Russia’s Brutal Crackdown on The Little People – Putin Stole My Self-Respect, Wails Tiny Dissident

Uncle Volodya says, "So, if a psychic midget escaped from jail and was being hunted by the police, would she be a small medium at large? Ha, ha; I love that one."

Uncle Volodya says, “So, if a psychic midget escaped from jail and was being hunted by the police, would she be a small medium at large? Ha, ha; I love that one.”

Ruslan Karlikov and his fellow Moscow activists are fighting mad, and they’re not going to take it any more. They want action, an apology from the Kremlin for its insensitivity and its stalling on their demands, and western backing for their grievances. Ruslan and his dozen or so fellow demonstrators represent Russia’s Little community, the people who used to be referred to by the politically-incorrect term of “midgets”. Although just over 114 centimeters in height, Ruslan is a charismatic, even arresting figure whose hot temper and political chops have already got western human-rights groups talking excitedly about him as a serious – albeit diminutive – opposition figure.

What do Ruslan and his friends want from the Kremlin? No more than what is fair – strap hangers at waist level (on an average-sized person) on city buses and trams, so that little people will not be falling about when the bus stops or starts suddenly, and perhaps becoming injured; as Ruslan points out, this could take the form of a molded handle on the inner corner of the aisle seat. How refreshing – an activist who doesn’t just demand change, but offers concrete, sensible proposals to put the situation right! Half-size drinking fountains in public parks, so little people visiting the parks do not become dehydrated, or embarrassed by having to stand on each other’s shoulders to get a drink. When I mention many Moscow parks already have low-height fittings so that dog owners can give pets a drink, Ruslan just glares fiercely at me from under his bushy brows, and spits a stacatto stream of Russian invective. “What’d he say?” I ask the translator. She laughs, and responds, “He say, don’t patronize me”.

The list goes on. A low counter at nightclubs, with shorter stools, so that little people do not have to hop up and down to get the bartender’s attention. Half-size shopping buggies in markets, and a reasonable distribution of stepstools so that little people can access high shelves they cannot otherwise reach. Lower hand dryers in the public toilets. Ruslan tells me through the translator that he recently had a meeting with the Black Prince of Russian politics himself, President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin, at which he was presented the list of the organization’s demands. Mr. Putin read it carefully, Ruslan goes on, and then “he reached in his pocket, and gave me a handful of small coins – three rubles and 45 kopecks, I still have it. When I asked him, what’s this for, Mr. President, he replied, keep it, Ruslan – I heard you were a little short this week”. That was the last cabbage in grandfather’s backpack, as they say in Russia, and that’s why we’re here today at Novaya Gazeta.

Ruslan and his followers want a western boycott of everything made in Russia that is full-size, to call attention to Putin’s contempt for little people. And their heartfelt cry for help has brought an immediate, but unpleasant response in this blasted, smoking graveyard of human rights. Two of Ruslan’s followers were hung up on coathooks at a local school, where they work as crossing guards; it took more than an hour before a teacher on her way to her locker for more vodka noticed them and helped them down. Another was stuffed headfirst into a garbage can. All three are sure their attackers were FSB – significantly, all their assailants wore leather jackets.

How many more indignities against their persons must these brave little folk endure before somebody gets involved? The voices calling for help have gone silent one by one as the Kremlin bears down on its tame media outlets, until only this stentorian, compelling dissident voice is left…

Okay, obviously that is just made up. But somebody pointed out, a couple of days ago, two things we’ve probably been aware of for awhile on some level, but just never saw it put into words. One, for the Anglosphere, “Russia” and “Putin” are interchangeable, and they often say one when they mean the other. More importantly, actions taken to harm or destabilize Putin can harm or destabilize Russia without it being of any particular consequence to the west, because it despises Putin, and any collateral damage incurred in bringing him down is acceptable. Two, every time Putin accomplishes something that makes the country look good, it is followed by a barrage of bad press and often an attempt to whip up insurrection, in order to bury the message. “No” votes on UN Resolutions to “punish” Syria brought hoarse shouts of protest over enforcement of the NGO law. Offering Edward Snowden asylum was pretty much all Russia could do, and the USA helpfully canceled his passport – so he couldn’t leave Russia – and publicly licked its chops over what it was going to do to him when it got its hands on him, which made it obvious he would suffer politically-motivated persecution if that occurred. International legal analysts agree Russia was in the right to grant him protection. But that brought the western-initiated-and-backed gay revolution and the vodka boycott and more hoarse screaming in the English-speaking press. Before that came the effort to break the Russian gas monopoly with the Nabucco pipeline – now dead as the dodo – and Polish shale gas, and every couple of weeks brings some kind of don’t-invest-in-Russia scribbling from Swedish bedwetter Anders Aslund or one of his overstuffed assmonkey economics-challenged colleagues.

So, I have to ask – what will it be next? Now that RussiaPutin has stuck a stick through the spokes of the Anglosphere’s careering war-wagon and brought it to a shuddering halt, what will be the price? What Russian special-interest group is about to get a dose of lovin’ from Uncle Sam and his British Bulldog?

The little people? Doubtful – dwarfism is extremely rare, and the little-people community must be even smaller than the LGBT community. The gay thing seems about played out, although there are occasional desultory attempts to rake over the embers and get it to blaze up again. But the western countries who breathed life into the Great Homosexual Rebellion of 2013 are already showing signs of anti-gay backlash in their own countries , and whether or not this effect was inspired by the manufactured uproar over gay rights in Russia, western administrations will have to cool it or face expectations by their own gay communities that intervention to protect them and another round of gay rights are in the offing.

Western press outlets suggest that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry made a “throwaway remark” to the effect that the only thing which could avert an American military strike on Syria would be for Syria to place its chemical arsenal under international supervision. Then, the excited Russians picked it up and ran with it, and a terrified Syria quickly got on board. This allowed Obama to strut a little, and Kerry to claim that it was only the threat of the American big stick which had sent the Syrians and Russians scurrying. In fact, the discussion over using Russia to secure agreements on Syria’s chemical weapons first came up at last year’s G20 summit, in Mexico. And far from being a fly-by-the-seat-of-the-pants quick thinker, Kerry appears to have sleepwalked through the entire unfolding of the crisis since he assumed his post, and to be if anything an even worse SecState than Hillary Clinton was. Patrick Armstrong pointed out that Kerry was not Obama’s first choice for Secretary of State – Susan Rice was, but the Benghazi debacle made her too radioactive to touch, and Obama chose whom he thought would be politically acceptable. But Kerry seems to be overacting, and sometimes looks a bit of a buffoon, especially when he is blathering on about irrefutable secret evidence when the whole world knows the west has nothing but a few doctored intercepts portraying some alleged Syrian Army officer yelling over the phone “I’ve released chemical weapons – what do I do? Boy oh boy, I sure hope the Israelis are not listening to this, and possibly recording it to give to the Americans, this could get us in real trouble”, and some photos of dead people. Maybe even that ubiquitous photo from Iraq, showing the small boy jumping over rows upon rows of shrouded bodies; the BBC has a real thing about that one, they used it last year to portray the Syrian “massacre in Houla”. Or when he is arguing, pathetically, that if America is allowed to strike Syria, it promises to make it a small attack, very limited – tiny, really. Just enough to kill Assad, perhaps – whoops, sorry about that. Or perhaps just enough to draw a response, which would have to be answered by escalation – Kerry knows well that once the first shot is fired, any illusions of control will be quickly dispelled.

And then there’s the weird discrepancy over the number killed in the chemical attack, which nobody disputes actually occurred and which was actually a chemical attack, probably Sarin. Kerry says over 1,400. Even the nutty Syrian Observatory for Human Rights – AKA Rami Abdul Rahman, the clothing salesman from Coventry, England, who cooks the UN’s casualty figures for them via a network of activists in Syria – says a maximum of 500, and the on-scene authorities say something like 300. The list the U.S. State Department provided only had a little over 300 names on it, some of them first names only or a list of family members from the same family. The only other authority offering the 1,400 figure is the Syrian National Council, an eclectic mix of Bilderbergers and western think-tankers handpicked by western administration regime flacks.

There’s been a lot of back-and-forth on whether the fake “rebels” were blamed for an earlier chemical attack, which also killed innocent civilians and which was also quickly pinned on the Syrian government. Well, the U.N. did agree that there was “strong, concrete suspicion, but not incontrovertible proof” that the fake “rebels” were responsible and not the Syrian regime. As a sweetener, the UN also said at the time that UN investigators had seen no evidence of the Syrian army using chemical weapons and it is clear that both sides in the Syrian conflict have the means to use chemical weapons…it would be misguided to assume that either side has a moral objection to such attacks.

Au revoir, cassus belli. The “intelligence summaries” prepared for both the U.S. and UK governments by their security services suggested the latest attack was the certain work of Assad’s forces because only the Syrian government possesses these weapons and their delivery systems. Gotta be Assad. Except the UN already said the last attack was probably the work of the fake rebels and not the Syrian government, and that the western-backed Syrian opposition “clearly has the means to use chemical weapons”.

