Shady Ray

No. At this stage, I have been removed from the US long enough that I consider myself merely an interested observer as far as US domestic policy goes. Sure, as someone who enjoys the benefits of a robust social democratic system with significant restraints on corporate power/big-monied influence over policy-making, I agree with some of his positions. But if the very American people who are most negatively impacted by the lack of these checks and balances want to spend their time bickering in Twitter fights about national anthems or “wars on Christmas” or transgendered people in bathrooms while ignoring the royal dicking they are receiving by their “betters“ with respect to healthcare, workplace protections, and their rapidly shrinking influence over policy, then so be it. No skin off my nose. They chose that by being idiots who get their marching orders from FoxNews or MSNBC...or some politician who knows how to utilize Twitter effectively.But I do care greatly about a completely misguided US policy foreign policy that I view as a destabilizing, overly-meddlesome force across the globe which wastes the resources of the American people in order to line the pockets of/reward the donor class and attempts to influence policy here in Europe to the detriment of Europeans, as that is what impacts me here in Germany. And on that front, there is essentially no major political movement in the US with which I identify. That area is completely dominated by D.C. elites/policy makers/think-tanks/lobbiest/corporations etc, and it doesn't really matter who is in the Executive, the war machine rolls on at the behest of the Uni-Party either way.The “Uni-Party” in the US disgusts me, and Tanden is the walking embodiment of the sold-out, centrist, interventionist, beltway insider pretending-to-give-a-fuck, who not only benefits from the status quo, but will do anything to keep it that way. But my dislike of her has nothing to do with some Bernie Bro spat that she had in the past. I honestly doubt Bernie has the balls to end her nom anyway, which he could today if he wanted to.

That's quite some mental gymnastics to justify supporting a nominee with so little upside/unique talents (and as easily replaceable) as Tanden, but hey if it works for you, good on ya. Glad you feel at ease with her. As far as whether I am a crank...no. But I probably would be if I wouldn't have emigrated from the US a decade ago to a place where the candidates from the political party I support - along with every other political candidate from those parties with which I vehemently disagree - don't show their asses by bickering on twitter, or waste taxpayer money on bombing runs over brown people, or need to apologize for pushing around subordinates (because they'd never have done it in the first place), or give PR cover to right-wing human rights abusers who showed up on the floor of the Bundestag to stunt efforts made towards peace with Iran (even with 1/3rd of their constituents being atheist, most of whom base their objections on Netanyahu's systematic violation of the human rights abuses of fellow men instead of justifying their indifference by irrelevant arguments about fantasy Gods of Abraham or something), or any other of the litany of objectionable beliefs/actions that Tanden has held/engaged. But if expecting my political candidates to actually support my values and not simply just despise the same opponents as I do makes me a crank in your eyes, fuck yeah I am one.

Exactly. Heaven forbid the nomination Neera fucking Tanden is scuttled in favor of the nomination of a young, intelligent, HIGHLY-EXPERIENCED and accomplished woman of color who hasn't spent years attacking the progressive base and doesn't have the stench of all of the worst elements of Clintonworld all over her.

I for one am very happy that we have taken major steps in defeating ISIS in Syria by *checks notes* bombing positions held by the most experienced and effective liquidators of ISIS headchoppers in the Syrian theatre.

The citations on these topics are extensive.

