Month: February 2021

Neoliberal globalist capitalism is animated by two tendencies, diametrically opposed in practice and yet absolutely converging in purpose. These propensities are both political and economic. The first is a separative trend while the second is a propensity for homologation. The separative tendency of neoliberal capitalism is a political manoeuvre whose purpose is the attempt to practice the famous Roman adage “divide et impera” while the propensity for cultural homologation of the masses is a condition sine qua non for the unification of the market, of consumers and of products. These two aspirations, despite their apparent divergence, are none other than the two primary methodologies aimed at maintaining, strengthening and developing the system. 

SEPARATIVE TREND

The capitalist economic/political system, as Marx explained much better than me, is naturally, structurally, divisive. In fact, it tends to create, strengthen and favour the division of society into classes of “winners and losers”, exploited and exploiters. The globalist and neoliberal drift of capitalism today has not only highlighted this innate tendency of the system, but has accentuated it. Nowadays, the disproportionate difference between rich and poor has grown out of all proportion and tends to accelerate. As an example, I report the following data: during the year 2018 an average Amazon worker earned $ 30,000; roughly the same amount that Jeff Bezos, CEO of the company, earned every 10 seconds.

Although neoliberal globalist capitalism has as its sole purpose the greatest profit for the least number of people, this discrepancy between the economic power of the “masters of steam” and the vast majority of the people has become a serious problem. Obviously it is a problem for the working people, who see the fruit of their work transferred and concentrated in the hands of a transnational elite, but it has also become a problem for the elite themselves who, responsible for the social injustice (or legalised theft) in action, runs the risk of being overwhelmed by an ever more conceivable “awakening of consciences”. 

One of the strategies adopted by the “masters of the world” to respond to this problem, and to subvert and channel the growing anger of the people, is that, as mentioned above, of the use of the old Roman stratagem of “divide and rule”. The greatest danger to the status quo, in fact, is a condensation along party lines of the people. A massive organisation of intentions and their political coordination would mark the end of the current system in a short time. It is therefore of paramount importance, from the point of view of the elites, to ensure that this does not happen. Any form of commonality of objectives, of community aggregation and legislative compactness must be (and in fact it is) blocked, ostracised and discouraged.

The capitalist system, in fact, has as its first enemy the social pact intended as a defense of the interests of the many and as a cohesive attempt of the human brotherhood. The dominant economic and political apparatus therefore desires individuals emptied of any collective belonging and therefore politically solitary individuals unable to refuse everything that capital will want to impose on them.

This politically separative tendency is evident in many aspects of today’s social and working life. From the systematic weakening of trade unions, to the impoverishment of community work in favour, for example, of teleworking or the gig economy, which exploits the worker in his condition as an atom separated from the working community (and moreover devoid of any form of right), there are many examples that could be made of this current. But no example is more evident and oppressive than the perpetual separative effort of identity (individual and individualist).

This effort – of culture, media and propaganda – aims to separate the mass, the people, which if united would represent a revolutionary potential, into small nuclei closed in on themselves, not communicating, antagonistic and therefore in constant struggle with each other. This is often rightly defined as a “struggle between the poor”. 

The people are then incited by power, mainly through propaganda, to form factions at odds with each other. These factions, or non-dialoguing dichotomies, are continuously and alternately fomented by the ruling class through the lever of individual, particular and exclusive identity. So we see white versus blacks, natives versus migrants, men versus women, Christians versus Muslims, heterosexual versus homosexuals, yes-vax versus no-vax and so on step into the ring of social conflict. These conflicts, albeit spontaneously existing, are continuously amplified both by the media drums and by the system itself which, by producing masses of dispossessed forced to compete with each other, creates the conditions for conflict. The purpose of this operation is to push the divided people to fight against themselves horizontally and to distract them from the true source of their discontent (the elite capitalist system) which would instead require a vertical struggle against the guardians of the established social condition.

