Putin to Make Equating Stalin, USSR to Hitler, Nazi Germany Illegal

[LineDoggie]

Crimes happened in the Soviet union are (at least from formal point of view) a Russian internal business.

As for your comparison then btw the first concentration camp was created during the Boer war. Let's also recall the Algerian war. That time Algeria was regarded by Paris as a part of France.

the excuse for genocide and totalitarianism didnt work at nuremburg, you're whataboutism aside

Apparently you mean German city of Nürnberg. There is a prison in US naval base in Guantanamo where people are being kept for years without trial. I strongly doubt that any US official will appear in Nürnberg anytime soon not as a tourist, while Guantanamo prison is internal US business ... Though ... Guantanamo is in Cuba. So probably evil Cuban commies are responsible.

Evidence of Genocide at Guantanamo? please show sources

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi snpol,

You post, "On the video 95yo decorated veteran was in military uniform and spoke about matters related to the war." So what? He chose (1) to appear in the video, (2) chose what to wear, (3) chose what to say. Are all veterans who hide their biases and stupidity to be allowed to shield behind their old uniforms and be excused from legitimate criticism? Navalny apparently never attacked the man as a veteran, never questioned his war record and never questioned the role of the USSR in the war. Your support for Putin over this is is completely unjustifiable.

As I understand it, Navalny was not fined for calling ".....other people as traitor and paid lackey." Why not?

You post, "Mr.Navalny was well aware that the veteran is seen on the video and he had to separate him from others." Why, if he believes him guilty of the same things? If the others are ".....traitors and paid lackeys of Putin's regime" then why is the veteran not?

This poor old man, who apparently appeared confused at Navalny's trial, was used and abused by Putin, not by Navalny.

You post, "Personally I never voted for mr.Putin or his party....." Maybe, maybe not, we can't know, but you certainly appear to be doing his work here.

You post, ".....mr.Putin is sufficiently popular. At least was popular during the last elections. So millions, ten millions sincerely voted for mr.Putin." Yup, but not in anything resembling a free and fair election. Putin has no legitimacy because he won't allow an opposition media, has apparently tried to kill the main opposition leader and has arrested him instead, won't allow open campaigning, has abused the state media for his own purposes, disrupted the work of election observers, etc,. etc..... Having free and fair elections is not just about letting people put a piece of paper in a box. Russia has nothing like free and fair elections and this means that Putin's legitimacy is questionable, to say the least.

Would Navalny, or anyone else, be any better than the awful Putin? Perhaps, perhaps not, but Russians deserve the opportunity to find out. However, we now know for a fact that Russia is not going to be able to find out if there is something better than the current kleptocracy for another generation because Putin has corrupted the democratic process (never deeply rooted in Russia anyway) to ensure that he will be in power for another two decades.

You post, "Many Russian intellectuals do support mr.Putin because they recognise his role as national leader. They have right for freedom of speech, have right to express own opinion freely." Not if they oppose him, they don't!

You post, "From formal point of view mr.Putin could be elected only twice and in 1936 there will be another president in Russia. But from my point of view it really doesn't matter. Power in Russia effectively belongs to the Big Money. The ruling elites have at their disposal the whole army of paid lackeys - judges, prosecutors, police, special services, journalists, politologists, polit-technologists. During 4 years (2008-12) mr.Putin was just a PM. And he could become PM again in 2024 and remain PM-for-Life without violation of the Constitution having at hand puppet 'president'." Yup, but he has chosen not to repeat the Potemkin facade of another prime ministership by changing the Russian constitution so that he can remain as President for a couple of decades more.

Has Russia got such a shortage of talent that it has to rely on one deeply flawed man for decades? I don't believe it. Talent is pouring out of the USSR at the rate of hundreds of thousands of well educated people every year and few return, so the rest of the world has the benefit of them. Putin's regime is squeezing them out. Far better if Russia squeezed Putin out instead, surely? But it can't, because he has removed the levers of democratic power from the citizenry.

