Democracy, Rule of Law & Human Rights: Alexei Navalny Bid for Freedom

Veronika Brejkaln, Maeve Redmond, Bianca Costantino, Jake Janicki, Jennifer Lam, Ayaan Shaikh

On June 14, 2021, NATO’s thirty member-states reunited for their annual summit in Brussels, where they reaffirmed their shared commitment to the values of human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. In the final communique from the summit, the Allies raised the issue of “state and non-state actors [who] challenge the rules-based international order and seek to undermine democracy across the globe.”[1] In this regard, a salient state of concern was the nation of Russia and its myriad of “aggressive actions,” which “constitute a threat to Euro-Atlantic security.”[2] The report highlights numerous obstacles standing in the way of a productive NATO-Russia relationship as a result of Russia’s breach of “values, principles, trust, and commitments outlined in agreed documents.”[3] These include non-compliance with international law and international obligations, accrual of military build-ups near NATO borders, aggressive diversification of nuclear arsenal, as well as “interference in Allied elections and democratic processes; political and economic pressure and intimidation; widespread disinformation campaigns; malicious cyber activities,” and “illegal and destructive activities by Russian Intelligence Services on Allied territory.”[4] In addition, the report calls on Russia to acknowledge the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, Georgia and the Republic of Moldova, and to cease human rights abuses and violations in these communities. In conjunction, these hostile behaviours on the part of Russia constitute the biggest threats to democracy in the region.

Among the many challenges to regional democracy posed by Russia, absent in NATO’s communique is any mention of the poisoning and imprisonment of Alexei Navalny. This is despite the fact that NATO and its members have repeatedly expressed concern on this developing issue. On September 4th, 2020, the Allies condemned “in the strongest possible terms the attack on Alexei Navalny,” citing this as “a clear breach of international law and contrary to the Chemical Weapons Convention.”[5] Similarly, on February 3rd, 2021, the president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly stated that the sentencing of Alexei Navalny demonstrates Russia’s “complete disregard for the lives, health and rights of its citizens.”[6] More importantly, he argued that Navalny’s sentencing “underscores the imperative of providing the world with the shared democratic values of NATO,” and urged European and North American leaders “to raise the cost for Russia for grave human rights violations, including by widely adopting and implementing Magnitsky acts.”[7] Nonetheless, to date, NATO’s response to the poisoning and imprisonment of Navalny has remained limited in scope. Other than supporting sanctions imposed by the United States in April 2021, the Allies have yet to take explicit action against Russia.

NATO’s lack of a tangible response to the case of Alexei Navalny raises several questions, which will be the focus of this report. Provided that Russia’s actions against Navalny are in direct defiance of NATO’s values of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, and given that its behaviour severely threatens the security of the North Atlantic region, the overarching aim of this study is to understand how NATO can better exercise its commitment to democracy and human rights when interacting with volatile nations. To address this convoluted question and to provide strategic recommendations moving forward, our report will respond to a set of queries, including:

???How has NATO promoted democracy, the rule of law and human rights in the past, including when interacting with volatile nations?

???How does the case of Alexei Navalny bring specific challenges in determining NATO’s commitment to promoting democracy, the rule of law and human rights in volatile nation-states like Russia?

???To what extent has NATO succeeded in promoting democracy, the rule of law and human rights in having the dialogue with Russia and other actors involved in the case of Navalny?

???To what extent does promoting democracy, the rule of law and human rights at a volatile state require NATO to accommodate measures against the socio-economic and strategic interest in the region?

???What can NATO learn from this case study in extending its commitment to promoting democracy, the rule of law, and human rights in having its dialogue with volatile states?

I. Methodology

We are using critical discourse analysis (CDA), specifically Fairclough’s three-dimensional model, as the methodology to conduct our research. In this model, the discourse is seen simultaneously as a “(i) language text, spoken or written, (ii) discourse practice (text production and text interpretation), (iii) sociocultural practice.” The three stages involved in CDA analysis are: (a) the linguistic description of the formal properties of the text; (b) the interpretation of the relationship between the discursive processes/interaction and the text (c) the explanation of the relationship between discourse and social and cultural reality. We will use Fairclough’s 3D model to answer our research questions by analyzing the discursive practices occurring between NATO (as a collective body as well as its individual member states) and the Russian state government. Our objective is to analyze how language is employed by independent governments (Russia, Germany, France, etc.) and international organizations (NATO) to uncover recurring patterns in their discursive communications and show how these influence the broader power dynamics at play among these political actors. By analyzing the implications behind specific rhetorical practices of said individual and collective bodies, we aim to put forward strategic recommendations on how NATO can more effectively interact with volatile nations that undermine democracy, the rule of law and human rights.

