The US Intelligence Community has reached a consensus that the February death of Russian nationalist Alexei Navalny in an Arctic penal colony was not the result of a direct order from Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The assessment doesn’t dispute Putin’s culpability for Navalny’s death, but rather finds he probably didn’t order it at that moment. The finding is broadly accepted within the intelligence community and shared by several agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the State Department’s intelligence unit, the people said.
BACKGROUND:
Alexei Navalny, Martyr for Russian Democracy, Dies in Prison Aged 47
Alexei Navalny’s Death in a Prison Camp Was a Message From Putin to the World and to Russia
Russian Authorities Tell Alexei Navalny’s Mother That He Died From ‘Sudden Death Syndrome’
This view goes against Biden’s February 16, 2024, statement clearly stating that Putin was responsible for Navalny’s death.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=live
Navalny’s death caused new sanctions against the Russian economy and government officials. It allegedly derailed negotiations to free US prisoners who were not WNBA players with a thing for marijuana. I say allegedly because I’ve yet to see any evidence that the Biden White House cares about US prisoners abroad whose release will not affect some leftist identity group or demographic.
RELATED: Biden Announces 500 New Sanctions Against Russia, Makes Ridiculous Comments About Ukraine
Many European intelligence services and governments are calling bullsh**.
Some European intelligence agencies have been told of the U.S. view. Certain countries remain skeptical that Putin wouldn’t have had a direct hand in Navalny’s death, according to security officials from several European capitals. In a system as tightly controlled as Putin’s Russia, it is doubtful that harm could have come to Navalny without the president’s prior awareness, those European officials said.
…
Navalny’s allies insist that his death was orchestrated by the Kremlin. In a statement, Leonid Volkov, a longtime Navalny ally, rejected the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment as naive.
Those who assert that Putin wasn’t aware “clearly do not understand anything about how modern day Russia runs,” he said. “The idea of Putin being not informed and not approving killing Navalny is ridiculous.”
Slawomir Dębski, director of the Polish Institute of International Affairs, a Warsaw think tank close to Poland’s presidency, cast doubt on the U.S. intelligence community’s assessment. “Navalny was a high-value prisoner, politically, and everybody knew that Putin was personally invested in his fate. The chances for this kind of unintended death are low,” he said.
Allegedly, “The U.S. assessment is based on a range of information, including some classified intelligence, and an analysis of public facts, including the timing of his death and how it overshadowed Putin’s re-election, some of the people said.”
One of the primary data points was the presumption that Putin was afraid that Navalny’s murder might overshadow the hotly contested March 17 Russian elections.
RELATED: BREAKING: Vladimir Putin Wins a Fifth Term As Russia’s President
I don’t see why anyone would take this analysis as credible. Had Putin wanted Navalny to remain alive, he would still be alive. If Putin wanted him alive until after the election, Navalny would have lived to see Putin cruise to re-election in the best Chicago style. Navalny was sentenced to hard labor at one of the most brutal Russian prison colonies for a reason. Even if Putin didn’t pick up the phone and give the order to kill Navalny, he’d sent a very clear message that Navalny was not to come out of prison alive. You’ll note that all of Putin’s talk about his plans for a prisoner swap involving Navalny happened after Navalny was safely dead.
In 1170, English King Henry II had had it up to here with the legal guerilla war fought by some Catholic prelates to defend the historical rights of the Church against Royal prerogatives. The primary leader of the resistance was Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas à Becket.
In a fit of rage, Henry II said, “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?”
Four Norman knights—Reginald FitzUrse, Hugh de Morville, William de Tracy, and Richard le Breton—heard Henry’s complaint and decided to act. They cornered Becket in Canterbury Cathedral and hacked him to death.
No one accuses Henry II of ordering the death of Thomas à Becket, but by the same token, no one doubts that the knights who did the killing were acting according to Henry’s wishes.
So what would inspire the IC to burn more of its already shredded and feces-stained credibility to promote a story that is, at worst, an outright lie and, at best, a disingenuous parsing of the word “order?”
My guess would be that Jake Sullivan has hatched some sort of midwit plan that will only work if Putin’s complicity in Navalny’s murder can be whitewashed into a misunderstanding. The erasure of the murder would allow Biden and Putin to meet face-to-face. By determining that rogue actors killed Navalny without official sanction, it could, conceivably, permit the removal of some of the sanctions imposed after Navalny’s death. The IC, as always, stands ready to do whatever it takes to please its Democrat masters, national security, and the Constitution be damned.
