How should the West respond to Alexei Navalny’s death?

The death of Alexei Navalny has come as no surprise to those who watched him return to Russia in 2021. He had been in Germany receiving treatment for an attempted assassination via Novichok poisoning in Siberia in 2020, and knew that he would likely be detained and then imprisoned upon his arrival in Moscow. In the following months and years, Navalny received sentences totalling 28 years for charges including parole violations, fraud, contempt of court and finally, founding and funding a terrorist organisation. In December Navalny seemingly disappeared before he was revealed to have been transferred to the ‘Polar Wolf’ prison camp near Kharp, in the Arctic Circle, known for its especially harsh conditions and remote location. Then, on Friday 16th February, the Russian Prison Service announced his death after a fall whilst on a walk.

The immediate response from Western leaders including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, US President Joseph Biden, and UK Foreign Secretary Lord David Cameron was to condemn Putin for Navalny’s murder. The UK government has been quick to issue new sanctions against fifty individuals or companies.This, however, is simply a continuation of a position taken two years ago, and other western leaders, like the EU, seem to be taking the same approach. The failure to respond to domestic violations of human and civil rights–the rigging of elections and the persecution and murder of pro-democracy activists–has to be understood as part of the reason why Putin and his regime felt so emboldened as to invade Ukraine first in 2014, and then again in 2022. In short, what Putin could get away with at home eventually reflected what he thought he could get away with abroad.

A robust response to Alexei Navalny’s death is critically important. It is important that the international community defend, through action, the principles of democracy and rule of law that they accuse Putin and Russia of breaching. The current sanctions heavy approach has not yielded either the political or financial results the USA, UK, EU and their allies had hoped for. A different course of action must be considered in recognition of this. A starting point should be in addressing Russia’s influential position within the United Nations, the chief political body on the international stage. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has stated that the invasion of Ukraine was a violation of the UN Charter and international law, which Russia, as a member of the UN Security Council, has a particular responsibility to uphold. Removing Russia from the Security Council would send a strong message that breaches of the UN charter will result in downgraded international status. As one the five permanent (P5) members of the ten member Security Council, Russia has veto power, which means that currently it would have to approve its own removal. There is no precedent for removing Security Council members and no framework for how to initiate such proceedings. The UN is not without options though. Members of the Security Council could invoke Article 6 of the UN charter which allows for a vote on the removal of a member country from the General Assembly. This exact action was taken against South Africa in protest against Apartheid in 1974, and prevents a member state from speaking or voting in the Assembly. Russia has already been removed from the Human Rights Council, and failed in its bid to rejoin following a sustained internal campaign by some member states. Whilst diplomatic sidelining is a statement in itself, it does nothing to address the privileged and influential position enjoyed by Russia at the UN while it is simultaneously condemned for violations by the same body. Antonio Guterres has himself suggested that reform is needed. Addressing the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva in February, he said that the Security Council’s impasse over Russia and Gaza has ‘perhaps fatally’ damaged the UN’s credibility. He added that ‘serious reform to its composition and working methods’ needed to be undertaken. Withdrawing the protection that the Security Council unintentionally offers Russia via its P5 status would address this need, and uphold the principles the UN founds itself upon.

At a state level, increasing and solidifying support for Ukraine is the strongest message that individual countries can send. Low levels of military preparedness in Europe combined with the unreliability of aid from both the current and possible future US government, are encouraging signals to Putin. Military aid has been delayed, and shell shortages mean that Ukrainian forces are firing at a ratio of 1:5 against the Russians. Allowing this asymmetrical situation to continue only benefits Russia. Adequately arming Ukraine is not an escalation, but a fair response to Russian aggression. It is also the quickest way to end the war. A second option would be to expel Russian ambassadors or downgrade Russia’s diplomatic status. Evidence of illegal Russian activity in Germany and the UK further support a shift in diplomatic relations. This has been discussed since February 2022, but only implemented by Estonia and Latvia. More countries should take similar steps to further entrench the diplomatic consequences of Russia’s violations of international law.