In other words, the separative attitude of the capitalist system is nothing more than a weapon of mass distraction unsheathed in defense of the uncritical and static conservation of the system itself. The citizen is led to believe that the fault of his condition is, for example, the migrant and that if he were to disappear this would change his social and economic situation. At the same time, the migrant is pushed to believe that he is not well liked by the native population because of the color of his skin and not because, probably without knowing it, he has arrived in a country whose social and economic fabric is at the end of it’s tether and his presence is therefore seen as one too many. These contrasting and specifically targeted narratives allow the system and its defenders to transform two potential allies into bitter enemies.

This is an old trick but it is very efficient. A bit like skilful pickpockets, the defenders of the established power distract the citizen by attracting his attention to the left hand while stealing his wallet with the right. 

HOMOLOGATING TREND

The second propensity of globalist capitalism is diametrically opposite to the one just described. The globalist economic system, in fact, is formed on what the philosopher Diego Fusaro calls “neutralising inclusion” and that is a necessary, from the point of view of the system, neutralisation of regional cultural specificities. This has a purely economic function.

The economic task of this trend is to standardise the production model and the way of consumption of goods. To summarise this task, we can cite the famous exclamation of Henry Ford who, speaking of the choice his customers had on the color of his cars, said: “They can choose the color they want. As long as it’s black! ”. Here, global capitalism similarly exclaims: “You can choose the product you prefer. As long as it’s ours! “

The aim of globalised capitalism is to sell as many products as possible to as many consumers as possible. To achieve its aim, the system needs neutral, indistinct, narcissistic and above all homologated consumers. This allows the merchant to exponentially expand the market and therefore the number of consumers that can be reached by the same product. In other words, to achieve the maximum possible profit, the globalised capitalist system wants everything to be selfsame. The product must be the same as must be the consumer.

The homologating trend of the market is particularly visible in the clothing sector. The new frontiers of fashion are pushing more and more towards a thinner proposal of differences. Just think of unisex garments or homogeneous prêt-à-porter whether it is sold in Italy or sold in China. Perhaps the most striking example of this homologation can be found in the famous “United Colors” advertising of the Benetton brand where children of all races, and therefore representatives of different cultures, all pose together dressed in the same way. In short, “United Colors” yes, but under the sign of dollar green.

The biggest obstacle to this consumerist relativism therefore remains the regional and cultural identity under the spur of the specific popular tradition. This tradition, deriving from the particular history of a given people, reflects its peculiarity and therefore, consequently, its identity. This regional typicality is what global capitalism refuses and tries to destroy and level by any means, be it propaganda, cultural, political or economic. It should therefore not be surprising that the two prevailing political visions fork between sovereignty and globalism and that the economic ones between globalised production and consumption and locally sourced one. 

In short, the capitalist and globalist “open society” wants nothing more than a society emptied of its specific cultural values, a society which, therefore, devoid of tradition, can be moulded at will by the market and in which it is possible to insert products manufactured in mass and consumed by the multitude. This economic system yearns to neutralise any communal aspiration other than that of commercial exchange, that is, the market. The state, a fundamental organ for the democratic expression of the polis, is therefore extorted from its congenital function and forced to govern FOR the market instead of governing THE market.

It should be briefly remembered that all dictatorships tend towards standardisation because this destroys individuality and consequently weakens the attitude and habit of dissent. The concrete example is the uniform imposed by the dictator; which on the one hand unites the wearer and on the other kills all forms of originality. The peculiarity of today’s financial dictatorship is that it simultaneously promotes uniformity of tastes and encourages a false choice (the Fordian “As long as it is black!” Which updated becomes “As long as they are jeans!”). To summarise, it could be said that without cultural roots the citizen loses his specific regional identity, without identity he loses the sense of belonging to a community and without communal awareness he loses his ability to resist. Which is exactly what the system wants.

Following this thought, a question arises spontaneously: if the aim of the system is to homogenise the heterogeneous cultures, which dominant culture must they adapt to? What is the original archetype to clone? The answer is obvious and predictable. The cannibal and oppressive cultural model is that of the “American way of life”. A North American model based on unbridled and low-quality consumption, on extreme individualism, on wild competition and promoter of a childish and infantilising culture. In short, the “fast-food and quick money” model. 

