He didn't need to order is specifically. He was kept in prison in terrible conditions and died because of that. The outcome of his dying was still what Putin wanted (or at least didn't care if it happened). No orders required.
This sort of reporting and claims from the intelligence community feels like obfuscation by using a technically true statement, but irrelevant to the overall issue.
"Won't someone something something this priest…"
This sort of reporting
Ecaxlty. Imo it's not of the best quality considering the original title and content form WSJ, " Putin Didn’t Directly Order Alexei Navalny’s February Death, U.S. Spy Agencies Find" WSJ article . Arch
" The assessment doesn’t dispute Putin’s culpability for Navalny’s death, but rather finds he probably didn’t order it at that moment(...) European intelligence agencies have been told of the U.S. view. Certain countries remain skeptical that Putin wouldn’t have had a direct hand in Navalny’s death"
At Reuters they like to add their own stuff quoting Ruzz officials and confusing the actual original content.
That's irrelevant, he didn't have to. Harsh conditions together with the aftereffects of polonium and lousy healthcare were sure to do it.
Putin was obviously behind poisoning him first, and putting him in jail second, that he MAYBE didn't order him killed a third time is completely irrelevant, since we know he definitely ordered him neutralized at least twice.
Putin is a mass murderer, and that's even without counting the wars.
He probably didn't order them to keep him alive, either.
I'm so filled with skepticism over here it's spilling out of me and beginning to fill the room. I might drown in it if I don't open a door soon.
Eh. On one hand Putin could have killed him at any point, and is fully capable without question, but on the other hand the quality of nutrition, hygiene, and healthcare for anyone incarcerated in Russia Is likely horrific — otherwise healthy people possibly die in these prisons all the time.
You could argue that Putin killed Navalny the moment he sent him to the prison camp.
And you would technically be correct.
Yup, and Epstein probably killed himself.
Yes, exactly. We'll never see an official order from Putin to off Navalny or a similar one from anyone who was in on the Epstein collusion so a claim like "Trump, Clintons and the British royals didn't kill Epstein" can be always made
Someone remind me who owns the Wall Street Journal again...
What does the owner of the WSJ have to do with messaging from Intelligence communities?
Did you miss the part where Reuters said they couldn't verify what the WSJ is reporting? Why are you believing anything they say anything more than what Fox News says? It's News Corp. They're in the tank for Putin.
Navalny was in Russian custody, and his health was Russia's responsibility. Putin still has blood on his hands for all the deaths in Ukraine.
Yeah, I'm skeptical of this story to begin with, but even if it is true it doesn't make any real difference
I think I'd want an official statement, not an anonymous statement from an unknown source.
The FSB had had the team following him for quite some time. We know from phone call records that those people were communicating with people pretty high up.
If it isn't reaching Putin, then it's some very high-ranking people in the his administration independently deciding to knock off his political opponents.
It's not impossible that they'd do that, but given the domestic political ramifications, I have a hard time believing that they'd want to just do it without checking with Putin, because it could clobber him politically as well.
EDIT: Oh, they're saying that him dying in prison shortly after being imprisoned rather than his earlier attempted murder by the FSB might not have been directed by Putin. I guess that that's at least more-plausible. Doesn't mean that he wasn't murdered, but I could believe that Putin would have been fine with him just being permanently imprisoned.
It was actually Putin's evil twin Paton, you can tell them apart because Paton has a mustache and they've never been seen together.
While I could definitely see Putin wanting him dead, he does strike me more as the type to keep him alive to torment him and keep his wife in line.
She's way more dangerous with Navalny dead than in prison.
Assuming that what WSJ reported is indeed true, that it is widely accepted hypotheses within intelligence community (Reuters could not verify they).
What and how intelligence community would know that? By the fact that someone was talking about exchange? And this preclude Putin from ordering execution before elections how? I actually do not believe that this “intelligence community” is that stupid to hold it as “wildly held belief”. That’s bad WSJ reporting.
What else do we know? That Russian officials deny that? The same officials that denied presence of Russian military when they captured Crimea? If anything, them denying from the first day shows opposite situation. Normally, one would investigate it, but it is as if they knew the answer from day 1.
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/