Skip to main content

Assassination With Style Points

 

Remember Evgeny Prigozhin? Founder of the Wagner Group? His plane blown out of the sky by Putin, just last summer? It was a sensational story at the time. I wrote about it myself, here and here.

But despite all the coverage, a particularly chilling detail seems to have eluded everyone but my friend Dennis, who shared with me a remarkable insight that has haunted me ever since:

Putin didn’t just want Prigozhin dead. He wanted Prigozhin to think about it, all the way down to the ground.

Expert analysis of the crash supports this, though nobody talks about it. It’s clear that a bomb was on the plane, and that it blew one of the wings off. Which apparently left the fuselage intact. Which presumably left Prigozhin strapped in his seat, wide awake, with a little more than a minute to contemplate both his political missteps and the meaning of life.

Who knows what his thought process might’ve been, but I’m guessing he thought, even if just for a few of those precious seconds, about Putin.

Prigozhin, of all people, would appreciate the assassination style. Thoughtful. Deliberate. Instructive.

He would understand that to Putin, death is not enough. Putin wants death to make a statement, to go viral, to underscore the futility of resistance and the irrelevance of courage. He wants death with style points. And he generally gets what he wants.

Putin ordered Prigozhin’s disposal without a single thought for the nine other passengers he’d treated to that same minute of urgent introspection. He likes when people think about him.

This is by no means Putin’s only assassination style. Among his more flamboyant techniques is defenestration, the art of tossing journalists, activists, and business executives from high windows. We can only assume that the thugs who do the actual tossing are instructed to make sure their victims are as alert as Prigozhin was, for the whole time they’re in the air. Considerate, yes?

In 2014, Alexander Litvinenko — an early opponent of Putin’s who’d been forced into exile in London — drank some tea spiked with plutonium-210, a radioactive isotope so rare and unobtainable, its presence in his body pointed unmistakably to Putin’s personal involvement. This resulted in a hideously painful radiation sickness that landed Litvinenko in the hospital for almost a month, with no happy ending in sight. He knew he was dying, he had plenty of time to think about it, and he knew exactly who to thank for it. From his deathbed, he very publicly accused Putin of murder.

There is a long list of Russians whose final moments are graced with Putin-ish style points. And now he’s finally gotten around to Alexei Navalny.

It couldn’t have been too difficult. Navalny couldn’t have been far from death to begin with. He’d recently been moved to a brutal prison camp in the Arctic, where there’s no sun at all, and where temperatures rarely get above minus-20. By the time he got there, he’d already spent some 300 days in solitary confinement, in small concrete boxes so inhuman, even the slavish prison authorities feel compelled to limit their use. He was regularly subjected to sleep deprivation, deep-freeze conditions, toxic drugs, and starvation rations.

And this was on top of the Novichok nerve poisoning that had put him in a coma for weeks in 2020. Granted safe passage to Germany — a decision Putin probably now regrets — Navalny managed to recover in a shockingly fast six months. While the residual effects of such trauma could not have been minor, he decided nonetheless to return to Russia, against the advice of most of the Western world. But we can assume that his health had already been seriously compromised, well before his ordeals in the prison system.

Reliable information is almost impossible to come by, so it’s not yet clear whether he died quickly or slowly, from ill health or from a bullet. First reports said he died of a “thromboembolism,” a diagnosis known to be difficult to confirm, and which is reportedly a go-to “cause of death” for prison doctors with awkward paperwork to fill out. “Suicide” is another favorite.

But according to reports from the informal grapevine of prisoners and guards at the camp, two FSB officers —secret policemen — flew in from Moscow a few days before, and were seen disabling the various listening devices and hidden cameras that might have captured whatever chicanery had been planned. Is this true? We’ll probably never know.

The timing, however, seems significant. Navalny’s death occurred during this year’s Munich Security Conference, just in time for Kamala Harris to announce it from the podium.

This was the same high-profile venue where, in 2007, Putin famously gave the speech that burned his bridges with the West. In it, he rejected the entire post-Cold War security architecture and declared existing borders unacceptable. Seven years later he grabbed Crimea and moved on the Donbas. Eight years after that, he invaded Ukraine. He wasn’t invited to the conference this year, but he was certainly talked about. 

And as it happens, one of this year’s participants was Navalny’s wife, Yulia Navalnaya, who became a widow on opening day. More style points.

It also happens that there’s a presidential election in Russia next month. Putin will be “running” for another term, opposed by a few token candidates who’ve been hand-picked to run against him, but who are preordained to lose in a landslide.

Killing Navalny in the run-up to this election is not a coincidence. Putin expects to have his power emphatically reaffirmed by the Russian people. Or else. Navalny’s murder is an unsubtle reminder of that power.