II. NATO’s Commitment to Democracy, Rule of Law, and Human Rights

NATO’s official rhetoric has been to uphold and defend democracy, rule of law, and human rights. in member nations and partners abroad. It is important to understand the links between each of these principles and therefore they must be explained. Democracy is a crucial bedrock of the identities of modern Western nations. Its processes and institutions ensure that the will of the people is enacted and represented by their government. For 72 years NATO has been a guardian of democracy and its institutions. As Alan Greenspan once said “without mutual trust, and market participants abiding by a rule of law, no economy can prosper” [8]. Rule of law provides the necessary predictability in the world that allows societies to channel resources to productive endeavours. Without it, societies are unable to grow and develop peacefully, which jeopardizes democracy and human rights. NATO has helped uphold the rule of law, for example during Operation Unified Protector, where it helped prevent arms from being sold to belligerent states in the Mediterranean Sea. NATO has contributed to Human Rights by acting as a deterrent to military conflict and through deployments to regions where egregious violations were likely. Despite critical controversies, its actions support its rhetoric, which is analyzed below.

Founded amidst the tensions of post-WWII great power competition, its rhetoric has been that democratic nations of Europe and North America must cooperate and protect each other. The official rhetoric is visible in public statements as well as the articles defining the core principles and doctrine of NATO. Statements such as “preservation of peace “[9] indicate that democracy, the rule of law, and human rights are crucial priorities – indeed the very values – that validate the Alliance. Authoritarian regimes like the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and Imperial Japan were at the height of their power prior to NATO’s formation. Their mark in a globalizing world has necessitated the collaborative effort of nations to deter and defend against those who intend to abolish those hard-earned principles. This has been consistent from the organization’s beginning, but the scope of nations in its focus has expanded beyond those near the North Atlantic. As nations around the world benefit from decades of relative international peace and development, there are new areas where geopolitical and economic power is coalescing. This is contributing to a change in NATO’s rhetoric as its focus has transformed from mainly committing to defending Europe’s eastern flank bordering Russia to new frontiers in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa.

Overall NATO’s rhetoric regarding democracy, rule of law, and human rights have remained constant – “NATO strives to secure lasting peace in Europe, based on common values of democracy, rule of law, and human rights “[10]. This is evident in different statements throughout the years such as “corruption undermines democracy “[11]. However, there are emerging changes and some do not feel NATO has been doing enough . As mentioned earlier, the regions and dimensions of NATO’s focus are expanding. The rhetoric of how NATO intends to commit to its goals is growing to include not only new geographic areas of interest but new fronts of conflict. For example, cyberspace and space are two major areas that are connected to upholding NATO’s rhetoric. Cyberspace poses major challenges as authoritarian regimes are using cherished principles such as free speech to wage information warfare and influence public opinion in democratic countries. It has also been used as a vector to directly infringe on human rights as certain regimes have used sophisticated tracking software and social media to imprison and intimidate journalists and political opponents. Evidence of cyberspace as an important arena is seen in the constant barrage of “Troll” accounts spreading misinformation and fomenting strife within the United States. This has impaired the United States’ ability to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. It has also been used to influence domestic terror groups and perpetuate conspiracy theories that have led to growing numbers of the population turning against their own country. For example, the events of January 6, 2021, storming of the U.S. capital by rioters to violently interrupt a democratic process. The right to free speech is being used against a nation that protects it dearly. The other arena, space, is also an area of focus for NATO and a source of its changing rhetoric. Space is a crucial area for NATO because significant proportions of the Alliances’ air, naval, and land defences rely on satellite and GPS systems. Without them, NATO nations lose a key driver of deterrence – technological superiority. In conclusion, the overarching rhetoric of NATO regarding democracy, rule of law, and human rights is consistent over time, but major changes in technology and geopolitical power are expanding its scope .