IDENTITY AND BORDERS

The greatest fallacy of modern thought consists in confusing the right and necessary yearning for equality with the erroneous and destructive claim of sameness. While equality is a sacrosanct political claim built on justice, both social and economic, sameness is an overbearing and tyrannical attempt to level the different. This levelling assumes, as we have seen previously, a collective approach to a basic model (in our case the North American one) from which to clone the multiple manifestations of being. Like a virus, sameness takes hold of the other to make it the same, thus destroying the individual and collective identity of peoples.

In fact, identity can only exist in difference. One is one because it is not the other. I am me because I am not you. It is precisely in the mediation of differences that the individual understands, nourishes and enriches his own specificity. Open and respectful dialogue, therefore, becomes a necessary means to ensure that two distinct realities can communicate. Without difference, the dialogue becomes a repetitive and demeaning monologue, a killer of fantasy, education and relationships. On the contrary, true dialogue forces the parties to try to understand each other without therefore abandoning their own perspective. In doing so, true dialogue enriches and embellishes one’s own identity, and that of the other, through comparison.

This peculiarity of the human experience is most noticeable in the act of traveling. During the trip, the citizen comes into contact with a social and cultural reality different from his own. From it, in the first place, he observes and learns different visions, rites and approaches to the human adventure and secondly he compares them with his own. The exploration of the different increases his wisdom and the comparison with it increases his awareness of identity. Anyone who travels, once back home, brings back not only new knowledge and the scent of distant worlds, but also a new sensitivity in observing his own gardens.

It is too often forgotten evidence that every culture, however different, is nothing more than a manifestation of the human race. Humanity, unitary in itself, stands out in its plurality, complexity and variety. In fact, regional cultural identity is nothing more than a narrative identity deriving from specific stories, traditions and memories. 

Just as between two human beings, at the micro level, identity arises from the distinction from the other, at the macro level the national culture is geographically distinguished within the border. The national border, the frontier, is nothing more than the delineation of the limits of a reality beyond which the other exists. This limit defines the historical, cultural and traditional identity of a people but also, and perhaps above all, determines it’s sovereignty, that is, the possibility of governing it’s own destiny.

In ancient times of war the victorious aggressor, as a first move, demolished the walls of the conquered city. The demolition of the walls was a conquest for the aggressor but a loss for the attacked. During the Peloponnesian War, when Sparta conquers Athens on the battlefield, it orders, according to the surrender pacts stipulated, to tear down its walls. This is not done to unite Sparta and Athens in brotherhood but to leave Athens naked, so to speak, defenceless, vulnerable to the command of Sparta. It should therefore come as no surprise that Athens would never regain its former prosperity and that the collapse of its walls marks the end of the golden age of Hellenic civilisation. The demolition of the border is always an act of colonisation by the dominant army or thought or economic system which, as we have seen repeatedly, wishes to impose its own supervision and consequently dominate the other. It follows that the famous speech of Pericles to the Athenians “Here in Athens we do so”, in which the famous politician describes the characteristics of Athenian democracy, once the city walls have fallen, no longer subsists. Without the walls that delineate Athens, there is no longer a “here” or a “we”. And without them it is impossible to define the “we do so” as distinct from another doing. 

To return to our times, it is clear that the principles of nation, sovereignty, tradition and cultural identity are under attack from an anthropophagous economic system that intends to destroy the different in order to impose its own. In this context it seems obvious that the current demonisation of national borders is nothing more than a trick of capitalism which wishes to colonise the minds and bodies of the world in the name of profit. The political and media campaigns conceived to execute the very principle of nation as an intrinsically racist, warmongering and isolationist principle serve transnational capital to destroy and abolish all the legal, political and economic defense systems available to the various peoples. The globalist and capitalist “no border” society wishes to see the same triumph on a global scale: one language, one thought, one law, one single way of producing and consuming… in short, a single way of life dictated and controlled by an always narrower elite.

