Who killed Alexei Navalny?

Mainstream media across the Western world has rushed to accuse Putin of assassinating this political dissident, the evidence tells a different story

Written by Percy Spender, find more of his content on 𝕏 @PercySpender

On the 16th of February, Russian dissident Alexey Navalny died suddenly in his prison cell located in the arctic circle in northern Russia. Not much is known at this point regarding Navalny’s health other than a blood clot is being hesitantly posited as the cause of death. The event has triggered global outrage, seemingly all global media outlets have charged Putin with being responsible for Navalny’s death. However, looking through the lens of Russian domestic politics, glaringly absent from the theory that Putin ordered Navalny’s execution is a clear motive. Putin lacked a clear reason to kill his political opponent, and in fact even the appearance that he did may present turbulence for his re-election bid in the upcoming March national election.

Vladimir Putin’s approval rating has sat at record high’s throughout the war in Ukraine for a number of reasons; there exists a general perception among the Russian population that the Putin is responsible for repelling NATO encroachment onto Russian territory, and that his effective governance is to be credited for the prevention of serious catastrophe following the imposition of Western economic blockades. More recently, his performance in a highly anticipated interview with former Fox-news presenter Tucker Carlson won him praise from a Russian audience, who approved of his combative, stern approach. Yet another repetitional win is anticipated with the complete capture of the fortress city Avdiivka, a name now deeply familiar to Russians owing to the city’s involvement in the war since 2014.
With all these factors coalescing behind Putin, it was likely he would coast to yet another successful election result. The absolute last thing Putin needs is an attention grabbing controversy, rather it is in Putin’s interest to generate the highest voter turnout possible for the election as polls suggest Putin will win around 62% of the vote, while his closest competitor, Nadezhdin, will only win 7%.

Voter boycotts in protest of Putin are always anticipated to some degree, for this election boycotts were expected to only turnout relatively low crowd numbers due to Putin’s popularity, only an event like Navalny’s death could change this. If a large-scale boycott does happen, the West will undoubtably use this to attack Putin’s legitimacy throughout what many expect to be his final presidential term. In the meantime, Navalny’s death is potent propaganda for the West to churn up more donations to Ukraine to ‘defend democracy.’

Buy Anglophobia today using The National Observer’s Amazon affiliate link

Taking all these factors into account, many have raised the question: what could Putin have expected to gain by assassinating Navalny, if it was in fact Putin who ordered said assassination? Navalny’s political party and organisation was suspended in 2021, following a significant loss in support throughout Russia owing to a growing belief that he was compromised by Western intelligence agencies, and consequentially only sought destabilisation and regime change at their behest.

In 2020, while on a flight within Russia, Navalny was poisoned and was taken to a hospital in Omsk, a small city in Central Russian, at a later date he was transported to a German hospital for further treatment. If Putin wanted Navalny dead, why would he send his target away to NATO aligned Europe. Important to note is that this poisoning also occurred just a few weeks before the 2020 Russian presidential election, cementing in the mind of many Russians the idea that Navalny was a foreign asset deployed as a provocateur with an aim to undermine Russia’s government.

Another theory suggests this is a desperate attempt to drive fresh donations as the United States congress has begun blocking further aid packages to Ukraine. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson has blocked all aid designated to Ukraine over the last few months and with the largest donation contributor no longer sending anything Ukraine is suffering severe ammunition shortages.

Recently, the United States Pentagon and media together propagated a highly provocative story about Russia deploying nuclear weapons to space. After a short media frenzy and a very public announcement that congress had been briefed on the matter, reports began trickling out that Russia actually did not have the capability of perpetrating such attacks, nor is close to achieving it. Is the American state department and Ukraine desperate enough to assassinate Navalny in a last-ditch attempt to fill the donation cup? We know that Ukraine acting alone has accomplished high profile assassinations deep within Russia in the past. In 2022 Daria Dugina was killed in a car bombing just outside Moscow, which many believed was an attack intended to end the life of her father, Aleksandr Dugin, Russia’s globally recognised pro-Putin-regime philosopher and strategist. Ukraine also carried out the assassination of popular Russian war blogger Vladlen Tararsky with a bomb planted in a St Petersburg café.

When analysing events like Navalny’s demise it is important to think who benefits, who is capable and who has the motivation. An investigation into Navalny’s death is expected, which may bring clarity to the situation. However, the Western media will undoubtably reject the findings if assassination is ruled out, they will smear the report as Kremlin propaganda. Regardless of the discussions over the result of said investigation, the timing of this event is so unfavourable to Putin that we should place serious doubts on the Western media’s claim that Putin is responsible for Navalny’s death.