Weekly Overview Cables - Ukraine war updates, death of Alexei Navalny.
Ukraine war updates.
1) Russia captures another Ukrainian town.
After months of relentless attacks and extraordinary casualties (more than 20k in killed, wounded and missing soldiers and thousands of hundreds of lost tanks and armored vehicles) Russia finally managed to capture Avdiivka.
Short of ammunition and resources, the Ukrainian army was forced to withdraw.
Is this finally going to be a wake up call for the GOP Congressmen to stop playing cheap political games?
2) Security guarantees from France and Germany.
Ukraine secures long-term security commitments from both France and Germany.
Zelensky signed a bilateral security agreement with leaders of France and Germany.
France pledged additional €3bn in military aid.
With Avdiivka lost and Congress still mired in unjustified drama, this is a very timely signal of as long as it takes.
3) The Trump team suggests a tiered approach for NATO.
Trump’s national security adviser Keith Kellog, suggested that the US may entertain a tiered approach to NATO.
Details are unclear and irrelevant - it is bonkers: deterrence either works or it doesn’t.
There is no layered deterrence.
This is what happens when dilettantes thinking that they are updating a Netflix subscription somehow manage to lay their hands on national security policy.
What is the full membership tier?
Trump doesn’t get to invite Russia to do ‘‘whatever the hell they want’’ to your country?
Speaking of - Trump’s statement/invitation for Russia to do whatever they want if a country was to fall short of their 2% GDP commitment was one of the most damaging things to America’s national security a US leader could ever do.
And for all the talk of doing their share, let us not forget that there is a major invasion at the doorstep of NATO, and small countries like Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are paying 4-5x their share of GDP to support Ukraine than the US (currently at 0.25% of GDP).
And let us also not forget that NATO was founded because it was a huge net benefit to US security, and the only time that Article V (attack on all=attack against all provision) was ever invoked was after 9/11 - when America called onto its allies to step up and help.
Imagine being Poland back in the 2001-2006 era: the cold war is over and Russia is no longer a pressing security threat.
Why do you send your troops to Afghanistan and Iraq?
Why not just give up on this alliance?
But this didn’t even come up as a legitimate debate, and years later, Polish soldiers were the third largest contingent in a fight to capture Fallujah in Iraq (after the US and UK - another NATO ally).
Our European allies sent their troops to fight terrorists that targeted America, and now there is a huge unprecedented invasion at the heart of Europe, and the potential next President of the US is saying that he will call on Russia to do whatever the hell they want.
You cannot make this up.
4) Putin’s alleged preference for Biden - an alibi for Trump.
Putin recently revealed his preference in the 2024 elections in America: and apparently, he wants Biden more than Trump (because he is an ‘‘old school’’ and ‘‘predictable’’ politician).
Careful readers can already see that even his ‘‘compliments’’ are designed to overlap with Trump’s talking points: that Trump is an outsider/anti-establishment renegade that goes against ‘‘old-school’’ career politicians.
Naturally, it is very unlikely that these are his real preferences.
If this was going to be a repeat of Trump’s first term (when his foreign policy was guided by serious experts and men of intellectual heft like Mike Pompeo and HR MacMaster) then one could possibly see how the return of Trump could indeed be more disadvantageous to Russia.
People like Pompeo would likely worry much less about Russia’s “red lines”, and would likely be more assertive in supplying Ukraine with whatever that it needs in a much more timely fashion.
Furthermore, and with Trump in the White House, the GOP roadblock (for the Ukraine aid) in Congress would also weaken considerably (if not melt away completely).
In addition, if Trump was to resume the ‘‘maximum pressure’’ campaign on Iran, and weaken its ability to help Russia, then one can see how Trump’s return could indeed be worse for Putin.
But this is not going to be Trump’s first term - his national security team will likely not include people like Pompeo, and it is more likely that there will be a bunch of clowns that compare NATO membership to a startup subscription strategy.
As such, Putin is likely going to be worse off under Biden.
So then what is this? A cheap ‘‘reverse psychology’’ that everyone can see through?
Well yes, but not only.
Putin is providing an alibi for Trump - a lot of media pundits are already raising alarm that Trump will deliver Ukraine to Putin on a silver platter.
So in order to immunize (or try) Trump against this narrative, Putin is revealing his public preference for Biden.
