8% support in Moscow by implying that the poll covered all of Russia. It did not. You are simply lying.

You tell us that if he wins, democracy must be supported, but if he loses... well, something shady is going on. A complete contradiction.

This all ties back to your similar support of those Western-backed flavor-of-the-week the Muslim Brotherhood.

You're a backer of nothing more than the Empire and it's definition of "managed" democracy.

Your position is crystal clear Anon.

Posted by: guest77 | Jul 20 2013 15:50 utc | 57


Speaking on that 8% one could assume that will rise throughout july, august, september to the election. Remember current mayor is allied with Putin so a vote on Navalny isnt necessary a vote for him due his politics but due he is the least worse participant.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 20 2013 15:51 utc | 58

So your are saying he is deeply unpopular, though he may gain some percentage not because people support him, but because he is a protest vote.

I don't know, but I'm guessing that people might kind of think that that's on a whole 'nother planet from your original formulation that "this man is quite popular in Moscow ... democracy ... must be respected".

No, you wouldn't because your just a pestering little troll whose dearest wish is to see sectarianism, "managed" democracy and colour revolutions spread across the globe. It's "quite funny" to watch you try and worm your way out of all of your statements Anon.

Posted by: guest77 | Jul 20 2013 16:04 utc | 59

Many of the Russians I've run into have seriously never heard of Navalny. There's one anecdote where the famous conductor, Valery Gergiev, was asked about Navalny in a UK interview and he had no idea who he was. The reporter became abrasive and thought Gergiev was being a "smart ass." This western-journalist simply couldn't accept that a famous Russian had no idea who their latest "Democracy" prop was. Navalny and his "popularity" is a western fabrication. A staunch racist who usually pens screeds on his blog about how great the golden age of the 1990s were in Russia - and this clown expects mainstream Russians to take him seriously!!??

Posted by: RC | Jul 20 2013 17:01 utc | 60


Yes hes getting more and more popular due general and rising resentment against Kreml, especially in Moscow. In fact this is why he seek to become a major to begin with, so this is bigger than Navalny himself, its rather an anti-kreml movement on the rise.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 20 2013 17:13 utc | 61

They should make him a major. But he said he wanted to run for mayor.


Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jul 20 2013 18:02 utc | 62


Haha I saw that too :)

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 20 2013 18:26 utc | 63


@Crest I'm envious! How was the rest of Kazan? How long did you stay? Was it easy to get around?

Posted by: guest77 | Jul 20, 2013 11:23:35 AM | 54
Kazan is a great city, the mixture of Tartar style and the old Russian reconstruction style is really wonderful. You can walk to see most of the sights, we had a car, but there are a lot of buses to get around on. It was sort of a spur of the moment trip, we first planned on going to Georgia, but a friend was having odd visa problems, so we went to Russia's southern Volga region, I'm not sure what exactly to call it, instead. We saw Kazan, visited Nizhny Novgorod, and some other nice places. One of my favorite trips, definitely.

Posted by: Crest | Jul 20 2013 18:29 utc | 64

He's getting more and more popular because the western media says so - no other reason. When nearly half of the population has no idea who you are, your prospects aren't looking to great - especially considering Navalny's been around for a decade already.

Anon must have an extremely liberal view of what "more and more" means.

Are there any polls available which show this "rising resentment" against the Kremlin? I think the Russians who know who Navalny is know Exactly who's interest he represents (hint: it isn't the Russian people).

Posted by: RC | Jul 20 2013 18:34 utc | 65

"Yes hes getting more and more popular due general and rising resentment against Kreml"

He's getting "more popular", according to you (no evidence provided), but is still at 8 percent in JULY polls even though he's been on the political scene for YEARS.

So no, I don't think anyone except a partisan hack would call that popular. And he is a protest vote, so in fact his scant support is not even based on his ideas or his policies, but as general disregard for the incumbent party. Of course there are those in the West who, like yourself, will proclaim any percentage as a "democratic mandate" even if it is half of the percentage that a successful third party candidate might get in the US. All while at the same time crying that the vote was rigged.

You're spinning too fast Anon, you'll get dizzy.

@RB - He sounds like a major a--hole. Perhaps that is what Anon meant.

