European, American, Canadian, Japanese, Australian (etc., etc.) press on the front pages come out with materials that are dedicated to the situation with Alexei Navalny.
This information flow gives reason to think about the fact that the hype in the media is very similar to a single campaign that has already become the norm for the so-called "democratic world": launch any thesis, and then, referring to each other, bring it to the interests of the main beneficiaries stories... A few examples: the test tube that was shaken by the then US Secretary of State Colin Powell in the UN Security Council.
The washing powder was passed off as a chemical weapon for Saddam, after which they "legitimized" their own invasion. And which of the "democratic" media today at least apologized for spreading a monstrous fake that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis? That's right - nothing ...
Today, the American Daily Beast publishes an article about Navalny's health improvement in Germany. Journalist Amy Knight writes that now "Putin and his entourage should be pretty nervous, since Navalny can talk again."
From the material:
This man mercilessly revealed the facts of corruption.
Ms. Knight states unequivocally that "Putin gave the order to poison Navalny on 20 August." And then it is added that in this he relied on his entourage, "since it also had good reasons for the death of Navalny."
Further, according to the law of the genre, the words “GRU”, “Skripali”, “FSB”, “chemical weapon"," Newbie ". The author of the material in the American newspaper states that it was “dangerous to use Novichok, but they did it”.
It can be stated that the theater of the absurd, played out by the "democratic world", continues. At the same time, none of the "experts" who take the initiative to "expose the poisoners in the Kremlin" explain the key point to their readers. If Putin "gave the order to poison Navalny," then for what purpose did the same Putin give permission to open the border for Navalny and send him to Germany, taking into account not only that he had "numerous conditional terms", but also when all other borders were closed due to a pandemic? The same Mrs. Knight, who “put everything on the shelves”, simply omits this question. And really, why - then the readers will start to think, and this does not fit into the strategy of those who initially performed this performance with "the use of a chemical warfare agent".