Most of the world presumably believes he was killed on orders of Vladimir Putin. The evidence for it is circumstantial but for most people it's probably an open-and-shut assumption. "Navalny's fate is part of a long series of political murders. Anyone who messes with Vladimir Putin risks their life. This is the cruel message that the Kremlin wants to send, and it is paralyzing resistance in Russian society," writes Christian Ultsch. (1)
Vadim Nikitin writes about Navalny in The Nation:
Though they are separated by decades and railed against two very different regimes, [nuclear physicist and Soviet dissident Andrei] Sakharov and Navalny had much in common. Both possessed extraordinary charisma, courage, doggedness, and moral purpose. And despite being feted in the West in quasi-messianic terms, neither quite managed to articulate a coherent political program or reach a mass domestic audience outside the tight-knit circles of the Soviet intelligentsia or the urban middle classes, respectively.
In the end, Sakharov’s inspiring but vague vision of a democracy built on pluralism and human rights could not survive contact with the mobster capitalism of the 1990s. Navalny’s dream of a “beautiful Russia of the future” based on individual liberty and rule of law crumbled in the face of violent irredentism abroad and heightened repression at home.
From Washington to Moscow, Navalny’s death was immediately exploited by the usual suspects for their own ends. Russophobes like Anne Applebaum took the opportunity to blame both Russia’s leadership and its people, as well as taking a veiled swipe at Trump supporters: “Putin killed him—because of his political success, because of his ability to reach people with the truth, and because of his talent forbreaking through the fog of propaganda that now blinds his countrymen, and some of ours as well,” Applebaum wrote in The Atlantic.
Bill Browder, a former Kremlin cheerleader turned anti-Putin crusader, used the tragedy to boast about his own prescience: “Three years ago I said President Putin was carrying out a slow motion assassination of Russia’s leading dissident Alexei Navalny,” he wrote in the Daily Mail on February 16. “Today, my worst fears were realised.” (2) [my emphasis]
Fun fact about investment banker Bill Browder, one of the most high-profile Western critics of Putin’s government: he is the grandson of Earl Browder, who was General Secretary of the US Communist Party from 1930 to 1945. (3)
Annual Munich Security Conference (MSC)
News of Navalny's untimely passing came during the annual Munich Security Conference, to which Putin was not invited this year. This may not have been entirely coincidental.
Vice President Kamala Harris was there, delivering standard platitudes with her trademark brand of “I’m-from-the-corporate-personnel-department” charisma. (4) To be fair, her presentation style is more appealing than that of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. But it’s always recommended to have a cup of coffee, or two, before listening to a Harris presentation.
“Harris seemed dedicated to keeping to the administration’s recent script, which is warning against heralding in a new era of ‘isolationism,’ reports Marc Martorell Junyent. (5)
Not everyone is suffering from the Israel-Gaza War
Netanyahu’s war on the Gaza Palestinians, which now features US military attacks on several different countries in support of Netanyahu’s war does have beneficiaries. Netanyahu himself can’t be prosecuted on pending corruption charges as long as he is Prime Minister. Oh, there’s also Israel’s military-industrial complex, which profits nicely along with the American one (6):
Republicans really, really don’t want Democratic constituencies to vote
We badly need an effective new Voting Rights Act in the US. Because the Republicans just aren’t on their own going to stop trying to suppress voting by groups they think may lean Democratic. And the equal right to vote is not something they want Americans to have:
The Brennan Center just published a report, intimidation of State and Local Officeholders: The Threat to Democracy. (7)
With an companion video (8):
Austria’s conservative Chancellor can’t get his head around this whole gender thing
Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer of the conservative/Christian Democratic Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) tries to appeal to the voters who don’t have their own lobbyists by promising things like: I’ll protect the Wiener Schnitzel! (This has something to do with the idea that environmentalists are all vegan hippies who want to ban meat, or something.) I’ll defend gasoline motors! (What, the Greens think that cars can run on batteries?!)
