Navalny turned out to be a traitor according to Dahl's dictionary
The activities of liberal blogger Alexei Navalny, who provokes unauthorized rallies and distributes fake films, have all the signs of a betrayal of Russia’s national interests.
Chairman of the Federation Council Temporary Commission for the Protection of State Sovereignty and Prevention of Interference in the Internal Affairs of Russia Andrei Klimov stated this at a press conference in Moscow, a PolitNavigator correspondent reports.
Answering the question whether Navalny is a traitor to Russia’s national interests, the senator assured that many of his colleagues do not even doubt this, but noted that the word “traitor” has rather a moral and ethical connotation.
“This is not used in our criminal law; there is Article 275 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “High Treason.” This, by the way, is not only espionage, but also, among other things, providing various assistance to a foreign state, organizations or their associations to the detriment of the security of the Russian Federation. As we know, Navalny is not charged with this article; he is charged with criminal offenses related to corruption. But the article exists, the main thing there is that this citizen is a citizen of the Russian Federation, because, for example, a US citizen who does not have Russian citizenship cannot betray us in any way, there are other articles. And specifically in this case, it’s treason,” Klimov said.
As for the socio-political assessment, the senator suggested turning to the word “betrayal” itself. He recalled that Vladimir Dal’s words “traitor” and “betrayal” are paralleled with the word “transfer.”
“That is, when you transfer the interests of someone or transfer something to another person. That is, a traitor, in Dahl’s understanding, and I agree with this interpretation, transfers something to others to the detriment of those with whom he was previously or was somehow connected before.
If, for example, a certain citizen transfers his capabilities, abilities, his name, or something else in interests that contradict the interests of our society, our people, it is difficult not to call him a traitor. Both in Dahl’s understanding and in our modern understanding of this word,” Klimov explained.
“But let me emphasize that if we are talking about specific administrative or criminal liability, then this has no direct relation to this term. Although, of course, most people have fair questions - how is it possible: if the structure that Navalny created today directly demands the introduction of illegal restrictions against our country and our other citizens, how can this be interpreted?
Therefore, many people are starting to think here. When it turns out that the films they tried to provoke them with are fake, when it turns out that everything that happens there is paid for from afar. Of course, those who work “far away” for this, it’s hard not to call them traitors,” the senator concluded.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.