a) Discourse Analysis: The North Atlantic Treaty (1949) vs Mircea Geoan?’s statement at the Delphi Economic Forum (2021

It is important to examine the records of NATO’s original mission and purposes to understand where the organization is today and how it has evolved. The North Atlantic Treaty, as a founding document, provides an official statement and testimony of the priorities Alliance members had at the beginning of the organization. By analyzing this in comparison to Mircea Geoan?’s 2021 statements at an important economic forum, the trajectory of NATO’s priorities can be better understood. Mircea’s position as Deputy General of NATO means that his statements regarding the prospects and challenges of NATO at the Delphi Economic Forum can be considered official and qualified to compare to the North Atlantic Treaty.

North Atlantic Treaty (Micro ): Applying critical discourse analysis to this document reveals a straightforward agreement between nations to mutually defend and uphold Democracy, Rule of Law, and Human Rights. It references a “common heritage and civilization “[12] which is indicative of a growing level of solidarity between countries in Western Europe and North America. This is a direct reaction to the unprecedented violence seen in the world wars that preceded the agreement. The geographic focus is on the “North Atlantic area” which indicates how much the world has changed since 1949. Article 2 uses words such as “promote, understand, collaborate “[13] indicating the nature of the document which was to foster goodwill between nations in the Alliance. The famous article 5 states that any armed attack on a member nation will be seen as an attack on all members. Importantly, it also states that any armed responses will be reported to the United Nations security council – indicating deference to the internationally recognized rule of law set forth by the United Nations.

North Atlantic Treaty (Meso): The process of this treaty was carefully deliberated by leaders of some of the world’s most powerful nations. Each article was specifically crafted to articulate the will of millions of war-weary citizens who sought an end to internal strife and to instead look for common ground with the neighbours they had vehemently fought just four years earlier. It is clear in the text that the original idea for NATO was not to be a military heavyweight imposing the will of its members through force. Instead, it was to be a common security apparatus available to counter against the very present threats to democracy and individual liberties of the time. This is seen in the deference of authority over the use of force to the United Nations security council. The authenticity of this intention is underscored by the fact that the Alliance was not involved in any armed confrontations for decades after its creation. This is corroborated by Mircea’s explanations as well.

Mircea Geoan? (Micro): Mircea uses less formal language in his speech than the document, which indicates the different environment his speech was given in. He also speaks about the balance of power with Russia and China, indicating a departure from the North Atlantic Treaty which does not specify any countries even though it was largely built to counter the Soviet Union. The speech also mentions quotation marks[14] which was not necessarily the case in 1949. Furthermore, Mircea deliberately avoids calling China a threat, choosing to describe it as a simultaneous opportunity and challenge.

Mircea Geoan? (Meso): Mircea’s threat identification showcases how drastically defence theaters have changed and how economic ties are as important as ever. Where the North Atlantic treaty focused on preventing incursions onto physical territories such as Europe, Mircea admits to having to contend with a new threat portfolio. Cyberspace, space, and the very climate of the earth itself are all major risk vectors that NATO members and partners will have to contend with beyond 2030.

b) NATO’s Strategies for Defending Democracy, Rule of Law, and Human Rights

Since its founding in 1949 NATO has staunchly defended its principles through initiatives through military and diplomatic means. By contributing financial, material, and human resources to stem the flow of crises in areas within its scope NATO has helped provide an environment where its values could flourish. Notably, it did not engage in any military deployments during the entire cold war. It effectively fulfilled its mandate to deter aggression from the Soviet Union which prevented a major European conflict and therefore created the necessary conditions for democracy, rule of law, and human rights to be restored in Europe. Since 1991, however, NATO has found itself acting beyond the border with Russia through different initiatives. It has advanced its aims of defending member nations by creating a more stable environment for the development of these values abroad thus helping prevent – or mitigate – spillover effects of crises abroad. However, these operations are not without their controversies and a critical view should be applied when assessing their efficacy.

NATO has maintained a defence and deterrence doctrine that seeks to prevent conflict through communication first and military action second. Over time it has developed capabilities that largely prepared it for fighting against conventional militaries using air, sea, and land assets. In recent years, it has had to update its approach to understand and handle hybrid warfare.

