The best laid plans of Malofeyev and Moscow
February 24, 2015 11:07 AM   Subscribe

Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta: The document we're publishing is interesting in that, in the early stages of the Ukrainian political crisis — that is, before Yanukovych's escape from Kyiv and the "Bandera junta" coming to power — it perscribes detailed, step-by-step justifications, as well as political and PR logistics, for the intervention by Russia in Ukrainian affairs and the tearing of Crimea and the eastern regions from Ukraine. [Google translated] Although the actual course of the Ukrainian drama made some adjustments, there is overall a strikingly high degree of coincidence between this project and the subsequent actions of the Russian authorities.

Yesterday, Dmitry Muratov, editor-in-chief of independent investigative Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta  told a local radio station he had obtained a strategy paper that purportedly shows Moscow began plotting an incursion in Ukraine sometime between February 4 and 15, 2014, before the collapse of the Ukrainian government and the ouster of former President Viktor Yanukovych (on February 22).

Today Novaya Gazeta has released the document:
• Original Russian Novaya Gazeta article.
• English translation of the document in question.

Novaya Gazeta Political Editor Andrei Lipsky highlighted the following key points about the document:
  1. It was created before the escape of then-president Yanukovych; before the "coup d'etat" that Moscow described as it's main justification for its subsequent actions.
  2. It contains a pejorative assessment of Yanukovych.
  3. The assessment is pragmatic - even cynical - in style. It has no "spiritual-historical" justification for Russian interference in Ukraine. No arguments about the "New Russia", or the protection of the Russian-speaking, the "Russian world" and the upcoming "Russian Spring". Only geopolitics and cold expediency.
  4. The authors believe that using EU Border Regions legal instruments, Ukrainian regions with "stable pro-Russian sympathies" can be drawn to direct state-contract relationship. And then - a "legitimate" referendum on self-determination.
  5. It contains a number of gross distortions of reality that are needed to show that Russian actions are "reactive" and forced. All these arguments subsequently actively used by Russian propaganda.
  6. It also contains many geopolitical and economic arguments to convince of the need for immediate intervention in Ukraine and thus strengthening the Russian position not only in Ukraine, but also in Central and Eastern Europe: maintain control over the gas transmission networks that pass through Ukraine; use the military-industrial complex in eastern Ukraine for the faster rearmament of Russia; replace the "Central Asian" flow of migrants with "Slavic" "Western" migrants.
More background details on the possible origins and authors of the document. [The Interpreter]
posted by Kabanos (68 comments total) 15 users marked this as a favorite
 
Direct and indirect quotes in the above FPP are translated to the best of my (and Google's) abilities, with liberties taken for the sake of clarity and brevity. If anything is grossly misrepresented I welcome corrections and Russian language lessons in the comments!
posted by Kabanos at 11:09 AM on February 24, 2015


What's happening in Ukraine is a naked land grab. That said, don't believe for a second that the U.S. doesn't have one of these for Canada, or the UK for Ireland, or Oz for various South Pacific island states. They may not be as detailed or up-to-date, but they exist.
posted by infinitewindow at 11:43 AM on February 24, 2015


What's happening in Ukraine is a naked land grab. That said, don't believe for a second that the U.S. doesn't have one of these for Canada, or the UK for Ireland, or Oz for various South Pacific island states. They may not be as detailed or up-to-date, but they exist.

Rainbow Plans
posted by BungaDunga at 11:46 AM on February 24, 2015


Extremely important is that the “world community” would have as little reason to doubt the legitimacy and fairness of the referendum."

I applaud their strangely touching reverence for sham democracy.
posted by Damienmce at 11:58 AM on February 24, 2015 [2 favorites]


The paper seems an exercise of Kissingerian "realpolitikal" intelligence analysis. It was evident that Yanukovich was a walking dead man when it was written , and the analysis is an exercise in "what next?" speculation. Highly informed speculation to be sure, but speculation nonetheless.

The severing of the Donbass and the Crimean Peninsula from "Mother Russia" is and will remain the source of overwhelming irredentism for both Russia and Ukraine. Unless some effective modus vivendi can be derived, the centrifugal forces will continue to pull eastern Ukraine back into the Russian orbit--a development that is entirely consistent with Russian national self-interest, and not merely Putin's pipe dream. Even though Ukrainian "national greatness conservatives" (and their Western adjutors) will mourn for the lost Crimea, it is clear that the Ukrainian government was powerless to exert control over the peninsula and lost it swiftly when revolutionary actions occurred. Given that Russia's Black Sea Fleet was headquartered there (along with some 25,000 Russian troops) it was unreasonable to expect that Russia would allow its naval capabilities to be degraded during an anarchic period, irrespective of any strategy memos.