Neera Tanden's tweets shouldn't be the disqualifying factor. While they were perhaps politically foolish, given that anyone angling for a cabinet position in a future Democratic administration should know better than to publicly, habitually and aggressively attack the left flank of the party as ferociously as she attacked the Rs for years, they are just par for the course for American public discourse in the current era. The whole "mean tweets" justification is just another byproduct of the Trump era where the US once again demonstrates its descent into being a fundamentally unserious country in so many important ways. The country is consumed with petty "tit for tat" discussions (i.e. "Trump was a worthless fucking shitbird on Twitter, so what's wrong with Tanden being one") and completely ignores the larger, actually significant issues that should be the motivating factors for confirming/denying a nominee. Intelligent policy analysis in the US has essentially devolved to "well, the other side hates him/her/this idea, so he/she/this idea must be good" when in fact Tanden has advocated time after time for positions that should make anyone claiming to be progressive absolutely cringe. The reasoning for her rejection SHOULD have been her completely abhorrent policy positions and actions that should give anyone to the left of Clintonian Neo-con/lib corporatists concern. She has actively engaged in anti-Union practices with her own employees, she literally advocated - in writing - the seizure of Libyan oil revenue after our illegal act of aggression against that country in order to "fund WIC, head start and medicaid because we have a deficit and they have oil". She outed the identity of a sexual harassment victim in a fucking CAP staff meeting. She accepted millions of dollars from Gulf Arab States while leading CAP and deliberately toned down criticism of the atrocities of those states when pressed by the UAE (including modifying statements re the Khashoggi murder by SA). She essentially served to undercut Obama's position on the Iran deal by providing "progressive" PR cover to Piece-of-Shit-Extraordinnaire Benjamin Netanyahu (without any consultation with the Obama admin) when he came to the fucking floor of the US Congress and shit on Obama while the Republican caucus gave him rapturous applause. She instructed her own reporters at ThinkProgress to remove stories about large-CAP-donor Michael Bloomberg's illegal surveillance of Muslim neighborhoods through the NYPD when pressured by Bloomberg. She modified CAP studies/reports to placate large-donor Insurance companies. Oh, and she physically assaulted a staff member for crossing Hillary (Neera says she "pushed him" while he and witnesses say "punched"). The problem isn't her mean tweets to Republicans, who deserve each and every one of them given their status as fuckstains of the highest order. The problem is that she is a shitty nominee for a position for which there is no shortage of highly qualified talent. OMB requires the ability to at least feign decency with congressional colleagues (and show some level of thoughtfulness beyond running a fuckin' think tank which is mired in traditional cronyism), which is a skill Tanden has shown to be lacking. But of course, the brain trust in the US media and those enthroned as the "leaders" of our increasingly incompetent gerontocracy spend all day drooling on themselves while babbling on alzheimerically about her fucking tweet history. Fundamentally unserious people in a time where seriousness should be paramount. Edit: Oh, and she has been a complete piece of shit re the violation of Palestinian Human Rights by Israel in the territories after being pressured by pro-Israeli lobbyists...but who cares, her tweets are fuckin' fire.

Exactly my story. Iraq turned me against the Rs. With the help of foreign media and long-term international work assignments in my mid-to-late-20s, I recognized the complete imperialistic instincts of Neo-conservatism and R foreign policy, packaged and sold to the populace as "homeland security" and/or "patriotic duty" and/or "facilitating the spread of democracy". I then started shagging a German bird, married her, moved permanently to Europe, and saw that the "evils" of affordable/accessible health care, a robust social welfare system, worker protection/labor rights and affordable/subsidized higher education were not just in fact achievable in a modern western democracy, but were, in fact, beneficial to the democracy and desirable to the population at large, and I was sold. That doesn't mean that I particularly like the Ds, which - at least on foreign policy - I find barely more tolerable than the Rs and equally prone to conspiracy theories, but at least domestically, they are more inclined to give modern solutions to the clusterfuck that is US domestic policy a fair shake.

Exactly. I always find it amusing how many on the American Right act as though the Iranians are somehow more objectionable than the Saudis. I guess it is because the Saudis buy three times more American weapons than the next purchaser and only nominally oppose Israel for internal PR reasons, but otherwise are bosom buddies. For understandable reasons, the "Boomers and older" crowd remembers 1979 as a national embarrassment and they remember the 1983 bombing in Beirut, but due to U.S. media incompetence/interference, they miss how much chaos and damage the Saudis have inflicted on the rest of the world using our weaponry and waging such chaos using our military as essentially a supporting cast member...to which our betters not only facilitate but encourage. If Iran suddenly made peace with Israel, our government would give zero fucks about their brutality and their citizens' lack of human rights.