Air

Airpower is an asset that Alliance members have consistently provided from the very first engagements NATO has been called on to enter. This capability has been used for 41 years in combat, surveillance, and humanitarian roles. From 1990-to 1991 NATO deployed early warning[15] aircraft to Turkey in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. From February 4 – to March 24, 1992, NATO airlifted medical advisors to Russia to mitigate the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s collapse – a sign of the early hopes of collaboration between Russia and NATO. From May 1-19, 1992, NATO used surveillance aircraft to watch over the Mediterranean and study flight patterns to Libya where the suspects of the bombing of a flight in Lockerbie, Scotland were reportedly being sheltered. The Alliance mainly provided aircraft for mainly non-combat missions in the early 1990s. It has been using aircraft for combat roles since 1994, for example, when four Bosnian-Serb bombers were shot down by NATO aircraft on February 28 , 1994. [16] Other examples of the divergence from using aircraft for surveillance/humanitarian roles are seen in the 7 months of airstrikes in Libya from March-October 2011 and air policing missions over eastern Europe that have been conducted from 2014 to the present. This trend is indicative of the growing willingness of the Alliance to use airpower for combat roles when necessary.

Cyber

According to an official report [17] by Cybersecurity Ventures, the global impact of cybersecurity threats will cost the world economy USD 6 Trillion by the end of 2021. This has profound implications for NATO members as the report cites nation-states are some of the main actors. After 53 years of existence, the Alliance publicly recognized the need to develop cyber defence capabilities in 2002 [18]. Between 2008-and 2014, amid growing [19] cyber threats from Russia, China, Iran and North Korea, the Alliance formally declared that a cyberattack on member nations could trigger the Article 4 and 5 defence clauses. By 2018 the Cyberspace Operations Centre was established to further develop the Alliances capabilities. Part of why cyberattacks are insidious is that they can be conducted below the “threshold of armed conflict”. This means NATO members are being threatened by state and non-state actors in direct ways which jeopardize their security and economies but do not exactly warrant repercussions using conventional force. With a projected shortage of 3.5 million [20] cybersecurity professionals globally it is apparent that a major challenge in countering this threat is recruiting the necessary specialized human capital to execute NATO’s defence strategies. The theme is that NATO is evolving to develop capacities to deter and defend.

c) NATO’s practice of defending democracy, rule of law, and human rights

Two major initiatives are valuable examples of NATO’s initiatives to uphold democracy, rule of law, and human rights in the world. Each provides an example of the importance of such a security force combined with a constraint to illustrate that even powerful militaries have limitations.

The Bosnia & Herzegovina engagement

NATO was called into action during the balkanization of Yugoslavia in 1992. In a tragic case of irony, the Soviet Union’s collapse necessitated an active deployment of NATO resources to mitigate its effects in former Soviet states. Despite beginning with a relatively low-risk arms embargo enforcement operation, the escalation of violence between warring parties in the region led to more aggressive intervention. The first shots were fired by NATO when its aircraft intercepted Bosnian Serb bombers violating the UN-mandated. After years of ethnic violence between Albanian and Serbian forces, NATO conducted major bombing raids to support UN peacekeepers for 78 days. According to official NATO statements, the airstrikes were instrumental in bringing the Bosnian Serbs to heel and limiting the spread of further violence. Critics such as Noam Chomsky, however, mention the collateral damage that occurred as a result of the strikes, particularly from the use of cluster bombs, which resulted in over 1000 civilian deaths. The discourse of official NATO statements compared to that of some residents and critics produces a conflict as critics like Amnesty International point out differences in NATO’s methodology of calculating collateral damage which aimed to reduce the actual number of unintentional casualties presented to the public. This fits into the context of a justification of the campaign. Critics also pointed out the many revenge killings of Albanians against Serbs in the aftermath of the airstrikes once Serbian forces began to retreat. Using violence to reduce violence is always a process of complicated calculus with many volatile variables . The results may be a cease-fire or peace, but it is important to examine the practice critically.