We can therefore conclude that there are two types of universalism: the first perceives the levelling and in-distinction of the parts as the only way of union; the second, on the contrary, celebrates and defends differences as the only healthy and fraternal attitude of being in the world. 

NEOCOLONIALISM

In an episode of Fyodor Dostoevsky’s masterpiece “The Brothers Karamazov” a noblewoman, as pious as she is rich, visits the starec (Christian mystic) Zosima in her monastery. Moved by a profound crisis of conscience, she confesses to him that: “I love humanity, but to my great surprise, the more I love humanity in general the less I love man in particular.” The episode described by the Russian master perfectly describes the dilemma in which today’s societies find themselves.

Driven by an honest desire for peaceful and fraternal coexistence, peoples, guided by globalist propaganda, believe that borders are the problem, forgetting that true equality and true brotherhood is not the elimination of differences but rather the development of them in respect of their specific identity and therefore of their otherness. In short, true equality is the antithesis of standardisation. Or as one of the characters of the Idiot, also by Dostoevsky, exclaims: “In abstract love for humanity, one almost always ends up loving only oneself.”

And it is for this strange game of the human soul that the “no border open society” is nothing but the most vulgar form of nationalism. True nationalism, in fact, is the reduction of cultural differences to one; the desire, in fact, to impose a vision (the “American way of life”) on all the others and to standardise all human expressions. This is called colonialism.

I leave you with extracts from Pericles’ “Speech to the Athenians”, which was pronounced over 2500 years ago. 

Our form of government does not enter into rivalry with the institutions of others. Our government does not copy our neighbours’, but is an example to them. The administration is in the hands of the many and not of the few and for this we are called a democracy.

Here in Athens we do so. 

There exists equal justice to all and alike in their private disputes, the claim of excellence is also recognised; and when a citizen is in any way distinguished, he is preferred to the public service, not as a matter of privilege, but as the reward of merit and poverty is not an obstacle.

Here in Athens we do so. 

There is no exclusiveness in our public life, and in our private business we are not suspicious of one another, nor angry with our neighbour if he does what he likes.We are free, free to live at ease, and yet are equally ready to face the perils which we face.  While we are thus unconstrained in our private business, a spirit of reverence pervades our public acts; we are prevented from doing wrong by respect for the authorities and for the laws, having a particular regard to those which are ordained for the protection of the injured as well as those unwritten laws which bring upon the transgressor of them the reprobation of the general sentiment.

Here in Athens we do so.

We do not consider a man uninterested in the state harmless, but useless; and although few are able to give life to a policy, everyone here in Athens is able to judge it. We do not see discussion as an obstacle on the way to democracy. We believe that happiness is the fruit of freedom, but freedom is only the fruit of merit. In short, I proclaim that Athens is the school of Hellas and that every Athenian grows by developing in himself a happy versatility, self-confidence, readiness to face any situation and that is why our city is open to the world and we we never chase a foreigner. 

Here in Athens we do so.

Note to the reader: this article in no way wants to argue that Vladimir Putin is a patron saint of democracy, that there is no corruption within his government or that political murder (or attempt) is unconceivable (but whoever is without sin cast the first stone). The intent is simply to take a more careful look at Alexey Navalny’s character.

Who is Alexey Navalny? On his Wikipedia profile we learn that he was born in 1976 in Obninsk about 100 kilometers southwest of Moscow and is of Ukrainian descent. He is described, also by Wikipedia, as “a leader of the Russian opposition, politician, lawyer and anti-corruption activist.” Navalny came to international prominence by organising demonstrations against the corruption of President Vladimir Putin and his government.

As we can read on his official profile, he was trained at the American University of Yale as a member of the “Greenberg World Fellows Program”, a program created in 2002 for which, every year, only 16 people, with such characteristics as to make them “Global leaders”, are selected worldwide. They are part of a network of “leaders globally committed to making the world a better place”, currently made up of 291 members from 87 countries, each in contact with each other and all connected to the US center of Yale. 