You post, "As I have said power in Russia really belongs to oligarchs and clans of corrupted officials surrounded by the whole army of paid lackeys. Political system in Russia is far from primitive dictatorship. It is distributed system of power with president as a supreme arbiter to resolve contradictions, conflicts between clans of officials and oligarchical structures." Just because that is the way it unfortunately works doesn't mean that is the way it should work.

You post, "Mr.Navalny from my point of view is a crook himself and would be just a lackey of oligarchs being elected." We'll never know, will we, because he is not being allowed to stand in free and fair elections, is he?

You post, "Mr.Navalny is is not very popular....." Again, how would we know if he is not allowed to stand in free and fair elections? The mere fact that he is being denied this opportunity implies that Putin is afraid to truly test Navalny's popularity.

You post, ".....and hasn't even microscopic electoral chances." Very true, because he isn't even being allowed to stand for election against Putin.

You post, "So even technically correct elections could be in fact senseless as the result is predefined." Nope. If "technically correct" elections were held, by definition their results would not be "predefined".

Cheers,

Sid

[kfbr392]

Crimes happened in the Soviet union are (at least from formal point of view) a Russian internal business.

As for your comparison then btw the first concentration camp was created during the Boer war. Let's also recall the Algerian war. That time Algeria was regarded by Paris as a part of France.

the excuse for genocide and totalitarianism didnt work at nuremburg, you're whataboutism aside

Apparently you mean German city of Nürnberg. There is a prison in US naval base in Guantanamo where people are being kept for years without trial. I strongly doubt that any US official will appear in Nürnberg anytime soon not as a tourist, while Guantanamo prison is internal US business ... Though ... Guantanamo is in Cuba. So probably evil Cuban commies are responsible.

Evidence of Genocide at Guantanamo? please show sources

no genocide, but “harsh interrogation” and a few extrajudicial killings, apparently:
https://www.webcitation.org/query?url=h ... 2010-01-18
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantan ... ccusations

[Sid Guttridge]

Hu snpol,

You post, "Crimes happened in the Soviet union are (at least from formal point of view) a Russian internal business." Apparently not, as they cannot be discussed openly there without risk of prosecution.

And why are the crimes of the Soviet Union "Russian internal business"? At least in theory, Russia and the Soviet Union were not the same thing. Many of the the perpetrators and victims were not Russians at all. Are they not allowed to discuss these crimes either?

Cheers,

Sid.

[gebhk]

I only noted that the law in question should be regarded in the context of similar legislative acts. Are they right or wrong - it is a separate question.

Unfortunately, the Polish legislation is not similar. It is legislation aimed at punishing - what is seen as - the patent falsehood that the Polish Nation and/or the Polish state were co-responsible for the holocaust. I say patent, because at the time in question the Polish Nation had no will of its own and there was no Polish State at all. This is quite different from a legislative act that is aimed at preventing the expression of negative opinion about facts in evidence which is what the Russian proposals appear to be about. In reality, if you want to find similar legislation, then you need to look to the blasphemy laws of certain countries, which (in my opinion of course, be it so humble), firmly belong in ages past.

However, onto the more important question - you ask: what should the Russian Government do? Since this is the topic it is, not pass the legislation in question and allow people to express themselves about facts in evidence as they see fit. No one will suffer if they do. Avoid whataboutism. Russia should be big enough not to have to resort to the puerile tactics of neo-nazi apologists and such like. As an aside, the ratification of the Rome Statute of the ICC and not invading neighbours would go a lot further to prevent uncomfortable parallels with a certain A Hitler of the present incumbent - much more so than blatant attempts to muzzle criticism.

On the subject of the uniform and its wearer. Surely the real question is: why was a uniform, rightly respected, being used as a prop in a cheap political propaganda stunt, thus bringing it into disrepute? It was not Mr Navalny who is responsible for that - surely. If you knowingly go to a mud-slinging contest you have no right to complain when you get mud over your clothes. A cynical person might conclude it was used in conjunction with pernicious legislation to bring about precisely the result it did - the muzzling and persecution of the opposition.

