The Federal Penitentiary Service has announced the death of Alexei. However, it remains crucial to await confirmation from his legal team and family. So far, here are my reflections on the matter:
First, politically speaking, it's a difficult truth, but Navalny's decision to return to Russia significantly heightened the risk of a tragic end in prison. Renowned for their austere conditions, Russian penal institutions inflict profound and lasting physical and psychological harm on inmates, effectively maiming their lives and rendering many individuals permanently disabled. Navalny was already vulnerable due to his 2020 poisoning. The harsh detention conditions and cruel treatment he received underscore a deliberate indifference, if not consent, from Putin and the authorities for a dire outcome, employing imprisonment in its most severe form.
Second, following Navalny's return and subsequent imprisonment, along with the complete disbandment of the FBK and the non-systemic opposition, especially after the commencement of the war, there ceased to be any advocates for him within the system. This was not about the possibility of commuting his sentence—as it was widely understood that Navalny would remain incarcerated as long as Putin was in power—but rather about preventing his death and the potential political fallout. Demonstrating compassion towards Navalny was perceived as too perilous and out of sync with the prevailing political climate. Consequently, the deterioration of his living conditions and the systematic undermining of his health went unchecked. Today, there is no grounds to believe that anyone within the system would stand up for him.
Third, I maintain that Putin did not fear Navalny, despite some opposing views, which I do respect. Putin's disdainful perception of Navalny as a minor criminal unworthy of respect and as an adversary manipulated by the West to undermine national and state interests dictated a merciless systemic response, which “programmed” the tragic end. According to my knowledge, Putin admitted that cruel conditions could be fatal for Navalny and dismissed it as a problem. But Putin will have to deal with the consequences of Navalny’s death.
Fourth – and this is one of the main consequences of such – the tragedy has happened against the backdrop of presidential elections. And Putin does fear external interference. He sincerely believes that the West would and will use the moment to undermine the stability and to afflict political damage to his campaign. That will push him to take an even more hawkish, more repressive approach to any hostile manifestation, which he may link to external attempts to interfere. This may specifically create a more restrictive approach to the media and social networks. A lot will depend on whether the regime overreacts, which may become an issue in and of itself.
Fifth, Navalny emerged as a seminal and historical figure, embodying an unyielding anti-Putin political stance and representing the most substantial alternative to Putin's regime since 2000. His unmatched recognition, significance to the elites, and involvement in domestic politics distinguished him from any other opposition figure, cementing his status as an outstanding politician. And this creates a significant political problem for the regime –– they will have to deal with Navalny’s legacy. I have no doubt that very soon we’ll witness a significant wave of anti-Navalny repressions, raids after indignations in social networks, criminal cases and arrests.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A Quick Q&A on Whether Putin Truly Intends to End the War in Ukraine. A thread 🧵
Q1. Does Putin Suggest Negotiations with the West?
No. Neither Putin nor other senior Russian officials perceive the West as a capable and responsible counterpart for discussing strategic issues, as Russia understands them. Even if Trump wins the November election, the Russian leadership harbours no illusions about the West's incapacity to pragmatically engage with Russia, particularly in terms of seriously considering its strategic interests.
Q2. So Why, in this case, are Putin's purported representatives signalling to Washington insiders a willingness to halt the conflict and start negotiations, as reported by The New York Times?
First, it's important to clarify that these individuals are not Putin's designated representatives, nor are they explicitly tasked by Putin with this specific objective. They are individuals who interpret Putin's stance in a manner they believe to be most accurate. They genuinely think Putin desires to end the conflict and perhaps hope to play a role as mediators. It suits Putin.
Q3. Why Does Putin Continue to Speak About Peace Negotiations?
Putin's stance is predicated on the belief that Russia did not initiate the conflict, but rather, it was the West, using Ukraine to strategically and militarily confront Russia, including through the provision of arms. He needs the West to desist: to stop sending arms, supporting Ukraine, assisting its resistance, not to mention to turn off the counter-offensive. To Putin, "peace" implies Ukraine ceasing its resistance and the West withdrawing from all matters Ukraine. And he has a limited timeframe, with a critical window up to 2024 – the period before the West increases ammunition production and formulates a new strategy to support Ukraine effectively.
Pondering over @MarkGaleotti's sharp insights on my recent @CarnegieRussia piece on Putin's wait-and-see strategy. Mark argues Putin struggles most with the ability to make hard decisions 1/10
We seem to be juggling three separate things here: Putin's personal interpretation of his historic role, his handling of difficult choices (in his perspective), and his failure in political leadership (in our perspective). 2/10
Putin's main issue is that he's dead sure he's 'historically right' and that the world is bound to evolve in the way he perceives as inevitable. This mindset is seriously skewing his view of domestic and global issues, thereby hindering his risk assessment ability. 3/10
THREAD. The Federation Council will hold an unscheduled meeting on March 4. A lot of people are now writing that the purpose of this meeting is to adopt anti-crisis laws. But there is another possibility – the approval of martial law.1/5 t.me/rpolitik/353
Frankly speaking, without wanting to stir things up, I think this scenario is the more logical one.
The proclamation of martial law will allow the authorities to introduce military censorship, to increase the secrecy of the state's activities and the actions of local bodies, 2/5
to ban all rallies and meetings, to ban the work of public, international and foreign organizations that undermine the security of the country, and so on…3/5
THREAD: A few quick thoughts on #Navalny and why the Kremlin opted for such a harsh sentence. 1/10
Ever since news broke about the failed assassination attempt last August it’s been clear the security services have been operating according with very simple logic. 2/10
The overriding goal was to destroy Navalny and to demonstrate that no move aimed against the security services would remain unpunished. 3/10
THREAD: Putin’s biggest plan yet—to reform the constitution and reinforce his regime—is facing the greatest crisis of his 20-year rule. In my paper, I explain what’s happening to Putin’s elites and how they are adapting to the new reality. 1/19 carnegie.ru/p-81726
Putin’s elites are far from united. Most players act in their own corporate interests, often contradicting the system’s priorities. Putin, in turn, is getting bored with many day-to-day responsibilities, and is distancing himself. 2/19
Coronavirus is no exception: Russian policy appears to be unconsolidated, contradictory, and lacking political logic. The state has failed to provide a consistent anti-epidemic policy, while the government remains without political leadership. 3/19