https://meduza.io/en/news/2026/04/16/report-fsb-unit-linked-...
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2026/04/15/russian-websites-b...
https://theins.press/en/inv/290235 - Lost in translation: How Russia’s new elite hit squad was compromised by an idiotic lapse in tradecraft https://theins.press/en/inv/287837 - The mob’s humanitarian backdoor: Ramzan Kadyrov’s mafia connections reach deep into German critical infrastructure
Funny thing is, if 1999 went differently Lukashenka actually had a shot at being in the Kremlin today.
Navalnyj had very low popularity at home. He was mostly a made up hero for the western audience.
Ordinary russians not only gave no-f-f about Navalnyj but considered him a traitor or a trojan horse.
If this quote is genuine, as opposed to wistful, it suggests Navalny's evaluation of Russia was that Putin couldn't, in fact, do whatever he wanted there. As best I can tell, such an evaluation would have been pretty damn close to completely inaccurate.
The choice to return to Russia as a catastrophically-failed gamble based on that premise is what makes the most sense to me.
Imagine if all countries would put their energy into building peace and prosperity. That would make a difference.
No, Russia isn't the only one, but _is_ a cause of a lot of suffering and resources wasted.
Also, equating conflicts is a very shallow and inadequate manipulation tool. For example, russians razed dozens of cities in Ukraine, establish torture and rape chambers, use rape, torture, execution of POW as policy today.
"all wars are bad" doesn't mean that whatever russia does is way worse.
Imagine if all Americans put their energy into making world a better place, instead of killing their neighbours, raping, stealing and corrupting. Sad.
Here is what I mean:
Suppose that two men are born, with identical brains, but very different bodies. Both of them have a single desire: to be the fastest sprinter in the world.
Man A)
- Predominantly fast-twitch muscle fiber composition
- Possesses ACTN3 RX genotype [0]
- Testosterone, Growth Hormone, IGF-1 levels at the very upper end of reference range
Man B)
- Predominantly slow-twitch muscle fiber composition
- Possesses ACTN3 XX genotype
- Clinically deficient values of Testosterone, Growth Hormone, IGF-1. Prone to musculoskeletal injuries, possibly connective tissue disorders.
If these two men live an identical life, and put the same amount of effort into training, the second man still has no hope of making it to the Olympics.
Even doping would only be able to correct for hormonal deficiencies, not the genome-level disadvantages for power performance compared to the other athlete.
A truly "fair" sport would pit competitors against each other who had near-identical genetic and physical traits.
The Olympics is just watching the people who won genetic lotteries.
That's what the Olympics is. The men's 100m final pits against each other the fastest 8 men who are in their physical prime, full of fast twitch muscles, with West African descent. With some minor noise.
If you want to watch people from other genotype buckets run 10-50% slower, you can watch the women's event or the Paralympics or, like, the All-Vietnam U-16 event. It seems churlish to complain that not every bucket is on TV at a convenient time for you.
Genetics are necessary to a point, and are not at all sufficient.
Any follower of a sport knows of athletes with incredible genetic blessings who accomplish little or nothing because they lack the hard work, discipline, focus, skill, emotional management, teamwork, etc. to succeed. And that sample omits far more athletes whose non-genetic limitations caused them to drop out or fail out before making it to the level where public is aware of them.
At the same time, the GOATs (greatest of all time) in many sports were not particularly blessed genetically, relative to other top atheletes:
* Football / soccer: Lionel Messi: 5'7", ~160 lbs., and had growth hormone deficiency [0], and is small, and not particularly fast or strong. "Messi’s “software” is what often gives him a head-start on those who physically should have the better of him." If you're interested, this article describes it in some detail: [1]
* American football: Tom Brady was notoriously unathletic, setting records for poor performance in the NFL's scouting 'combine' where draft prospects are compared in standardized tests. Also didn't have a strong throwing arm.
* Basketball is an exception: Michael Jordan was supremely athletic.
* Baseball: Babe Ruth was overweight, not known to be particularly fast or athletic, and played a position for relatively poor athletes who could hit: right field (gets the fewest plays, usually doesn't require more than running to a spot and throwing).
* Hockey: Wayne Gretzky was relatively small, not very fast, didn't have a hard shot.
* Tennis? Boxing? Cricket? Rugby?
These people are far more athletic than ordinary people, of course; I'm comparing them to other professionals in their sports.
[0] Wikipedia
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/4008225/2022/12/16/lionel-m...
In general, the statement “if they got a medal, they cheated” is true so much of the time that it becomes a sensible default assumption. And it sucks for the few that didn’t cheat.
> The Olympics is just watching the people who won genetic lotteries.
So? The olympic games should be the pinnacle of human performance (fed by their nation's interests). Of course it is lotteries all the way from the genetics, to what country you're born in, right to the national lottery putting money in to sports.
Your alternatives are either a proliferation of categories or random people assembling every four years to roll dice to determine the winner. Neither is exciting.
Hard pass.
Current idea of sports is that athletes wreck themselves for mere performance value (and money to the people who set it up, with a bit trickling down to athletes for enabling it all). As far as I understand, nothing they directly do is otherwise reusable to anyone else.
I’d rather watch a live commercial for human enhancement industries. At least that’s something that eventually becomes available to everyone.
> What's the point of this post?
To me the decision to take PED's doesn't feel different than being an alcoholic or having an abortion.
I wouldn't recommend anyone become an alcoholic, but it's their life and people ought to have the freedom of choice.
I think that unfortunately for him, his support inside Russia was probably never high enough to seriously challenge the existing leadership.
Don't think noble causes. Think money, blackmail. When thinking of timing of his death think of what else was going on in the west at that time. Think Tucker/Putin interview.
Minsk agreement was supposed to solve it peacefully. Alas, the intention of the agreement was to build-up ukraine's army for war with russia.
War was in the cards already really. Still is - all out europe vs russia war.
>Parliament votes 328-0 to impeach Yanukovych on Feb. 22; sets May 25 for new election
funny sort of coup.
..whose forces killed unarmed protestors, and who abandoned the country (after the forces under his chain of command killed protestors, so he can mostly thank himself and his goons for "fearing for his life", don't try that "argument" on me). After years of straying Ukraine away from democracy, after democratically elected parliament decided "enough is enough" and even broke ranks to oust him, you dare to speak about democracy?
Some people "disagreed"? They took up arms. Terrorists. I would say the same about the Euromaidan protestors who killed the police, had the police not killed first. Again pro-russians are the ones to escalate violence.
I already said what Minsk "agreement" is. A capitulation to Russia, not a just solution. Of course Ukraine would arm itself to reclaim its borders from the aggressor. You also missed a keyword here: _defensive_ war against Russia.
Once there is blood spilled - full force ahead, no turning back.
Btw, you are forgetting that Ukranian police was torched by the protesters using molotov cocktails.
And that's weapons. According to your logic Police had the right to shoot, but they didn't.
They didn't because Yanukovich ordered not to shoot at the protesters.
You really need to do some reading pal.
Or try attacking police assuming you are in a USA - that will teach you a lesson about what happens in a real democracy when police is attacked. And I fully support such a response.
18–21 February 2014 - Maidan coup - ended with Yanukovich fleeing.
>A popular uprising is not typically considered a coup. An uprising is a broad, public, and often spontaneous mass movement aimed at social or political change, while a coup (coup d'état) is a rapid seizure of power by a small, elite group, such as the military or political insiders.