I have to ask the same question as Sid - how was the uniform insulted (other than, as I said above, abused to further a personal political agenda of course - but then that is not down to Mr Navalny, I presume)? Or how was the wearer's military career denigrated? I am genuinely curious.

[gebhk]

Many of the the perpetrators and victims were not Russians at all.

I would add that, furthermore, many of the crimes of the Soviet Union were perpetrated outside of Russia too.

[LineDoggie]

url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.harpers.org%2Farchive%2F2010%2F01%2Fhbc-90006368&date=2010-01-18
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantan ... ccusations

So again for the record No Genocide at GITMO and no indictments or convictions because no actual proof


Your whataboutism skills are feeble

[snpol]

Crimes happened in the Soviet union are (at least from formal point of view) a Russian internal business.

As for your comparison then btw the first concentration camp was created during the Boer war. Let's also recall the Algerian war. That time Algeria was regarded by Paris as a part of France.

the excuse for genocide and totalitarianism didnt work at nuremburg, you're whataboutism aside

Apparently you mean German city of Nürnberg. There is a prison in US naval base in Guantanamo where people are being kept for years without trial. I strongly doubt that any US official will appear in Nürnberg anytime soon not as a tourist, while Guantanamo prison is internal US business ... Though ... Guantanamo is in Cuba. So probably evil Cuban commies are responsible.

Again, Whataboutism typical of your ilk like the internet research agency in St Petersburg


Nuremburg trials, defence
Nürnberg trials, Nürnberg also spelled Nuremberg
https://www.britannica.com/event/Nurnberg-trials

Dear LineDoggie, indeed both spellings (Nurnberg and Nuremberg) are correct, while you used wrong variant - 'nuremburg'. Burg means city, while Berg means mountain.
Btw, I visited Nurnberg in 2009 and travelled across Germany a lot.

[snpol]

Crimes happened in the Soviet union are (at least from formal point of view) a Russian internal business.

As for your comparison then btw the first concentration camp was created during the Boer war. Let's also recall the Algerian war. That time Algeria was regarded by Paris as a part of France.

the excuse for genocide and totalitarianism didnt work at nuremburg, you're whataboutism aside

Apparently you mean German city of Nürnberg. There is a prison in US naval base in Guantanamo where people are being kept for years without trial. I strongly doubt that any US official will appear in Nürnberg anytime soon not as a tourist, while Guantanamo prison is internal US business ... Though ... Guantanamo is in Cuba. So probably evil Cuban commies are responsible.

Evidence of Genocide at Guantanamo? please show sources

Genocide? I didn't mean genocide but referred to unlawful imprisonment without trial for years, violation of international conventions about rights of POWs. But in our imperfect world the principle 'might is right' alas prevails.

[snpol]

i Sid.
I'm very pleased by your attention and interest to the case with mr.Navalny, to his insulting comments and to decision made by Russian court.
First of all I propose to watch short (1 minute long) video made by Putin's agitprop outlet RT.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pmf-sZQ-fY4
Look at the people, at their faces.
People in the video just read new (proposed) variant of preamble to the Constitution.

We, the multinational people of the Russian Federation, united by a common fate on our land, establishing human rights and freedoms, civic peace and accord, preserving the historically established state unity, proceeding from the universally recognized principles of equality and self-determination of peoples, revering the memory of ancestors who have conveyed to us the love for the Fatherland, belief in the good and justice, reviving the sovereign statehood of Russia and asserting the firmness of its democratic basic, striving to ensure the well-being and prosperity of Russia, proceeding from the responsibility for our Fatherland before the present and future generations, recognizing ourselves as part of the world community, adopt the CONSTITUTION OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.