He’s also bothered by this whole newfangled thing of gender-inclusive language. By gum, if my great-great-grandpappy called it a “cell phone,” then that’s good enough for me! He wants to do away with “gendering,” by which he means gender-inclusive words. Although isn’t using non-inclusive words more “gendering”? (No, it’s not some quirk of the German word meanings; it sounds just as dumb in German.)
The Austrian news weekly Profil did a fact-check on Nehammer’s claim, “From a biological point of view, there are only two genders.”
Their conclusion? Sorry, Herr Chancellor: “From a biological point of view, there are more than two genders. Intersexuality is a reality, according to clear medical evidence. The statement of Nehammer’s is therefore false.” (9)
Notes:
(1) Ultsch, Christian (2024): Die Botschaft, die nach Nawalnys Tod weiterlebt. Die Presse am Sonntag 17.02.2024 (Accessed: 2024-20-02). My translation from German.
(2) Nikitin, Vadim (2024): Russian Opposition Leader Navalny Was Brave, Authentic, Funny, Larger Than Life. Will His Movement Survive Him? The Nation 02/20/2024. < https://www.thenation.com/article/world/russia-navalny-death-putin-liberalism/>> (Accessed: 2024-20-02).
(3) Earl Browder. Wikipedia 02/20/2024. (Accessed: 2024-20-02).
(4) Kamala Harris Promotes U.S. Leadership In The World At Munich Security Conference. Forbes Breaking News YouTube channel 02/16/2024. (Accessed: 2024-20-02).
(5) Junyent, Marc Martorell (2024): Dispatch from Munich: VP Harris warns against 'isolationism'. Responsible Statecraft 02/16/2024. (Accessed: 2024-20-02).
6) How is Israel's arms industry profiting from the war on Gaza? The Stream. Al Jazeera YouTube channel 02/20/2024. (Accessed: 2024-20-02).
(7) Ramachandran, Gowri, et. al. (2024): Intimidation of State and Local Officeholders: The Threat to Democracy (Accessed: 2024-20-02).
Introductory article: Intimidation of State and Local Officeholders 01/25/2024. (Accessed: 2024-20-02).
(8) Intimidation of State and Local Officeholders: A Threat to Democracy. Brennan Center for Justice YouTube channel 01/30/2024. (Accessed: 2024-20-02).
(9) Dzugan, Franziska (2024): Das Kanzler-Märchen von Mann und Frau. Profil 19.02.2024. (Accessed: 2024-20-02). My translation from German.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Director of National Intelligence came out with a report today saying that Vladimir Putin authorized operations during the election to under -- denigrate you, support President Trump, undermine our elections, divide our society. What price must he pay?
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: He will pay a price. I, we had a long talk, he and I, when we -- I know him relatively well. And I-- the conversation started off, I said, "I know you and you know me. If I establish this occurred, then be prepared."
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: You said you know he doesn't have a soul.
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: I did say that to him, yes. And -- and his response was, "We understand one another." It was-- I wasn't being a wise guy. I was alone with him in his office. And that -- that's how it came about. It was when President Bush had said, "I looked in his eyes and saw his soul."
I said, "Looked in your eyes and I don't think you have a soul." And looked back and he said, "We understand each other." Look, most important thing dealing with foreign leaders in my experience, and I've dealt with an awful lot of 'em over my career, is just know the other guy. Don't expect somethin' that you're-- that -- don't expect him to-- or her to-- voluntarily appear in the second editions of Profiles in Courage.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: So you know Vladimir Putin. You think he's a killer?
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: Uh-huh. I do.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: So what price must he pay?
PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: The price he's gonna pay we'll-- you'll see shortly. I'm not gonna-- there's-- by the way, we oughta be able that ol' -- that trite expression "walk and chew gum at the same time," there're places where it's in our mutual interest to work together.
That's why I renewed the [START nuclear arms control] agreement with him. That occurred while he's doin' this. But that's overwhelmingly in the interest of humanity, that we diminish the prospect of a nuclear exchange. But that and SolarWinds as well. He's been -- they've done some mischievous things, to say the least. And so we're gonna have -- I'm not gonna announce what I'm doing, but he's gonna understand that -- [my emphasis]
"Walking and chewing gum" over Russia in the 19th century
Russia has been around for a while. In the early decades of the United States' existence, the country's foreign policy was less worried about Russia than about Barbary Pirates, Britain, France, Spain and the challenge of dispossessing the native population in North America.
