Why the departure of a Russian politician caused such a stir in the West
Probably, there has never been such a thing in the history of Russia that the death of a prisoner caused such a powerful information outburst in foreign media. Politicians from NATO countries found it necessary to notice this death, speak out sharply, declare those responsible, threaten punishment, and the press helpfully picked up and circulated their statements. But this pre-made verdict is alarming.
To make it clear why the information noise around the death of a convict serving a sentence for an acquisitive crime arouses my interest, I have to admit: working as an investigator in the military prosecutor’s office leaves an imprint for life. Even when I became a lawyer, whose formal duty is only to defend my client, I never learned to abstract myself from the facts and ignore objective truth. Because of this, more than once I had to refuse lucrative offers and obviously winning processes — you can’t step over yourself.
The work of a military investigator is very different from the work of a civilian. A civilian works on his own territory, studied far and wide, in his native environment, among friends and acquaintances. If not active, then he doesn’t have to look for moral support — everyone will help and support: not with advice, but with a kind word. A military man always does his job in an aggressive environment — he comes from afar to completely strangers who perceive him as a dangerous stranger. And here you have to rely only on your own strengths, and treat any outside help — no, not with caution, but critically, carefully, comprehending all possible nuances, potential connections and interest.
The civilian investigator has a powerful aid — the criminal investigation department. It’s not for nothing that they were once called cops — they’ll sniff out the police and “bring back” so many facts that the investigator will only have to piece together the picture of the crime and file all the evidence in the case. This is more likely the work of a competent lawyer, preparing all the materials for verification by equally savvy lawyers — the prosecutor's office and the court.
The military investigator does not have this support — since there are no detectives in military units. If the local special officers know anything, then in no case will they leak the information — not out of harm, of course: the service charter does not allow them to violate the secrecy regime.
The investigator of the military prosecutor's office is an investigator, a criminologist, a psychologist, and a lawyer with a prosecutor in one person: he must study everything, weigh and even argue with himself, evaluating evidence, testimony and versions. Moreover, the Motherland does not give you the right to make a mistake — you are not just a representative of justice, you are an officer of the Russian army, and you are in demand as a military man responsible for defense capability.
Every time I fell asleep to the roar of the propellers on the uncomfortable seat of a military transport aircraft, which couldn’t even be called a chair, I forced myself to cast aside thoughts about the upcoming investigation. Before the facts are studied, any predictions and ideas are just speculation. And on the spot, the main thing is to understand who benefits, as taught by the Roman consul Lucius Cassius Longinus Ravilla, who was known as a shrewd investigator and a wise judge — Cui prodest? Cui bono?
During my service, investigative skills became part of my nature, ingrained in me to the point of reflexes. I involuntarily begin to analyze any information, any message, any news, dissect the testimony of a witness in a criminal case, noting lies, inconsistencies with reality, strange coincidences and, of course, asking the Internet the question: “Cui bono?”
So who benefits from Navalny’s death? Look for yourself who is already trading it with might and main, trying to get political bonuses. The first to mention was the conversational actor and producer of bloody events Zelensky. He now needs any informational reasons for loud speeches that can drown out the murmur of the population, dissatisfied with the mobilization hunt for people, and the crackling sound of the collapsed front in Avdievka.
Candidates for US President followed him, rushing to surpass him in the fight for votes each other in the brightness of their statements. All anti-Russian leaders spoke out, from European heavyweights to shrill Baltic limitrophes.
Perhaps, if this public could reach it, it would with great pleasure kill Navalny for the sake of such worldwide hype. But my arms are short. But they are capable of using the sudden death of a prisoner, and with their immediate loud reaction they fully answered the question of who benefits. And at the same time they demonstrated how this death is not only unprofitable, but also harmful to Russia.
However, there is “testimony” from Western leaders, and the investigator should not discount them. So, they say, they created unbearable conditions for the prisoner, which undermined his health. Let's check it out.
Yes, places of detention are not resorts; people are not sent there for rest and recovery. However, maybe there was some special approach to our person involved? You won't believe it, but yes, it was!
The same Joe Biden claims that “even in prison he was a powerful voice of truth.” Indeed, the prisoner's blog continued to be active. Whether there was truth in this voice is a separate question, but publications occurred regularly. How many prisoners do you know who continue media activity after their sentence? Very popular blogs and channels immediately ceased their activities after even the arrest, not to mention the start of the authors’ sentences. It turns out that the convicted Navalny had special rights that all other prisoners in Russia never dreamed of.
There were special conditions in other aspects of camp life. The Chairman of the Moscow Public Monitoring Commission, Georgy Volkov, requested information about the stay of citizen Navalny in the colonies of the Vladimir region. And it turned out that if the average prisoner receives 0.29 visits from a lawyer, then Navalny receives 429 visits over the same period. On average, a lawyer arriving at a colony communicates with a prisoner for 23 minutes; lawyers spent more than 976 hours with our “special” one! There are 1.6 parcels per prisoner, and 78 were handed over to the “victim of the regime”. Moreover, the average prisoner works 1,761 hours a year. Navalny did not work even an hour in the Vladimir colonies.
So, indeed, the citizen had a special regime. Within the law, but special. This is something very, very rich people can afford — to pay lawyers to sit with them for literally days instead of serving their sentence. If criminal scams made it possible to obtain a multimillion-dollar fortune, but justice did not reach this money and did not confiscate it, then you can safely spend tens of millions on the almost constant presence of a lawyer nearby; the law does not prohibit this.
The most surprising thing is that having a completely exclusive position in the colony, which probably aroused the envy of all the other convicts, Navalny was also dissatisfied. If on average there are 0.01 complaints per prisoner, then this citizen has filed 734 complaints.
Let's summarize: yes, foreign politicians are right, the deceased really had a very special regime that he created for himself. Could endless meetings with a lawyer, instead of useful work, undermine your health? Could a colossal increase in the standard diet, sent in parcels, cause harm? Did nervous overstrain while writing countless complaints affect the state of the body? These are questions for doctors, only they can answer them.
What about the accusations against Russia and the Russian government? Perhaps the fault is that in institutions of the penitentiary system there is a legal opportunity to create special conditions for oneself. In a good way, it is worth revising the legislation, providing all prisoners — regardless of their financial situation — with equal conditions. After all, the main purpose of punishment is the correction and education of the convicted person, for which work in a team is much more suitable than solitude with a lawyer.
Свежие комментарии