Each person sounds only a phrase or even a few words. The veteran sounded underlined words. Half people in the video are not public figures or/and unknown to the general public (including the veteran who ended his war record in Berlin). From my point of view those who deserve to be called as 'paid lackeys' are:
mr. Fetisov (0:09) - well known (also in N.America) hockey player, formerly minister, now MP.
mr.Okhlobystin (0:13) - talentless actor and in fact clown.
mr.Sirota (0:38) - a farmer and cheesemaker actively supported by Putin's agitprop.
mr.Shvydkoy (0:47) - former minister of culture and pseudo-liberal supporter of Putin's regime.
There is another remarkable man
mr.Lebedev (0:07) - well known designer with liberal views. He explained that he was filmed before the proposition about new presidential terms of Putin was made and later he urged people to vote against the amendments.

You post, "On the video 95yo decorated veteran was in military uniform and spoke about matters related to the war." So what? He chose (1) to appear in the video, (2) chose what to wear, (3) chose what to say. Are all veterans who hide their biases and stupidity to be allowed to shield behind their old uniforms and be excused from legitimate criticism?...

In fact there was no any criticism. There was no even a shade of discussion. Mr.Navalny didn't say what was wrong in the text sounded in the video. He voices insulting words toward all the people in the video without any analysis and distinction. You may agree or disagree with it but Russian law regards insults toward a group as personal insults toward each member of the group.

Navalny apparently never attacked the man as a veteran, never questioned his war record and never questioned the role of the USSR in the war.

From point of view of Russian court it doesn't matter.

Your support for Putin over this is is completely unjustifiable.

I'm not Putin's supporter. From my point of view mr.Putin is just a head of thieving ruling elites that remain at power using brainwashing, agitprop on TV that they control, polit-technologies and oppressions against opposition. I just try to explain the situation with mr.Navalny 'as is'.

As I understand it, Navalny was not fined for calling ".....other people as traitor and paid lackey." Why not?

Because Russian law doesn't defend people against such public insults. But the veterans are defended.

You post, "Mr.Navalny was well aware that the veteran is seen on the video and he had to separate him from others." Why, if he believes him guilty of the same things? If the others are ".....traitors and paid lackeys of Putin's regime" then why is the veteran not?

Let's compare. Anybody is free to call any British MP or even PM as liar (mr.Blair was frequently called as Bliar). But in the Parliament MPs have to use parliamentary expressions like 'learned member economical with truth' or 'honourable minister manipulates with truth'.
So view it this way - as for veterans in Russia then only parliamentary expressions are permissible. From my point of view it is not hard to follow this rule.

This poor old man, who apparently appeared confused at Navalny's trial, was used and abused by Putin, not by Navalny.

No doubt, mr.Navalny is a victim of political struggle. However, he himself made mistakes.

You post, "Personally I never voted for mr.Putin or his party....." Maybe, maybe not, we can't know, but you certainly appear to be doing his work here.

AHF is apolitical. I express my personal point of view and anyone may agree or disagree with me. For example i believe that veterans should not be insulted publicly even being in a group of people.

You post, ".....mr.Putin is sufficiently popular. At least was popular during the last elections. So millions, ten millions sincerely voted for mr.Putin." Yup, but not in anything resembling a free and fair election. Putin has no legitimacy because he won't allow an opposition media, has apparently tried to kill the main opposition leader and has arrested him instead, won't allow open campaigning, has abused the state media for his own purposes, disrupted the work of election observers, etc,. etc..... Having free and fair elections is not just about letting people put a piece of paper in a box. Russia has nothing like free and fair elections and this means that Putin's legitimacy is questionable, to say the least.

I never claimed that elections in Russia are free and fair. They are not. There is a lot of examples of political persecutions. Nikolay Platoshkin - former diplomat, professor once on TV said that he may be a candidate on the next presidential elections. As a result he was put under home arrest for a year and recently got 5 years of suspended sentence for laughable accusations.