In 2000, Navalny joined the Russian Unified Democratic Party Yabloko, a small party within the Russian political landscape (In the last presidential elections, Yabloko won 1.05% of the vote). In April 2004, Navalny becomes chief of staff of the Moscow branch but in 2007 he is expelled for his nationalist views.

In 2005 he co-founded the “Democratic Alternative” movement, one of the beneficiaries of the National Endowment for Democracy (Ned), a powerful US “private non-profit foundation” which, with funds also provided by Congress, finances, openly or under the table, thousands of non-profit non-governmental organisations in over 90 countries to “advance democracy”. It is an open secret that Ned is one of the branches of the CIA for covert operations, which has been, and still is, particularly active in Ukraine. In the country of his ancestors, Navalny supported the Maidan Revolution which, according to him: “overthrew a corrupt government that prevented democracy”. It matters little that, with the Maidan Square’s putsch, an even more corrupt government was installed in Kiev, whose democratic character is represented by the neo-Nazis who occupy key positions (and this is not an euphemism, they are literally neo-Nazis who openly promote ideas such as “white supremacy” and “white power”). 

Another interesting aspect, that I invite you to consider, is the fact that Navalny’s wife is the daughter of a powerful former KGB operator and banker responsible for Russian properties in London, Boris Abrosimov. Abrosimov is a colleague of the better known former KGB colonel and Russian oligarch Alexander Lebedev, owner and editor of some British newspapers, whose son has recently become a Peer of England (a noble title). All of this would seem to indicate that Navalny is deeply connected to the dark places where Russian and Western intelligence services, and their bankers, forge confidential ties. 

In any case, in 2007 Navalny created a second political movement called “The People” which presented a clearly xenophobic, nationalist, identity and anti-immigration program. At the same time he records video blogs in which he compares people from the South Caucasus to dental caries and migrants to cockroaches that should be crushed. In one of these videos, Navalny plays the part of a teleshopping host, explaining the various remedies available to ward off insects and cockroaches. At the end of the video, however, these animals suddenly turn into religious extremists of clear Islamic faith, whom Navalny recommends chasing away with the use of a gun.

Here is the video link: https://youtu.be/oVNJiO10SWw 

In 2013 he ran for the mayor of Moscow, finishing second after the incumbent Sergey Sobyanin. He collects 21.9% of the votes against 60.1% of his opponent.

In 2018 he decides to enter the presidential race. However, he is not allowed to run due to two conditional convictions for fraud (although we must consider that he stood between 1% and 4% in opinion polls before he was declared ineligible for the election).

Navalny’s positions and political views, as we have seen, are far-right, anti-immigration and anti-homosexuals. His economic views, on the other hand, favour privatisation and the free market, and he is supported by many post-Soviet capitalists, from oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky to former head of the Russian central bank, Sergei Aleksashenko.

Importantly, his popularity is high only in large cities, and the situation in the regions is drastically different. While for some people he simply remains an unknown character, and many remain neutral, people in general are more wary of him than they are of the Russian government or of Putin personally. His popularity has grown somewhat in the wake of the alleged poisoning (which I will write about shortly) but he remains a figure of little political significance. In the latest survey on the number of people who trust significant political figures in the Russian political landscape, done in August 2020, Navalny came in third place with 2% (after 40% of Vladimir Putin and 4% of Vladimir Zhirinovsky). Indeed, taking a closer look at the election results and all the available polls it is clear that the most significant opposition to President Vladimir Putin is not Navalny. The real opposition party is the CPRF (The Communist Party of the Russian Federation) which holds a consistent presence in the Duma.

Yet the Wall Street Journal describes Navalny as “the man Vladimir Putin fears most”. 

