A Russian opposition rally was already scheduled, and took place Sunday without one of its top speakers, former Deputy Premier Boris Nemtsov, who was shot to death in Moscow late on Friday.
The rally centered on Nemtsov’s murder, with demonstrators accusing the government of killing him. Key allies of Nemtsov have rejected this speculation as unreasonable, noting the killing was “clearly not in Putin’s interest” and was more likely aimed at destabilizing the situation.
Investigators are scrambling to investigate the killing, and say they believe it was a likely “contract hit,” though the exact motive is still unclear. The Russian government has offered a reward for details leading to an arrest, clearly eager to settle the matter soon.
There is a paucity of evidence about the killing, though investigators did say they’ve recovered the license plate number of the vehicle the gunman escaped in from surveillance cameras at the scene. They’re still trying to track the killer down, however.
The killing certainly got a lot more coverage for the opposition rally internationally, though the rally’s morphing into a march about Nemtsov’s killing left a lot loss time for them to talk political reform, and a lot more conspiracy mongering.
Nisman was better for the Israeli narrative with a toe-tag than with a dossier. Kirchner et al were targets the minute they showed a willingness to embarrass Israel by treating Nisman's BS as it deserved to be. (that's not specifically Gareth Porter's take; he just said Nisman did a "hack job").
Putin, as well, seems to have especially been a Neocon target since he dramatically snatched Syria out of the typically genocidal jaws of the Jewish Lobby, (that the two relate does seem to be Robert Parry's take). And Nemtsov was also better for the Neocon narrative on Putin/Russia/Ukraine as a stiff than as an 'activist.'
Both deaths are a PR pain in the a$$ to both governments, and both offer reprieves to/distractions from Jewish BS that was otherwise dying a natural death. Of course, Nisman really could've whacked himself (I'd have seriously considered it if I were him). But both deaths had foreseeable consequences for the governments in whose jurisdiction they occurred.
I thought that Nisman was more than happy to please israel and the US and sell the official narrative of the attack.
I'd taken it he'd been doing it for many years (if he were among the original AMIA investigators, then like 20 years), so there'd be some kind of personal stake in it. It isn't necessarily just prostitutes in my mind, it's idjuts whose that can end up biting off more than they can chew. It can be terrifying being basically a kid in a kings job, and sucks to be exposed as such. There's a vid of Victor Ostrovsky starting out 'how do you buy media?' Answer was 'information,' and the handle that gave is that you can e.g. tell a reporter not to print something 'cause then their killer source dries up. Question then becomes, e.g.: is a lie that dufus prints a lie that he knew was a lie or a lie he sees as gold from that-killer-source? If the latter were closer to Nisman's view of his material, he could have eventually felt very much an incompetent…and about to face the world with the too-fully and too-quickly realized sense of shame, embarrassment, … Possibly a bit much for an issue occupying (20?) years of your life. …….Just one way a suicide is plausible. And, of course, a murder scenario is at least as likely.
Guess I also assume that plenty of people were looking forward to his testimony–not all in a way that would stroke his ego. Kirchner herself would likely have been one of those.
(was kinda hoping for the question I think you're asking…)
When I visited Russia shortly after Yeltsin came to power I accidentally met a few supporters of the "perestroika"-Gorbachev. They told me the following. What had happened was similar to the replacement of Kerenski by Lenin in 1917. Gorbachev, who can perhaps be compared to Martov of 1917, did not aim at a sudden and complete demise of the Soviet system but its gradual transformation to a Western-style democracy. Like Lenin, Yeltsin wanted an immediate and complete destruction of the Soviet state. I also learned that the number of Gorbachev supporters was relatively small. Yeltsin had mass support. It appears to me that Nemtsov was an opportunist who immediately understood who was going to win hence jumped on the Yeltsin bandwagon.
It is interesting to note that this kind of scenario has already been used in Ukraine for starting orange revolution.The aim was to discredit Kuchma.For that purpose a georgian journalist living in Kiev was shot dead.After that no one of european leader wanted to meet Kuchma anymore.Here the role of the ukrainian top model walking with Nemtsov is unclear.In such cases killers don't leave witnesses.We probably have here the work of ukrainian SBU under Washington control.Why SBU ? Because Russia is also their home,they have same culture and habit.The work was easier to perform.Nemtsov had no political weight anymore (Navalnyi is more popular). So he was unfortunatly choosen for the role of the Putin's victim.French and German press are already singing this song.