Without running down a rabbit trail on the motivations of Inouye's unwavering support for Israel - an unwavering support which I believe was to the detriment of our own position in the Middle East - my point remains: I don't put much stock in his analysis of Israeli issues based solely on his over-the-top support on every single Israeli issue that ever came through the US Senate. He was not an objective politician in this regard, as evidenced by his on-the-record suggestion throughout the 80s and 90s that any Israeli government that agrees to land-for-peace should be toppled. This is not impartiality...this is advocacy for the Likudnik/Netanyahu line of thinking from the sidelines in Washington. While I certainly acknowledge that in other areas he seemed to be a good man with a very inspiring story and personal history that should be respected, he never once showed even-handedness when it came to the Palestinian issue and he was a significant architect of the current corrupt system that we have in place with Israel. He was the one who initially pushed for modifying the funding regime re arming Israel from loans to grants and he was the sole driver of the concept of de-linking foreign aid to Israel with them making objective and significant progress on the Palestinian issue. Prior to this, we were at least going through the motions of encouraging fair dealing and "sticks and carrots" to each side. Regardless whether that commitment to Israel was one of genuine conviction or whether it was bolstered by financial incentives from AIPAC...or even a mixture of the two...it is not the job of a US Senator to advocate so ardently for a foreign power, so his position to me on the value of Israeli intel is of no interest.

So you don't think massive levels of PAC contributions (over a period running from 1985 to 2012 for Inouye) impact how our oh-so-noble political betters cast votes?

Actually, "its all good" were the words of the post I to which I was actually responding, as evidenced by my utilization of the quote function indicating the post to which I was, in fact, responding. But my point remains...and it really doesn't matter to me what Daniel Inouye said about fuck all. Perhaps he was a fair dealing Senator wrt Israel...perhaps he wasn't...but he sure as fuck was one of the post bought-and-paid for Senators out there when it came to Israel from as far back as the 80s, so his opinion as to the value of Israeli intel by no means is some type of conclusive proof to me. Hell, AIPAC literally said he was one of -if not the- top appropriators to Israel during his time in government and the Israelis have a fucking military installation named after the guy in honor of how blatantly pro-Israel he was. Actually just opted to spoiler the whole damn article, as it is actually fascinating to see how journalism used to look when digging into this shit back in the 80s. Edit: And sorry if the link doesn't work...Sun Sentinel is blocked for European users so I had to use the google cache...not sure if it will work as I am technologically regarded.

Exactly this...the whole argument of "well, hey, the Israelis just send cash this back to our Defense Contractors, so its all good" is absolutely fucking insane. If our government is hellbent on getting that 40 billion every decade into the pockets of the US arms industry, how 'bout we just parlay that ridiculous grift into the arsenal of - oh, you know - the American people who are paying for it in the first place. Of course, its not like we don't already have a massively bloated defense budget...but how about we add that 4 billion annually to our own arsenal instead of arming the Mid-East to the hilt with WMD. And my actual opinion on this is "fuck the arms industry" ... we should cut that bloat from Israel AND massively reduce our own military budget as a good start. But fuck this idea that Israel needs our taxpayer subsidies in the first place. But hell, at least they are smart enough to provide universal healthcare and subsidized university tuition to each and every Israeli, while at the same time using AIPAC to con the same idiot Christian zionist Americans preaching of the holiness of subsidizing Israel's war machine, while simultaneously living uninsured/paying absurd healthcare amounts and bloated college tuition. Suckers born every day.