Sanctions are still a useful tool, but must be used in a more expansive way. Appeals for deeper and morewide-ranging sanctions were repeatedly made by Navalny’s Anti-Corruption Foundation in an effort to get the West to fully utilise every tool at its disposal. Their in-depth investigations revealed the wealthy lifestyles of the wives of sanctioned Russians, alongside vast European property portfolios and the war-related businesses behind them. The ACF has a list of 6000 individuals it believes should be sanctioned, of which only 1610 appear in western sanctions packages. Not all who surround Putin are ideological and demonstrating that proximity to him will damage their careers and finances could help to syphon off key financial backers. After entrepreneur Oleg Tinkov successfully had his UK sanctions lifted, he publicly called for more oligarchs to abandon Putin and condemn the invasion of Ukraine. The truth is that the Russian economy has proven more resilient than many in the West predicted in 2022. Sanctions have been circumvented by both individuals, and businesses. Unless more is done to strengthen the economic impact of these measures, their impact will continue to be limited.

It is important to consider that an increasing stringency of sanctions will inevitably impact ordinary Russians, but weakening the Russian from within is a necessity in targeting Putin’s regime. Sanctions are impacting daily life with consumers experiencing inflation and fuel shortages, but the deliberate cultivation of a Tsar-like image enables Putin to deflect blame. Indeed, the Russian president has so far shrugged off the existing response, especially as the war in Ukraine has shifted in Russia’s favour. From the beginning, talk of discontent within the government with both the decision to go to war and how it has been executed. Without a viable alternative candidate to rally around, many continue to publicly support Putin as there is no incentive to do otherwise despite their doubts. Boris Bondarev, a former Russian diplomat at the Russian UN Mission in Geneva previously argued that the decision by the International Criminal Court to issue an arrest warrant for Putin in 2023, should have been the springboard upon which the West sought to undermine Putin’s authority and support the pro-democratic opposition in exile. Engaging with this group helps to signal to Russians at all levels that an alternative path is available, and that the West is happy to talk to Russians, simply not those who break the law. A good example can be seen in the European response to Belarusian leader-in-exile Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya. She has not been able to return as its elected leader, but the decision to treat her as the democratic representative of Belarus has reinforced the legitimacy of her position and bolstered anti-Lukashenko activity. Even if no single candidate emerges in exile, it could help to encourage deflections and a general weakening of the personnel system sustaining Putin and his regime.

There is evidence that ordinary Russians want change as well. Everyday acts of defiance often go unnoticed by the world’s media, but the flowers silently placed and replaced across Russia since Navalny’s death highlight existing civil opposition. Currently, an estimated 400 people have been detained since Friday for protesting or simply publicly mourning Navalny’s death. Since 2012 OVD-Info, a Russian human rights and media group, has collected data on politically motivated criminal prosecutions, and its data shows that 3639 individuals have been subject to the process with 792 receiving a sentence, and 1094 still under investigation. Demographically those between the ages of 30-50 are most likely to be targeted for prosecution with 1772 cases.Those between 51-70 who were adults when the USSR collapsed were second at 788. The 18-30 demographic, who have only ever known a Putin dominated Russia, came third with 609. It's interesting to note that only 179 investigations or prosecutions separate two very different generations. It is clear that a growing number of Russian citizens are unhappy with the actions taken by their government, and are prepared to say something about it despite the visible cost.

This may not be the groundswell of anti-Putin support that many in the West would perhaps expect or want to see. It does, however, suggest the beginning of an inter-generational opposition to Putin’s rule, which given the fragmentation of the political opposition is something for the west to grasp hold of and nurture. This would therefore seem an opportune time for the West to commit to confronting Russian aggression and supporting Putin’s opponents. This is not an entirely unselfish act, as if Putin is removed from power the West would reap immediate benefits. It would be free of a belligerent, imperialistic Russia which takes Ukrainian lives, depletes its military stocks and treasuries, creates chaos in its food and energy markets, and interferes in the Middle East.

Alexei Navalny wanted a Russia free of Putin and his cronies, and free to fulfil the promises of the 1990’s. A free, democratic and prosperous Russia benefits the West, but the cost of fighting for this is currently borne primarily by Russian citizens. A free, democratic and prosperous Europe benefits the West, but the cost of fighting for this currently is borne by Ukrainians. It is time for Western leaders to stand up and defend its values to the fullest extent.