February 21, 2024
Navalny's Legacy: Envisioning a Post-Imperial Russia Amidst Ukrainian Crisis
The death of Alexei Navalny on February 16 has prompted glowing praise of the prominent opposition leader’s courageous efforts to transform Putin’s Russia into a “normal country.” In their eulogies, commentators have rightly celebrated Navalny’s promotion of free and fair elections and his campaign against corruption among the Russian elite. Yet, as the invasion of Ukraine has made tragically clear, the normalization of Russia will require fundamental changes not only to its domestic political system but to its relationships with its neighbors and the international community more broadly.
Navalny’s views on foreign policy matters have been a subject of debate. Over the years, his statements about Ukraine often left him open to accusations of supporting the Putin regime’s imperialist project. Shortly after Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, he declined to advocate for the peninsula’s return to Ukraine, stating in an interview with Echo Moskvy that Crimea “will remain part of Russia.” Later, after the establishment of a separate Ukrainian Orthodox church in 2018, Navalny lamented the split as a sign of the dissolution of the “Russian world”—one of Putin’s core ideological justifications for his invasion of Ukraine.
For the West, there is no long-term alternative to aiming for a post-imperial Russia—no matter how long it might take or how difficult it may be to achieve
Many took these comments as proof of the old maxim, famously coined by Ukrainian writer and statesman Volodymyr Vynnychenko, that “the Russian liberal ends where Ukraine begins.” To a certain extent, such a critique of Navalny is valid. His apparent indifference toward Ukrainian sovereignty revealed a tendency to subscribe to the type of Russian chauvinist thinking that has fed the country’s aggression towards its neighbors, both now and in the past.
Yet, two significant caveats are in order. First, while Putin evidently intended to recreate the Soviet empire by force, Navalny always rejected the idea that “reunification should be achieved at the end of the barrel of a gun.” His focus lay instead on the right of ethnic Russians to choose their own future. Later on, in his 2014 Echo Moskvy interview, Navalny elaborated on his views on Crimea, asserting that the peninsula “belongs to the people who live in Crimea” and calling for a second, legitimate referendum on its status. Navalny’s belief in self-determination, rather than subjugation by force, also explained his previous insistence on fully implementing the Minsk Accords, which would have granted self-government to Russian-speaking populations in eastern Ukraine while guaranteeing the withdrawal of Moscow’s troops from the region.
Read the full article from The National Interest.
More from CNAS
-
‘The U.S. Has Got to Get Involved’: Townsend on NATO Boosting Polish Air Defences
Video
Jim Townsend, adjunct senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security, discusses what actions NATO countries need to take amidst Russia’s incursions of NATO airspace.W...
By Jim Townsend
-
Commentary
Defense / Transatlantic Security
Europe’s Delusions Over What It Means to Deter RussiaToday’s European leaders are in a Singapore trap, crafting a training mission designed to signal resolve rather than achieve an actual military objective....
By Franz-Stefan Gady
-
The Wrong Way to Do Diplomacy With Russia
Commentary
In fact, the summit helped Putin legitimize Moscow’s grievances, giving Russians who might doubt the wisdom of the invasion reason believe that it was, as Putin promised, just...
By Celeste Wallander
-
Commentary
Indo-Pacific Security / Transatlantic Security / Middle East Security
A Project for a New World OrderIndeed, the gathering in Beijing suggests that the axis, rather than withering following the war in Iran in June, has momentum....
By Richard Fontaine & Andrea Kendall-Taylor