Exactly this. There is so much first-hand eye-witness material out there on this act of naked aggression against our military. But woe be unto those who bring it up, lest you be accused of being an anti-semite. The actions of the Johnson Admin throughout this entire ordeal show what anyone with a discerning eye can see. The Israeli Lobby wields massive, massive levels of power over the Executive, and even moreso the Legislative Branch. The Congress is so fucking bought and paid for by pro-Israeli interests that it would blow the minds of anyone with the intellectual honesty to actually evaluate the reality of the situation. Anyone with any interest in this subject should read The Israel Lobby by Mearsheimer and Walt. It is absolutely infuriating to see what is actually going on in our Congress with respect to the transfer of funds to Israel and the open door with which we allow them vis a vis our military tech, intelligence, etc. The amount of heat that this book triggered by U of Chicago and Harvard professors was unreal when it first came out. Good on Mearsheimer and Walt for staying strong, but had they not had the intellectual pedigree and backing of their respective academic institutions that they each possess, it would have been chalked up to anti-Semitism and tossed in the trash. Hell, The Atlantic commissioned the original article that inspired the book and then refused to publish it, so Mearsheimer and Walt had to come to Europe to get the damn thing published. Edit: And right on re the Lavon Affair. Was an absolute harbinger of things to come.

While I believe all of this to be true, let's not just overlook the fact that (as proven in the last general election) the Netanyahu/Likudnik stance on the Palestinian issue is essentially either replicated (interchangeable with Gantz/Blue and White) or viewed as "too moderate" by the others (excluding Labor, which is now unfortunately essentially a non-player in Israeli politics with their barely 5% of the vote total in 2020). We will see how it goes in March now that Blue and White are essentially defunct, but I see nothing indicating a Center Left position has any chance at success in Israel. While American Jews may voice some concerns over the illegal Israeli settlements and treatment of Palestinians, the vast majority of Israeli Jews give zero fucks about how horrendous their government is on that issue. In fact, anything even remotely resembling adherence to international law is electoral suicide in Israel.

Exactly this. Israel will "fight until the last American is dead" as is common saying, at least here in Europe. Not the other way around. The fact that anyone thinks "they fight our wars for us" while we are balls deep in Syria, Iraq and very possibly Iran in the future is absurd. We fight their wars now. We have since Bush the Younger. We allow them to violate international law regularly and then give them whatever military tech they haven't already lifted from us via espionage. We pardon their spies and we allow them to flout all relevant nuclear non-proliferation regulations while throwing hissy fits when their adversaries do the same. We give them billions while idiot American evangelicals think that the right to military superiority over their neighbors is literally is a divine right of theirs that we must ensure is continued. Y'all remember when the Republican Party essentially allowed this complete piece of shit speak from the floor of our Congress and then applaud him while he spoke against Obama's (tepid) plans for Mid-East peace? "I know what America is. America is something that can be easily moved to the right direction....they won't get in our way. They won't get in our way. So let's say they say something. So they say it! 80% of the Americans support us...it is absurd."

Yeah, that whole ordeal was completely regarded. Of course, the "best of the best" certainly no longer ascend to heading Defense in Germany, but Ursula is a "legacy" in the world of the EU Commission given her father's early role in the "European Project", and for quite some time she was even seen as Mutti's heir apparent, even by Mutti herself, so she has continued to be promoted, much to the dismay of average Germans. Then she fell from grace with the above scandals (and overall abysmal state that she left the Bundeswehr), so Merkel put the next "mini-me" in line, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer in to replace Ursula as head of Defense and Merkel herself as head of the CDU....only then for AKK to shit the bed royally and drop from one of the most popular politicians in Germany to the absolute least popular over the course of the last year. She eventually had even lower numbers than the heads of the commies (Die Linke) and the AFD. Merkel gets a massive level of love in the US media, particularly given when juxtaposed with Trump, but the open secret is that Merkel has systematically decapitated every potential successor with any potential by demoting them during her tenure. Basically, it got to the point where her potential male successors were essentially nothing more than neutered (read pathetic sycophants) while her potential female successors were fundamental incompetents like Ursula, AKK and Julia Klöckner. Merkel basically wanted nothing more than to leave a legacy with a mini-me, but the people didn't want that, so basically its a steaming pile of shit at the top at the moment. And destined to be even more-so now that Armin Laschet is the head of the CDU. But, while Angie has committed to leaving this year, if the Rona keeps up the way that it is, I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see her make a late play to stay on "for the good of Germany." Her last New Years address to the country definitely contained some politi-speak re whether it was her last New Years address to the country ("today, I am most likely speaking to you as your Federal Chancellor for the last time on a New Years Day). I still think the odds are that she is out, but she is a deliberate politician and nothing is said accidentally. Anyway, I digress into larger German politics...point remains...fuck Ursula.