On preview, I pose a couple of rhetorical questions: Is it a land grab for a nation state to seek the return of territory that was historically organic to it but which was separated from it by a political exercise born of national weakness? Does it make any difference that the lands in question were the arena for the greatest land war in human history, and that their recovery cost millions of lives of that nation's citizens?
posted by rdone at 12:11 PM on February 24, 2015 [2 favorites]


Interesting, though utterly unsurprising if true, but how can we ever know? Malofeyev says it's fake and is threatening to sue (and of course it could perfectly well be fake; the Russian media, official and otherwise, is full of kompromat and other fakery). The government will doubtless say it's a fake if/when they get around to bothering to respond. The Yandex news page has nothing about it as far as I can see. As ever, it's hard to evaluate news from Russia.

I wouldn't trust Google Translate for anything sensitive; for instance, the Russian article says the document was занесен, for which the translation has "listed"; занести has all sorts of meanings, including 'note down, enter (in the minutes),' and presumably this is a specific legal/administrative use (cf. "tabled") that you'd have to have specialized knowledge to render correctly.

On preview: I guess this thread is just going to be another go-around on "Russia is awful!" "Yeah but realpolitik!" Oh well.
posted by languagehat at 12:17 PM on February 24, 2015 [6 favorites]


If Russia has the right to just take Crimea. Would Mexico be justified in "liberating" Southern California, New Mexico and Arizona? Mexican people are being oppressed there.
posted by Megafly at 12:22 PM on February 24, 2015 [2 favorites]


"Revolutionary actions" and "historically organic to it but which was separated from it by a political exercise born of national weakness"?

Yikes and yuck to both these statements, and the view that underlies them. I reject utterly the idea that Russia was merely "seeking the return of territory." And millions of lives were also lost in Ukraine to famine, which was deliberately caused by the Soviet government.
posted by feste at 12:26 PM on February 24, 2015 [4 favorites]


Is it a land grab for a nation state to seek the return of territory that was historically organic to it but which was separated from it by a political exercise born of national weakness?

revanchism is p. cool
posted by Sticherbeast at 12:31 PM on February 24, 2015 [2 favorites]


Is it a land grab for a nation state to seek the return of territory that was historically organic to it but which was separated from it by a political exercise born of national weakness?

Does it matter that said nation state's original annexation of said territory was a violation of the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca, or that said nation state did subject the indigenous people of said territory to wave after wave of "ethnic cleansing" over the next 200 years, or that said indigenous people have been able to return to said territory since it was separated from said nation state "by a political exercise born of national weakness," or that said indigenous population are now once again being subjected to forced migration by said nation state?

Does "national weakness" mean "not genociding hard enough"?
posted by Sys Rq at 12:37 PM on February 24, 2015 [8 favorites]


On preview: I guess this thread is just going to be another go-around on "Russia is awful!" "Yeah but realpolitik!" Oh well.

When a country feels its interests are best served by fostering and maintaining a civil war right next door, one can objectively say that the country is awful. Either the leadership is awful to think this way, or things really are so awful that said civil war might improve things.
posted by ocschwar at 12:45 PM on February 24, 2015 [6 favorites]


I'm just struck that Новая газета had the courage to publish this. Wikipedia notes "ix Novaya Gazeta journalists, including Yury Shchekochikhin, Anna Politkovskaya and Anastasia Baburova, have been murdered since 2001, in connection with their investigations".
posted by Nelson at 1:10 PM on February 24, 2015 [3 favorites]




Is it a land grab for a nation state to seek the return of territory that was historically organic to it but which was separated from it by a political exercise born of national weakness?

Oh, hey, here's another rhetorical question: what's the statute of limitations on bloodthirsty former empires trying to reclaim their former territories by committing untold numbers of war crimes? Because Sudetenland was quite historically organic to a certain nation state.
posted by Behemoth at 1:39 PM on February 24, 2015 [2 favorites]


Perhaps Russia should return Ostpreußen while we're at it. I mean Königsberg is clearly a German name.
posted by Nelson at 1:51 PM on February 24, 2015 [1 favorite]


We need to find some people descended from the Etruscans and give them chuncks of Italy.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 2:02 PM on February 24, 2015 [4 favorites]


yo
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 2:07 PM on February 24, 2015 [28 favorites]


> When a country feels its interests are best served by fostering and maintaining a civil war right next door, one can objectively say that the country is awful. Either the leadership is awful to think this way, or things really are so awful that said civil war might improve things.