And yes, Putin appears to be growing feistier. He seems to think that Donald Trump will be restored to the presidency, and that the U.S. will then promptly exit NATO, leaving him free to absorb Ukraine, Finland, a Baltic state or two, and maybe Poland. The odds of these things happening are small, but not zero.

Meanwhile, what Liz Cheney calls “the Putin wing of the Republican party” has succeeded in holding up supplemental funding for Ukraine, much of which would flow to red-state defense contractors. This breathtakingly cynical obstruction is the sole accomplishment of the GOP-run House.

Many have pointed out that killing one’s opponents is a sign of weakness, a sign that there’s nowhere for Putin to go but down. And indeed, his current sugar high does seem delusional, given his massive failures in Ukraine. Whatever his intentions for the future of Eastern Europe, it’s quite clear that he is ill-equipped, both militarily and economically, to carry them out.

That said, there doesn’t seem to be any mechanism short of death — natural or otherwise — that can remove him from power.

The killing of Alexei Navalny lets Putin flaunt his impunity for the world to see — and for Trump to envy. He revels in power for power’s sake. His warped worldview holds that basic humanity is a fatal weakness, and that human life is inconsequential.

That so much of the Republican party finds this so appealing, is appalling.


I have written before about Alexei Navalny, and have long admired him. His death is a gut-punch I’m still absorbing, and I’m sure I’ll have more to say about it in the future. Meanwhile, “Navalny,the Oscar-winning documentary he made prior to his return to Russia, is an absolute must-see. It belongs in the curricula of every Social Studies class, and should be required viewing for American citizens — especially those misguided souls who think Putin is anything but a loathsome monster. This film will set them straight.

Comments

  1. Having spoken over the years with a few Russian nationals, I am acutely aware of the famous fatalism they are known for. They pride themselves on enduring the hardship of a repressive regime.

    I dare to hope that Navalny might serve as a martyr and catalyst for change, but it's hard to unknow what I have come to understand about Russian culture. Putin will probably die of old age, semi-senile - - like some other politicians we know - - in office.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

This Election is All About the Women

  As you probably know, I publish this blog on Tuesdays, so I’ve written this piece with no knowledge of today’s election outcome. Under the circumstances, I had to think more than usual about what I wanted to write.  With everyone’s anxiety levels turned up to eleven, I’m quite sure I have neither illumination nor comfort to offer at this late date, least of all to myself. So I’ve decided to talk about the heroes of the election, win or lose: women. If the American Experiment is to be extended for at least another four more years, it will largely be because women willed it to happen. Yes, the Dobbs decision made it easy for them to turn rage into votes. And yes, the rise of Kamala Harris made it easy for them to fall in love with a candidate. But I like to think they’d have stepped up anyway. It was only two weeks ago, though it seems much longer, when Harris dared to appear on Fox for an interview with Brett Baier . Remember? Nobody expected her to ...

Anybody See Any Bright Sides?

Nothing mattered, in the end. Not the probable dementia, the unfathomable ignorance, the emotional incontinence; not, certainly, the shambling, hate-filled campaign, or the ludicrously unworkable anti-policies. The candidate out on bail in four jurisdictions, the convicted fraud artist, the adjudicated rapist and serial sexual predator, the habitual bankrupt, the stooge of Vladimir Putin, the man who tried to overturn the last election and all of his creepy retinue of crooks, ideologues and lunatics: Americans took a long look at all this and said, yes please. —    Andrew Coyne , Globe and Mail   Leave it to a Canadian columnist to give voice to my utter disgust. Canadians, of course, had no say in our election, but they’ll be hugely affected by it, and not in a good way. The same goes for Mexico, most of Europe, Ukraine, and — come to think of it — just about every country in the world. We just told most of them to go to hell. Shame o...

How Two Montana Democrats Wish They Hadn't Spent Election Day

Late afternoon on Election Day, before the dismal returns began coming in, I was copied on an email from a friend of a friend, a guy I’ve never met in person, but who has been a reader of this blog for several years. John’s story was terrifying when I first read it, but as that unhappy evening wore on, it grew into a sort of metaphor for what was happening to the rest of us. Trust me, John’s night was worse than ours. He and his wife Julie spent it in fear for their lives. They had been living their dream retirement in the wilderness of Western Montana, on a mountainous property four miles from town, but two miles from their own mailbox. To them, this was an idyllic lifestyle, a home in the woods, exactly what they wanted. But in recent months, it had all turned dark, and the blame is entirely Trump’s. As long as a year ago, John had written privately to several friends, including me, about the extreme Trumpy-ness of his adopted region. There was trepidation,...