Would Navalny, or anyone else, be any better than the awful Putin? Perhaps, perhaps not, but Russians deserve the opportunity to find out. However, we now know for a fact that Russia is not going to be able to find out if there is something better than the current kleptocracy for another generation because Putin has corrupted the democratic process (never deeply rooted in Russia anyway) to ensure that he will be in power for another two decades.

Agreed. But real life is much more complex and hardly can be described by easy schemes. The main problem from my point of view is a sad fact that too many people are politically indifferent, don't believe that elections could change their life. Also the regime has huge number of paid lackeys who support it.

You post, "Many Russian intellectuals do support mr.Putin because they recognise his role as national leader. They have right for freedom of speech, have right to express own opinion freely." Not if they oppose him, they don't!

During times of Russian Empire many honest men had to serve the tsars because it was the only possibility to serve the Fatherland. Many Russian intellectuals now fear that political unrest could produce Western puppet as a ruler of Russia surrounded by Washington's lackeys (bwt, we see in Ukraine exactly this picture). So the situation is not that simple as you describe it.

You post, "From formal point of view mr.Putin could be elected only twice and in 1936 there will be another president in Russia. But from my point of view it really doesn't matter. Power in Russia effectively belongs to the Big Money. The ruling elites have at their disposal the whole army of paid lackeys - judges, prosecutors, police, special services, journalists, politologists, polit-technologists. During 4 years (2008-12) mr.Putin was just a PM. And he could become PM again in 2024 and remain PM-for-Life without violation of the Constitution having at hand puppet 'president'." Yup, but he has chosen not to repeat the Potemkin facade of another prime ministership by changing the Russian constitution so that he can remain as President for a couple of decades more.

Has Russia got such a shortage of talent that it has to rely on one deeply flawed man for decades? I don't believe it.

There is a lot of talented people but ruling elites have a lot of effective means to remove them from political stage.

Talent is pouring out of the USSR at the rate of hundreds of thousands of well educated people every year and few return, so the rest of the world has the benefit of them. Putin's regime is squeezing them out. Far better if Russia squeezed Putin out instead, surely? But it can't, because he has removed the levers of democratic power from the citizenry.
You post, "As I have said power in Russia really belongs to oligarchs and clans of corrupted officials surrounded by the whole army of paid lackeys. Political system in Russia is far from primitive dictatorship. It is distributed system of power with president as a supreme arbiter to resolve contradictions, conflicts between clans of officials and oligarchical structures." Just because that is the way it unfortunately works doesn't mean that is the way it should work.

Agreed but they are realities on the ground. Btw, power in the USA effectively belongs to the Big Money and as a result US presidents are either oligarchs themselves or paid lackeys of oligarchs, And sometimes not the most talented, with doubtful moral principles.
I repeat my question - what Western leader could be regarded as a model for ideal Russian president? Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden?

You post, "Mr.Navalny from my point of view is a crook himself and would be just a lackey of oligarchs being elected." We'll never know, will we, because he is not being allowed to stand in free and fair elections, is he?

He tried to be elected as Moscow mayor but lost. Anyway he has own political party. There is a clear way - to win parliamentary elections scheduled to September this year. But Navalny's party is not popular at all. There are other liberal parties. But they have no chances during the elections and didn't have.

You post, "Mr.Navalny is is not very popular....." Again, how would we know if he is not allowed to stand in free and fair elections? The mere fact that he is being denied this opportunity implies that Putin is afraid to truly test Navalny's popularity.

As I have said Navalny's supporters (if he is indeed very popular) could win parliamentary elections.

You post, "So even technically correct elections could be in fact senseless as the result is predefined." Nope. If "technically correct" elections were held, by definition their results would not be "predefined".

I didn't mean that elections in Russia are technically correct, free and fair. It's far from it. However, for many reasons (that I described above) even technically correct elections (voided rude falsehoods, with correct vote counting) could produce a result favourable to ruling elites. Alas it's reality.