Yes, of course, but what is gained by saying the same things over and over in every thread on the subject? I thought this particular document and the circumstances surrounding it were reasonably interesting in their own right, but apparently the magnetic pull of repeating the obvious is irresistible. (Not a knock on any particular commenter in this thread, but this is why I get discouraged by the supposedly fresh, intelligent commentary we tout here on the Blue.)
posted by languagehat at 2:20 PM on February 24, 2015 [1 favorite]


Roger that, languagehat.

I am sorry my rhetorical questions have simply generated heat. Here are a few more, to keep the Socratic dialogue going:

Is there *any* chance that an independent Ukraine can exist on its own, given the sanguinary history of an area justly dubbed "The Bloodlands?" After 24 years --its only period of nominal independence--the country has not exactly gotten its. . . act together. Why not?

Can NATO intervention improve matters? If so, why? If not, why not? Is it time for a war with Russia over its shabby treatment of the Crimean Tatars? (Not to mention its violation of the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca!)

Is it reasonable to expect that Ukraine will *not* be further partitioned? Even if Putin were to drop dead tomorrow, is there any reason to believe that Russian policies would be any different?

Is the legacy of the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union irrelevant to the present situation?

The conflict between Russia and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (in their various guises) has raged since the 15th Century. Is not the current unpleasantness in Luzhansk and environs merely the latest manifestation of this internecine conflict? Why not?
posted by rdone at 3:06 PM on February 24, 2015


Yes, of course, but what is gained by saying the same things over and over in every thread on the subject? I thought this particular document and the circumstances surrounding it were reasonably interesting in their own right, but apparently the magnetic pull of repeating the obvious is irresistible.

I am also frustrated by this, particularly since I do think there's a difference between (1) pointing out from a cynical, realpolitik, point of view it should be utterly unsurprising that Russia retained effective control over the Crimean peninsula and (2) Russia has a particular moral claim to Crimea. I, at least, would very much say the first and not the second.

Ukraine as a fully-independent state (and not one firmly under Russian imperial or Soviet control) has only since 1991. At no point in that time did it really possess unilteral control over Crimea; the peninsula always had a large Russian military presence and a Russian ethnic majority that was politically more loyal to Moscow that Kyiv. That ethnic majority existed in the Crimea since before it was annexed into Ukraine in 1954.

All of that means that Ukraine's control over Crimea was not well-established, ever.

Now I want to be clear I'm not making a moral stand here and saying that Russia deserves to control Crimea, but it effectively has for a very long time, and it shouldn't be surprising that it intended to maintain that control.
posted by thegears at 3:09 PM on February 24, 2015 [1 favorite]


So how long until the editorial staff of this Russian newspaper accidentally drink polonium tea by accident accidentally?
posted by Salvor Hardin at 3:13 PM on February 24, 2015


@DarthPutinKGB: "It's ironic they're going to call their TV channel 'Ukraine Tomorrow' as by tomorrow they'll be 'Russia Today'."

UK stuns Europe by sending (75) troops to Ukraine (for advice and training)
posted by Golden Eternity at 3:16 PM on February 24, 2015


Is there *any* chance that an independent Ukraine can exist on its own, given the sanguinary history of an area justly dubbed "The Bloodlands?"

Well sure, there's plenty of chance, but I do think exactly what the territorial extent of that would be is an interesting question.

After 24 years --its only period of nominal independence--the country has not exactly gotten its. . . act together. Why not?

I think it's untenable to hold an entire country responsible for its political elite's actions, and I don't know particularly what "gotten its act together" looks like to you. It strikes me that I might suggest that US has been around for going on 250 years and we haven't yet "gotten our act together" in some senses; we have the world's largest prison population, and it's disproportionately black, for instance.

I don't know exactly what kind of answer you're looking for, but I doubt a Metafilter comment is going to be able to answer an extremely complex historical question like that, let alone with your idiosyncratic normative framing. I don't say that to say it's a bad question, just...not one I think can be easily answered.

Is it reasonable to expect that Ukraine will *not* be further partitioned? Even if Putin were to drop dead tomorrow, is there any reason to believe that Russian policies would be any different?