This then allows Trump/his team to resist and rebut narratives of “Kremlin’s man in the White House’’ by pointing at Putin’s own words: see? Putin himself said he wants Biden. Because Biden is weak and predictable and I am a tough negotiator. I am the toughest and the most unpredictable negotiator that the world has ever seen. I will negotiate the most beautiful deal on Ukraine and it will be over in 24hrs. Also, Mexico will pay for our hotel bills while we negotiate.
Death of Alexei Navalny is a watershed moment for Russia - we cannot allow it to be in vain.
“Alexei Navalny was the last beacon of hope for things to change, and that hope died today. So the only thing I want to do now is to cry - I have no more words.”
These were the words of one of the protesters that came out to commemorate Navalny’s sudden death in the penal colony in the Arctic circle region of Russia.
There were more than 250 people detained across 32 cities - all for their participation in this ‘‘unsanctioned’’ protest event.
But this is a very low turnout for a country of Russia’s size.
And therein lies the proof of the aforementioned quote: Navalny was truly one of a kind, and without him, it is hard to see anyone else galvanizing and organizing the Russian public to mount a similar political challenge to Putin.
Contrast the turnout to commemorate his death with the sheer mass of the protest movements that were launched in January of 2021 - when Navalny demonstrated exceptional bravery and returned to Russia (to certain imprisonment, and/or death) mere five months after the botched FSB attempt to poison and kill him with Novichok nerve agent.
Sure, a lot has changed since then (there is an ongoing war with tougher penalties for unsanctioned public gatherings in place), but the point still stands (and maybe even more so): who else can now pose an effective political challenge to Putin?
Navalny’s team is dispersed across the world - with their activities banned and labeled as extremist.
And why was Navalny admired so widely?
Because he was a paragon of virtue: embodying bravery, incorruptibility, and will to fight to the bitter end.
History moves in cycles, and there will be powerful forces and factors that shape events and make it more or less likely whether Putin (and or his rotten regime) survives or is finally toppled.
But there needs to be the right person at the right time to act as a catalyst.
And sadly, Russia just lost that person.
If Prigozhin was the most pressing criminal/intra-regime challenge to Putin, then Navalny was the only leader who could pose a similar political challenge.
For now, Putin got rid of both types of challenges.
This means that there is no one left who is both loud and effective/powerful enough to challenge Putin.
His next intra-regime challenge could now only come from people not on his radar.
There would need to be a trigger - an extreme reversal of fortune in Ukraine could be such a catalyst.
Maybe it will be a bunch of senior officers fed up with corrupt mismanagement from the very top, and make their move to topple Putin - something similar to the Decembrists revolt of 1825.
Or maybe it will be a hitherto Putin confidante who decides to get rid of the failing boss to preserve the regime?
Things will be even more unpredictable from the political/public sphere.
With Navalny gone, there is no one else who could lead an organized movement against Putin.
So the next likely political challenge (if there ever is one) will likely manifest itself in the form of a random/spontaneous protest movement without a concrete political leader in charge (think of Tunisia 2010).
And how would this ever happen?
Perhaps when there is a deep economic recession, living conditions deteriorate much further, and there is a trigger event (possibly, a series of humiliating defeats).
In other words, it is unlikely to happen any time soon.
Reaction from the West and steps to ensure that Navalny’s death was not in vain.
We don’t know yet if Navalny was assassinated in prison.
Perhaps there was yet another attempt with a newer drug/poison used by the FSB - finally, successfully.
But this is speculative - we have no evidence whatsoever.
With that said, it is very suspicious that the Prison in question refused to release the body to Navalny’s family.
If it was indeed a ‘‘sudden cardiac arrest’’ as they claim, then what is there to hide?
What are they waiting for? For the evidence of some sort of poison to melt away?
The unsatisfying truth is that even if there was foul play, we will never know for sure.
But does that even matter at this point?
We know that Putin did try to kill him with poison at least once.
Navalny was then moved around prisons and kept in extremely tough conditions.
Navalny was frequently subjected to solitary confinement.
It is of course possible that all of it added up together to cause his death - that his body could no longer take the punishment.
In any case, Putin is personally and directly responsible for Navalny’s death.
As such he and his regime must bear the full weight of consequences here.
To his credit, Biden blamed this squarely on Putin - calling this yet another proof of Putin’s brutality.
And the foreign ministers of the G7 Nations demanded a full investigation into Navalny’s death.
Stern political statements are necessary but insufficient.
There must be concrete steps to hold Putin and his regime accountable for his death.
In addition, Navalny’s death should be used to try to strengthen the protest movement in Russia: this is exactly what he asked for in the event of his murder.