Posted by: guest77 | Jul 20 2013 18:35 utc | 66


Yes hes getting more popular, ever since he have exposed kreml policies he have become more popular, although as I earlier said, this is bigger than Navalny himself, its a movement on both sides (kreml cracking down>

Also the 8% poll was made before the judicial process had made their resolution so it will grow even more by now.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 20 2013 18:49 utc | 67

I have to say Anon, I think you're completely full of shit.

You don't have a single link to any evidence. Not a poll, not even an essay from a supporter. Perhaps he'll become even less popular after his trial like Pussy Riot.

In fact, as long as you're pulling stuff out of your ass, why not make a few more predictions? Perhaps he'll turn into a unicorn and surf to the moon upon a rainbow? I don't know, as long as you're making stuff up. I mean, really Anon, are you basing your horseshit on anything anymore?

Posted by: guest77 | Jul 20 2013 19:44 utc | 68

@64 Crest Awesome, thanks for the info.

I'd love to do a trip of that region. Especially including Volgograd/Stalingrad on the anniversary of the victory there. Perhaps I should plan for the 75th...

Posted by: guest77 | Jul 20 2013 20:01 utc | 69


Actually thats not strange really, this man gained his reputation on the internet, today only some 1/4 of russians have internet. Another premise is that hes blacked out and smeared in the media generating little or non publicity.

Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 20 2013 20:06 utc | 70

My favourite neo-dissidents were the National Bolsheviks. When they started out, they had the intellectual grey eminence Alexander Dugin in their leadership. But as time went by, Dugin decided that Eduard Limonov, his co-leader, was just not serious. Which is true. Limonov is to politics what Sid Vicious was to rock music. But it was fun.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Jul 20 2013 20:08 utc | 71

Navalny is what we call in Spanish a Pendejo; It can mean either slick or stupid. Stupid as in being a patsy or a "do boy".
This is what Navalny is, a verdadero Pendejo!
He is America's pendejo & he is also a traitor to his country. Russians of the wealthy kind for some reason resent Putin. I do not know why, he has helped the Russians to regain their honor and place amongst the great powers. I dated a rich professional Russian tennis player, definitely upper class.
She described herself as a democrat. As in leaning or rather fully supporting Odummy and what she perceived as his policies.
I enumerated his list of broken promises and failures.
His saving of Wall Street instead of Main Street.
His utter failure in closing Guantanamo.
Lack of due process and subsequent murder of American citizens.
The continuous use of torture.
His tacit support for the war of aggression in Libya.

She didnt care and said that it was all the fault of the Republicans.
That Obama was the kind of leader Russia needed.
I laughed at her.
Needless to say, that relationship went no further.
This is the type of person who offers support to Navalny. Individual who are blinded and fooled by the shine and razzle dazzle of Amerika.
It happens to many, many people.
Until they are stopped by a cop or get a letter from the IRS.

Posted by: Fernando | Jul 20 2013 20:49 utc | 72

Internet penetration in Russia is actually quite high considering it's size:

Considering the poll average, it's now over 60% and has been increasing every year as the graph shows. This increase has NOT ushered in a bump in Navalny's notoriety or popularity - probably because no Russian wants to rally around an NGO sponsored stooge who writes about the 1990s on his blog like they were the golden age. I'm guessing only a fringe minority will take seriously someone who wants to roll the clock back to one of Russia's worst decades in its history.

Posted by: RC | Jul 21 2013 9:47 utc | 73

From a rather good, readable Navalny portrait What Is Navalny?

Navalny is a right-winger. He is pro-market, pro-gun ownership (an uncommon position in the Russian political field), and anti-immigration. His electoral platform (he has announced his candidacy for Mayor of Moscow) includes language about creating “competitive” conditions for utilities, hospitals, schools. This comes straight out of the neoliberal playbook and, as the Russian Socialist Movement point out in their statement on Navalny, leads primarily to the closure of “non-competitive” schools, clinics, hospitals—and high prices for electricity. Navalny’s comments on the “nationalities” question—interethnic relations in the post-Soviet space—also come straight out of the antiliberal catechism. “You can’t have taboo subjects,” Navalny told Russian GQ in 2011. “The failure of the liberal-democratic movement [in Russia] was the result of the fact that they considered certain topics too dangerous to talk about, including the topic of national, inter-ethnic conflict. We need to admit that migrants, including from the Caucasus, often come to Russia with their own, specific values.”

The piece also shows why he is dangerous.

Posted by: b | Jul 27 2013 15:49 utc | 74

The comments to this entry are closed.