Weekly Overview
Estimated Reading Time: 4 mins, 57 sec.
Putin’s Navalny dilemma - opportunities for the U.S.
Putin’s brave critic, Alexei Navalny was once again arrested.
He was detained minutes after landing in Moscow, on the way back from Germany - where he was convalescing after Kremlin’s failed assassination attempt.
Formal reason for his detention was a violation of the terms of the suspended prison sentence - for some clearly fabricated political nonsense from a couple of years ago.
Actual reason for his detention: daring to survive the poisoning and then to demonstrate [to the whole world] Kremlin’s involvement in the attempted assassination.
+ remaining as a serious political threat in the upcoming Duma/parliamentary elections in September.
Granted, when I say a serious political threat, I don’t necessarily imply an actual chance of usurping Putin.
That probability is extremely low.
But, Kremlin evaluates threats for their long-term potentials in weakening the system of governance that they have hitherto established.
As noted in previous cables, Kremlin relies on the theory of governance that their former chief strategist, Vladislav Surkov coined as managed democracy.
Here, appearances of democratic elections, free media, and impartial state institutions are actively maintained.
This maintenance of the deceptive facade requires a significant use of state power and resources.
When the political opposition gets too strong however, appearances are difficult to maintain - they end up requiring excessive and conspicuous orchestration from the Kremlin.
This then risks revealing the true nature of Kremlin’s rule - or more accurately, the true extent of Kremlin’s totalitarian control.
Russians tacitly endorse the Kremlin rule based on two beliefs:
1) Putin is the most capable/competent/mighty ruler to lead a vast, geopolitically important [and constantly externally threatened] country
2) We know that we don’t really have a proper democracy - but Putin is the most popular politician in any case.
Most Russians do realize that Kremlin rigs elections, silences political opposition, and that the courts would not dare to rule against its will.
Most Russians, do however also think that Putin would probably always win in any case - that he is too popular and universally admired.
It is this second pillar of Putin’s claim to legitimacy that is now under a significant threat.
The threat comes from Navalny and his well-organized team.
If Putin was not to detain him, Navalny would use his refreshed and bolstered reputation for bravery and leadership, to organize a country-wide resistance to Kremlin in the upcoming legislative elections.
This would then push Kremlin to intervene more transparently and directly in the elections.
Electoral fraud, and state complicity would become apparent.
Putin’s popularity would be questioned by that large passive part of the population that would traditionally grant him a tacit consent to rule.
Gradually, as Putin is forced to resort to these openly fraudulent measures, his first pillar of legitimacy would start eroding too - people would question how in control and powerful he really is.
This would then create dangers of palace coups - whereby the nervous oligarchy/siloviki would want to solve the political crises by removing the rotten figurehead, and offer a semblance of reform in order to preserve their power and wealth.
It may appear unlikely now, but authoritarian leaders with a very tight grip have in the past experienced just that.
Egypt is a great example - where the powerful military - and their wealthy oligarch allies, decided to remove Mubarak to appease the crowds.
So the risks of letting Navalny free were significant.
Otherwise Putin would not jail him again - since those have other risks.
Now Putin is facing the risk of merely delaying the inevitable - allowing Navalny to become even more popular in prison.
A Nelson Mandela like figure.
Not a stretch. Just look at the media exposure Navalny has received so far.
There is a drama of a failed assassination, unlikely survival, and exposure of Kremlin.
Returning to Moscow to face arguably the most ruthless and cunning autocrat.
This is great drama - people love drama. Media loves drama.
Navalny will become even more popular. His support will now grow.
It is entirely possible that even in Navalny’s absence, his well-coordinated grassroots organization manages to do 80% of the job he would have done in the September elections.
Which creates a third risk for Kremlin: leaderless, decentralized opposition movement.
It may become even harder to control a spontaneous mob rising up in numerous Russian cities at once.
Meanwhile, all of this happening in the context of Putin damaging his reputation for popularity by jailing his main political foe.
If as you claim, Navalny is ‘‘just a blogger’’ then why jail him?
Why send so many police officers, blockading the whole airport from his supporters? Why divert the airplane to a different airport the very last minute so that his supporters cannot greet him?
Surely no need for any of this if he is just a blogger?
But he is not…
He is in fact a very serious threat to the entire political order orchestrated by Kremlin.
Which leads us to the opportunities for the U.S.
America is in a prime position to exploit Russia’s internal turmoil.