Western states should join together to impose new sanctions and restrictions targeting everyone playing a role in Putin’s repression apparatus.
Naturally, the ideal scenario is that Putin is personally prosecuted for this crime.
But in practical terms, the West doesn’t have access to Navalny’s body to conduct an independent autopsy - and even if such a demand could hypothetically be made, Russia would simply refuse.
And when it comes to other independent autopsies, Russian authorities (as mentioned above) are already delaying the release of his body to his family.
This is to say that even if there was foul play, it would simply be almost impossible to prove it.
And then there is of course the possibility that there simply wasn’t any direct intervention and that Navalny’s body gave way after a long period of harsh detention.
But what about previous crimes - attempted assassination/poisoning in 2020 is well-documented, and the FSB agent involved in that attempt openly revealed the details when pressed by Navalny himself (there is an incredible video of Navalny impersonating a staffer for the National Security Adviser Nikolai Patrushev - where the FSB agent on the line is asked to provide information on the failed attempt - so that Patrushev could then explain/discuss the failure with others on the national security council - and Putin is also on that council. It is implied that Putin would be privy to this discussion and yet, there is no corresponding surprise or pushback from the FSB agent tricked by Navalny)
Sadly, this would not fall under the jurisdiction of the ICC - the most common avenue for the prosecution of international crimes.
The ICC can only punish four types of crimes: genocide, war crimes, military aggression, and crimes against humanity - and even though the latter does include murder, it would still need to be committed “as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population”.
So the previous attempt doesn’t fall under ICC jurisdiction - and even if February 16th death was also caused by murder, the ICC would still most likely not have a jurisdiction here.
What about some sort of a special/ad hoc tribunal: possible but unlikely.
Russia has a UN Security Council veto and it is unclear what other body could form such a special tribunal while maintaining its formal legitimacy.
There is also the concept of Universal Jurisdiction - where any domestic court can try another nation’s criminal in its own courts - if the crime is particularly heinous.
But these are also similar to the ICC jurisdiction crimes: war crimes, torture, crimes against humanity, genocide, piracy, hijacking, acts of terrorism, and attacks on UN personnel.
In addition, heads of states are protected from universal jurisdiction - Putin would need to lose his international recognition first (and that is not happening anytime soon).
All of this is to say that unfortunately, formal legal justice for Navalny’s death will have to wait..
But there are other things that the West can still do.
On a fundamental level, the West must make a decision to go after Putin and his regime and support Russia’s genuine political opposition that bears the brunt of his crimes.
Here are some concrete steps that the West can and should take:
1) Navalny legislation across US, EU and G7.
Western countries should pass a new legislation named after Navalny (similar to the Global Magnitsky act).
This legislation must impose new asset freezes and other financial sanctions (prohibitions from engaging in course of business/access to Western financial infrastructure etc) on everyone playing a role in Navalny’s unjust imprisonment and in the attempted assassination back in 2020.
Every judge, prison warden and any other law enforcement agent that played a role in Navalny’s unjust arrest and detention must be targeted - to deter others from playing a similar role in the future and send a strong signal to leaders of the Putin regime that those barbarians will have to carry this burden forever.
2) Special fund to support Russian opposition.
The West must come to terms with the fact that in Putin, it is dealing with a thug - not a legitimate political leader.
As such, there should be a very transparent and public project to rally funding and resources to support Russia’s political opposition.
Media institutions like Meduza, political parties and activist organizations close to people like Navalny, Ilya Yashin and Vladimir Kara-Murza (the other two prominent opposition activists also currently in prison) should receive Western funding and other resources to tackle Putin’s regime.
3) Clandestine tech support to protestors.
If the CIA is brazen enough to make public calls asking for intel from ordinary Russians, then it (and other Western intel agencies) should also be willing to provide technical resources and knowhow to Russian protesters.
New encrypted/secure communication tools and other apps that will help protesters to coordinate and organize safe from the Kremlin’s prying eyes could do a lot to help Russian protesters overwhelm Putin’s security apparatus.
Will any of these work?
Unclear - but it is a first step in the right direction: Alexei Navalny sacrificed his life to see his country free from corruption and tyranny.
The very least that the West can do now, is to help his followers sustain the hope for better Russia of tomorrow.
Great cable today on Navalny's murder. Thank you for this. I hope it will be read by many and some of the actions suggested will eventually happen. USA is sleeping again, in part. We cannot afford such long naps and escapes from reality.