In all of this, Russia has sailed close to the wind and its diplomatic maneuvering has been masterful, a true glimpse of old-world diplomacy. Not once has it taken a position which was not backed by international law, and it has met the screeching of the western press that it is acting out of self-interest, that it is acting as a “spoiler against western imperialism” that it is just trying to save its “vital Syrian naval base” and that the west must act without wasting any more time on irrelevancies like “evidence” and “proof” with unemotional dismissal and quiet dignity. It stands in marked contrast to the bullying, hectoring and conniving of its opponents. And as the parable has it, no good deed goes unpunished. It remains to be seen which string in Russia the west will pull on to settle the score, but I imagine it figures in the current western debate, considering how egg-faced it made them all look.

This entry was posted in Government, Law and Order, Middle East, Military, Politics, Rule of Law, Russia, Terrorism, Vladimir Putin and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

799 Responses to Russia’s Brutal Crackdown on The Little People – Putin Stole My Self-Respect, Wails Tiny Dissident

  1. kirill says:

    We were being told several months ago by liberasts and fellow travelers that Russia was not going to be ready for the Sochi Olympics due to corruption. The obvious BS has been confirmed as BS. Nemtsov et al. think that all media consumers are total morons and can’t figure out that the billions spent are obviously not to line pockets of corrupt officials and their friends and relatives. The money has actually gone into real infrastructure and facilities and for a reasonable price level.

  2. Misha says:

    Of possible interest:

    Moscow doesn’t rate so bad according to the above.

    I’ll vouch for NY.

  3. R.C. says:

    In more Sochi news, The rainbow brigade has been suffered a devastating setback.

    • marknesop says:

      Yes, that’s interesting, nice to see the IOC grow a bit of a spine. Rights activists for every cause are depressingly the same, aren’t they? In the sense that they all say if this law doesn’t violate the charter/guidelines/policies of – insert regulatory body here – then the charter/guidelines/policies is/are “useless”. If the law does not serve my ends in helping me to get my own way, why should I recognize it? Certainly a healthy basis for activism, what?

      The safety of millions of gay Russians and travelers is at risk, according to the activist quoted. All those people would be magically made safe, were Russia only to drop the law and let homosexuals once more recruit from among the minor-child population, or at the very least appeal for understanding from those who form the group least likely to be intolerant of homosexuals.

      The safety of millions of gay Russians and travelers to Sochi is far more at risk from fundamentalist jihadis from Chechnya and Dagestan, quite a few of whom are fighting in Syria right now, but may well be home for the holidays in 2014 – some of them with the lovely presents they got from the Saudis and Qataris, with the CIA playing Santa.

  4. peter says:

  5. peter says:

  6. Moscow Exile says:

    Almost a daily feature now!

    More dirt dished by KP on Serdyukov as regards the fantastic the wealth suddenly accrued by his brother-in-law, who suddenly ceased to be a tractor driver and vegetable grower in southern Russia after his having moved from there to Petersburg after Serdyukov had become tax chief in the northern capital and then, later, Ministry of Defense.

    The former tractor driver now owns 92 pieces of real estate, a fleet of luxury vehicles, boats, a Petersburg classic mansion house, businesses, real estate etc. etc. (See linked article below)

    And then there’s the origin of Tolya’s girlfrend’s wealth to take into consideration as well: she who is now enduring “house arrest” in Moscow.

    Yet Serdyukov is still only considered to be “witness” to embezzlement of on an unbelievable scale.

    That such embezzlement has taken place is not denied, but Tolya knew nothing of it, see: they all tricked him, the boss.

    You know, the boss who got the top job because he was so good at being – well – a boss.

    Why has he not been charged with anything yet?

    Could it be that this has not happened out of fear of him putting the finger on others – others higher than he in authority?

    And who can be higher than a government minister?

    Only two are higher: the prime minister and the president, I should think.

    And perhaps some senior military personnel?

    Something is rotten here.

    See: Родственникам Сердюкова удалось скупить 92 объекта недвижимости

    • yalensis says:

      Yeah, no doubt that Serdukov has some powerful krysha protecting him. But who?
      Well, there are really only 2 suspects basically: Putin or Medvedev?

      Definitely something is rotten in the state of [insert country name here], and it would take an action-Hamlet to fix it.

    • marknesop says:

      It is amazing, and I don’t think for a minute Putin would protect Medvedev if he discovered Medvedev was the official who enabled Serdyukov’s thievery. It must be Putin. But why? Why would Putin allow all this to come out if he was the protection for Serdyukov, while Serdyukov stole the place blind? He’s not even really very politically important, and although Putin was allegedly instrumental in getting him the job, anyone can make a mistake and hire somebody who ultimately turns out nothing like the person you thought you hired. Add to that he has a former Father-in-law who is extremely influential who must loathe him for humiliating his daughter the way Serdyukov did.

      I still believe he will ultimately be charged, disgraced and sentenced. There is no realistic way that family members and favourites around Serdyukov could become so wealthy and suddenly in such advantageous circumstances by coincidence, and if they acquired their fortunate windfalls through other means, it would immediately be their very public defense. And they’re just getting around to looking at his family members now? When his brother-in-law is not even trying to hide extensive assets that there is no immediate explanation for? This, in the country where the FSB is tracking everyone, all the time?

      Who’s the brother-in-law? Is he brother to Serdyukov’s jilted wife? That would provide a possible explanation for his angry Father-in-Law not shouting for his immediate incarceration. But the guy in question could be married to Serdyukov’s sister or something. What’s the actual connection, do you know?

      • Moscow Exile says:

        Former tractor driver and vegetable grower turned entrepreneur Valery Puzikov is married to Serdyukov’s sister, Galina Puzikova.

        All the dirt on Serdyukov has been known for a long while.

        See: Serdyukov Anatoly Eduardovich, Defense Minister

        Why is he being protected?

        This is an absolutely outrageous state of affairs and all too typical of the incompetency of the Russian authorities in image management, to say nothing of its so-called campaign against corruption and criminality.

        The conditions which Serdyukov’s mistress has to “endure” under house arrest compares unfavourably with those that the feminist punk-rock heroine has recently described and has certainly not gone unnoticed amongst critics of Russia.

        The fact is that someone at the top…No, not someone, but Putin himself must be protecting him.

        Serdyukov swaggers around and refuses to answer IC questions some 6 months after the shit hit the fan and is still considered as merely a witness to the case because he is, for whatever reason, untouchable.

        And he knows it.

        • R.C. says:

          When stuff like this is allowed to go on despite all of the talk from Putin that “no one will be spared” in the war against corruption, stuff like this plays right into the hands of the west. It’s pretty indefensible.

          What has Putin had to say about this?

          Has anyone in the Russian media even challenged him on the facts in this case?

          • marknesop says:

            The curious thing, for me, is that although it is “playing into the hands of the west”, the aforementioned west appears to be leaving it strictly alone. Which, I need hardly point out, is very much unlike it; issues which might prove embarrassing to Russia in general and its President in particular are usually shouted to the four points of the compass whether they happen to be true or not, and corruption is not just a favourite touchstone, but is presumed – frequently, in print – to be Russia’s natural state. Therefore, it is definitely un-west for the Anglosphere to ignore a bona-fide poster-boy case of official corruption at the very highest levels. In fact, unless I greatly misremember the flurry of western commentary on post-Serdukovity, the western press seemed to have settled on a narrative that Serdyukov was being picked on because he had bought foreign equipment instead of cheap shitty Russian junk, and that he was probably the Best Defense Minister Evah, not to mention a closet liberal (because he recognized the superiority of western military equipment).

            I have a new post partly finished, but once that’s out perhaps it would be worth looking at Serdyukov more closely, maybe do a summary of what is known so far and see if any trends are evident. Moscow Exile and RC, are you interested in collaborating on it?

            This is an odd state of affairs, at both ends of the circumstance. It is odd that Serdyukov gets to strut around and more or less dare the authorities to squash him despite apparently ample demonstration that squashing would be entirely appropriate, and it is odd that western newspapers are not bellowing that Serdyukov is dirty as a pig, and yet is allowed to swagger about amongst the poor peasants he bilked, with absolutely no consequences.

            • yalensis says:

              That’s an interesting point.
              Why is Western press not squealing like self-righteously outraged pigs about Serdukov?
              As Boris Badinov would say: “plot thickens, my darling Natasha… heh heh…”

              • R.C. says:

                I’m hoping that Mark is ultimately right and that we’ll see charges brought against him. Alexander also believes that this will happen as well.

              • I take the diametrically opposite view. I see no evidence of anybody protecting Serdyukov. What I see on the contrary is overwhelming evidence of a campaign to discredit him. This is by carried out through selective leaking about a criminal investigation, which if it were to happen in Britain, Germany or France (but perhaps not Italy or the US) would fall foul of the sub judice rule and would certainly be forbidden. If this continues in this way for much longer it might actually jeopardise Serdyukov’s prospects of a fair trial.