This is important partly for the defensive reasons : more on Kremlin’s domestic plate - less resources available to keep attacking our vital institutions with cyber tech/disinformation.
But mainly to discourage Kremlin from engaging in more conflict with the west.
Putin has played his foreign adventurism hand to the max.
He invaded Crimea and Ukraine.
Got involved in Syria, Libya and now in Aze/Armenia conflict.
Beyond these interventions, anything else on its immediate border is a no go..
It is either an allied state, or a NATO member.
Meaning that it is almost impossible for Putin to engage in a new popular military entanglement [to divert the attention away from domestic problems] where the risk/reward ratio is favorable.
What is he going to do? Invade the Baltic NATO states?
Almost certainly not.
His only conceivable foreign success could come up in annexing Belarus and creating a new unified country.
That move however would be extremely costly.
It will require a lot of money at the time when finances are in dire condition.
So with foreign adventurism explored [almost] to the max, weak economy, and increasing internal political opposition, it is a prime time to push Kremlin into a more cooperative stance.
But crucially, this has to come not from another failed reset, but by [initially] increasing the sanctions and pressure on Kremlin.
Kremlin must suffer even more.
Before it is forced to move away from a confrontational stance.
When that time arrives, a face saving diplomatic option must be offered.
Perhaps a joint military/anti-terrorism project/campaign.
Maximum pressure must be applied up to that point however.
It helps that Biden’s national security picks are up for the task.
In particular, Victoria Nuland’s appointment as an Under Secretary for Political Affairs at the State Department is excellent.
Putin sees Nuland as the architect behind the 2014 Maidan revolution in Ukraine.
+ as a backer of 2011 Bolotnaya protests in Russia - the first significant popular challenge to Kremlin since Putin’s rise to power.
Seeing her back at the DoS will naturally worry Kremlin strategists.
and what a time to have her back!
p.s. back in 2014, in a leaked phone call [discussing UN/EU’s role in Ukraine] Nuland says ‘‘F**k EU’’.
Given EU’s backstabbing 2 weeks ago [check out the January 10 weekly overview cable] I wholeheartedly approve that message.
European powers respond to Iran’s Uranium metal plans
In a statement of rebuke, France, Britain and Germany jointly said the following:
‘‘We strongly encourage Iran to end this activity, and return to full compliance with its commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (Iran nuclear deal) without delay, if it is serious about preserving this agreement’’.
Cool, but 2 things..
1) Encourage? There are only few circumstances when such a mild term should be used.
This is a serious issue - a serious violation.
Where you want a full compliance.
They are going too far with trying to sound non-aggressive.
Use better, contextually appropriate terms - like we strongly urge..
2) I would also use the term pause instead of end.
Given the domestic context in Iran, it is indeed more face - saving for Iranians to pause and look reasonable, than to end - and risk looking like they gave in..
I don’t like JCPOA and I think without extra Iranian concessions on ballistic missile programs and proxy activities, it is a bad deal for the U.S.
Having said that, there is an opportunity for a good cop/bad cop situation here.
European powers could act in a stylistically softer manner - in contrast to America’s tougher [correctly so] stance.
Important note: in style only. In substance, unity must be preserved for this to work.
China’s barbaric response to Taiwan phone call
The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Kelly Craft, spoke with Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen.
Not face to face [as it was initially planned] but on the phone.
Ambassador Craft had the following comment on the phone call:
‘‘I made clear to President Tsai that the U.S. stands with Taiwan and always will, as friends and partners, standing shoulder to shoulder as pillars of democracy."
This is good, but..
Cancelling the face to face meeting was weak - as I wrote in the previous cable.
Naturally, China [emboldened with America’s appeasement in cancellation of the in-person trip] responded with a characteristically barbaric response to this phone call.
This was Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, Zhao Lijian’s comment:
‘‘Certain U.S. politicians will pay a heavy price for their wrong words and deeds’’
What is this?! pay a heavy price?! concrete American politicians?!
What kind of threat is this?
Looks like this Zhao guy has been watching too many gangster movies on Netflix.
No American diplomat speaks about Chinese politicians in an even remotely similar manner.
U.S. must respond with an official note and a demand for an apology.
This must not go unaddressed.
If America tolerates this new tone, more will follow.
Soon thereafter, the whole world will feel comfortable about addressing American statesmen in the similar manner.
That would be a significant threat to America’s prestige and reputation for prowess.