Assistance in Pakistan

A significantly less controversial engagement was in Pakistan in 2005 when NATO forces assisted the government with emergency supplies and personnel in the aftermath of a major earthquake that had killed 53,000 people . Considering that 90% of environmental disasters are floods, droughts, earthquakes, and storms this is an important aspect of ensuring affected areas do not devolve into lawlessness and human rights violations. This is because natural disasters can lead to resource scarcity which directly contributes to violence , tension, and violations of both the rule of law and human rights. By using its strength to mitigate these calamities, such as sending 3500 tons of equipment to Pakistan, NATO can help improve regional stability thus reducing threats to democracy, rule of law, and human rights. Contributing resources to Pakistan was a departure from the original statements in the North Atlantic Treaty as it is far beyond the geographical scope of the North Atlantic and did not initially pose a threat to NATO members. The Alliance could have chosen not to do anything. However, by mitigating the negative impact it was able to gain influence in a nation where certain actors that do pose threats to NATO members have found refuge. This means the Alliance created an opportunity to contribute resources in a way that contributes to democracy, rule of law, and human rights while possibly gaining valuable intelligence and goodwill.

NATO’s Interaction with Nation-States Undermining Democracy, Rule of law, and Human Rights: The Fracture of Libya

Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi had been in the power of the oil-rich nation for 42 years when locals and rebels inspired by the Arab Spring attempted to overthrow him. He had opposed Western military presence in Africa and climbed to power after a military coup overthrew the previous Western-backed leader, King Idris, in 1969. While initially respected by many Libyan citizens, he became violent to dissenters [21] who questioned his rule. He tightly controlled freedom with an oppressive internal security apparatus. He did direct significant amounts of the country’s vast oil wealth to educational and social programs. During his tenure, Libya had risen in its quality of life to the highest in the continent [22]. His suppressive tendencies became apparent with public orders to violently attack protestors which undermined democracy. This prompted the UN and NATO to engage in Operation Unified Protector. They imposed an arms embargo by boarding 293 [23] ships deemed likely to carry weapons and mercenaries. NATO also conducted 26,500 air sorties and destroyed 5,900 military targets to limit Gaddafi’s ability to attack protestors and rebels for 7 months. Gaddafi was overthrown and executed by rebels, but the resulting power vacuum has led to a fractured state. Critics have mentioned this operation resulted in regime change and chaos rather than fulfilling a Responsibility to Protect civilians. NATO succeeded in ending an oppressive government but failed to assist in a peaceful transition of power after. The fracturing of a state along tribal lines post-intervention is a recurring obstacle seen in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria.

III. Russia: a Concrete Obstacle

a) NATO’s ongoing relationship with Russia

The relationship between NATO and the Russian Federation has steadily deteriorated over the last 12 years as Russia has begun to undermine democracy, rule of law, and human rights in Europe. The fall of the Soviet Union changed the relationship from adversarial competition and a Cold War to a cautious partnership. This began with the entry of Russia into organizations such as the 1991 North Atlantic Cooperation Council, the 1994 Partnership for Peace programme, the 1997 Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, and the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act[24]. The dialogue was open and there was an air of goodwill. However, according to NATO documents this changed in response to increasingly aggressive moves by Russia. In 2009 Russia jeopardized the partnerships through an intense military intervention in Georgia and 2014 with the surprise annexation of Crimea, which is ongoing. NATO handled this by increasing its military posture in the Black Sea and across Eastern Europe while keeping diplomatic channels open. This is a rational approach since the military calculus [25] of the balance of power with Russia changed dramatically as Russian troops incited rebels in eastern Ukraine and moved heavy weapons into the area. It is worth noting Russia’s motivations for these interventions, which are explained in detail in the next paragraph. Geographic features of the Eastern European plain mean Russia’s western borders are highly vulnerable to attack with few natural barriers to augment defence efforts. This means that eastern expansions of NATO lead to a shrinking buffer zone from which Russia could plan to mount a defence in the event of European attacks. Its forces would need to be spread thinly across a wide expanse of flat land. Additionally, deepening economic and military ties between Georgia and the West stoke similar concerns. The Caucasus has historically provided a natural barrier for Russia’s southern flank. Having a European ally or full-fledged NATO member right across the mountain range from important oil regions in Russia impacts its national security goals. Russia’s nuclear arsenal should nullify those fears as any attack would lead to possible nuclear war, but the memories of previous European invasions by European countries like France and Germany are still present in the minds of Russian policymakers. On both occasions, foreign militaries were able to penetrate deep into the Russian heartland at high speeds. Although the Russian military courageously defended the country, the major defence benefits of freezing winters and muddy spring seasons played a role that is increasingly softened by technology. Nonetheless, using military coercion to prevent another country from developing partnerships is a violation of democratic rights. The annexation directly violated the rule of law and democracy in Ukraine. Further attacks on democracy such as the nerve agent attack in the United Kingdom in 2018 and the 2020 nerve gas attack on Alexei Navalny have led to public condemnations from NATO. In summary, it is unclear whether the result of how the Alliance is interacting with Russia can be considered a success or a failure. Russia continues misinformation campaigns, arrests democratic opposition leaders, and uses force to secure its flanks rather than diplomacy in many cases. It remains to be seen which avenue Russia will choose in the future – diplomatic communication to ensure mutually beneficial outcomes or violence and military posturing. NATO states that “the Alliance does not seek confrontation and poses no threat .”[26]