Hard to say, but I don't see any evidence that a softer-line policy would emerge soon; Russians largely seem to support Putin's actions and positions.

Is the legacy of the Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union irrelevant to the present situation?

The conflict between Russia and the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (in their various guises) has raged since the 15th Century. Is not the current unpleasantness in Luzhansk and environs merely the latest manifestation of this internecine conflict? Why not?


I really don't know where you're going with those, they seem like reasonably unrelated, historically. What's the connection in your mind?
posted by thegears at 3:17 PM on February 24, 2015 [2 favorites]


Is there *any* chance that an independent Ukraine can exist on its own, given the sanguinary history of an area justly dubbed "The Bloodlands?" After 24 years --its only period of nominal independence--the country has not exactly gotten its. . . act together. Why not?

Because Russia can't mind its own fucking business.
posted by Sys Rq at 4:20 PM on February 24, 2015 [2 favorites]




So, I grew up listening to my grandfather more or less advance a "Russians - kill them" thesis. As a Finn, he fought in the Winter War (previously).

Of course, I wrote this off to obnoxious old man bigotry when he was alive, and I still do. No individual is summed up by the state under which he or she lives, and that's the kind of shit that fuels wars and killing.

That said, listening to his stories about the war, and how, as an 18-year-old sniper, he fought it, told me something that I carry around at a gut level about how Russia conducted its affairs as a state. As I got older and became interested in Russian history, some of that has been borne out by all the reading I've done about Soviet Russia, along with what's come next as far as the workings of its state institutions and rulers is concerned.

He was freaked out by Yeltsin. It's probably for the best he's not alive to see what Putin's done with the place. "Dude, you have NO idea..."
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 7:13 PM on February 24, 2015 [4 favorites]


Great story MC. With respects, Yeltsin freaked us all out towards the end.
posted by clavdivs at 7:29 PM on February 24, 2015 [1 favorite]


Although, you know, Finland doesn't actually exist.
posted by um at 7:37 PM on February 24, 2015 [4 favorites]


Yeltsin freaked us all out towards the end.

Hell, it could have been Andrei Sakharov running the country. This scenario still would have been his take on it.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 7:43 PM on February 24, 2015


"World maps are altered as it's a U.N conspiracy to keep people believing in Finland."

Kato Siko Takakumi.

"Hell, it could have been Andrei Sakharov running the country."

That was one plan.
posted by clavdivs at 8:02 PM on February 24, 2015 [1 favorite]


I had a coworker who did a Scandinavian vacation, and as he was looking up handy phrases to use, he asked me about Finnish because I have a Finnish last name. Which people think is Italian usually, but anyway.

He pointed at his screen: "How do you say this?"

"Yeah, well, I don't speak much Finnish, but I can sound it out because I grew up listening to it. It's not a Germanic language. You can see how Swedish and Norwegian kind of make sense?"

"Yeah."

"O.k., fuck all that because Finnish isn't related to anything else, except Estonian and some other Baltic languages, and kind of to Hungarian..."

"So, how do I say this?"

"Don't worry about it. Everyone you'll encounter in Finland is probably fluent in English."

"Oh, o.k."
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 8:17 PM on February 24, 2015 [2 favorites]


ANYWAY. Where I was going with all this Finnish stuff is Finlandization, and how that's what is being advocated (in some circles) for Ukraine.

So, based on the past track record of its bellicose neighbour, Finland's getting understandably worried.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 8:26 PM on February 24, 2015


Finnish isn't related to anything else, except Estonian...

Right.

...and some other Baltic languages...

Well, to some other nearby languages but not to the Baltic languages proper.

...and kind of to Hungarian...

Right.
posted by The Tensor at 8:50 PM on February 24, 2015 [2 favorites]


Right. Forgive my shorthand.

In the instance I was relating, I was Finnsplaining it to someone who wasn't much for linguistics.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 8:56 PM on February 24, 2015 [1 favorite]


That reminds me of Patrick Smith.
Finnslaininganahnahnang ting, MC.
posted by clavdivs at 9:06 PM on February 24, 2015


Oh, elaboration. 'Someone Else's Century.'
Not Finland but his intro tells a similar story.
posted by clavdivs at 9:10 PM on February 24, 2015


Oh, elaboration. 'Someone Elses Century.'