Yeah, Brussels has fucked this up royally. Which isn't any surprise given that Ursula Fucking Von Der Leyen is running it. If this idiot woman isn't the poster child for "failing upwards", then I don't know who is. The absolutely abysmal job that she did when heading the Bundeswehr would be enough to take down a politician anywhere else (well, outside of the US, at least), but oh no, not with Ursula. Mutti Merkel promoted this idiot to run the entire EU as Berlin's puppet-in-residence in Brussels. Basically, as Mrs. Shady said over breakfast this morning, "basically we just dump our shittiest, most ineffective politicians in Berin over to Brussels, where they then proceed to fuck us even harder than they did before." And she is right. Long story short, Berlin farmed out its sourcing to Ursula in Brussels instead of nutting up and taking care of Germans themselves - despite Berlin subsidizing a massive level of the developmental cost to BionTech - and then allowed Ursula's crack team of idiots to negotiate what is believed to be a terrible contract with the big players in the Corona vaccine game. As @TXSG8R accurately mentioned upthread, there are indeed a ton of stories coming out about very, very senior-aged Germans having appointments dropped due to shortages. It is rare that I would reference Der Spiegel, given that it is basically just a mouthpiece for certain elements in Berlin, but if you really want the scoop from the German perspective, you should read this. It is in depth and - given that it is coming from Der Spiegel - it sounds to me like Ursula is going to be the rare bird that triggers such outrage in Berlin that Berlin will be forced to remove her from Brussels. Europe is livid with this idiot, and justifiably so. Europe's Vaccine Disaster: Ursula Von der Leyen Seeking to Duck Responsibility

And man, they are fucking livid. Front page of the Bild tabloid in Germany today was a full spread about how much of the vaccine was leaving Germany.

I don't know if constitutes a touchstone yet, per se, but you may be proven right. The TikTok piece really is an important one, IMO. It goes back to what we were discussing yesterday...how far does this expand beyond the "TikTok Generation"? I don't know that anyone really knows as of today, but I think they are planning on another round this weekend, so we will soon find out. If we start seeing a greater cross section of the populace in these next ones, then something truly may be afoot...at least insofar as the anti-corruption movement goes.

Thanks @Mrs Whiggins. This is actually one of the things that has me skeptical of Navalny's story. Long story short, the US media keeps saying that Navalny's new video blew the curtains off re Putin's corruption, particularly relating to his 1 billion euro palatial estate. Which is bullshit. I remember as far back as 2017 seeing photos of this place in Russian tabloids. Putin's cronies denied it, of course, but everyone knew about this. It simply isn't new info. Hell, he even hosted Narendra Modi and Bashar al-Assad there with the media present...the below is from May 2018..and there are dozens upon dozens of similar articles all around the world about this. And plenty of similar videos in Russian: https://www.wionews.com/photos/pm-modi-to-visit-putin's-'personal'-palace-with-gold-plated-swimming-pool%2C-helipads-138647#putins-palace-at-sochi-138636 His corruption is common knowledge in Russia...as is his Palace on Idokopas. So while it is infuriating, the idea that the Russian people simply didn't know about how it was financed...and that it was financed on their own backs...is absurd. As so many people on this thread have accurately stated, Russian leaders grift. They skim. They thieve. They trade on corruption. This isn't only known, but it is expected. So the idea that all of these people are livid over this video about a well known Putin grift beggars the imagination.