In 1991, after the cold war ended, Russia joined the North Atlantic Cooperation Council. Thus began their relationship. In 2002 both parties joined forces to create the NATO-Russia Council to help strengthen their relationship. The goal of this new council was to help serve as a method of consultation on the current security issues within Russia. This is a demonstration of NATO’s attempt to promote a productive relationship with Russia. However, this council has not made a significant impact on their relationship. In 2008, Russia’s disproportionate military action in Georgia led to the suspension of meetings of the NRC. In addition to this, in 2014, Russia’s illegal military intervention in Ukraine led to the suspension of all practical cooperation between NATO and Russia. NATO has stated that the channels of communication are open in the NRC and the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council at the Ambassadorial level.

The current strain between Russia and NATO, has overall led to a difference in dialogue. Both NATO and Russia have their views on military defence. With the recent events that have happened with Russia, it is apparent that there is not a substantive dialogue between both parties. The difference in the dialogue between both countries began in 2008 with Russia’s actions in Georgia. This is not the only instance, between NATO and Russia increased with the conquest of Crimea and military intervention in eastern Ukraine. This has led to severed ties in the interaction between NATO and Russia. This example, demonstrates that both parties have different goals. NATO’s goal is to promote strong global ties after the cold war and Russia wishes to focus more so on its self-interest.

When analyzing NATO’s website, it is apparent that they are committed to “efforts of the international community in projecting stability and stringing security outside of NATO territory. The website states that NATO’s goal is to do this through cooperation and partnerships. While Russia has taken another approach, this is demonstrated in its response to the invasion of Crimea. The Russian Government has justified the invasion of Crimea stating that “There is a limit to everything” and that the “Western Partners have crossed the line”. This aggression towards both Ukraine and NATO stems from the country wanting to solidify with Western institutions such as the EU and NATO. This demonstrates that both Russia and NATO have developed two different discourses and agendas.

The past discursive interactions between both parties it has led to issues in making the NRC successful. The disparities in the dialogue between both Russia and NATO have led to many dangers in the international sphere. The dangers include the risk of military and political miscalculation. Therefore, there have been initiatives that NATO has undertaken to have attempted to promote a productive relationship with Russia. These initiatives include the creation of the NRC. But, over the years, many of Russia’s actions have led the relationship to deteriorate, which has affected its success of the relationship.