Ah. Now I'm less perplexed.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 9:19 PM on February 24, 2015


Here. At third reading, comparatively less similar yet all to familiar.
posted by clavdivs at 9:39 PM on February 24, 2015


Podcast: A Year That Changed Two Countries

Ukrainianist digest, Feb. 18-24 via @TheUkrainianist
Kirk Bennett, The American Interest: The Realist Case for Arming Ukraine. "What we can say for a fact is that Russia has been escalating the conflict anyway, and it is singularly illogical to posit that we can induce greater Russian restraint by withholding key weapons from the Ukrainians and thus making Russian escalation easier."
My guess is NATO will end up arming Ukraine, hoping to push Putin to agree to a real ceasefire.
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:10 PM on February 24, 2015


One lesson we should learn from Ukraine: never give up your nuclear weapons, because Russia would never had tried this had they still been around. As you know Bob, Ukraine gave them up in return for a guarantee of territorial integrity and now has ended up with neither.
posted by MartinWisse at 12:43 AM on February 25, 2015 [1 favorite]


I'm just struck that Новая газета had the courage to publish this. Wikipedia notes "ix Novaya Gazeta journalists, including Yury Shchekochikhin, Anna Politkovskaya and Anastasia Baburova, have been murdered since 2001, in connection with their investigations".

A widely held belief in Russia is that Novaya is used by the Kremlin (and the FSB) for controlled leaks. These can either target someone who's fallen from favor with the leadership, or, for instance, defuse a situation by replacing a piece of information with a less inconvenient version of the same information. In this case, this document could have been published to counter the Ukranian claims that Russia, and more specifically, Vladislav Surkov, was behind the deaths of dozens of people at the Maidan last year. What the leaked document accomplishes is that, first, it reinforces the claim that Russia had no active role in starting the violence in Ukraine, "proving" that while Russia did have certain plans, these were intended to be more or less peaceful. Secondly, the responsibility is placed, with next to no explanation, on someone not only outside the Kremlin walls but also under criminal investigation.
posted by daniel_charms at 12:46 AM on February 25, 2015 [9 favorites]


That reminds me of Patrick Smith.
Finnslaininganahnahnang ting, MC.
posted by clavdivs at 9:06 PM on February 24 [+] [!]


Oh, geez. I get it. Sorry - I wasn't referring to you - the "Finnsplaining" comment was in reference to my coworker, who couldn't have cared less about the roots of the language.

The Patrick Smith book looks really interesting.

I recently listened to this BBC radio documentary on the shootings in the Maidan (more of that report here as well, with a warning that the embedded video starts with footage of people being shot).

They track down one of the shooters, and what I came away from it with was that it's not entirely clear who was giving orders or orchestrating it. Which only leads to more conspiracy theorizing and muddies the waters. Which maybe what the Kremlin wants after all.

A widely held belief in Russia is that Novaya is used by the Kremlin (and the FSB) for controlled leaks. These can either target someone who's fallen from favor with the leadership, or, for instance, defuse a situation by replacing a piece of information with a less inconvenient version of the same information.

Interesting. Based on what's happened to some of their journalists, that's one hell of a dysfunctional relationship if that's the case.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 5:24 AM on February 25, 2015 [1 favorite]


> A widely held belief in Russia is that Novaya is used by the Kremlin (and the FSB) for controlled leaks. These can either target someone who's fallen from favor with the leadership, or, for instance, defuse a situation by replacing a piece of information with a less inconvenient version of the same information. In this case, this document could have been published to counter the Ukranian claims that Russia, and more specifically, Vladislav Surkov, was behind the deaths of dozens of people at the Maidan last year. What the leaked document accomplishes is that, first, it reinforces the claim that Russia had no active role in starting the violence in Ukraine, "proving" that while Russia did have certain plans, these were intended to be more or less peaceful. Secondly, the responsibility is placed, with next to no explanation, on someone not only outside the Kremlin walls but also under criminal investigation.

Now, that's the kind of informed comment I was hoping to find here! Thanks, daniel_charms, and I continue to love your username.
posted by languagehat at 7:08 AM on February 25, 2015


Putin’s Ukrainian Power Play
Russia’s latest threats to cut off natural gas supplies to Kiev are part and parcel of its growing push to force the West to back down in the battle for Ukraine.
posted by Golden Eternity at 7:11 AM on February 25, 2015


A widely held belief in Russia is that Novaya is used by the Kremlin (and the FSB) for controlled leaks.

