Putin's Arrest of Navalny a Typical Russian Ploy to Test New Presidents

 

As most have heard, Russian dissident and anti-corruption opposition leader Alexey Navalny has been arrested upon his arrival in Moscow today. 

Navalny, poisoned with nerve Agent Novichok on Putin's orders by the FSB, returned after a five month recovery in Germany. During that period, Navalny documented Putin and FSB authorship of the assasination attempt, even spoofing one of the FSB team members to divulge on the phone the history of the whole operation, including years of surveillance. 

In a previous two part Blog article posted on this platform, (Vladimir Putin, the Man With No Shirt On, Caught With His Pants Down") I characterized these revelations as a strategic humiliation for Putin, who was left exposed and whose relations with Western Europe in particular were severely damaged. Combined with the revelations of the 2020 year long hack of US Government Agencies, there are signs that with the defeat of Russian asset Donald Trump that the pushback by the US Military/Intelligence/Political establishment against Putin's operations has begun. 

As I have expressed my belief on several occasions, Putin has proceded with aggression and barely contained enthusiasm throughout the course of the Trump Presidency, with continued election interference, Internet Troll operations, hacking and disinformation. These operations in conjunction with Putin's covert steering of the US White Supremacist organizations to attack the election, to spread violence and chaos, and bog down the incoming new Administration, were carried out in full view without compunction, not fearing at all the prospect of being confronted or held responsible. Putin got away with paying the Taliban bounties to kill American Soldiers, and arming the Taliban as well. When Trump refused to investigate or even consider the charges, Putin saw that as a Green light to make a whole array of aggressive moves, included in which was the poisoning of his leading domestic political adversary Navalny in a thoroughly arrogant and outrageous move, without concern for any US reprisals.  Putin has asserted from the beginning that Navalny is an Agent of Western Intelligence services, trying to destabilize his country. He believes it is a strategic attack on himself and Russia.

However, as often happens with authoritarians, actions taken with arrogant disdain are the ones which boomerang and knock them down. In Putin's case, much of what he has done was based on his mistaken assessment that Trump would stay in for a second term, because of his control of the Supreme Court. (A constant refrain in Russian State controlled Media) He gambled and lost. He misread the American People, and misestimated the degree to which Trump loyalists would break with him to insure the Election certification and transition. In effect, Putin's Intelligence warfare operation against the US, and his attempted murder of Navalny were a kind of "Futures Contract". He was betting on a Trump victory in the same way that people in the early 2000's refinanced their homes, borrowing off of them under the delusion that Housing Market values would continue to rise. Which they did, that is, until the Bubble popped.

Putin lost his bet on the US Election, and his Keystone Cops FSB team screwed up by not suceeding in killing Navalny, therefore he now has to deal with a President Biden whom he schemed against with Trump to put him and his Son Hunter in Jail, and is in a weakened position. 

So, ironically, Putin's year 2020 has gone about as well for him as it has for the rest of us. 

Now the question is, what is he actually doing with Navalny, what does he want to accomplish?  For the answer, its helpful to look at a little history. 

The Kennedy-Khruschev Vienna Summit, June 4, 1961--

Shortly after the Election of 1960, President Kennedy was immediately tested by a rogue element of Cold Warriors in his own Defense/Intelligence establishment, who sought to tie his hands and weaken him with the "Bay of Pigs" fiasco, a deepening Superpower proxy quagmire in Laos, and force a confrontation with the Soviet Union over Berlin. Kennedy sought a meeting with Khruschev immediately to see if he could establish a personal relationship and resolve these issues. Soviet insistence on a separate peace treaty with the Eastern part of divided Germany could have led to World War 3 if it meant loss of access to Berlin by the US and allied powers, imperiling the Western Military deployment there. 

Khruschev profiled JFK as a weak, young rich Playboy, who could be intimidated. He saw JFK's Wartime PT Boat heroism as a joke, knowing that Soviet Naval officers who lost their boat and survived would be shot, not decorated. This set up a brutal confrontation in both the general summit, and the private meeting held between them. It was reported by insiders in both camps years later that Khruschev physically manhandled JFK, actually shoving him into a wall and hurting his back, pretending friendly horseplay. But it was far worse than that. The following summary from "History Central. ...

"Before his meetings with the Soviet leader, Nikita Khrushchev, Kennedy's advisors attempted to prepare the President for what would doubtless be a challenging event. By and large, his advisors agreed that Khrushchev would try to intimidate Kennedy. Their first meeting took place in Vienna at the residence of the US Ambassador to Austria in the early afternoon of June3, 1961. The meeting featured a spirited debate between Khrushchev and Kennedy about their respective economic systems. The atmosphere improved during lunch. However, when the two leaders took a stroll later in the garden, Khrushchev relentlessly attacked both Kennedy and the US economic system. Later in the day, Dave Powers commented to the President how calm he looked during Khrushchev's attacks. Kennedy responded: " What did you expect me to do... take off my shoe and hit him over the head with it? "

Continued--

The afternoon meetings were no better. Khrushchev continued his relentless attacks on Kennedy and American policies. That evening, a state dinner was held in the Schönbrunn Palace. Later that evening Khrushchev stated to his aides: " He is very young not strong enough; too smart and too weak. " The second day's meeting centered on Berlin and Germany. Khrushchev insisted he would sign a peace agreement with Germany with or without US approval, and without regard for US rights in West Berlin. Kennedy made it clear to Khrushchev that signing a peace agreement with Germany was not a problem, but blocking Western rights could lead to war.

When the formal meetings were over, Kennedy insisted on a short private meeting with Khrushchev. At that meeting, Khrushchev stated: " Force will be met by force. If the US wants war, that's its problem" . " It is up to the US to decide whether there will be war or peace. The decision to sign a peace treaty is firm and irrevocable, and the Soviet Union will sign it in December, if the US refuses an interim agreement. " Kennedy responded: " Then, Mr. Chairman, there will be a war. It will be a cold winter. " Kennedy left the meeting shocked to his core. He stated to James Reston immediately after the meeting that it was the " worst thing in my life" . Kennedy was convinced he could use his charm and work things out with Khrushchev. Now, after the meetings, he felt that war was a very real possibility. This encounter with Khrushchev forced Kennedy to rethink US policy throughout the world. 

https://www.historycentral.com/Europe/ViennaSummit.html

And from Wikipedia--

In retrospect the summit may be seen as a failure. The two leaders became increasingly frustrated at the lack of progress of the negotiations. Kennedy later said of Khrushchev, "He beat the hell out of me" and told New York Times reporter James 'Scotty' Reston it was the "worst thing in my life. He savaged me."^[18] On the other hand, Khrushchev viewed the Summit in a much more positive light. In his memoir, Khrushchev showed ambivalence. He proclaimed, "I was generally pleased with our meeting in Vienna. Even though we came to no concrete agreement, I could tell that [Kennedy] was interested in finding a peaceful solution to world problems and avoiding conflict with the Soviet Union."^[19] However, historian William Taubman suggests that Khrushchev merely felt he could "[push Kennedy around]."^[20]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_summit

The Berlin Crisis of course, and later the Cuban Missile  Crisis consumed the entire World's politics through the end of 1962. Khrushchev's "testing" of Kennedy at Vienna led him to conclude that he was a weak and young adversary who could be backed down in a series of escalating confrontations. We were indeed on the brink of Thermonucular War for more than a Year. 

In 1993, the incoming Clinton administration was similarly tested when the surviving KGB faction of the collapsed Soviet Union drew the US into the Balkans conflict. Nominally US involvement was in order to stop Russia's client State Serbia from carrying out ethnic cleansing in Kosovo and Bosnia. The inexperienced Governor from Arkansas was played by the Russian chess masters into a fruitless and ill conceived conflict which was a trap, designed to misdirect NATO into a new strategic posture of fighting Air Wars in Europe in order to defend Human Rights on the ground, in Europe no less, against a Russian ally. This gambit succeeded in greatly discrediting the new administration and fueled the growth of the isolationist Right-Wing in the US, who capitalized with attacks on Clinton accusing him of "Wagging the Dog", and trying to play Global Supercop. 

Additionally, the misdirection of NATO contributed to sabotaging the economic and diplomatic potential of German reunification, as well as the economic reconstruction of the newly independent States of Eastern Europe. President Clinton got "played," by the "Old Boys" of the Soviet Security Services, even though the US had won the Cold War, and was dictating from inside Russia's US backed government the post Soviet economic reforms, with compliance from the corrupt drunken American puppet, Boris Yeltsin. 

So this has been a pattern in the recent history of US-Russian relations. Putin began his provocations leading to the annexation of Crimea, which followed his military moves in Georgia as a first order of business when Barack Obama assumed the presidency in 2009. There are other examples, but these described here make the general point.  How then is this relevant to today? 

Surely Joe Biden is no inexperienced neophyte in strategic affairs. He has had personal dealings with Russian leaders and strategic/ military affairs for decades. He was a powerful figure on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And he was a critical voice in advising Obama in response to Putin's operations against Ukraine and to destabilize Western Europe. What is Putin doing with respect to Navalny, what is his game?

Well, it may amount to nothing more than a face saving measure by Putin. He could release Navalny tomorrow, and tell the World "Navalny no big deal, not important, we let him go because he is insect", to underplay his concerns about his growing domestic opposition. That would buy him some good will with the Europeans, let off steam at home, and refurbish his very tarnished image. He could also use Navalny as leverage for extracting some concession from the US, in which Navalny's release would be a Russian offering for the start of a "Great Reset" in US-Russian relations, starting with discussions of lifting sanctions. (Good luck with that Vlad, you screwed yourself this year on that front) 

I see it differently. I think Putin is taking Biden's temperature, and using this provocation to measure and assess certain things, to get a reading. 

Will Biden get angry and overreact, call for more sanctions, expel diplomats, arrest Russian spies en masse, expand NATO into Ukraine? Will Putin move again into Ukraine in response? Will Biden's team start leaking documents on Putin's operations during the Trump years? Or will the US seek other forms of reprisal? 

Ultimately, Navalny is not strategic for the US, and his arrest not a "casus belli". His issue is not existential, not a Berlin or Cuba. It is about Human Rights. But the Biden administration is coming in at a time where the US democracy is exposed as moribund, as we have racist police killings, police state actions to suppress free speech and assembly rights, racist mobs under an unstable fascist president trying to overturn an election. Therefore, the US has lost its standing and moral authority to assert a concern for Human Rights in our foreign policy. As a result, the Navalny case and the US response to it takes on a greater meaning, and becomes an increasingly strategic issue as the opposition to Putin in Russia grows.

Think of it this way. The chess-master/intelligence warfare expert in the Kremlin is doing a probe. He is like the person walking down the street, who sees something furry and moving curled up in a ball on the ground, but doesn't know what it is. So, what does he do? He pokes it with a stick to see how it moves, and determine from that what it is. Alexey Navalny is "the stick" with which Putin is poking the new Biden administration. 

He is testing Biden's temperament, reaction time, assessing the constellations of factional groupings in his foreign policy team, evaluating the posture and disposition of US diplomats by contriving a cause for intense negotiations in a kind of "getting to know you" introductory process. Also to measure the degree of distraction and quagmire that  both a potential domestic revolt, and preoccupation with the Pandemic will have on the new government, and whether this will contribute to Russia having a freer hand to operate globally. This is and has been the Russian pattern, to start a crisis to test and evaluate a new US Administration, and hopefully either lead us into a trap, or humiliate us. At the very least, Russia builds its Intel package on Biden's White House.  And it cannot be ruled out that Putin will test us further with one or more strategic/military moves against Ukraine and elsewhere, taking advantage of the US being bogged down with Civil conflict, which was Putin's original purpose in aligning with the US Alt-Right.

As we follow this story, its vital for us to keep in mind that our priority must remain fighting the Pandemic, and addressing the Economic crisis. President Biden will be surrounded by unparalled crises and provocations domestically and from abroad. He will be coming into the Presidency with an array of exploding problems such as confronted Lincoln, FDR, and JFK, which actually threaten our existence. He cannot do this alone. His Cabinet and Democratic leadership team must operate as a coherent and unified operation. The worst thing for Americans to indulge in at this time is hyper-critical nitpicking, division over budgetary allocation and self serving parochial demands for reprioritizing policy to meet narrowly defined constituency interest in the here and now. 

Wait. Breathe, be patient. Let the new Administration have some room to maneuver on the three main areas of crisis, the Pandemic, the Economy, and the threat of Civil War. Don't enhance the diversionary operations of Trump's Nazi rabble, or Putin's chess gambits by piling on President Biden for every gaffe, every policy mishap or mistake, every single thing left undone in the early stages. Let Biden's team work with the EU to handle the Navalny case as quitely and firmly as possible, and keep Joe focused on the big picture.

Have the image in your mind of a bullying Soviet Premier throwing our young injured War hero President up against a wall in Vienna in 1961, and what transpired after that. President Biden and his allies are going to need support, not unprincipled political harpie attacks and endless fact-checking on issues that have to take a back seat for now. He is only one person with a lot on his plate. To coin a term,  "Stand back, and stand by". 

Update- 9 am Jan 18

Navalny jailed for 30 days

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/18/europe/navalny-court-russia-intl/index.html

Putin has taken Navalny hostage, and clearly intends to try to deal. With who, and for what, To Be Determined.