b) Current Challenges

For more than two decades, NATO has consistently worked on building a cooperative relationship with Russia. Starting in early 2014 the dialogue between Russia and NATO has set back cold war tension. Throughout the year NATO and Russia have not seen eye to eye on cases which has caused tensions in their dialogue. In 2014, a disagreement between Russia and Ukraine occurred, which escalated and caused high tensions between the allied states of Ukraine. The disagreement revolved around the annexation of Crimea on behalf of Russia, which is illegal. NATO relations are heavily involved in this case because Ukraine, although not a member of NATO, contributes to NATO missions.[27] NATO allied with Ukraine on this matter, suspending all cooperation with Russia. Furthermore, they condemned Russia’s deliberate destabilization of eastern Ukraine caused by its military intervention and support for the militants. NATO went forth and decided to suspend all practical civilian and military cooperation with Russia while leaving political and military channels of communication open.[28] This decision comes from NATO upholding its defensive alliance at its core, not trying to create tensions but rather not ignoring Russia breaking international rules and undermining NATO stability and security. The support for Ukraine on behalf of NATO extended to the 2016 Summit in Warsaw, as NATO’s measures in support of Ukraine became part of the Comprehensive Assistance Package (CAP).[29] The CAP is designed to support Ukraine’s ability to provide for its security and to implement wide-ranging reforms in the security and defence sector based on Euro-Atlantic principles and best practices. Since the 2014 tensions between Russia and Ukraine, NATO continues to seek a constructive relationship with Russia. However, any improvement in the Alliance’s relations with Russia will be contingent on a clear and constructive change in Russia’s actions – one that demonstrates compliance with international law and Russia’s international commitments. The NATO-Russia Council has met ten times since 2016.[30] The Secretary-General and Deputy Secretary-General also engage regularly with their Russian counterparts. Not seeking confrontation, but also not ignoring Russia breaking international rules, undermining the stability and security of NATO. Recently in light of new global tensions, NATO-Russia relations have worsened once again. In September 2020, the Allies condemned in the strongest terms the nerve gas attack on Russian opposition figure Alexei Navalny.[31] After the poisoning, NATO-Russia relations still face similar cold war era tension, as NATO called upon their allied nations for an international response to the poisoning. Nonetheless, NATO-Russia relations have faced recurring challenges, particularly around the subject of Russia respecting certain international norms that NATO and their Allies respect. NATO concerning the present-day challenges with Russia surrounding the Alexi Navalny poisoning as well as past relations has stayed constant about the dialogue that NATO provides Russia. Although dialogue remains open, there are no solicited repercussions that Russia faces from NATO and their allied partners.

IV. Alexei Navalny and Putin’s Regime: How Alexei Navalny and the Anti-Corruption Foundation (FBK) have Challenged the Russian Government

Alexei Navalny and his Anti-Corruption Foundation (FBK) have gained popularity in Russia as the most publicly critical source of internal opposition to the Russian government. The success of their efforts is the product of their methods of challenging the Russian government. The challenge that Navalny and his team pose to the Russian government includes the use of the media, investigations into corruption, protests and directly aiming their oppositional rhetoric at Putin.

Media: In June of 2017, TIME magazine listed Navalny as one of the 25 most influential individuals with an internet presence.[32] The title was fitting as the Kremlin is notoriously successful in its ability to censor information disseminated by its opposition. This reality makes the large following that Navalny’s Anti-Corruption Foundation has, all the more impressive. Without access to state media, Navalny and his team have instead relied heavily on YouTube to publish documentaries. These documentaries inform the public of the details of their investigations into the corrupt activities of Russian government officials.

Investigations: The information that makes up the FBK’s investigations are for the most part taken from Russia’s official land registry, wealth declarations published by government officials, and corporate records.[33] Using this information, Navalny and his team can draw back the curtain on Russia’s high levels of corruption. These investigations by the FBK into Russia’s corrupt government officials have gained widespread public support. This, consequently, negates the secrecy of these operations which has allowed Russia’s corrupt system of government to remain unchecked and thrive.[34]

Protests: Navalny maintains that the goals of the FBK’s investigations are “intended as a call for political action.”[35]The FBK’s online anti-corruption fight became increasingly politically focused in 2011 after Navalny labelled the United Russia Party as the ‘Party of Crooks and Thieves.’[36] His message was well received by the local population and mass protests quickly ensured as many rallied in opposition to the rampant electoral fraud present in Russia. At the fore of the protest was Navalny, who addressed the large crowds by saying ‘I see enough people here take the Kremlin and [Government House] right now, but we are peaceful people and won’t do that just yet.’[37]

Targeting Putin Directly (Micro): Navalny’s most direct attack on Putin takes the form of a documentary on his YouTube channel titled “Putin’s Palace: History of World’s Largest Bribe” which outlines Putin’s rise to power. It is the most viewed video on his channel with over 118 million views.[38] The documentary begins in a solemn tone with a direct call to action. Specifically, a call for Russian citizens to take to the streets in protest of Navalny’s imprisonment which had occurred right before the documentary was posted.