HEROIC ICON OF THE WEST

It is interesting to note that the newspaper “La Stampa” (one of the major newspapers in Italy), in 2012, spoke of Navalny as a “xenophobic blogger”, defining the political area within which he militated and still militates as “ultra-right galaxy” and “ultra-nationalist”. Yet eight years later the same newspaper describes Navalny as “the Russian Nelson Mandela” (no less!!). What has changed in these eight years? Well, Navalny was poisoned by Putin in an evil attempt to take out his “most dangerous rival”. At least that’s the official story as told by CNN, the BBC, and all those brave beacons of truth commonly known as mainstream media. Obviously the beacons of truth forget to specify that Putin’s “most dangerous rival” is a man who has never held any office, his political party does not have a single member of parliament in the Duma, and holds about 2% of support from the Russian people. But let’s forget these little details and get to the facts.

On August 20, 2020, Navalny falls seriously ill while mid-flight from Tomsk, Siberia, to Moscow. The plane is abruptly rerouted to make an emergency landing in the Siberian city of Omsk, where Navalny is immediately hospitalised for suspected poisoning and placed in a pharmacological coma.

Two days later, Navalny is flown to Germany in an evacuation organised by a human rights NGO based in Berlin. His transport, on an “ambulance/plane” with German specialists on board, is authorised by the Russian authorities.

While Russian doctors in Omsk (who probably saved Navalny’s life) claim they have found no evidence of chemical weapons in his system, the German government, after a quick review, announces that their military lab has found “unambiguous evidence” that Navalny was poisoned by a cold war-era nerve agent, Novichok. The German government seeks explanations from the Kremlin without providing any of this evidence either to Moscow or the public.

Despite being the alleged victim of an extremely lethal military nerve agent, considered worse than sarin or VX gas, three weeks later Navalny comes out of the coma defiantly vowing to return to Russia.

By pure coincidence, all of this happens just as Nord Stream 2, the second line of the huge gas pipeline under construction from Russia to Germany opposed by the United States and several NATO allies, is almost completed. Suddenly, the diplomatic confrontation between Germany and Russia stops the controversial project. Chancellor Angela Merkel and the German government, under pressure from Washington, consider withdrawing from the project that would increase Russian influence on European energy infrastructure and compete with more expensive US exports. But don’t think about it too much, these are just conspiracy theories. 

Be that as it may, three days before Joe Biden’s inauguration as the new American president (another coincidence?), Navalny returns to Russia where he is promptly arrested for violating the terms of his bail. He knew very well that this would happen and that it would unleash the hysteria of the Western media (which has promptly happened). Hysterics due to his 30-day prison sentence. Yes, you read that right: thirty DAYS, not years. He will be released before the spring and even if he is convicted with the numerous charges of embezzlement and fraud, he risks more or less three years in prison (just for comparison, Nelson Mandela, the real one, was imprisoned for 27 years).

Within Russia, reactions to the allegations against Navalny vary with the political views of commentators: those who support Navalny and his activities generally claim he is not guilty, while his political opponents generally claim otherwise. It is certainly not up to me to judge and I candidly admit my ignorance about it. 

UNCOMFORTABLE QUESTIONS

The doubt remains: is Alexey Navalny a heroic defender of the Russian people persecuted by Putin or a puppet in the hands of the anti-Russian Western propaganda? I will leave it to you, dear readers, to decide using your mind and your sensibility. Like always I invite you to do your own research and, if you’ll like, share with me your findings.

As for me, I have a series of questions that run through my head and to finish off I would like to share them with you:

• How is it possible that the entire Western political and media apparatus, which thunders against Trump because he is a racist and a nationalist, gives complete and total support to a Russian racist and nationalist?
• Who truly benefits from this story?
• Would Russian President Vladimir Putin really try to assassinate an opposition figure who holds a tiny 2% support among the population?
• If so, why use Novichok, a nerve gas already widely and publicly associated with Russia? What’s wrong with the old bullet in the back of the head and consequential burial somewhere in the Siberian steppe?
• How the hell it’s possible that Novichok, a deadly military poison, never kills anyone? Has the old KGB, now FSB, really become a den of amateurs unable to kill anyone?
• If the Russian state, or Putin, poisoned Navalny, why did the plane on which he fell ill made an emergency landing and Navalny was taken directly to a hospital for medical treatment?
• Why were no traces of unusual substances found by the two Russian laboratories that analysed Alexei Navalny’s blood when he was hospitalised in Omsk?
• If Navalny was exposed to a highly infectious substance like Novichok, why has no one else around him suffered from it or showed any signs of poisoning?
• If the Russian state, or Putin, has poisoned Navalny, why was he allowed to leave the country and receive treatment abroad? Especially knowing that sooner or later the Novichok inside his body would be detected.
• Why has the German government never provided any evidence, either to Moscow or the public, of the poisoning?
• But above all, and this is the most important question of all, has Navalny been tested for Covid-19? 