                I have no brief for Serdyukov. On the contrary he comes across to me as an arrogant, incompetent and almost certainly corrupt minister. However merely because something is “obvious” to most people, that doesn’t mean it can be proved in a Court of law. Obtaining a conviction in a properly conducted trial requires actual evidence not assumption or innuendo. That evidence in a case of this sort can only take the form of witness testimony or a paper trail. It is quite obvious that at this comparatively early stage of the investigation that this evidence has not yet come to light.

                It is not for example evidence of Serdyukov’s guilt that his brother has suddenly become wealthy. Asserting Serdyukov’s guilt on that basis is to insist on guilt by association, which amounts to convicting someone without evidence. Nor is it a crime for Vassilievna to go shopping however tasteless her behaviour may seem. At the moment she has not been convicted of anything and the presumption of innocence applies in her favour. Nor is there the slightest indication that she has ever at any time sought to breach the terms of her bail.

                Even if the Russians were willing or able to convict Serdyukov and Vassilievna on this sort of basis without evidence the European Court of Human Rights would in that case undoubtedly declare the whole Judgment wrong on the grounds that Serdyukov had been convicted without a fair trial and on the basis of a politically motivated charge. Given that such an outcome would be deeply embarrassing for Russia to say the least I cannot see the purpose of pressing the authorities to bring charges against Serdyukov before they are ready. Let me say it again: these sort of cases take years. To expect charges to be brought against Serdyukov in a case of this kind only months after the launch of the first investigation is to completely misunderstand how criminal investigations are conducted. We are probably months or even years from charges being brought. These things are not to be hurried and in the meantime Vassilievna for all her shopping trips remains under house arrest and on bail and Serdyukov remains under observation with his political career brought to a disgraceful end.

                What is of far more interest and concern to me is not who is “protecting” Serdyukov (on the basis of the evidence I have seen the answer to that is almost certainly no one) but rather who is conducting the campaign to discredit him in a way which as I said is not only destroying what is left of Serdyukov’s reputation but which is also depriving Serdyukov of his prospects of a fair trial. Komsomolskaya Pravda is normally considered a pro government newspaper and this campaign to discredit Serdyukov obviously has official sanction at least at some level. These leaks could only happen with the active collusion of the Investigative Committee. Serdyukov has antagonised the Investigative Committee by his arrogant manner and his refusal to answer questions and it is likely that this campaign is in part its revenge. However I suspect that behind it all there are also the powerful forces within the country’s defence establishment who Serdyukov antagonised during his time as defence minister. In “Russia 1917”, his classic study of the tsarist government on the eve of the Revolution, the Russian emigre historian George Katkov spoke despairingly of “the classic methods of Russian higher politics including anonymous denunciations”. It is deeply depressing a century later to see these “classic methods” still in use.

                • kirill says:

                  Thank you, Alexander, for the does of reality on the Serdyukov case. Although there is no stink about this case in the western media now, it will be there once Serdyukov is put on trial. If that can be delayed after the Olympics then it is a good thing.

                • Misha says:

                  Russia is a mature enough country to walk and chew gum at the same time.

                  If effectively communicated, there’s a good PR case to have both occur simultaneously. The more gifted of countries can enage in numerous under-takings.

        • Misha says:

          Re: “The conditions which Serdyukov’s mistress has to ‘endure’ under house arrest compares unfavourably with those that the feminist punk-rock heroine has recently described and has certainly not gone unnoticed amongst critics of Russia.”


          A different set of circumstances between the two. Upon further review, I’m sure one can find similar contrasts between the two.

  7. yalensis says:

    As mentioned before, Navalny broke his radio silence yesterday with this blistering attack on Politrash, and defensively lashing out on the “Count of Monte Negro” scandal. Like I mentioned, Volkov already put that one to rest, so why Navalny feel the need to rake it all over again? Unless there is something deeper there, the Montenegro thing was just a way to try to get him out of the Mayor race. (Because candidates are not supposed to own foreign property, that’s why Prokhorov couldn’t run.) But Navalny was allowed by his benefactors to violate that, along with many other, campaign rules. And now the mayor campaign is over. So who cares any more if he owns a shell company in Crna Gora? Unless he’s using it to launder his ill-gotten fortune?

    I will watch and see if Politrash replies to Navalny attack on him.
    This could get interesting.

    • yalensis says:

      Breaking news: Politrash already replied to Navalny’s ill-timed nonsense.

      And here as supplementary source is Navalny’s original email to Babich, dated 16 November, 2007:

      Навальный Бабичу:

      От: Navalny Alexey’ Кому: ‘Максим-‘ Тема: дом высотой в три этажа. Зато на море. Написано: 16 ноября 2007 г., 22:32:05 (Fri, 16 Nov 2007 21:32:05 -0300)
      Иоу. Ты там чё, в преемники готовишься – такой занятой?
      Всех денег не заработаешь – отдыхай понемногу, а то так и до инсульта недалеко.
      Встретиться не получилось-пейшу тебе письмо.
      Вкратце, дело в следующем:
      Есть страна Черногория. Страна очень красивая. И недооцененная (но это не надолго). Сейчас там недвижимость растёт очень высокими темпами. В том числе благодаря покупке из России. В рейтинге стран, где русские покупают недвижимость Черногория
      сейчас на первом месте. На носу – вступление в Евросоюз, что ещё больше поднимет цены.
      Я хотел там кое-что прикупить себе, вернее построить там два дома. Один на продажу – чтобы собственный как бы обошёлся бесплатно. Съездил пару раз и нашёл неплохой проект. Но он немного выходит уже за мои возможности, поэтому призываю тебя
      В городе Бар есть участок. 6600 метров. В урбанизированной зоне, то есть все коммуникации близко, включая канализацию, что для Черногории редкость.
      Расстояние до моря – около 900 метров. Идти пешком под гору – девять минут (сам ходил). На машине две минуты. Отличный вид на море. Оливковые деревья растут. В общем хороший участок. Стоит 125 евро за метр. 860 тыс. евро с учётом комиссии
      агентству. Я посмотрел там несколько десятков участков через разные агентства и могу сказать, что он стоит этих денег. В любом случае его можно будет продать дороже уже через полгода.
      Документы на землю все есть. Зона где расположен участок подлежит застройке, так что всё ок.
      Ну так вот. На этом участке можно построить:
      План А: 16 домов площадью около 200 кв. метров каждый. Каждый будет иметь вид на море. Жилой площади будет 3200 метров
      План Б: один трёх этажный таунхаус буквой «Г» примерно на 5 тысяч метров жилой площади.
      Бар- город пока не очень развитый и поэтому цена земли там приемлема. Но по град плану он станет чуть ли не главным курортом Черногории. Так что вложения в недвижимость здесь наиболее перспективны.
      Нас пока три партнёра, я. известная тебе Мария Г.. и один мужик, который и втянул меня в это дело. Он сейчас туда уезжает и будет сам заниматься строительством на месте.
      Каждый инвестирует 300-350 тыс евро. Таким образом, мы покупаем участок и даже подводим к нему коммуникации, но денег строить дальше – нет. Не тянем.
      Конечно, мы планируем начать продажи сразу после подвода коммуникаций, но всё равно нам нужен четвёртый партнёр.
      Заходи. Надо внести 400-500 тыс. если идём по плану Айв районе миллиона если по плану Б.
      План Б конечно предпочтительнее, потому что и площади больше выходит и метр в многоэтажном доме стоит намного дороже при продаже и ненамного при строительстве.
      Для этой всей херни мы сейчас регистрируем контору в Черногории.
      Стоимость строительства в стране невысока. Мы подсчитали – 320 евро за метр, если строить дома и около 400. если многоквартирник.
      Даже при самом хуёвом раскладе – больше 500 точно не будет.
      Стоимость продажи – меньше чем 1000 евро за метр не найдёшь даже в старом доме. А многокваритрники – минимум 2000 (в среднем 2500).
      Налог на прибыль юрпиц- 9%.
      Так что рентабельность получается весьма привлекательная.
      Для меня этот проект достаточно важен, потому что , сам понимаешь, сейчас я на территории Мазе_Раши вести бизнес не смогу Это всё равно, что самому себя за яйца подвесить. Поэтому я достаточно плотно этим делом занялся.
      Предложение: если тебе в принципе интересно – поехали, сгоняем туда на пару дней, сам всё посмотришь. В любом случае посидим – попьём пива.

      The only real question here is: Why is Navalny raking all this over again, brazenly claiming that the Montenegran documents are a forgery? His attack is so easy to refute. Why is he harming himself by doing this? My own theory so far: Simple narcisissm. It really stung him that somebody exposed him in this way, and even though he got away with it, he cannot let it go. Even though it doesn’t matter any more.

  8. Moscow Exile says:

    He’s using it as his get-out-of-jail-free card.

