Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
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.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
This is a piss poor attempt at collating the two incidents.
NATO would never give a rats ass about the assassination of a Russian politician. It's outside of NATO's remit and always has been.
Putin has done these assassinations before, even on international soil, and all they get is stern warnings. That's a far more likely contributor than Trump's comments.
My personal belief is that this entire recent iteration of the beef between Russia and the US kicked off because of the Magnitsky Act, which was entirely created by Bill Browder's testimony and at least partly from the US congress's genuine concern over the human rights issues involved, i.e. very little to do directly with anything geopolitical. I don't think the intent was to go all the way to hot proxy war and active democracy-undermining conflict with them, but we definitely didn't react "oh dead lawyer who GAF" even back then when it was a much smaller deal.
all they get is stern warnings
You are aware that Russia is excluded from most international forums big and small and under heavy sanctions currently and that we're sending (or were sending until a few months back) tons of high-powered weapons to Ukraine to use to blow their soldiers up, yes? And that we just enacted a whole bunch more sanctions specifically because of Navalny?
That's a far more likely contributor than Trump's comments.
Personally, my initial reaction was actually inclined to agree with you on this part. I have trouble seeing how anything Trump says would have anything to do with what they did to Navalny. On the other hand, Vindman has a lot more familiarity with Russia's operating principles than either of us; he's from the USSR and spent significant time in the US diplomatic corps and professional study of the topic, so I'm a little reluctant to just airily dismiss what he has to say about it. He's much more qualified than you or I are on it so I'm more inclined to hear him out.
My personal belief is that this entire recent iteration of the beef between Russia and the US kicked off because of the Magnitsky Act
It's an interesting theory. I assumed it was due to the protests of 2011 -> ratings rapidly fell -> inventing external enemies, taking Crimea, turn brainwashing to the 1000%. I feel like nothing external was at play, and if there weren't no country but Russia, like literally empty space, they'd still blow the provocation whistle.
Personally, my initial reaction was actually inclined to agree with you on this part. I have trouble seeing how anything Trump says would have anything to do with what they did to Navalny.
The timing of that is interesting for Alexei was sitting in prison for years. My assumption was again internal: that he was killed one month before the Putin's re-election, to show he would violently suppress anyone who'd get in his way. But can it be an external signal? To who? To NATO countries other than USA, who may lose their strategic partner? To exact politicians who'd be against it? I'm confused.
I wish you good luck in learning what "contributing" means!
Navalny’s death was probably decided years ago by Putin. For him, Trump is just an useful idiot.