I don't get the focus on whether he was poisoned/actively killed or not. If he died of "just collapsing" the Russian regime is still 100% responsible for his death. They killed him either way. Putin killed Navalny, the means by which that happened are secondary.
Because he very likely has been. Putin has a long history of people "mysteriously" dying. if it happens once in a blue moon, it's a conspiracy theory. But it happens so damn often that it's practically undeniable.
I agree, but does it matter in this case? It feels like a potato potato discussion. Let's assume for a moment he wasn't poisoned. Was he not still killed brutally by Putin's regime? From years of being mistreated and abused? What difference does it make whether he was poisoned, shot, or just exhausted to death? The means by which his death occurred are secondary, him dying by the hands of Putin is primary, isn't it? Putin is his killer, one way or the other.
And I think we are all in the clear that Putin and his regime like to kill off people that aren't taking part in their shenanigans. Navalny's death, even if officially proven to have been accelerated by direct means, will not change the minds of those who don't believe in the government's brutal killing spree.
True enough i suppose. Though the direct approach is more likely to convince some.
I don't get the focus on whether he was poisoned/actively killed or not. If he died of "just collapsing" the Russian regime is still 100% responsible for his death. They killed him either way. Putin killed Navalny, the means by which that happened are secondary.
Because he very likely has been. Putin has a long history of people "mysteriously" dying. if it happens once in a blue moon, it's a conspiracy theory. But it happens so damn often that it's practically undeniable.
I agree, but does it matter in this case? It feels like a potato potato discussion. Let's assume for a moment he wasn't poisoned. Was he not still killed brutally by Putin's regime? From years of being mistreated and abused? What difference does it make whether he was poisoned, shot, or just exhausted to death? The means by which his death occurred are secondary, him dying by the hands of Putin is primary, isn't it? Putin is his killer, one way or the other.
And I think we are all in the clear that Putin and his regime like to kill off people that aren't taking part in their shenanigans. Navalny's death, even if officially proven to have been accelerated by direct means, will not change the minds of those who don't believe in the government's brutal killing spree.
True enough i suppose. Though the direct approach is more likely to convince some.