Click to see the full-size image
The upcoming Russian presidential election once again seems like an empty formality, as Vladimir Putin is the undisputed leader of the Russian state. All major Russian political parties either support Putin (such as Just Russia – Patriots – For Truth!) and are not running candidates, or are running individuals whose policies are in line with those of the Kremlin.
Pro-Western forces put up Boris Nadezhdin as a candidate, and he has been actively promoted in both the Russian and Western opposition media. Despite the financial and informational resources spent at the initial stage, Nadezhdin was unable to submit the required number of voter signatures to the CEC. It was discovered that 15% of the collected signatures were of dead or imaginary citizens.
Given the failure to successfully promote an opposition candidate, the Western forces resorted to their backup plan – sabotaging the elections. The trigger had been Navalny’s death. The world media recalled Biden’s words that Russia would face serious consequences if Alexei died in custody, no doubt said to prepare the American public for the second option of discrediting Putin’s forthcoming success in the presidential election. The death of the politician excited little interest, however. Alexei’s funeral was attended by about 2,000 people, most of whom were journalists and law enforcement officers. Other commemorative events failed to attract significant numbers of people. The West has realized that the Russian people have lost what little interest they ever had in Navalny’s project, and his death is more beneficial not to Putin, who is called a murderer, but precisely to those ‘democratic’ governments under Washington’s thumb.
After the final failure of Alexei Navalny’s project, the West needed to introduce a new opponent of the Putin government into the political arena. According to time-honoured practice, there is no better candidate than Alexei’s wife, Yulia Navalnaya. However, this tactic is losing its effectiveness. After the exhaustion of her husband’s political usefulness, Michelle Obama was considered as a possible Democratic presidential candidate, and Svetlana Tikhanovskaya became the personification of the Belarusian struggle against Alexander Lukashenko. Yet these projects failed, as politician’s wives are increasingly regarded as intent on self-enrichment rather than the public interest.
The situation with Alexei’s wife, Yulia Navalny, is developing along similar lines. Once again, the West is using a deliberately failed method to try to foment dissent. Has it no-one better to take the lead in the political struggle? Alexei’s wife is a poor fit for Marianne, the personification of the Great French Revolution of 1789.
On March 8, Yulia Navalnaya made a public statement describing her grief for the loss of her husband, and requested that all Russian citizens protest against the Putin government by voting en masse at midday on March 17, to overwhelm the polling stations. She called this action “Noon against Putin.” Yet, during her husband’s imprisonment, Navalnaya is known to have had affairs with at least two men – Hristo Grozev and Yevgeny Chichvarkin – and it is entirely possible that there were others.
Hristo Grozev, Yulia Navalnaya and Alexei Navalny
Yevgeny Chichvarkin, Yulia Navalnaya
The action is clearly designed to sabotage the election, which pro-Western forces consider to be illegitimate, by uniting all the opposition forces in Russia. However, it is obvious that this event cannot succeed. Those who will support it will be automatically identified and subject to control measures by Russian special services.
There are several theories about the real circumstances and purposes of the action. The first is that Yulia Navalnaya is too unsophisticated to grasp that her Western handlers are sacrificing her in an ultimately futile attempt to disrupt the elections in Russia.
Another theory is that Yulia is actually working for both sides, receiving funding from both the White House and the Kremlin. Alexei Navalny himself had raised doubts about his absolute loyalty to Western democracies and had at times looked like a “creation” of the Kremlin. Some therefore believe that Yulia Navalnaya, after the death of her husband, is repeating the same patterns.
The third theory is her possible complicity in terrorist activities. The U.S. and British embassies announced the imminent threat of terrorist attacks in Russia just ahead of the presidential election. It may not be a coincidence that Yulia Navalnaya is urging everyone to gather at polling stations, creating crowds of vulnerable people. Her actions could be construed as creating the conditions to increase the number of potential terrorist victims.
Attempts by the Western-controlled Kiev regime to sabotage the upcoming presidential election are also manifested in an increase in the number of subversive actions on the border territory of the Russian Federation. A new wave of drone strikes and a failed attempt to invade Russia’s border regions on March 12 were accompanied by a large-scale media campaign about alleged victories won and attempts to boycott the vote by threatening civilians. Russian troops’ pinpoint strikes destroyed more than 100 Ukrainian soldiers, six tanks, a Caesar SAU, 20 armored combat vehicles and a stronghold.
Regardless of whether the Western intelligence services successfully organize subversive actions, including those possible attacks on the Crimean Bridge discussed by German intelligence officers, or whether everything will soon calm down, we can clearly see that the actions of the collective West are aimed more at creating chaos and disruption, rather than succeeding in their stated aims of undermining the primacy of the Russian government, of which they have little hope.
