[hax0ron3]

I always wonder about Navalny - why did he go back to Russia? Did he really believe that he could do some kind of Nelson Mandela thing? Or that the Russian people would flock to his cause? I believe that the man was an idealist, I don't think you expose yourself to that much danger without being an idealist at least on some level or thinking that the possible personal rewards make the danger worth it, and I don't get the sense from Navalny that he was after personal rewards primarily. But with his experience in Russian politics, I feel like he should have known that the chance that his return to Russia would bring about any serious political change was extremely small. Not returning to Russia would have hurt his chances of causing political change as well, since that would have made him seem like just an agent of the Western powers. But returning to Russia at the cost of his life also did not accomplish political change.

[halJordan]

I think you just have to accept that he was built different from someone like you. I think it's kind of a form of disrespect to say "why would someone do that?" We know exactly why he did it, he had a level of passion you don't. It's okay for you to not be passionate about anything on the level of giving up your life, but you shouldn't act like that doesn't exist or is an odd weird thing you're could never understand

[hax0ron3]

I know it exists. I'm asking why he went on an extremely dangerous mission that had very little chance of success instead of using his energy on something that would have been more likely to achieve success, or on something that would have been equally unlikely to achieve success but at least would not have been extremely dangerous.

[embedding-shape]

Navalny saw exile as a betrayal of both his country and his ideas and convictions. I think he mentioned that an opposition that is staying outside of Russia would lose moral legitimacy in the eyes of Russians too, or something similar.

[hax0ron3]

That seems plausible to me.

I think that unfortunately for him, his support inside Russia was probably never high enough to seriously challenge the existing leadership.

[nullorempty]

It would be a noble cause if it were true. You need to really think sinister thoughts to get a glimpse of what really transpired there.

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.

[nullorempty]

I doubt anything but money and fear was in his ideas and convictions.

[nullorempty]

Did he have a choice but to go back? Opposition taking money from interested parties has a long history. Lenin was provided with financial support by the germans. Revolution is business, people pay revolutionaries and opposition to do what they do, and once they take the money they need to deliver.

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.

[BoneShard]

yeah, low popularity, got almost 30% in unfair Moscow mayoral elections. Go fuck yourself murzilka.

[robbiewxyz]

I've wondered the same. A look at his contemporary media quotes gives maybe a hint. From Navalny: "It is difficult for me to understand exactly what is going on in [Putin's] mind. [...] 20 years of power would spoil anyone and make them crazy. He thinks he can do whatever he wants."

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.