The prison murder of Alexei Navalny is an indication of a new chapter in Putin's rule

The blame for Alexei Navalny’s death is attributed to Putin, sparking a new era of his regime. It will be a time of darkness for the totalitarian state.

People who receive long sentences in a penal colony are treated as dead men walking in Russia. Alexei Navalny was sentenced first to 9 years and then to 19 years in jail. Officially, according to penitentiary authorities, he died in prison in the Yamal-Nenets Autonomous Okrug in the far north of Russia.

There will probably be numerous versions of how the oppositionist Navalny died and many suspicions surrounding whether his death was natural or not. The Russian authorities tend to spread multiple and often contradictory theories, which adds to the confusion. Moreover, the Russian authorities are not trusted and are believed to have the worst intentions, including the ability to eliminate their opponents physically. A whole series of victims – Sergei Magnitsky murdered in the Matrosskaya Tishina prison in Moscow, Aleksandr Litvinenko poisoned in London, and Boris Nemtsov shot dead near the Kremlin walls – are the testimony to the above statement. Navalny himself was not only the target of an attempted murder with biological weapons in 2020 but also exposed the methods of the FSS’s poisoning department in a highly publicized investigation.

The dictator’s paranoia is apparent

However, the most crucial question that arises today is different: why did Putin need Navalny’s death? After all, he was already imprisoned and lost in the labor camp system, which made him powerless and under control. As an opposition leader, he was shattered by repression and was destined to be forgotten, like thousands of people sent to labor camps for long sentences. Notably, Putin avoided mentioning Navalny’s name in his press conferences. Putin’s ultimate goal was not only to imprison Navalny but also to erase him from reality.

After his recent interview with American journalist and populist supporter Tucker Carlson, Putin tried to present himself as a peace-loving and realistic leader. He expressed his desire to reach an agreement on Ukraine. However, the blame for Navalny’s death falls entirely on Putin, and it is expected to evoke a strong reaction from the Western world, particularly the US. The response to this event is anticipated to be more severe than the reaction to the assassination of Sergei Magnitsky in 2009. At that time, the US imposed personal sanctions on the Russian justice system and security services.

Sanctions are being imposed today in response to the aggression against Ukraine, and more will likely follow. However, it is crucial to raise awareness about the situation and help people realize that Putin’s way of thinking is not based on Western pragmatism. Instead, it is rooted in a specific, possibly even paranoid, autocratic rationality. Despite this, many people in Europe and the US attempt to understand Putin’s reasoning when he explains the aggression against Ukraine. But it is difficult to comprehend why he would imprison Navalny, who voluntarily returned to Russia for almost 30 years in the most remote part of the country, and then let him die. Even assuming that Navalny was perceived as a threat to the Kremlin’s power monopoly, Putin did not have to take such drastic measures, and logic would dictate he should have been protected.

It is possible that some groups of coterie within the Russian services wanted to limit Putin’s alternatives concerning Ukraine and the West. Last year’s incident with so-called Yevgeny Prigozhin’s mutiny and his subsequent death suggests that the Kremlin and secret service groups are willing to use extreme measures to influence political decisions. It is also possible that Putin was willing to take this risk and burn bridges to avoid pressure from Western diplomats about Navalny’s release during talks on Ukraine. If any of these theories are true, they are a product of the Kremlin’s paranoia. It is the same deep-state paranoia that Navalny fought against and hoped to eliminate from Russia’s political landscape.

A cool guy like a next-door neighbor

Navalny, the opposition leader, was like a next-door neighbor. He grew up in garrison towns as the son of an officer, which made him relatable to many of the Russians. The author of this text had a chance to speak to him in 2012 in Moscow, where Navalny shared his vision of a great and democratic Russia. However, he believed Russia should be a superpower. In 2014, he expressed some opinions that later caused controversy and were misinterpreted, leading to a belief that he supported the annexation of Crimea. Six years ago, he spoke cautiously about the emancipation of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church from the Kyiv Patriarchate, which was not well-received by the Ukrainians. Navalny had political genes inherited from his younger days when he joined the marches of the Great Russian nationalists. However, he was learning, and his views were evolving.

His opinions underwent a transformation after engaging in discussions with opposition intelligence and meeting with Western politicians and authorities. He started to comprehend that Russia cannot oppose the world of liberal democracies and that the problem with Russia is not only the corrupt Kremlin elite but also the imperialism that Putin implements through his methods. Putin found him dangerous because of his ability to organize resistance. The protests initiated by Navalny were unlike previous ones. Young people who didn’t know any other Russia than Putin’s came out on the streets. The demonstrations took place in cities throughout Russia and were not confined to any region or issue. Navalny gave them a common and universal platform: the fight against corruption and nepotism, which is understandable to everyone, regardless of their political views. The fear of a grassroots revolution, combined with the Kremlin’s paranoia and anxiety about U.S.-coordinated color revolutions, made Navalny Putin’s number one enemy.

Stalin’s dark times in history began for good after the assassination of Sergei Kirov in 1934. Kirov and Navalny were both seen as threats to Russian leaders. Kirov was part of the Bolsheviks, and Navalny was Putin’s opponent. Either one of them had the potential to challenge the leader’s grip on power. Sadly, this is not the first time that a Putin oppositionist has died in Russia. However, the timing of Navalny’s death is significant. It happened just before the March referendum, allowing Putin to remain in power for another decade. This new chapter in Putin’s rule is already tainted with blood, and it shows that Putin is leading Russia to a totalitarian state. The Kremlin is also shifting towards a war mode, tightening the power system and eliminating the misconception that change is possible. Navalny’s bravery and sacrifice gave rise to the illusions of potential transformations when he was alive.

Michał Kacewicz/belsat.eu 

Translated by PEV