[snpol]

Hu snpol,

You post, "Crimes happened in the Soviet union are (at least from formal point of view) a Russian internal business." Apparently not, as they cannot be discussed openly there without risk of prosecution.

And why are the crimes of the Soviet Union "Russian internal business"? At least in theory, Russia and the Soviet Union were not the same thing. Many of the the perpetrators and victims were not Russians at all. Are they not allowed to discuss these crimes either?

Cheers,

Sid.

I meant that the crimes in question happened long ago (80 years ago or so). That the crimes belong to history, history of Russia. And history of Russia is internal business of Russia.

[gebhk]

That the crimes belong to history, history of Russia. And history of Russia is internal business of Russia.

With respect, crimes such as Katyn having been committed on non-Russians are far from just the internal business of Russia. They may be part of history, but until a full accounting is made, they will remain a matter of current relevance outside of Russia, not least to the families of those affected who do not know what happened to their loved ones and ancestors. Furthermore, when it comes to crimes against humanity, the international community recognises that individual states cannot be relied upon to police these internally which is why the Rome statute and the ICC exist. Indeed, that was the premise on which the Nurenberg trials were based - trials which (among others) the current Russian legislation is supposed to defend. In short, the majority view in the world is that crimes against humanity are everybody's business, albeit it is clear that Russia under Putin does not subscribe to this view (it withdrew its signature to the Rome Statute after being condemned for invading its neigbours).

I note that there is still no answer to the question, how was the Russian Uniform and/or Military History insulted by Mr Navalny.

I'm afraid the comparison with the British Parliament will not wash. It is precisely because members speaking on the floor have, within the bounds of parliamentary business the freedom of speech and immunity from prosecution, both criminal and civil, guaranteed by the law, that they are expected, by custom not law, to moderate their language. This is the very opposite of what we are discussing here - a law designed to limit freedom of speech.

[snpol]

I only noted that the law in question should be regarded in the context of similar legislative acts. Are they right or wrong - it is a separate question.

Unfortunately, the Polish legislation is not similar.

Hardly it is possible to find absolutely identical laws. Both laws don't prohibit operations with facts, but prohibit public use of certain estimates.
For example (as I understand it) it is possible to say that Polish ambassador to Berlin expressed satisfaction about ant-Jewish actions of Hitler and even proposed to build a monument to him in Warsaw. However (as I understand it) it is forbidden in Poland to make historical estimates, conclusions - that Polish government supported anti-Semitic policy of Hitler and thus encouraged the Holocaust. It doesn't matter is such an estimate correct or not (for course it is not correct). But such an estimate is legally forbidden.
It is possible with facts on hands to say that in fact Poland participated in division of Czechoslovakia. But it is forbidden to make an estimate that Poland thus encouraged Hitler for further military adventures and thus was responsible for WW2. Again, it doesn't matter is such an estimate correct or not. It is legally forbidden.
In Russia it is not forbidden to say that in fact Germany and the Soviet union divided Poland but it is forbidden to make an estimate that thus Moscow encouraged Hitler for new military adventures and thus was responsible for WW2. It is forbidden in Russia to claim publicly that Hitler and Stalin are equally responsible for WW2. One may like it or not. But it is a reality. We have such a law in Russia.

However, onto the more important question - you ask: what should the Russian Government do? Since this is the topic it is, not pass the legislation in question and allow people to express themselves about facts in evidence as they see fit. No one will suffer if they do. Avoid whataboutism. Russia should be big enough not to have to resort to the puerile tactics of neo-nazi apologists and such like. As an aside, the ratification of the Rome Statute of the ICC and not invading neighbours would go a lot further to prevent uncomfortable parallels with a certain A Hitler of the present incumbent - much more so than blatant attempts to muzzle criticism.