    He’s going to flee and claim political asylum and the lies, allegedly, about his business ventures abroad are being presented as evidence of political attacks made upon him by the regime.

    I wonder what happened to his little off-shore scam in Cyprus, by the way?

    • yalensis says:

      You could be right that Navalny is preparing to flee to the West.
      But I doubt the Crna Gora thing would be the catalyst. That’s old news, from, like, a month ago. Nobody even cared about it any more, until Navalny himself made it an issue again.
      He’ll probably regret that he did, because Apetian and everybody else are jumping back into the fray, and handily proving (once again) that Navalny is a pathological liar.

      Apetian (=politrash) has pretty much proved that Navalny, Gaidar, and their 3rd accomplish (some guy named Mikhail Eshkin) set up the real estate firm in Crna Gora. Navalny denies setting up the company, even though (1) it wasn’t illegal, and (2) nobody cares.
      In the course of trying to back up his own lie, Navalny inadvertently revealed a problem with his own biography: 2 different birth dates!

      Lilke Obama, Navalny may now have to produce his own birth certificate, to prove that he is who he says he is! The English phrase “hoisted by one’s own petard” comes to mind, even though I have no clue what that even means. LOL…

      • marknesop says:

        Are you drunk, or something? You’re beginning to slur, even in type – that’s “accomplice”. It’s only when you’re hammered that it comes out as “accomplish”. It’s a little early in the day to be hitting the bottle, but I guess the sun’s always over the yardarm somewhere.

        “Hoist by one’s own petard” is from “Hamlet” – one of the Shakespearean plays we can actually call by name without actors forking the sign of the evil eye and spitting over their shoulders – and means to be blown up by one’s own bomb. Stingingly appropriate in this instance, I agree. His conduct is certainly not mayoral.

        • yalensis says:

          Oh, Markushka, you are SO mean to me!
          The fact is, sometimes I get so excited with my comments that my fingers just fly too fast!
          It’s the burden I carry with me always, having such a quick, nimble brain.
          And for your information, I am a complete tee-totaller. Never touch the stuff! (yeah, right…)

          • yalensis says:

            P.S. re. petard you’re not wrong. I don’t know why, but for some reason I always thought “petard” was some kind of a flag or banner, like one flying on a boat.
            But apparently it means a bomb!

            There’s letters seal’d: and my two schoolfellows,
            Whom I will trust as I will adders fang’d,
            They bear the mandate; they must sweep my way
            And marshal me to knavery.
            Let it work;
            For ’tis the sport to have the enginer
            Hoist with his own petar’; and ‘t shall go hard
            But I will delve one yard below their mines
            And blow them at the moon:
            O, ’tis most sweet,When in one line two crafts directly meet.

            • yalensis says:

              The 10-minute Hamlet .
              This is the best one ever!

            • Jen says:

              This speech is the one in which Hamlet explains his discovery that his old schoolfriends Rosencrantz and Guildenstern agreed to work for his wicked uncle king and to accompany Hamlet on a sea voyage to England with letters in their possession. While they’re asleep, Hamlet opens the letters and discovers they contain instructions from Uncle Claudius to the English king to execute him. Hamlet then forges new letters instructing the English to execute the schoolfriends instead and pops them into the friends’ bags. R and G go to their deaths, unaware that they’ve been double-crossed, and Hamlet escapes and returns to Denmark.

              The speech is a significant one in the context of a play in which Hamlet had previously agonised over killing his uncle when he had the opportunity to do so. He passed over that opportunity but in doing that, more people end up dying violently. Whereas if he’d killed the uncle earlier, people like R and G, Queen Gertrude, Polonius and his children Ophelia and Laertes would have remained alive. Hamlet himself would not have stooped to plotting his friends’ deaths in such a cold-blooded manner.

              • yalensis says:

                Yeah, in the earlier opportunity, Hamlet could have killed Uncle in the church while the latter was praying; but Hamlet balked. He was vindictive and didn’t want Claudius to die clean and go to heaven. Hamlet preferred to kill Uncle at a time when his (Claudius) soul was unclean (like when he was drinking or whoring), so that he would go straight to hell.

                However, later, as you point out, Hamlet was kicking himself for the missed opportunity.
                Especially since Claudius would have gone to hell anyway, even though he was praying in the church. Because he (Claudius) was not even sincere and was just going through the motions of praying:

                “My words fly up, my thoughts remain below”

                Moral of the story: If you, the would-be assassin, get a rare chance to assassinate the King, then don’t hesitate, out of theological motives. Otherwise, you’ll end up just like Hamlet: surrounded by a pile of bodies, and dead yourself.

  9. Moscow Exile says:

    More on the Pizda Riot story: Pussy Riot member moved to prison hospital after launching hunger strike

    Verzilov straight in with the claim that they’ve only transferred her to the hospital so as to block access to her.

    I thought that the noble Tolokonnikova and Alyokhina had written and signed a letter in which they had cast Porky Pete asunder as regards anything to do with the actions of the so-called feminist punk-rock artistic collective, yet he’s always buzzing around them like a fly round a turd.

    Note how the cruelly oppressed Tolokonnikova has the right to an unlimited number of phone calls.

    One comment to the above RT linked article raised a chuckle, though, from my hard-hearted breast:

    “First real job and she is complaining…”

    • Moscow Exile says:

      In Verzilov’s own words:

      Я, Петр Верзилов, активист группы Война, никогда не являлся и не являюсь продюссером, лидером, организатором, промоутером, спикером или каким-либо иным должностным лицом внутри группы Pussy Riot, которая является анонимным панк-феминистским коллективом, не допускающим никаких публичных ролей за пределами тех, что против воли участниц Pussy Riot возникли благодаря аресту Кати, Нади и Маши.

      Попытки представить какие-либо публичные роли внутри Pussy Riot означает стремление игнорировать и дискредитировать идеологию женского панк-феминистского коллектива, в котором кроме тех участниц, что были раскрыты благодаря правоохранительным органам нет никаких публичных ролей для лиц женского, а тем более мужского пола.

      Source: Radio Moscow Echo, 5th October 2012


      I, Petr Verzilov, a Voina group activist, have never appeared as and am not a producer, leader, organizer, promoter, speaker or any other official within the group Pussy Riot, which is an anonymous punk-feminist collective that does not not allow any public role for the actions of those people that have appeared as a result of the arrest of Katya, Nadya and Masha and which are contrary to the wishes of Pussy Riot members.

      Attempts to provide any public role within Pussy Riot are construed as an effort to ignore and discredit the ideology of the female punk-feminist collective, which, apart from those members that law enforcement agencies have uncovered, has no public role for women to play and least of all for males.

      End of translation

      So what role is Pedo Pete playing now?

      He is not a member of Pizda Riot; nor is he, for that matter, a member of Voina.

      He’s certainly one grade-A bullshitter though!

      • Moscow Exile says:

        Here’s what Voina thinks of Petr Verzilov (WARNING! NOT SUITABLE FOR PERSONS OF A SENSITIVE NATURE):

        Провокатор Петр Верзилов: предательства, мошенничества, плагиат

        (Provocateur Petr Verzilov: a traitor, a fraud, a plagiarist)

        Could it be that Verzilov was recruited during his Canadian residency?

        Could Pete the Pedo really be working for “the other side”?

        Fast backtrack to Toronto circa 2002:

        “Hey Joe! We got this dumb Russian kid arrested for throwing snowballs at a cop. Seems to think he’s some kind of artist-revolutionary. D’ya think the idiot could be of any use?”

        • yalensis says:

          Some comments to above article:

          такой ублюдок! хоть бы яйца побрил!

          Однако же какой редкий негодяй затесался среди таких прекрасных, светлых личностей!

      • marknesop says:

        More of an opportunist, I would say. He seems to crave attention at least as much as they do, but is cursed with no talent whatsoever for attracting it. So he’s a kind of jackal, messing about with their leavings and trying to make a meal for himself. I really wish they’d put a social worker with him as long as he has that child in his care.

        • Moscow Exile says:

          Here’s Pete with daughter on CNN TV and here is the Pizda Riot defence counsel with the Tolokonnikova’s daughter.

          The man holding the little girl is none other than Feigin, he who took out a patent on Pussy Riot in his film director wife’s name.

          Feigin also filed a complaint with the German media watchdog organization after a journalist for Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung had not only compared Pussy Riot with the murderous Red Army Faction, the German left-wing terrorist organization of the ’70s, which also consisted of spoilt bourgeois brats, but also alleged that Tolokonnikova was a bad mother, in that she had allegedly dropped her daughter from a computer table.

          According to the FAS journalist, Moritz Gathmann, Tolokonnikov’s daughter had lived for two-and a half years with her grandparents after she had suffered severe injuries after her fall. Gathmann’s parallel with the RAF was that one of its star personnel, Ulrike Meinhoff, had also neglected her children.

