A quick take on Russia’s formal decision to bar Navalny from running in the upcoming election. In short, it’s consistent with Putin’s domestic risk-aversion, aims to remove damaging issues from the agenda, & risks backfiring if Navalny’s boycott succeeds. theguardian.com/world/2017/dec…
Those arguing the Navalny ban is indicative of a change in Putin's strategy or demonstrates weakness are wrong. Russia had one competitive presidential election in its history (1996) and the incumbent still won by 13.7%. Since 2001, the average margin of victory has been 52.6%. 
The reason Navalny et al. are prevented from running is partially because Putin doesn't like taking chances, but also because electoral shenanigans mean the results are besides the point. Certain ideas can make Putin unpopular afterwards, which jeopardizes his hold on power.
What bothered Putin about the 2011 Duma elections was the moderately successful attempt by the opposition to paint his United Russia party as a party of thieves and crooks. It's easy to remove a candidate, but difficult to remove a popular idea.
So while the election results are not in doubt - both because Putin's popularity is near an all-time high and because of inevitable election "irregularities" - the idea Navalny can unleash a slow-acting political poison against Putin isn't unreasonable.
levada.ru/en/ratings/
levada.ru/en/ratings/
Because the results are not in doubt, both the public and the elites will be looking elsewhere for an immediate sign of Putin's weakness. One can look at polls, but different questions produce very different answers. A much simpler indicator? Turnout.
While turnout figures are subject to manipulation, especially in certain regions, they provide a strong indication of the depth of Putin's support. In fact, Sobchak was probably allowed to run to boost the female (and/or youth) turnout.
This makes Navalny's call for an election boycott dangerous, more so than him running and getting 25% of the vote. A turnout figure below 60% would be highly embarrassing (the lowest in post-Soviet times) and would only require getting an extra 5-10% of the voters to stay home.
That's why officials are hinting at a boycott being illegal (despite no laws to that effect). It's why the regions with "interesting" past turnout figures will redouble their efforts. The boycott has a chance to do what protests could not: remove Putin's aura of invincibility.