During the first part of the 19th century, republicans and democrats in Europe and the "New World" generally took a dim view of Russia because it was seen as the ultimate guarantor of the royalist regimes of the so-called Holy Alliance in Europe after the defeat of Napoleon and the 1815 Peace of Paris.
But even then, things weren't that simple. Thomas Jefferson in his mansion in Monticello kept prominently displayed busts of Napoleon and of Alexander I of Russia, the emperor who had defeated Napoleon and was the protector of the Holy Alliance. In 1813, Jefferson was a post-Presidential "elder statesman," as we used to say. But he was still an influential voice on political matters. And he understood very well that even in 1813, foreign policy was complicated. His biographer Dumas Malone wrote about Jefferson in this period in Jefferson and His Time: The Sage of Monticello (1981):
Toward the end of 1813 a Federalist paper in Philadelphia printed an extract from a private letter of his, written a couple of months earlier. In this he voiced his detestation of Napoleon, describing him as "the unprincipled tyrant who is deluging the Continent of Europe with blood." At the same time the ex-President expressed his gratification at the recent disasters of the unprincipled French Emperor in Russia and the successes of "the virtuous Alexander [I of Russia]." From this extract alone it would seem that, at a time when his own country was at war with the British, he was siding with them against their inveterate foe [France], and his strong language was particularly disturbing to members of his own party who retained pro-French sentiments. [my emphasis]
Jefferson later explained the context of that letter, which had been published by a Federalist Party partisan. The War of 1812 was still going on in 1813, and the Federalists were in the process of fatally discrediting themselves by their pro-British partisanship. Jefferson was the founder of the Democratic-Republican Party, which evolved into today's Democratic Party but in those days was known as the Republican Party. Then-President James Madison was a Republican.
The quotation was from a letter of [Jefferson's] replying to one from Dr. George Logan, a Quaker. This former supporter of his had once gained favor in Republican circles, and reprobation in Federalist, for his efforts to prevent war with France. A doctrinaire pacifist now seeking to end the war with Great Britain, he besought Jefferson to ask Madison to "come forward with just and honorable proposals for peace." He was entirely confident that these would be accepted. Instead of brushing him off as a visionary, Jefferson wrote him a long account of Anglo-American relations, leaving no doubt of his own conviction that the object of procuring a just peace would be "best promoted by a vigorous and unanimous prosecution of the war [i.e., of the US war against Britain]" As he explained to Leiper, the references to Napoleon, while indisputable, were incidental. They were being quoted wholly out of context by a former friend who had become a "bigoted partisan of England, and malcontent of his own government." [my emphasis]
Foreign policy with Russia was complicated even in 1813.
Since Jefferson's reputation has fallen considerably in recent decades, especially among the party he originally founded, I assume I'm not doing any favors by comparing him to Jefferson. But the party founder and third US President did know something about walking and talking at the same time in foreign policy matters. And the example above shows how Jefferson was balancing a variety of partisan and ideological considerations and his understanding of the general US interest in how he was evaluating foreign policy.
His busts of Napoleon and Alexander I could be taken as a symbol of that complexity. Napoleon was a military aggressor. But his conquests also advanced the progress of political and economic reforms of a liberal nature across Europe. Alexander became the backstop of reactionary regimes in Europe. But he was also an internal reformer in various ways, most notably in establishing a system of public education in Russia. Alexander came to the throne after cooperating with a successful plot to assassinate his father Tsar Paul I (Pavel Petrovich). Alexander was also sort of a "killer" type, it seems.
My general attitude toward Biden' foreign policy is pretty much "trust but verify," which was Reagan's famous phrase for nuclear arms control. Or maybe "be skeptical and verify" would be closer. Because I think the US spends way too much on the military and that our foreign policy is far too militarized and should be focused much more on pressing dangers to humanity like nuclear proliferation and climate change.