  10. Moscow Exile says:

    Кто здесь власть? Петр Верзилов (Толоконников)

    • Moscow Exile says:

      From KP: Толоконникова пожаловалась уже и на соседок по колонии
      (Tolokonnikova has complained about her fellow inmates at the colony)

      Part translation

      “Tolokonnikova has written about them, and in the colony they immediately began questioning prisoners. During initial inquiries, Nadezhda herself was isolated in solitary confinement. Amongst those who have allegedly threatened her is another infamous prisoner: Yevgenia Khasis. Although, according to her, she would not have been able to exert any pressure on the punk quartet member, as she is located in another section of the colony and has not seen Tolokonnikova for a few months. In the colony, the ‘activity’ of the punk singer has been looked upon negatively – and that is putting it mildly. According to human rights activist Alexei Baranovsky, ‘…people are being called in for questioning in the evening instead of their ‘free time’, which is what is usually done, and these people may have more serious problems because of this statement’.

      “It also might happen that similar problems may arise for the complainant herself. If the investigators do not find evidence of threats, a libel case can be brought against the Pussy Riot member herself. “

      Yevgenia Khasis is a double murderess.

      Here is a blog interview with Khasis, one whom Tolokonnikova has accused of threatening her:


      Prisoner Yevgenia Khasis on Tolokonnikova …

      September 26th, 17:00

      “She has no authority here!”

      Human rights activist Alex Baranowski spoke with Yevgenia Khasis – one of the prisoners in the Mordovia women’s prison Number 14, in which Nadezhda Tolokonnikova is serving a sentence …

      The difference between the two inmates is that Tolokonnikova should go free in six months , wherease Khasis will be free only in 2027. She was accused of complicity in the murder of the lawyer Markelov, though her guilt she has never confessed, writes

      – Yevgenia, can you tell me what’s going on in the colony in relation to all the events associated with Nadezhda Tolokonnikova ?

      – I can tell you, but I think that it is unlikely to appeal to the liberal community and the people who support Nadia. As regards the fact that Nadia’s position in the colony is, to say the least, exceptional: this has been said many times in the press. All of her demands and wishes for the way the administration treats her have been implemented. That is to say that everything as regards the way Nadia lives here was quite good when compared to how all the other …

      – And how are all the other prisoners treated?

      – Quietly. Like … well I’ve found a little niche for myself, which is the smart thing to do. But what use are we for anything? Nothing. The rest just soldier on under the regime: they play along with meeting yet another commission and going for nice little walks in threesomes and so on. And then all of a sudden, like a bolt from the blue, Tolokonnikova, whose life under the regime is pretty good, goes on hunger strike, refuses to go to work and makes demands on behalf of all the prisoners. This would be justified if, as a result of this, she, having been authorized by the prisoners, then could implement her authority over the prisoners, over the entire colony, or at least her section of it, her authority being based on the fact that all the prisoners had confirmed her concerns and demands. But no one has comes out and done so.

      – Why?

      – Because, firstly, she has no authority here, and secondly, come spring Nadia will leave here along with all the media people and human rights activists, and we shall stay here to live as before … Nadia is now behaving exactly in the style of that community from which she came to prison. She is behaving like a contemporary artist, a creator of modern art that no one but the creator understands or accepts. Well, just picture the scene: a crazy-eyed young girl grabs your mattress for no apparent reason whatsoever and starts running around the barracks, shouting: “Women, I’ll save you! Women! I am for you!” And that’s with the literal meaning of the word. The women just laugh at all of this and close their door so that she doesn’t interfere with their housekeeping, but she continues to run around. The convicts don’t want any help from Nadezhda, who seems to want to help them. They have no need for such a protector of their rights. But Nadia knows all about this. And she realizes that if there is a problem here behind the barbed wire, then it has to be addressed here silently as well as outside. There are also rules about how to live and survive outside. But she dumped them all, not in order to solve the problems of prisoners in a colony, but purely for the sake of creating a scandal for those outside and for external agencies.

      – Are internal problems taking place, about which Tolokonnikova writes in her letter?

      – Life in prison is difficult. It’s not easy. Yes, there are problems. There are moments that many would like to change – yes. There are domestic and regime issues that we would like to improve – yes. But there are such moments and issues that everyone experiences outside when one is free, only the world around us is at times smaller and is limited by a fence. It’s not all easy and simple, but in general we can adapt without degrading ourselves or losing dignity; by finding mechanisms through which many problems may be solved, and there are many such problems, including the usual every day ones.

      – How, in your opinion, will the situation further develop?

      – Well, it has to be determined whether there were any violations. Everybody is smiling at one another now, and journalists are arriving so as to take a look at little Nadia. She will give an interview after they have been here, the outcome of which will be that we are all “dumb slaves” and helpless animals who obey the creative excesses of the administration, and that Nadezhda is the ray of light who was trying to save us all. As a result, Tolokno will have updated her image and the colony will just go on living its life. That is all so obvious. But little Nada, will we have had anything to do with all of this?

      – How does Tolokonnikova relate to this scandal that has arisen?

      – I think Nadia would have been happy if her claims had been rejected. Judging by her condition, by the way the colony is busying itself around her. It seems to me that she is not very happy that she has become the object of intense scrutiny by the prison administration and the Federal Penitentiary Service of Mordovia. She would rather have just wanted to quietly see out her six months and get back to her daughter. And I personally do not understand why people close to her want to squeeze her in this vice-like situation. Has no one ever come out with the idea that Nadia Tolokonnikova is not a brand, but a living person? Verzilov and company work on the Internet with all this hype about something that is actually situated here. She’s like a foreign body that is trying here – in the real world regime of barbed wire and guards – to live by the laws of virtual reality. On the one hand , it’s ridiculous for us; but on the other hand, I want to cry , because I feel so sorry for her…

      – Do all these events reflect on you personally?

      – On me as well as on all the others. Tomorrow will arrive journalists and representatives of the Presidential Council on Human Rights. The arrival of the guests is being prepared for, we are are preparing for the arrival of guests; we are putting ourselves on our best behaviour and all around our world is being put in order while we live under the rules of the system.

      PS The information war has just now begun to unfold. We are waiting for a response from Nadya.

      End of translation

      • Moscow Exile says:

        Bum link to the Khasis story above.

        Here it is again: Russian neo-Nazi gets life sentence for murdering lawyer and journalist

        It seems that, according to Khasis, the inmates of the colony, the trials and tribulations of their incarceration notwithstanding, would rather that the thoughtful liberals living on the other side of the fence not get involved in their prison world for fear of these outside efforts worsening their situation.

        This sounds similar to the case put forward by Russian homosexuals, the majority of whom, I daresay, feel that the actions liberal interventionists from the “free world” only worsen their at present manageable situation.

        Such Russian homosexuals who say “thank you but no thank you” to Western liberals are castigated by their would be Western benefactors for their being homosexual “Uncle Toms” as it were.

        If Khasis’ opinion should get out to the Pizda Riot besotted liberals of the West, I should imagine that they would scorn her words, call her insane and very likely use the fact the she was an accomplice to a nationalist murderer of a journalist no less.

        It should not be forgotten that any Russian journalist whose life, for whatever reason, is cut short during working hours is immediately beatified in the West.

        • Moscow Exile says:

          Here’s the full Khasis story from KP: Евгения Хасис: толоконные страсти

          (Yevgenia Khasis: Tolokonnikova’s Passions)

          • Moscow Exile says:

            Part of the KP published letter from Khasis in which she describes her discussions with Saint Nadezhda of the Imprisoned Women:

            “Nadia said she needed an uprising, and I believe that the consequences of a ‘rebellion for the sake of someone’s public relations and for another political provocation’ cannot be justified or allowed. The prisoners who may be affected by these actions are real people: they are not Internet accounts; they are not fantasies made up by dreamer bloggers: waiting for them are their elderly mothers, their young children, parents and friends. They want to go home; they want to quietly serve their sentences in normal conditions, but not in terms of endless inspections, provocation and blown up scandals that lead to nothing. These are ordinary women; they do not want to be part of the opposition movement and porn art. That is their right . But it is unacceptable calling upon them to do so or, even worse, forcing them to do this by means of provocations, statements, complaints, threats to prosecute on trumped up charges is a political game, and as a result each will inevitably be taken as personally responsible. At that time we were unable to agree. Nadia stood her ground: “The worse the better”; I spit on the victim; I spit at the truth; the end justifies the means: a change of political power. We stopped talking to her .

            And here is the latest way in which Nadia crossed the line: she made-up charges of threats to her life, ostensibly from other prisoners. For what ? In order to prolong her finest hour in the media? I do not need to stand up for the administration of the colony, I am a convicted person who has repeatedly banged her fist on the administrative tables. I have been an offender against the prison regime, sitting in solitary confinement; I am a freedom-loving nationalist.and a stubborn person of a type that nobody has ever seen here before. I have my own opinion and my own position, which I have the right to – no less than Tolokonnikova has. That now works on Nadia mostly as though it were a mockery of the way she imagines human rights. She imagines herself as a saviour and defender of the rights of convicts. So Nadia launched her attack: salvation through public relations that nobody had asked for.

