Demise of Navalny strategic loss for Putin, windfall for the West

In the frozen reaches of an Arctic penal colony, the sudden demise of 47-year-old Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny has sent shockwaves across the international stage, further intensifying the already strained relations between Russia and the collective West.

As the West mourns and points fingers, it becomes apparent that Navalny’s death is a complex puzzle, one that doesn’t neatly fit into the narrative of President Vladimir Putin’s interests.

Alexei Navalny, a vocal critic of the current regime in Moscow, was serving a hefty 19-year sentence when news of his death broke. The circumstances surrounding his demise are murky at best, and the implications reach far beyond the prison walls.

The Kremlin has long been accused of suppressing opposition voices, but the sudden exit of Navalny, a thorn in Putin’s side, seems more than coincidental.

At first glance, one might wonder why Vladimir Putin would orchestrate the demise of a prominent opposition figure as the shadow of the upcoming Russian presidential elections looms large.

Add his successful interview with Tucker Carlson, which is highly likely the most watched video of all time on the X platform (formerly Twitter), and this becomes even more suspicious. 

A dead Navalny holds less value to the Kremlin than a living one, particularly in the current geopolitical climate.

Navalny’s death, though tragic, appears to be more valuable to the West than he ever was alive, playing a role of a catalyst for the United States agenda toward the Kremlin. A peculiar calculus emerges – a dead Navalny serving as a martyr could galvanize support against Putin, fueling the flames of opposition and influencing the upcoming elections.

The West’s readiness to use Navalny as a pawn to interfere in Russia’s internal affairs and maintain support for the war effort in Ukraine adds a layer of cynicism to the unfolding geopolitical drama.

The suspicious synchronization of Yulia Navalnaya’s appearance at the Munich Security Conference with the announcement of her husband’s death only deepens the intrigue. Is it a mere coincidence, or is there a carefully orchestrated narrative being spun behind closed doors?

Dark past

What adds another dimension to the saga is Navalny’s controversial past. His documented fascist leanings and history of Islamophobia make him an unlikely poster child for human-rights advocates. Nevertheless, the West, driven by its agenda, is seemingly willing to capitalize on Navalny’s death and overlook these aspects in its pursuit of destabilizing “Putin’s Russia.”

Navalny’s connections with MI6 officer James William Thomas Ford via his top aide Vladimir Ashurkov, captured on video soliciting funds to initiate a color revolution in Russia, are conveniently brushed aside. The selective amnesia regarding Navalny’s troubling history exposes the West’s double standard when it comes to human rights and universal values.

It is also essential to juxtapose the Western response to Navalny’s death with the relative indifference toward atrocities in other parts of the world in a situation where the collective West, quick to issue warnings and threats of consequences for Putin, lacks the same level of vigor when it comes to holding Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accountable for the actions of his government in Palestine.

While acknowledging that all loss of life is tragic, the geopolitical stage seems to assign varying degrees of importance to different lives and events. Navalny’s demise, a blow to Putin’s Russia, is a stark reminder of the West’s strategic interests and willingness to prioritize political gain over universal values.

As the world grapples with the aftermath of Navalny’s death, it remains to be seen how this geopolitical chess match will unfold and whether the West’s strategic investment in his demise will pay off in the long run.