This is a fantastic post. The entire idea of LDPR and the Commies being controlled is correct, IMO. But to be honest, I believe Navalny was controlled as well until 2017 or so. Now whether he has decided to blaze his own trail or whether he is now receiving Western backing is unclear to me, but as Churchill so accurately said about those engaged in Kremlinology: Russia is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma. And this statement was made before the advent of modern external statecraft/espionage etc. I hope this won't provoke charges of "Russian Shill!" (which is an unfortunate byproduct of the idiot Trumpkins who licked Putin's boots over the past four years) but in my opinion, the idea that Russia - with an intelligence agency that really is only bested by the Mossad, IMO - would depend on a dated method that is so easily traced to Russia such as Novichok to off someone they deemed dangerous is a head-scratcher to me. When the KGB wants to kill someone, they typically do. So I think this is worth considering that this is something along the lines of two-bit bunglers with tenuous ties to the FSB that essentially went rogue (and went wrong). The whole underwear thing, after first being reported as being a poisoned water bottle, seems to indicate less than "professional" wetwork. Now, if one accepts the official line of the New York Times and Washington Posts and Guardians of the world, then I think what Brisket said in a prior post is exactly right...they must fear something. But that is an assumption that some of us make, and some of us don't...and that is something that I can't say is correct or incorrect. I genuinely don't think I have much of a clue...but I do know that I don't trust any of them when it comes to matters of complicated foreign affairs. These are the same people who swore by WMD, assured us that we would be greeted as liberators...on and on. What I will say is that historically when it has come to actual US involvement in Russian affairs (or the affairs of Russia's neighbors), the truth is somewhere far away from what is being reported on the cover stories of The NY Times or CNN or Rossiyskaya Gazeta or RT. I don't know if it is somewhere in the middle or out in another universe entirely, but I do firmly believe that the truth is nowhere near the actuality of what is typed on those respective front pages. Take Ukraine for example. The story regarding the lead-up of the Maidan/Russia's invasion of Crimea in the major western papers was very overly simplified and frankly, it was bullshit....most of Europe knew it, Russia knew it, but the US media swallowed and pushed it out whole. And the versions promulgated in Rossiyskaya Gazeta or RT were also Bullshit. The US was very much involved in pre-maidan operations in Kiev prior to the Maidan revolution actually kicking off, and so were the Russians. Hell, we have audio tape of Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt selecting which potential revolutionary was acceptable to the US as potential government leaders - and which were not. I watched that story unfold in Germany, in Moscow and in to some degree in the US and frankly I was stunned to see how bizarrely it was covered in the US. The Russians clearly tapped the call and released it, but the news coverage only referenced Nuland's statement of "Fuck the EU" and completely ignored the latter half of the call in which we have primary source material - not disputed whatsoever by Foggy Bottom showing Nuland - our own Undersecretary of State and Pyatt, our Ambassador to Ukraine- literally picking and choosing which individuals should govern in a post-revolution Ukraine and which should not. And then, post-Maidan, the new government was formed...and then the most popular politician was left out of government (Klischko)....and then the call was leaked showing that the US explicitly refused to accept him as a part of the Government and the neo-Nazi (and yes, he is a Neo-Nazi) Yatsenyuk as their choice...and Yatsenyuk low and behold got the gig and Klischko was shut out to the surprise/dismay of most Ukrainians. Nuland also references US influence over the UN, which did in fact play out as she said it would, and the UN showed up just as she said she wanted them to to call for government change in Kiev. It was not a present sense impression...it was a prediction that came to fruition exactly as our operatives sought. I don't mean to digress into the Ukrainian topic, but the point I am making is that we have our people that we "wanted" in place in Kiev. We have them in Minsk. We have them in Damascus and we have them in Baghdad. We have them prepped in Tehran and we have them in Riyadh and we have them in Kabul and we have them in Islamabad. We have them in Central America and we have them in Egypt. We have them in Libya and we have them in Lebanon. Yet, for some reason, the idea that we have "our desired guy" in Moscow is seen as insane. As though we - the champions of foreign involvement - curiously don't have someone in Moscow who we prefer and whom we will advocate for in the pages of our own closely-letter-agency-affiliated media outlets...the subterranean workings in Moscow, the crown jewel of letter-agency operations for over 70 years, is going to have much more going on than what is on the surface. Is it wrong to have "our guy"? No. It is simply us engaging in Realpolitik. But for some reason, we don't accept that we do that to a hyper-degree all around the world. Yes, we foment revolution. Yes, we topple democratic leaders and install strongmen in their place. Yes, we look the other way while funding and guiding Saudi planes to destroy Yemeni villages. But for some reason, the idea that we have a policy to destabilize Russia with our chosen people ist fore some reason considered forboden. And I guess my point in all of this is that we need to recognize that Navalny very well may be "our guy". And that isn't wrong...