            If the Internet is now full of the myth that here in the Gulag there have been human sacrifices against which Nadia has rebelled (Oh, how clever of her! Oh, how brave!), the reality is that Nadia is securely accommodated in a separate room with a heater, a fridge, a TV, a radio and other amenities; Nadia does not care what’s going on behind the door of her “suites” with the rest of the prisoners that have not attracted the attention of the world media. Nadia accuses people that refute her words about the threats and who did not, together with the administration, approve of her words; Nadia has written about only 10 convicts allegedly threatening her with murder, slaughter, and physical punishment in the event of non-compliance with the requirements of the administration. She wrote a letter about people who are waiting at home; about people who now face at best disciplinary action – Including me. A price is going to paid for your public relations, Nadia.”

            • Dear Moscow Exile,

              Thanks for this.

              It is very strange to see Yevgenya Khasis of all people turning up in Tolokonnikova’s case. The murder she was involved in was an extraordinary affair in which if I remember rightly she egged on her lover Tikhonov to murder the liberal lawyer Markelov as a condition of them two of them being together. She is very striking so perhaps it is not wholly surprising that he did what she wanted. The actual murder was a horrible business. As I remember it a young journalist who was with Markelov was killed alongside him in the crossfire. Subsequently during the trial Tikhonov and Khasis appeared together with every show of affection and physical intimacy.

              Anyhow what this interview shows is that she is a strong minded and intelligent individual. I can easily imagine a person like her commanding the grudging respect of the other prisoners. By contrast as anyone who has had any dealings with criminals knows, the sort of people who are most likely to provoke their antipathy are those who like Tolokonnikova engage in bizarre sexual activities and who come across as attention seekers. The ideological gulf between Khasis and Tolokonnikova is also such as to make it unlikely that the two have much time for each other.

              The one thing I would say about Khasis is that though she clearly belonged to a violent ultra nationalist Russia First group, I am not sure that “neo Nazi” accurately describes her beliefs since I believe she is at least partly Jewish.

            • marknesop says:

              I wonder when The Guardian is going to pick this up, and rhapsodize about Khasis’s eloquence, the simple truth of her words and the immense dignity from which she draws her inspiration, the way they did with their post-orgasmic dreamy fluff piece over Tolokonnikova’s “ringing denunciation of Soviet-style ‘justice'” upon her sentencing? I wonder to how many gritty Russian philosophers it will be compared?

              • Moscow Exile says:

                Never. For one thing, she’s a “Neo-Nazi”.

                • Moscow Exile says:

                  And although I do not condone in any way her boyfriend’s crime, which was brutal in the extreme – not only the calculated and cold blooded murder of a man whom he hated politically, but also of his assistant, a young woman who just got in the way and bravely tried to apprehend him – the fact remains that Khasis did not pull any trigger but was an accomplice, in that she kept watch and communicated with the killer by mobile telephone.

                  But she is intelligent and very pretty, in my opinion, something that journalists always take into great account when reporting crimes committed by women, but apparently of no account when there is mention of “Neo-Nazi” Evgenia Khasis.

            • Jen says:

              Interesting that the paths of Tolokonnikova and Khasis should have crossed in the same prison. That might in itself say something about how extensive (or not) the prison system in Russia is compared to prisons in other countries of at least equivalent population and geographic size, such as the US and China. It’s no surprise that the two should have met since Khasis was a political activist herself and the two women must have been curious about each other. Also no surprise that Khasis should have seen straight through Tolokonnikova and realised she is being used.

              In another curious twist that links Tolokonnikova and Khasis, Mark Feygin is now the lawyer for Ilya Goryachev, a former ultra-nationalist associate of the pair. Goryachev testified against Tikhonov and Khasis in the Markelov / Baburova murder trial. The murder weapon, a 1910 Browning pistol, which was found in Tikhonov’s home and produced at the trial, apparently belonged to Goryachev. Goryachev later fled Russia for reasons unknown and surfaced in Serbia where he became pals with ultra-nationalists in that country and from Italy. Goryachev is now sitting in a Belgrade prison awaiting extradition to Russia.

      • yalensis says:

        I am impressed by the fact that a double murderess can also be an an insightful art critic:
        Она ведет себя как современный художник, творец современного искусства, которое никто, кроме его создателя, не понимает и не принимает.

        “She (Tolok) conducts herself like a contemporary artist, a creator of (the kind of) modern art which nobody, besides its creator, either understands or accepts.”

  11. yalensis says:

    Hashtag Navalny:

    My self-appointed project is to summarize the raging feud gripping the blogosphere: between Navalny and Apetian (aka Politrash). I realize this topic may be of limited interest, maybe only to a handful of Navalny specialists. But here goes anyhow:

    Executive Summary:
    Whether or not Navalny owns the MRD Real Estate Company in Montenegro is relevant only to the issue whether or not he should have been disqualified from his Moscow mayor campaign.
    Since the campaign is over, and Navalny lost the election (while making a respectable second-place showing), the issue is now moot. Except that Navalny himself has raised it again, in his fury to get even with Politrash.

    Back Story:
    2007 was a busy year for Alexei Navalny. As his email archive shows (recall that all of Navalny’s emails from this year, both private and public, are available, thanks to efforts of hacker Hell), Navalny was involved in dozens of money-making projects. Being of entrepreneurial nature, Navalny was willing to try his hand at anything, be it a proposed TV show, an internet company, even real estate in Crna Gora (aka Montenegro, a tiny Balkan country that used to be part of Yugoslavia).

    To this end, Navalny put together an investment group (which they called MRD Company) consisting of himself, Maria Gaidar, and some mysterious investor named Mikhail Eshkin.
    Documents were submitted to the city of Bar (in Crna Gora), in attempt to register the company there. The plan, as shown in Navalny’s hacked email to Babich, was to buy up some land and build a housing development.

    Two key dates are November 7 and November 20, 2007. November 20, 2007 is the day when the company was registered in Bar, according to Mongtenegran official sources. Involved persons included legal clerks, notaries, the usual people. This is important only because Navalny is now claiming that the November 20 documents obtained from Montenegro are fogeries, he is accusing the Montenegran clerk of taking a bribe to insert the forged documents in to the archives, and he is accusing the entire Montenegran government of being in collusion with the Kremlin’s plot to discredit him. He accuses Politrash of being a Kremlin stooge and trying to derail his (Navalny’s) mayoral campaign.

    Impact of the Mayoral Campaign:
    Navalny’s enemies have known for years (from Hell’s hacked emails) that he and Maria Gaidar had intent to buy real estate in Crna Gora. However, nobody could prove that the deal had actually gone down until (coincidentally) the midst of Navalny’s mayoral campaign. Then, in the course of the usual muckraking, it came out that the Crna Gora company had indeed been registered and still existed to this day.

    Navalny panicked, because this revelation was sufficient in and of itself to kick him out of the mayoral campaign. Navalny’s initial impulse was to lie and say the company never existed, and it was all a Kremlin plot to disbar him from the race. Navalny’s campaign manager, Volkov, went along with the denial initially, but then it was soon learned that the company did indeed exist , as this Forbes piece shows.

    Volkov is a guy with a conscience, and it bothered him that he lied to the world. Being Navalny’s campaign manager, he still had to put a spin on what happened, so he spun the story as follows:
    There was an attempt to set up the company, and documents were submitted. But then the deal fell through, Navalny lost interest, and forgot all about it. He had no clue that the company still existed. Hence, Navalny wasn’t a liar, he was just forgetful.

    [comment to be continued]

  12. yalensis says:

    The Count of Monte Negro (continued)…

    So, anyhow… the Mayor campaign is over, a month goes by. Nobody cares about Crna Gora any more, or whether or not Navalny is flipping beach houses on the Adriatic Sea.

    But it turns out that Navalny, like Achilles, has been brooding in his tent and filling himself with rage against that Kremlin stooge, Stas Apetian. Apetian has been a thorn in Navalny’s side for quite some time. Publishing Hell’s hacked emails, hounding Navalny on KirovLes, trying to sabotage Navalny’s mayoral campaign. How dare this half-Armenian interloper discredit God’s chosen Messiah?

    Navalny Attacks:
    So Navalny lashes back with this philippic in which he subjects not only Apetian, but also the entire country of Crna Gora to one of his characteristic tirades. See, they’re all crooks and thieves. They forge documents without conscience. They are all out to get him!

    As to the substance of his accusation, Navalny claims that he (Navalny) paid for “international graphological expertise” to prove that the signatures on the documents signed in the Crna Gora registry on November 20, 2007 do not correspond to his and Gaidar’s actual signatures, as shown on other documents, such as their passports. (He doesn’t mention Eshkin’s signature, however, which is clearly identical to the original.)