But I'm not alarmed by this particular turn of events. Does Putin really mind that much if Biden calls him a killer without a soul? He may take it as a compliment, although in diplomatic terms he obviously knows it's an insult. And of course Russia expects other countries to respond to attempts to interfere in their internal politics.
A lot of foreign policy is posturing, sending signals, saving face, and satisfying various internal constituencies and external actors. And when countries are negotiating with each other, just like in business or labor negotiations or a lawsuit, both sides are going to assume that the other side will try to maximize its advantages and get as much as they can. And that their opposite numbers will be hardnosed and practical in their approach to negotiations.
In the real world of US foreign policy, the military-industrial complex and its allies in think-tanks and politics are and will continue to be hardnosed in pursuing policies that lead to bigger and bigger military budgets. People who actually favor a peaceful, practical, and democratic foreign policy need to build a lot more clout than they currently have.
The Biden administration has created an completely unnecessary confrontation with Russia at a time when reasonable working relations with Moscow are extremely important for achieving two immediate and key administration goals: rejoining the nuclear agreement with Iran, and a peace settlement in Afghanistan facilitating U.S. military withdrawal from that country and an end to America’s longest war.
The administration approach combines many of the errors committed by Washington officials, politicians, and the media in recent years. First, you have an intelligence report based on evidence that the public cannot see stating that it is “likely” that the Russian government ordered attempts to influence the elections. This report is then turned by the administration and much of the media into an absolute certainty. In a recent ABC News interview, Biden says Putin will “pay a price” for what the report says his government has done. As usual, the issue is personalized by attributing the decision to Putin himself, and the U.S. statement is accompanied by gratuitously insulting language which is likely to offend even many Russian opponents of Putin. Does nobody remember the advice of Teddy Roosevelt — hardly a weakling on U.S. security — to speak softly and carry a big stick? [my emphasis]
Lieven also reminds us that we can be try to be realistic about Putin's government, which is admired by rightwingers and even the most radical rightists, and still be critical-minded about simplistic "Russiagate" claims, "In essence (assuming that the allegations [about Russian election interference in 2020] are true), Russia did what thousands of Washington lobbyists are paid to spend their lives doing (perfectly legally): influence U.S. politicians, media and policies in favor of particular foreign governments." I don't take Lieven to mean that the US shouldn't distinguish between legal and illegal influence operations.
It's also worth noting that current celebration in the West of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny does not mean that if he were the leader of Russia he would pursue a fundamentally different foreign policy, since he rose to his present level of influence in Russian politics with a distinctly Russian national-chauvinist tone, although in the last decade he has put more emphasis on the fight against corruption.
Putin had obvious pragmatic power reasons to prefer Trump as President over Clinton or Biden. Trump may have been inclined to actively help him in some areas, and may have been subject to blackmail in some way. Certainly Trump weakened the credibility of the US as player in world politics and particularly within the NATO alliance, both goals of Putin's government. But Trump also continued to increase the military budget, and didn't obviously cater to Putin's foreign policy preferences in places like Syria. Russia's power-balancing interests would also be aided by increase US tension with China, a country with which Russia currently has good relations.
Whatever benefits Trump may have provided in term of basic espionage gains, Trump's main policy benefit from the standpoint of Putin's government was in being a chaos agent. Trump was spectacularly incompetent in actually running the government, including the military, intelligence, and diplomatic parts. And he was terrible at negotiating with other countries, shown particularly by his dealings with North Korea. And as we see with the bizarre clown coup attempt in Venezuela, Trump was no good at regime-change operations either, and Putin seems to be genuinely worried about the US targeting such operations at Russia and its immediate neighbors, especially nations once part of the Soviet Union.
I assume that Putin's government regards the Biden Administration as a mix of blessing and curse. He isn't going to provide Putin a lot of opportunities to look like he's slapping the US around, and Biden obviously isn't going to kowtow to Putin personally in the way Trump did. But for substantive agreements affected things like the Nord Stream 2 pipeline deal or the Iran nuclear deal, the Russians will probably be relieved to have an adversary in the White House who actually knows something about foreign affairs and who doesn't see the Presidency as a professional-wrestling promotion act.
Related: Biden's February 4 foreign policy speechContradicciones 02/06/2021