A short time after publishing the article above an old friend of mine Oleg Konovalov, a Russian citizen who lives in Moscow, wrote to me to “point out a few things” as he says. Please note that I don’t necessarily agree with everything he writes but am extremely grateful to him for his wonderful insight and decided, with his permission, to add his message to the article. Here it is:

Hi Luca! How are things? I hope all is well! I’ve just read the article you posted on Alexey Navalny. I’d like to point out a few things. For anyone in Russia thinking that the communist party is a true opposition is just naive. There are 4 parties in the parliament with the communist party being one of them. And none of them are actually opposition parties. They are called “systemic opposition” and they are the same muppets of the kremlin as United Russia is. The Duma is not a proper parliament. It has become one of the tools of the kremlin and not an independent state institution. Another thing, you probably wrote the article before yesterday’s court hearings, as now Navalny got a real prison sentence for 2 years and 8 months. And now to the important questions – how is he making all of his investigations into the facts of corruption and how did he manage to not get a real prison sentence before? He is the only person in Russia to have received a conditional term on 2 criminal charges. A second criminal charge never gets a conditional term. I have my version of why this happened. There are several groups of interest in the top power in Russia. Even Putin and Medvedev are different groups and despite being a tandem, when Medvedev was president, at some point he was in a big conflict with Putin and wanted to go for the second term of presidency. These different groups have been using Navalny as a mechanism in their political struggle. They were leaking compromising materials to Navalny and helping him look in the right direction to find the details that he was disclosing in his investigations. They needed some sort of guarantees to keep him from being too active, so he was under the first conditional sentence. The second conditional sentence is on charges that might be real, but the whole process was organised improperly, without following the normal procedures, and there are big doubts about how real the whole situation is. But the guys in power were also scared of him because they don’t know exactly what information he has about them and what may leak into the media in case of his actual imprisonment. And that gave him some sort of comfort. I am actually expecting more revelations to come from his team now that he has been sentenced to a real term. And to answer the question that you put in your article – is he a hero or a puppet? I think the answer is that he is neither one. There are too many forces that thought that they can use him as a puppet, and he played along. He got the support that he needed from abroad. He has far more support in Russia than one may think. The official polls are very misleading. People are afraid of admitting that they support him. And there are many that don’t fully support him, but in the situation that we have with no other people in opposition, when given the choice between him and the current power he would be the lesser of two evils. So he has support both outside and inside the country. And everything that he has been doing, he was doing based on his own personal political and economic interests. He is a very selfish and egoistic character who is making use of the situation. Being a puppet is not something that he is happy with, and being a hero is not on his agenda. And one more thing – the link between him and Alexander Lebedev as a former KGB official doesn’t actually go to show anything. The former KGB officials have ended up in all spheres of life. Lebedev actually has political ambitions and he is in opposition to the current elite, but for him Navalny would be more of a competitor than an ally. And this is the problem of the opposition in Russia. They can’t unite. They all want to be the leaders. That’s what killed Yabloko as a political force, which is where Navalny started his political career. As for being a real political threat to Putin, Navalny is nowhere near that level, at least not yet. But he can be used as an instrument by Putin’s rivals, and that’s what the real threat is. Who exactly would use him – there can be different people. But if Navalny lets them use him, he will definitely try to get something substantial out of it for himself. I know I was a bit hectic and all over the place, but hopefully this will give you some insight from an unbiased source in Russia that will help you get a better understanding of the situation.