    [In this vein, the current theory on the blogs is that Eshkin returned to Bar on November 20 and signed the final documents for all 3 of them, with Navalny/Gaidar permission to “forge” their signatures, since they couldn’t be bothered to return to Bar for the closing. Nobody, not even Navalny, has disputed that Eshkin’s signature is identical to Eshkin’s signature.]

    The company that Navalny hired to do the handwriting analysis is called LLC.
    To prove his point, Navalny displays on his blogpost copies of his own and Gaidar’s various passports.
    In the course of doing this, Navalny inadvertently revealed that he himself has 2 different birth dates on 2 different passports. This is interesting and amusing, but bloggers concur this is probably just a typo, and not much should be made of this, apart from cheap mockery of Navalny.

    Navalny concludes his attack with the following tirade:

    Так что, вся эта “черногорская фирма Навального и Гайдар” – самая обычная подделка, изготовленная по мотивам украденной переписки.
    Предполагаю, что документы были сфабрикованны, а потом, за взятку, помещены в черногорский реестр.

    Сейчас мы делаем международную графологическую экспертизу и такую же в самой Черногории, после чего будем требовать возбуждения в Черногрии уголового дела по факту подделки документов.
    Скорее всего, организовали это всё те же кремлёвские клоуны, о которых я писал выше: Костин и ко.

    Как ещё раз можно убедиться, неограниченные финансовые ресурсы и колоссальные возможности государства этой власти не помогают: всё, на что она способна в области дискредитации политических противников – украсть деньги, выделенные на “контрработу”, а потом изготовить липу, которую вскроют через месяц.
    Очень надеюсь, что черногорской частью “спецоперации” занимались тоже костинские пиарщики, а не спецслужбы. Не хотелось бы думать о том, что они деградировали настолько, что не смогли нормально подпись нарисовать.
    Глупее всего в этой ситуации теперь выглядит Путин, которого вытащили в телек и заставили повторить всю эту дрянь и фальшивку.

    Вот такая вот история.

    Хотел бы поблагодарить всех граждан РФ и Черногории, которые помогали и помогают разбираться с этим.

    Очень надеюсь, что все СМИ, которые освещали эту тему и растрезвонили на всю страну про “черногорскую фирму Навального” дадут опровержения в таком же объеме.

    Отдельное спасибо за доверие тем, кто с самого начала не поверил в эту чушь и не стал сомневаться в моих словах. Для меня это важно.

    Эта история станет всем хорошим уроком и открывает нам новые перспективы и знания о том, что будут делать кремлежулики для защиты своих шубохранилищ.


    Thus, we can conclude that this entire “Montenegran firm of Navalny and Gaidar” is just the usual forgery, crafted from information found in (my) hacked emails.
    We are currently carrying out an international graphilogical expertise, and we will do the same thing in Crna Gora, after which we will demand of the Crna Gora authorities that they launch a criminal investigation as to the forgeries.
    More than likely, it will turn out that this whole thing was organized by the same Kremlin clowns of which I wrote above, for example, Kostin & Co.
    We will see once again that the unlimited means and financial resources of the government cannot help them, the only thing they are capable of in the area of discrediting their political opponents — is to steal money, allocated for “contra-work” [?} and then prepare a false flag, which they reveal after a month.
    I am very hopeful that the Crna Gora part of this “special operation” was carried out by Kostin’s PR people, and not by the secret services. I wouldn’t like to think that they [the secret services] had degenerated to the point that they cannot even forge a signature. Most stupid of all in this (story) appears the figure of Putin, who was dragged onto the television screen and forced to repeat these lies and falsifications.
    [… skip a couple of sentences ….]
    This story will be a good lesson to everybody and will open up for us new perspectives and knowledge just what the Kremlin crooks are capable of, in order to preserve their fur repositories. [a dig at Serdukov?]


  13. yalensis says:

    Hashtag Navalny, Part 3 (and final):

    Stas Apetian responded within a day to Navalny’s tirade.

    Apetian’s Counterattack
    Stas points out the crucial date of November 7, 2007 on which the tax officials and legal clerks of Crna Gora took notarized copies of passports of Navalny and Gaidar.
    There can be no doubt that Navalny/Gaidar were in the beautiful resort town of Bar, Crna Gora on that day. [either business, or pleasure, or maybe both? – yalensis]

    A couple of weeks later, November 20, 2007, the third MRD investor, Eshkin (born 1944), showed his passport, which was notarized by a Monenegran notary named Vladimir Marunovic. Eshkin signed final documents; this was basically the closing on the property deal.
    Since Navalny/Gaidar’s “signatures” were also on the closing documents, then either (1) they were there too, along with Eshkin, and signed the documents; or (2) they weren’t there, and Eshkin signed for them too.
    In Case #2 either (1) he was authorized to do so, or (2) he wasn’t authorized to do so.
    (But Navalny doesn’t accuse Eshkin of forgery, or anything else.)

    Stas asserts confidently that Navalny/Gaidar were both in Crna Gora on November 6-7, 2007. He even shows a scan of Masha’s passport showing that she flew out of Domodedovo airport on 6-NOV-2007.
    [yalensis: note on previous page, her earlier trip to Cyprus, can’t read the date that well, looks like 20-July-2006? .. wonder what she was doing in Cyprus?]

    Stas does NOT assert that Navalny/Gaidar were back in Crna Gora 2 weeks later, on 20-Nov-2007.
    Possibly they were not. Eshkin was definitely there, and it possible/likely that he signed off on all the final documents, on behalf of the entire team of the Three Mouseketeers. [After all, Navalny’s slogan is “All for one and one for all”, so I guess that makes it okay.]

    Apetian goes on to polemicize some other points in Navalny’s tirade, but I will leave it at that.
    Except to speculate why Navalny is raking this up again, when mayoral race is over, and it no longer matters any more.

    Three possible theories:
    (1) Navalny has been in a rage and wants to settle scores with Politrash; or
    (2) Navalny is still using the Crna Gora shell company to launder money, and he is nervous this will be investigated, unless he launches a preemptive attack; OR
    (3) Navalny has been getting it from his wife, ever since Julia discovered that he and Masha Gaidar went on vacation together to Crna Gora. He is trying to prove to his wife that the whole thing is just a big Kremlin lie. (Some men will do anything and go to any lengths to get their wives off the trail of an illicit affair.)

    Final Conclusion
    Using Aspbergian binary logic there are only 2 possible conclusions to make from all this:
    (1) The Crna Gora government is in collusion with the Kremlin. They conspired along with other Kremlin stooges such as Kostin and Apetian, to forge Navalny/Gaidar signatures on real estate documents, in order to force Navalny out of the Mayor race. OR:
    (2) Navalny/Gaidar own some prime beach property on the Adriatic Sea!

    • Dear Yalensis,

      You are quite right about Navalny, this does seem very strange, even inexplicable, behaviour. As you absolutely rightly say, surely it makes more sense from Navalny’s point of view to let this particular sleeping dog lie? Everybody had forgotten about the Montenegro company so why draw attention to it? This would be so even if what Navalny says about this whole business turns out to be completely true. All he would come across as in that case would be as someone who is paranoid and obsessive and self obsessed about something no one else cares about. In saying this I should say that based on what I have seen and what Volkov has said that I don’t think it very likely that Navalny’s story will stack up in which case what he is doing is even odder.

      I wonder whether the stress of the Court case with the imminent hearing on 9th October 2013 is starting to take its toll and is causing Navalny to lash out in all directions? One person who will presumably feel very embarrassed about all this is Volkov. In effect what Navalny is saying contradicts what Volkov said. Could the two have fallen out? Could this be Navalny’s very odd way of hitting back at Volkov? A very farfetched theory I admit but it does all look very odd and no explanation I can think of makes sense to me.

      • yalensis says:

        Dear Alexander: Yes, this IS very odd.
        During the mayoral campaign, both sides were flying thick and fast with the muckraking. Navalny raked muck about Sobanin and the expensive flats he had bought for his daughters. Apetian, in turn, scored a big propaganda coup with his expose about Navalnly owning foreign property in Montenegro.
        Now that the campaign is over, nobody cares any more that Sobanin is obscenely wealthy, or that Navalny owns foreign real estate.
        It is telling that the Montenegran expose touched some kind of nerve in Navalny which even something like KirovLes did not. (KirovLes is more serious, obviously, being a criminal case, but Navalny has defended himself, and treated it more like business as usual. Whereas the Montenegro expose caused him to literally flip out.)

        I like your theory that this issue caused a rift between Navalny and Volkov. In the middle of the mayor campaign, when Stas nailed Navalny on Montenegro, Navalny immediately lashed out with a paranoid flurry of accusations about lies, forgeries, conspiracies. Volkov initially went along with Navalny’s hysteria; however, as soon as he realized (from the Forbes piece and others) that the MRD company really did exist, he had to backtrack.
        Here is Volkov’s partial retraction/spin, which he posted on August 22. Volkov had to admit that, yes, the company does exist in the Montenegran registry, and he called on everybody to avoid hysterics. Volkov’s spin was that Navalny/Gaidar intended to set up a company, but nothing happened with it, and they simply forgot all about it. No big deal. Move along, folks, nothin’ here to see…
        Later, after the campaign had ended, Volkov, in his post-mortem, mentioned his own initial reaction to this as one of his key mistakes as director of Navalny’s campaign.