Thanks for your answer.
As for the law in question then it is not an obstacle for historians but it only limits (insulting for big part of society) publicly made historical comparisons and estimates. Brother of my Grandmother died on the Sandomir bridgehead in Poland. They in Poland could call him invader or occupant but here is Russia such estimates, expressions are insulting. Likely you are unable to imagine how huge were sufferings of people in the Soviet union during WW2 and how insulting are certain estimates and comparisons.
As for the Rome Statute of the ICC then what about the USA? Whataboutism is an useful method of political and historical analysis. Any event should be regarded in political or historical context, should it?
As for 'not invading neighbours' then what? Russia is free to invade Saudi Arabia for example and capture its oilfields only because others invaded not neighbours but countries far away from their borders?

On the subject of the uniform and its wearer. Surely the real question is: why was a uniform, rightly respected, being used as a prop in a cheap political propaganda stunt, thus bringing it into disrepute? It was not Mr Navalny who is responsible for that - surely. If you knowingly go to a mud-slinging contest you have no right to complain when you get mud over your clothes. A cynical person might conclude it was used in conjunction with pernicious legislation to bring about precisely the result it did - the muzzling and persecution of the opposition.

I have to ask the same question as Sid - how was the uniform insulted (other than, as I said above, abused to further a personal political agenda of course - but then that is not down to Mr Navalny, I presume)? Or how was the wearer's military career denigrated? I am genuinely curious.

I don't see any reasons why veteran, retired colonel could no wear his uniform. Veterans in other countries do it and they use to make public statements. The veteran just sounded tiny fragment from Russian Constitution. I'm sure that it is no a big sin to do it.

[gebhk]

I don't see any reasons why veteran, retired colonel could no wear his uniform. Veterans in other countries do it and they use to make public statements. The veteran just sounded tiny fragment from Russian Constitution. I'm sure that it is no a big sin to do it.

Personally I do see a reason. Wearing a uniform is not just a personal fashion statement. It implies that you are representing the armed forces whose uniform you wear and that therefore you speak on their behalf and are their representative (no doubt a big part of the reasons why it was done). If the gravitas of a uniform is used to bolster a cheap publicity stunt to push a private agenda, it inevitably cheapens that uniform. For this reason militaries that care about the status of their uniform prohibit its wearing to events which might bring it into disrepute and the prohibition of its wearing at party-political events is usual, I would suggest.

As I said earlier, if you knowingly participate in a mud-slinging contest, you cannot complain if you get mud on your clothes. Taking this analogy to its absurd extreme, would you think it OK for said colonel to dress up in his uniform to go mug someone? And if the prospective mugee fights back, should the law prosecute the person being mugged for striking back at a mugger just because he chose to dress up in a uniform?

[snpol]

That the crimes belong to history, history of Russia. And history of Russia is internal business of Russia.

With respect, crimes such as Katyn having been committed on non-Russians are far from just the internal business of Russia.

Yes, the Katyn massacre is not only a part of Russian history but also a part of Polish history and it is not internal Russian business. As for relatively recent war crimes then the ICC could be used but as for old events then hardly it is possible.

I note that there is still no answer to the question, how was the Russian Uniform and/or Military History insulted by Mr Navalny.

Mr.Navalny didn't insult military uniform or military history. He insulted people shown in the video and the veteran was among them. Mr.Navalny knew it and was aware about Russian law that defends veterans not to be insulted.

I'm afraid the comparison with the British Parliament will not wash. It is precisely because members speaking on the floor have, within the bounds of parliamentary business the freedom of speech and immunity from prosecution, both criminal and civil, guaranteed by the law, that they are expected, by custom not law, to moderate their language. This is the very opposite of what we are discussing here - a law designed to limit freedom of speech.

Russian law forbids use of Russian analogs of 4-letter words publicly and hooligans could be fined. And it is not limit freedom of speech. Russian law forbids to insult veterans in any way - personally, insulting group of people that includes a veteran.
Mr.Navalny just made a mistake and I hope will not make it again.
I repeat it. Mr.Navalny could name people whom he regard as traitors and paid lackey or say that all except respected veteran are traitors and paid lackey. There would be no any problem.