It is interesting that this was just tweeted by analyst @yurybarmin, who seems very pro-Kremlin to me:

Russia's Insider Traders Know Putin's Plans

I'm not sure I see the motive for the Kremlin to promote a "we planned this beforehand" storyline. Maybe one reason is to counter claims by Strelkov and other hardliners in Russia: who have been saying it was they who are responsible for taking back Crimea and Donbass, dragging Putin along less willingly. I've heard chatter that the hardliners are actually upset over the lack of progress of the "rebels," and that internal power struggles may explain much of Putin's behavior. Could it be that the military and hardliners have had a red line that they would not allow Ukraine to be lost even if it meant a coup?
posted by Golden Eternity at 8:53 AM on February 25, 2015


@noclador:
Real quotes!
#Putin: "Kiev's gas cutoff in east #Ukraine smacks of genocide."
#Putin: "Gazprom cutting off gas to Ukraine is just business."
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:59 AM on February 25, 2015 [2 favorites]


Based on what's happened to some of their journalists, that's one hell of a dysfunctional relationship if that's the case.

It makes sense. A "controlled leak" is still, by all outward appearances, a leak. It does take guts for them to print it, even if they are being duped.
posted by Sys Rq at 10:18 AM on February 25, 2015


If you're interested, the latest Common Sense podcast from Dan Carlin was about Russia, and makes for interesting (and terrifying) listening.
posted by Acey at 11:03 AM on February 25, 2015 [1 favorite]




It does not take guts to print lies when you know they are lies.
Truth is another country.
posted by clavdivs at 9:42 PM on February 25, 2015




It does not take guts to print lies when you know they are lies.

But if you don't know they're lies, and you print them thinking they're true, with the belief that doing so could endanger your life, yes, that takes guts.

Bravery is a noble virtue, but it is very easily exploited.
posted by Sys Rq at 11:24 AM on February 26, 2015




Christo Grozev:
But the Kremlin leaking a highly compromising document to an opposition newspaper and throwing the blame on a God-loving, Church-sponsoring, Gift-of-the-Maggi-globe-trotting oligarch, who on top of all says Putin should be the new Tzar, doesn’t make any sense, does it? Or doesn’t it? Let’s break it down.
posted by Kabanos at 7:31 PM on February 26, 2015


"But if you don't know they're lies, and you print them thinking they're true, with the belief that doing so could endanger your life, yes, that takes guts."

I see your point. Perhaps the journalists should ascertain the truth then distinguish the truth from the lie, if they cannot and print it anyway, does it still make them journalists?
posted by clavdivs at 9:16 PM on February 26, 2015


Is Glenn Greenwald a journalist? Has he got confirmation on all that Snowden stuff?

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
posted by Sys Rq at 9:53 PM on February 26, 2015 [1 favorite]


Alastair Campbell: ‘Labour have a better story to tell, and it’s not being told’
"(Putin) told other leaders he was the only one in the room with a strategy, and that they were all tactical, adding: ‘You think your tactics will bring me to my knees, but you will be on your knees first.’"
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:11 AM on February 27, 2015


@rConflictNews: "BREAKING: Reports Russian opposition figure Boris Nemtsov has been killed after being shot 4 times in the chest."
posted by Golden Eternity at 1:42 PM on February 27, 2015


Crazy. From February 10, 2015 on sobesednik.ru:
Boris Nemtsov: I'm afraid that Putin will kill me.
posted by Kabanos at 2:04 PM on February 27, 2015


He was organizing an anti-Putin March and his last tweets were anti-Putin, anti-war.
posted by Golden Eternity at 2:08 PM on February 27, 2015




Russia opposition politician Boris Nemtsov shot dead.

This is disturbing.
posted by clavdivs at 2:42 PM on February 27, 2015




I defer sys. Touché.
:/
posted by clavdivs at 2:44 PM on February 27, 2015


Meduza.io (Riga-based news site, but run by independent Russian expat journalists who left Lenta.ru after oligarch interference) has a Live Feed going if you can read Russian… [Warning NSFW images]
posted by Kabanos at 2:57 PM on February 27, 2015


@RadioFreeTom: "One way you can tell Kremlin was involved in #Nemtsov murder? By the number of trolls that just showed up in my TL saying it wasn't."
posted by Golden Eternity at 3:06 PM on February 27, 2015




@brianwhelanhack: "Astonishing picture of #BorisNemtsov murder scene"
posted by Golden Eternity at 3:39 PM on February 27, 2015


« Older Chicago police detain Americans at abuse-laden...   |   I turn my back on you: black movie poster art Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments