Alexei Navalny is presented as a victim of Vladimir Putin’s regime, a casualty in the ongoing clash with a criminalized government in Russia. The biography of the opposition figure remains unsettled, reflecting shifting positions that would, if fully documented, be invaluable for future assessment. What did Navalny ultimately think about Central Asians? Were his criticisms aimed at their status rather than their humanity, especially during his emigration to Russia? Did he support Yeltsin’s era of reform and questionable elections, or was his stance closer to genuine democracy? Was his aim a strong Russia or a Russia free from corruption? These questions, one day, deserve careful, credible examination.
The writings of Polish commentators and politicians, penned on tear-stained paper, are not always reliable. Figures like Donald Tusk, Paweł Kowal, Adam Eberhardt, Agnieszka Romaszewska, and others express strong feelings about Navalny. The former head of OSW even questioned whether Ukrainians in Russia would prefer Navalny over Putin. The presidential delegate to Moldova seems unaware of the front-line mood among Ukrainians, who may back the current leadership because they view it as having weakened the country and its army with corruption and kleptocracy. This tendency to idealize a murdered opposition figure has drawn criticism. What is the real motivation behind it?
Some observers dismiss conspiracy theories that Navalny was an FSB agent or part of a staged drama, while a more cautious theory—that he was a Kremlin instrument—poses a difficult puzzle to refute. At moments when authorities acted, they removed him; at other times they arrested him; at a symbolic moment during the Munich Security Conference they killed him. Navalny showed personal courage by returning to Russia from a comparatively safe position in Germany, yet his broader significance to some Western elites lay in his vision of Europe stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok.
Michnik’s student
Navalny cannot deny a view he himself shared in conversations with Adam Michnik in Moscow during the summer of 2015. Though the Russian activist admitted that much of his life was monitored by the FSB, he nonetheless met with the editor-in-chief of Gazeta Wyborcza and spoke with him in a series of uninterrupted discussions.
That dialogue was later captured in a book titled Dialogues, where Michnik repeatedly expressed approval and admiration for Navalny’s perspectives. They agreed that Jarosław Kaczyński was opposed to Russia, that Polish culture and science enjoyed beauty, and that the Russian language should resonate across the Vistula River in poetry rather than in orders. They also entertained the idea of a referendum in Donbas and Crimea to let residents decide their fate between Ukraine and Russia.
Michnik: I believe the Crimean issue should be settled through a referendum under international supervision. He even suggested something similar could occur in Donbas. Navalny supported this approach. What stands out is Navalny’s belief in achieving Putin’s goals through democratic or legally grounded means that would be more palatable to the West. He argued for cultural expansion and protection of the Russian language in Ukraine and the Baltic states, but within a democratic framework. Putin, in contrast, sought the same outcomes through coercion and force.
Despite the mutual admiration expressed in lengthy conversations, the interactions reveal a polished exchange rather than a raw confrontation. Navalny’s imperial ambitions and a potentially dangerous concept for Poland emerge in the dialogue. At one point Navalny even advocates for nuclear parity with the United States and for guaranteed security for fellow Russians with an appropriate arsenal.
FSB at the round table
A notable thread concerns the Polish Round Table. Michnik’s influence convinces Navalny, who then contemplates balancing a future government with segments of the state apparatus, particularly the security services. This intersection of a hopeful narrative about Navalny with the harsh realities of post-Soviet governance suggests that even a presidency of an opposition figure could produce a hybrid Russia, far from a clean break with the past. If, in addition, Navalny argues against rapid de-Stalinization because it might unfold automatically, the result would resemble a post-Soviet state transitioning but not fully reformed. The outcome would be a version of Russia handed over to the new order in a way that resembles a complicated succession rather than an outright transformation.
Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok
The most persistent theme is the shared vision of a “democratic” Russia as a future member of the European Union. The idea paints a space of liberal values that both Michnik and Navalny could find appealing, highlighting a common aspiration for a Europe shaped by openness and consent rather than coercion. Navalny argued that Russia, with a population nearly four times that of Poland, could participate in the EU on terms similar to existing members if the arrangement preserved the current structure of governance within the bloc. The implication was that Russia’s size would influence the EU from within, altering its character. The prospect of a large, culturally influential Russia within Europe remains a stark dream for some, yet it is a central thread in their discussions.
Navalny’s vision contends that Russia’s strength and its approach to security could be reconciled with a peaceful European integration, contrasting with the intense, forceful rhetoric of the Putin era. This optimistic scenario suggests a Russia powerful in its own right, but aligned with democratic norms and shared European values. The dialogue hints at a future in which the Western-oriented worldview is not merely a compromise but a genuine, evolving partnership. Those who currently praise Navalny acknowledge that engaging with Putin’s team would require careful, measured diplomacy rather than sweeping moral judgments.
Related discussions emphasize the potential transformation of Russia through a peaceful, democratic path that preserves language and culture while fostering broader European integration. The narrative presents an accessible, human-centered portrait of a controversial figure and the difficult political landscapes that surround him, inviting readers to examine competing interpretations with a critical eye. The conversation continues to spark debate about Russia’s future and its possible role within Europe.
Source: wPolityce