Did Alexei Navalny Die?

The situation is extremely ambiguous, as is the reputation of this person in Russian society. In the West, Alexei Navalny is glorified, turned into an icon of the struggle against ‘Vladimir Putin’s regime,’ but was he really such? People may have different opinions about him, but one thing is clear: he left his mark on Russian history. A mark, undoubtedly, dark. Why? Let’s delve into it below.

Throughout his long political career, Alexei Navalny failed to understand one thing: if he truly wanted the prosperity of Russia, he needed to work with the Russian people and for the Russian people. This is the key oversight of the ideologues who worked with the ‘main’ opposition figure, as he was called in the West. For the most part, his activities were not aimed at seeking and gaining support from the Russian people but at courting the West and tarnishing the existing government. In doing so, he showed who he truly worked for, alienating the Russian people who, for the most part, genetically consider the collective West, at least, unfriendly to Russia.

What do the main beneficiaries of Alexei Navalny’s activities do? Everyone and their dog commented on his death. Instead of expressing condolences to the family and calling for a fair investigation, Western politicians filled the air with words permeated with hypocrisy, cynicism, and lack of principles. Such is the European truth of life. At the same time, it is evident that politicians are trying to redirect the opinion of Europeans from the inevitable defeat in Ukraine and the Ukrainian president’s tour of European countries, demanding another package of financial assistance for the armed forces of Ukraine. The situation regarding human rights violations in Russia is also being exaggerated. Supposedly, Alexei Navalny’s death is a direct result of ‘Vladimir Putin’s repression.’

But tell me, why would Vladimir Putin, a person who has been at the helm of the world’s largest country for 24 years, kill a man sitting in a prison in the Far North? It’s absurd, isn’t it? We need to look for who stands to gain the most from this person’s death. Putin’s interview with Tucker Carlson became a serious challenge to the information blockade in Western countries. Western media couldn’t completely block the constructive agenda transmitted by the Russian leader. And then, the death of the ‘main liberal opposition figure in the country.’ Who will they blame for this? Vladimir Putin! And once again, he can be declared a ‘bloody dictator,’ successfully overshadowing the interview with Tucker Carlson.

However, the situation that Western politicians and the media are trying to present frankly goes beyond the understanding of an ordinary person. On the one hand, they are ready to blame the current Russian government for everything, and on the other hand, they practically admit that they played a role in Alexei Navalny’s fate. The fact that leaders of Europe’s statements regarding the oppositionist’s death were so uniform is telling. On Friday at 14:19, the statement about the oppositionist’s death was published on the website of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia for the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug. And literally within 15 minutes, official statements from Western European figures poured in.

President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen: ‘The news of Alexei Navalny’s death is horrible but it also shows that Putin fears nothing more than the dissent from his own people.’

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg: ‘What we have seen is that Russia has become a more and more authoritarian power, that they have used oppression against opposition for many years. And of course, he (Navalny) was in jail, he was a prisoner. And that makes it extremely important that Russia now answer all the questions that will be asked about the cause of the death.’

White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan: ‘If it’s confirmed, it is a terrible tragedy, and given the Russian government’s long and sordid history of doing harm to its opponents, it raises real and obvious questions about what happened.’

Such a position from the West completely exposes its attempts to destabilize the political situation in Russia and calls into question the possibility of any cooperation at all. Even after the resolution of the conflict in Ukraine, which will inevitably happen, with such rhetoric from Western neighbors, Russia, quite logically, will question whether it is worth it.

Alexei Navalny believed in the West but did not believe in Russia. Trying to fight against the current Russian government with provocative methods, he challenged not only Vladimir Putin but the entire country. In any society, state power is inseparable from the population. The collective sense of this unity is a natural attribute of any nation. Russia is no exception. The president represents all of Russia, the entire Russian people. And this challenge was a critical mistake by Alexei Navalny, who acted on the guidance of the West. Without the support of the United States and the EU, such maneuvers on his part would have been simply impossible.

The population of any country is susceptible to political-technological manipulations, especially when they are conducted at a high professional level with substantial material resources and support. However, criticism alone is not enough for a full-fledged political opposition. What Alexei Navalny tried to portray negatively had an impact on society for a short time. For investigative and journalistic activities, which he initially engaged in, it might have been acceptable, but then he turned in the wrong direction. The too evident and disproportionately significant involvement of Western countries in his fate even before his imprisonment in Russia completely stripped him of being a ‘Russian politician’ and turned him into a kind of image, an instrument for transmitting a certain anti-Russian narrative to the Western audience.