First off, great points here. Really appreciate this perspective. And I agree, Russian public opinion is absolutely difficult to gauge. For the record, I am basing my external view on Levada polling, which is accepted by all major Western media as legitimate and is frequently cited in Reuters, NYT, WaPo, Deutsche Welle, BBC, etc. And the bottom line is that Putin is much more popular than the West tends to want to acknowledge. And - in the alternative - Navalny is much less popular than the West tends to want to acknowledge. I will give an anecdotal perspective re foreign-language speaking younger professionals in Moscow and St. P: I am a manger of corporate paper-pushing lawyers for a very large German company with 6 direct Regional Counsel reports working under me in our Moscow and SP offices. I have worked with most of them for years. I have slammed vodkas with them, I have treated them to endless beers at the Oktoberfest here in Munich, etc. Basically, what I am saying is that there is a friendship here. There is no incentive from the business that I am in to love Putin, and there is no incentive to love Navalny, ...and vice versa etc. We are not in a business that is dependent on either of them and God knows that no-one in Russia believes that they are under a North Korean-style surveillance state when they are speaking in an office in Munich, yet, to a person, they hate Navalny. We are talking 33 year old highly educated and successful women to 50 year old highly educated and successful men...no exception. They see him as an attention-seeking two-bit YouTube star. Nothing more, nothing less. And they are pissed that he is stealing the thunder of other vastly superior candidates that could take on Putin's allies at their local levels. Is this anecdotal? Yes. Has their input on Russian affairs ever once been wrong over the last 10 years? No. And to be accurate here, there are two actual opposition leaders in Russia from the polling perspective: Gennady Zyuganov with the Communist Party of Russia (i.e. commies), and Vladimir Zhirinovsky's Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (i.e., fucking hardcore fascists), both of which command 10-15% of the Russian electorate. But neither of those are going to trigger sympathy in the West, so western media have basically deemed Navalny (polling around 2% nationally per Levada) as a game-changer, which unfortunately, he isn't. Here is the Deutsche Welle article on him (albeit from a couple of years ago) showing how literally no one sees him as significant beyond Western media and teenagers in Russia. And when you talk about the validity of the Caucasus food-deprivation movement (whether it is "stop-feeding" vs. "starve" is immaterial, but the truth is that in Russian, it is "starve") I would point to the video below and ask you: Is this type of content about an end to state subsidies....or is this the same type of parasitic imagery made famous by Fascists in 1930s Europe? If you saw this about Jewish people or leaders, would you feel comfortable? Unfortunately, it is not available on YouTube because it has been deemed as Fascist content, but you can see it here. https://archive.org/details/VideoAlexeiNavalnyComparesMuslimsToCockroaches This is not the type of dude we need to be supporting if we expect proper change in Russia.

Very true. In my experience, there is a bunker mentality of us vs. them, which again, is somewhat understandable given all of the invasions over the centuries....which is only exacerbated by their tendency towards internal chaos and unhinged clusterfuckery. I think there was a fleeting moment in Yeltsin's first term where the country was actually primed psychologically to pivot to the West, but by the time the 1996 Yeltsin re-election campaign was complete, that shit was long since squandered. I wish I would have kept some of the more populist newspaper images from my time there...it was pure red meat for the anti-western elements. If we were gloating to this degree in the US, you can only imagine what the other side of the coin looked like on the streets of broke ass Novosibirsk or Yekaterinburg. Unfortunately, that shit sticks.