        Everybody was prepared to just leave it at that. But then Navalny explodes on his blog, raking over old wounds and making Volkov look like a patsy. Maybe Navalny even feels like Volkov betrayed HIM, because he (Volkov) didn’t want to play along with Navalny’s paranoia, and instead adopted a sensible approach? Who knows?

        I personally like my own theory, and it goes something like this:
        When the Crna Gora expose came out in August, Navalny’s wife came running to him in a fury: “Why am I reading in the blogosphere that you ran off with Masha Gaidar in November 2007 to Crna Gora? You lied to me, Lecha, you told me you were meeting somewhere with Nikita Belykh! Now I come to find out that you invested in real estate with Masha, and you’re trying to hide money from me and your children. You lying, two-timing bastard!”

        “It’s not true, Julichka! I was never in Crna Gora. It’s a Kremlin lie! The FSB forged my signature, then Putin ordered the Montenegran clerk to insert fake documents in their tax records. You gotta believe me, honey! Would I ever lie to you?”

  14. Misha says:

    A recent McCain related news item, which brings to mind his initial misunderstanding of Pravda’s post-Soviet influence among other misguided claims that he has made:

    • kirill says:

      I have seen the tabloid Pravda that has nothing to do with the original invoked as an influential mainstream paper in Russia up and down the internet since the 1990s. Every Tom, Dick and Harry who has no clue about Russia just pulls this “fact” out of their ass. This exposes the thought process amongst many people. Their knowledge consists of a few tropes and lots of filled-in “facts”. I can’t understand this sort of mentality. It is completely antithetical to the scientific process.

  15. Moscow Exile says:

    Here’s a translation of the full letter written by Khasis to KP:

    I met Nadezhda about a year ago when she arrived at the colony to serve the sentence handed down to her by the court. Despite the differences between our ideological views, I wanted to become acquainted, and there were reasons for my doing so. Firstly, it is difficult to find a person here who is familiar with the socio-political conditions of our society, and even more so with its features in terms of “sovereign democracy”. I have long been isolated from this activity, and it was interesting to hear the news, to hear an opinion, including the opinion of someone with left-liberal views. Secondly, it was interesting to delve into the specifics and methods of the opposition struggle. It was interesting to hear the motives and the goals of the so-called punk prayer that had rocked the entire country. But not only did I have questions to put to her: I for my part was not against her satisfying her curiosity about me, believing that she and her sympathizers had every right to do so.

    Living in different prison sections, we used to meet in the convict recreation areas – in the library or in the convicts’ “club”. I invited her into the temple with the rights of an assistant bell-ringer. I shan’t forget how our conversation followed the regular channel of intelligent small talk and debate. In those matters where we could not reach agreement, we agreed on our own default position, each remaining convinced of her point of view. Knowing of the women prisoners’ attitude towards her through the way they gossiped and gossiped about her, and after reading the news reports, where there were details of that moment that had moved her away from perverted pornographic “events” and had turned her into a “star” because of a “punk prayer” in the Christ the Saviour Cathedral, I asked Nadia in a comradely fashion whether she had had conflicts within her prison team. I was truly worried that the public hostility and condemnation of her would spill over into the prison colony and that there would be tension between her and the prisoners. However, Nadezhda assured me that she was doing well, that there was no conflict and that she felt that there were was nothing negative in the way she was being treated by any of the prisoners or by the administration.

    After her parole judgment, Nadia suddenly began making claims that her rights were being violated, that the administration was prejudiced towards her, that the prison regulations were poorly observed and so on. She defended her actions by saying that she considered it right and proper to use her incarceration as a means of discrediting the government, that the role of the opposition dictated that she should adopt such behaviour and that the more any dispute or information concerning the establishment was blown up out of proportion, which establishment is part of the overall state system, then the faster we should be able to shake the foundations of the existing power structure and overthrow the incumbent president. My views are no less at odds with hers: I do not like the state very much, but the way I see changes in the reform of the political system is that they should lead to the establishment and strengthening of democratic institutions and mechanisms. I do not share her opinion as regards subversive activities and those aimed at the undermining, disruption and destruction of the existing mechanisms for carrying out the operation of our state. I do not want revolutions, victims and the collapse of the country. I can see how destroying, not reforming, might result in the burial beneath the ruins of the state of thousands of people, citizens, the people – our people, the nation, the country that I love.

    Nadia said she needed an uprising, and I believe that the consequences of a “rebellion for the sake of someone’s public relations and for another political provocation” cannot be justified or allowed. The prisoners who may be affected by these actions are real people: they are not Internet accounts; they are not fantasies made up by dreamer bloggers: waiting for them are their elderly mothers, their young children, parents and friends. They want to go home; they want to quietly serve their sentences in normal conditions, but not in terms of endless inspections, provocation and blown up scandals that lead to nothing. These are ordinary women; they do not want to be part of the opposition movement and porn art. That is their right. It is unacceptable calling upon them to do so or, even worse, forcing them to do this by means of provocations, statements, complaints, and threats to prosecute on trumped up charges. It is a political game, and as a result each will inevitably be taken as personally responsible. At that time we were unable to agree. Nadia stood her ground: “The worse the better”; I spit on the victim; I spit at the truth; the end justifies the means: a change of political power. We stopped talking to each other.

    And here is the latest way in which Nadia has stepped out of line: she made-up charges concerning threats to her life, ostensibly from other prisoners. What for? In order to prolong her finest hour in the media? I have no reason for supporting the colony administration: I am a convicted person who has repeatedly banged her fist on the administrative tables. I have been an offender against the prison regime, sitting in solitary confinement; I am a freedom-loving nationalist and a stubborn person of a type that nobody has ever seen here before. I have my own opinion and my own position, which I have a right to have – no less than Tolokonnikova has. That now works on Nadia mostly as though it were a mockery of the way she imagines human rights. She imagines herself as a saviour and defender of the rights of convicts. So Nadia launched her attack: salvation through public relations that nobody had asked for.

    If the Internet is now full of the myth that we have here a Gulag in which humans are sacrificed and against which Nadia has rebelled (Oh, how clever of her! Oh, how brave!), the reality is that Nadia is securely accommodated in a separate room with a heater, a fridge, a TV, a radio and other amenities; Nadia does not care what’s going on behind the door of her “suites” with the rest of the prisoners that have not attracted the attention of the world media. Nadia accuses people that refute her words about the threats and who did not, together with the administration, approve of her words; Nadia has written about 10 persons amongst the convicts alone who have allegedly been threatening her with murder, slaughter, and physical punishment in the event of non-compliance with the administrative demands. She wrote a statement about people whom others are waiting for back home; she wrote about people who, myself included, face at best disciplinary action. A price is going to paid for your public relations, Nadia. That’s the way things are done in Russia.

    • marknesop says:

      That sounds like somebody who paid attention in school, instead of daydreaming like Tolokonnikova. I have to say I was impressed, accessory to double murder though she is. She’s a compelling writer, and while it would be silly to speak of her as an opposition figure while she is in jail – deservedly so, if the court was correct in interpreting the evidence and awarding punishment – she makes a lot more sense than the crop of oppositionists who are free. Not a zealot, I guess is what I mean – that’s probably the biggest thing that puts me off the existing opposition; their missionary zeal and wild-eyed exaggeration, as if they were living under the worst conditions imaginable and the time to break free was so short that none remained for consideration. You must simply take their word, and act. I can’t think of too many such actions that ever came out well.

      • Misha says:

        It also sounds like someone who is more prone to ethically doing the right thing (at least in some instances) than some others who get greater attention for playing up to a certain influential audience.

    • Jen says:

      Reminds me also of some heavy metal musicians in Norway who used to set alight churches in the 1990s: these guys had read their Nietzsche too literally and absorbed the anti-Christian “will to power” / “might is right” rebel messages uncritically. After spending time in jail and being harassed by police even after leaving jail, some (but not all) of these musicians, now in their late 30s / early 40s, regret the church burnings.

      One very historic church, the 800-year-old Fantoft stave church in Bergen, was completely burnt to the ground in 1992 by people in Norway’s black metal scene. The church was rebuilt by 1996.

      Khasis may also come to regret her actions as an ultra-nationalist and for inciting Tikhonov to murder.

  16. Moscow Exile says:

    When they tried to draft Pete the Pedo.

    If she’s not crazy…

  17. says:

    Have you ever thought about writing an ebook or guest authoring on other websites?
    I have a blog centered on the same subjects you discuss and would really
    like to have you share some stories/information.
    I know my subscribers would appreciate your work. If you’re even remotely
    interested, feel free to shoot me an email.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s