Navalny

For Antena M by: Miljan Vešović

 Even though the tragic death of Alexey Navalny happened only five days ago, there are several conclusions that can be drawn.

Firstly, there is little, if any doubt that Putin’s regime is responsible. The how can be debated – whether he was (slowly or quickly) poisoned, perhaps beaten to death, or Navalny’s passing is simply the consequence of a health made poor by yearslong repression. Whichever of these scenarios is true, the culprit always stays the same – Russian security apparatus.

However, it is wrong to assume (as some do) that Putin’s regime murdered Navalny (or, at least, hastened his demise) out of weakness. On the contrary, Navalny’s murder is, unfortunately, an expression of Putin’s strength. It shows that Putin, at this stage, doesn’t have much fear about any internal dissent. Basically, if Russian regime is able to kill its most famous dissident and most formidable political opponent a month before (however staged) general election and get away with it, they are able to get away with anything.

And it seems Putin is getting away with it – sporadic protests and violence that broke out after Navalny’s death have so far been dealt with easily by Russian police and security services. This further means, that there is no hope, at least in the short or mid-term, of “Russian opposition” (whatever it is) mounting a meaningful challenge against Putin or causing serious dissent.

Navalny’s death is Putin’s show of strength in another sense – he is showing to the system that he is still the best man to manage it. Putin is the man of the system, which is comprised of military establishment, security services (“chekists”), oligarchs, mafia and Russian nationalist intellectuals and media. Putin is no Hitler or Mussolini, and it is mistake to think of him in these terms. In modern dictatorships like Russia, China, Iran or Serbia, there is no “Führerprinzip”. The dictators who lead these states are frontmen of the system, but wholly dependent on it.

The system works in a pretty simple way – it uses official (coming from state security apparatus) and unofficial (coming from various paramilitary formations, extremist groups or even football hooligans) repression to stay in power, rampant corruption and clientelism to enrich people who are in it and confrontation with the Western world as its raison d’etre.

In the case of Russia, as long as that state is in “hot”, “hybrid” or “cold” conflict with the West, Putin and the system behind him can present themselves to Russian people as the only bulwark against destruction of Russia by “Western imperialists” and “Ukrainian Nazis”. That, of course, serves as justification for all the corruption, clientelism and for all the dissidents dying in prisons, the opposition leaders and journalists machine-gunned in the face and the businesspeople falling from tall buildings and drinking polonium-laced beverages.

This brings us to the next point – the timing of Navalny’s death. Lots of commentators raised doubts that Putin gained something from Navalny dying. The logic goes like this – with the war in Ukraine currently going favorably for Russia; the isolationist wing of the Republican Party (so far) successfully blocking further US aid to Ukrainian army; with war fatigue felt in Europe too and voices for cutting a deal with Russia growing stronger on both sides of the Atlantic; and finally, with Putin himself (courtesy of Tucker Carlson) just having completed his propagandist outreach to American and Western audience – surely Navalny’s death must have been a setback, not a success, for Russian leader.

Well, not so fast. Putin, and the system behind him, do not want any deals. They might say they want one, or claim they offered Ukrainians one, but all they have been suggesting so far were things that they knew in advance would be unacceptable for either Ukrainians, or the West, or both. The permanent confrontation has been Putin’s strategy since early 2000s. Therefore, any expectations that concessions to Putin in Ukraine or elsewhere might warm Russia to the idea of partnership with the West or pry it away from the alliance with China should better not be tested, because they will be dashed. Just like Obama’s “reset” with Russia during his first term went exactly nowhere.

Moreover, Navalny probably couldn’t have put Putin in serious danger, politically-wise, but, as a relatively young man, he certainly was a danger for the system, as he knew it inside-out and was willing to make great personal sacrifices to dismantle it. And while it will probably be decades until we see any sort of meaningful change in Russia, Navalny was young enough to lead that change should opportunity arise. Now the system has eliminated that threat. And just like with Prigozhin, by getting rid of Navalny, Putin has shown to the system that he is still the man to get the job done.

Last but not least – Navalny demonstrated not just to Russia, but to the whole world, the power of free expression of opinions and ideas. People like to be able to think freely and express what they think. If they do it in a catchy, funny and engaging way – even better. This was the key to Navalny’s popularity – he was able not only to reveal the corruption and rot in the Russian system, but to do it in a way that even uneducated, or people not interested in politics, understood perfectly.

And if there is any hope that Navalny’s death can actually lead to something good, it lies in the fact that, throughout history, attempts to suppress free speech usually created a backlash. From inquisition to “cancel culture”, from burning of books to attempts to assassinate, hurt or imprison political opponents – there are many examples. One of these examples was actually visible in Montenegro last week, when one of the main fortresses of free speech in Montenegro – Portal Antena M, was (so far) successfully defended against an attempt to suppress it.

And while the events of last week in Montenegro can in no way be compared to the ultimate sacrifice of Navalny, one has to feel grateful and heartened by the swift, efficient and courageous stand by the editorial board, journalists and columnists of Antena M, as well as other civil sector organizations. It gives hope that Montenegro, still, can somehow escape the darkness that currently envelops Russia and Serbia.