Yeah, I hear ya. Reading the tea leaves over there is damn near impossible given the hyper-sensationalism on all sides of the media, IMO. From my perspective having lived in Moscow for a few years in the very early 2000s and working closely every day with Russian colleagues at my company's office over there, I think that the entire future of Putinism hinges on how the Russian equivalent of Generation X/older millennials break. The over-55 generation is solidly behind Putin due to a variety of reasons, most importantly of which is the perception that he righted the ship that Yeltsin via his Western backers essentially wrecked. For better or for worse, Putin is seen by most to be a much more reliable hand than International Institutions like the UN, WTO, EU, IMF, etc., which is actually an understandable position for them, even if ultimately incorrect. One thing that is very much lost on the Western public - and particularly the US public - is how much the US is blamed for enabling the wholesale plundering of the Russian state in the 1990s by those who lived through that collapse. While this is an over-simplification, there is an element of truth in the position that Western hyper-capitalists and politicians sucked up Russian state wealth and put it into their own coffers on a massive scale. If you are a true glutton for punishment, I would suggest reading this article from 1998 in The Nation. Our "betters" really, really did a number on Russia and those older than 35 haven't forgotten it. It is a very long read, but it details proven corruption and misappropriation that is jaw-dropping, and yet no one ultimately paid any price for it. Anyone seeking to understand Russia must understand this part of history, IMO. In my estimation, as a result of their lasting impression of western democratic values, anti-Putin sentiment is probably not going to automatically mean a pro-Western or pro-Democratic one and it is naive/dishonest of the US media to constantly push this narrative...the population there doesn't really like us and with the exception of developing closer trading ties to the EU, they don't view closer relations with the West on non-trade issues as a particularly desirable development. Of course, I could be totally wrong on this, but this is my anecdotal experience.

The significance of this latest protest is going to be whether it changes anything outside of St. Petersburg, Moscow and to some degree Novosibirsk. What the American media - with its obsessive tendency to paint everything as "good vs. bad" or "freedom vs. tyranny" - doesn't report on is how unpopular Navalny as an individual is with the majority of Russians and how closely he has aligned himself with the Russian far-right until the last couple of years. I will be very curious to see how this whole poisoning ordeal impacts his numbers, as the latest reputable polling in late 2020 showed him with around 18% favorability and very high unfavorables, particularly in the provinces. His anti-corruption stance is certainly his strongest and most admirable position, and could mobilize some new voters in theory, but the political views he espouses to the domestic Russian audience with respect to Russian ethnic-nationalism, Ukraine/Crimea, NATO, war on Georgia, Russia's right to intervene in the affairs of its neighbors, etc. are much more aligned with Putinism than The NY Times and Washington Post tend to report, so he is not the savior the American media has been looking for, albeit certainly better than Putin. Reputable media outlets here in Germany at regularly least acknowledge his early ties to neo-Nazi parties and rabble-rousing at neo-Nazi marches, his referring to muslim Russians from the caucuses as "beasts" and "cockroaches" (Navalny actually was even one of the founders of the "Starve the Caucasus" movement which advocated ending social support/food subsidies for the Muslims in the Caucasus), and continued flirtation with the Russian far-right. Yet I very rarely see this referenced in the US media, which is a bit concerning, particularly as within Russia he is frequently in direct conflict with the actual reformist movements within Russia at the local level. And unfortunately, the limited electoral success he has had at the municipal level out in Siberia has only come when his candidates punched Putin from the right on all matters outside of corruption. Decent article from the Middle German Rundfunk, which is the public-service broadcaster out of Dresden which is really good on Russian analysis given the whole former East Germany thing...