Умер Алексей Навальный
lenta.ru
Осужденный Алексей Навальный умер в исправительной колонии. Об этом в пятницу, 16 февраля, «Ленте.ру» сообщили в пресс-службе УФСИН России. Навальный отбывал наказание в Ханты-Мансийском автономном округе в колонии поселка Харп, куда его перевезли из Владимирской области.

As reported exclusively by russian sources at the moment, he lost consciousness after a walking hour and prison medics were unsuccessful in reanimating him, as per sources in УФСИН (government body regulating prisons and punishment). He was 47 years old at that time. The last time he was heard of he was moved from Moscow-based prison into the IK-3 named Polar Wolf, a penal colony located in a permafrost region near the town of Harp, where he found his end.

No other sources commented on that by now. At that time, there’s no independent proof of that or other explanations but the one given by prison authorities.

A fitting reminder is that presidential elections are to be held in 15-17 of March, meaning it happened exactly one month prior to them.

  • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
    5·
    9 months ago

    Your own source above states that he was the victim of a nerve agent attack. Are you going to claim that was just a coincidence or lying western media now? Do you honestly think anyone takes your comments seriously?

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
      5·
      9 months ago

      The only person who shouldn’t be taken seriously is the one who thinks FSB couldn’t have killed Navalny if they actually wanted to.

      • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
        1·
        9 months ago

        So the source you just used as evidence to prove your argument is now untrustworthy because it contradicts you? How convenient.

        Also a bit hilarious that you’re arguing that the FSB are such seasoned assassins that they always get their man while trying to claim that Russia wouldn’t try to assassinate someone.

          • ShepherdPie@midwest.social
            1·
            9 months ago

            You mean like someone intending to make a logical argument but being incapable of it because they’re actually spewing propaganda instead?

            We should believe the parts of the BBC article that back your argument but not believe the other parts of the same article when they contradict you?

            We should believe that Russia has the best, most infallible assassins on the planet, but we should also believe that Russia would never try to assassinate someone?

            With such a weak, easily disprovable position, it’s pretty obvious why you so quickly shifted to ad hominem attacks rather than trying to defend your position.