Thread by @kamilkazani

The biggest myth about @navalny's sucession is:

Navalny's succession -> the war stops

In reality Navalny's succession can happen only *after* the Russian military defeat. It's not that they want (or can) stop the war. It's them aiming to save & reboot system *after* the defeat

That's what many (clueless) Westerners aren't getting. "@Navalny team may not be perfect, but at least they'll stop the war". No, it's the other way around. They can't and are not going to stop the war. What they could do is to capitalise on the impending Russian defeat

Once again, they are not bringing the Russian military defeat closer, but want to capitalise on it. Therefore, the @navalny movement should be discussed into the context of the endgame. What is the *positive* scenario for when this war ends?

Once again, "we should give power to @navalny , so he could stop the war" argument is completely false. You can't give @navalny all the power now (while the war is going), you could only try to do it once it's over. Navalny's succession can happen only after the Russian defeat

Debate on @navalny should be read in the context of the endgame - what is this war being fought for. Should we enthrone another Tsar once the war is over? Once again, the only conceivable way for them to get in to power is to capitalise on the Russian defeat, once it happened

This may explain why so many Ukrainians are sceptical about @navalny succession. They don't see navalnists as allies in fight against Putin (how exactly they're brining his defeat closer?). They see them as politicians aiming for a *different endgame*

The endgame is the key here

@navalny'sts can't and won't "overthrow" Putin. They could be potentially pushed into power by the efforts of the collective West once Russia is defeated with Putin dead/killed/overthrown. Now once all that happened, is pushing them into power really the best course of action?

"The endgame doesn't matter" is a delusion and a dangerous one

The end