The importance of this documentary is evident in the departures that Navalny takes from his other documentaries. Normally, Navalny’s documentaries cater to non-Russian speakers through the use of auto-generated closed captions. While this allows for non-Russian speakers to make sense of the general message communicated through these videos, the auto-generated captions are not always accurate and at times do not make sense when directly translate. In Navalny’s “Putin’s Palace” documentary, however, the improved readability of the translated subtitles indicates that the translations were edited to ensure that nothing got lost in translation. Additionally, another departure from the majority of Navalny’s other videos is the fact that the title of the documentary “Putin’s Palace” appears in English instead of in Russian. This seems to suggest that Navalny and members within the FBK are now, more than ever, looking outwards to other states for help following Navalny’s imprisonment.

In his documentary, Navalny adopts a bold and brazen tone. Navalny starts by explaining the timing of the documentary which was posted after his imprisonment following his return to Russia. Navalny maintains, that this was an intentional choice “because we do not want the main character of this film [Putin] to think that we are afraid of him and that I [Navalny] will expose his worse secret while abroad.”[39] Navalny then goes on to call upon Putin, this time by name and is introduced as “[a] viewer [who] is the most devoted admirer of our work, on whose orders I was poisoned.”[40] From there, Navalny assumes the factuality of the information that follows by insisting that Putin “is definitely watching this now, and his heart is filling with nostalgia.”[41] The content that follows is a recount of Putin’s rise to power and the corruption that is apparent on Putin’s journey to Russia’s President. Navalny’s personal opinion of the Russian President is evident in Navalny’s description of Putin as “mad, petty, and idle.”[42]

The response to this video was overwhelmingly positive with 4.5 million thumbs up compared to the 226 thousand thumbs down ‘to date.’ Viewers are sympathetic to Navalny’s core message which is to “register and participate in ‘Smart Voting,’ don’t be silent, don’t agree to obey the feasting villains.”[43] The significance of this video is evident in its exposition of integrated systems that allow the existing Russian government to run. Namely, the wealth accumulated through corrupt government systems and the electoral system designed to splinter the vote of candidates running in opposition to Putin to ensure his victory.

a) The Russian Government’s Response to Navalny’s Political Challenges (meso)

The response of the Russian government to Navalny’s efforts reflects the full extent of the threat that he poses to Putin’s regime. Without admitting to the intention behind their actions, the Russian government is likely behind a multitude of different attacks that Navalny has, in some cases, just barely survived. These attacks include multiple poisonings, with one of them being near-fatal, Putin admitting to keeping Navalny under surveillance and Navalny’s arrest on embezzlement charges.[44]

Poison: Navalny has been subjected to a plethora of bodily harm for his efforts to unseat Putin. These have included an attack in 2017, where a green antibiotic was spilt on him and compromised his vision.[45] Additionally, there have been other instances of poisoning. The most life-threatening event took place on August 20th, 2020 when Navalny suddenly fell sick on the plane and had to be quickly hospitalized in the intensive care unit in Omsk.[46] The test results later identified the poison as Novichok, which is a known Soviet-era chemical weapon.[47]

Surveillance: Putin also admitted that Navalny was under surveillance. The detective work of Bellingcat, an investigative group, found that the Federal Security Service (FSB) which has been shadowing Navalny, was likely also responsible for the poisoning.[48]

Arrest: Navalny has also been sent to prison for trumped-up charges that many saw as politically motivated.[49] The Russian government arrested Navalny briefly in July 2013 for a five-year embezzlement sentence. While in prison, the Russian government went on the offensive by spreading propaganda about Navalny and the FBK in the hopes of discrediting them and gaining back public support. Navalny’s prison sentence, however, was short-lived. He was released prematurely as his health declined rapidly in prison and there was collective worry that any extension of his stay would see him as a martyr.[50]

b) Putin’s Public Opinion on Navalny (Micro)

During Putin’s annual press conference in December of 2020 Putin was asked why “a criminal investigation into [Navalny’s] poisoning, and who did it, had not been launched until now.”[51] In response to this question, Putin notably avoids using Navalny’s name. Putin, instead refers to Navalny as “the patient of a Berlin clinic,”[52] and Similarly, later in the conference, as the “famous Russian blogger.”[53] Putin then notes that there have been inquiries into “our special service officers data and so on”[54] but instead of elaborating on these claims, quickly shifts these suspicions to the United States special services. US special services which Putin maintains are “looking after [the] patient of a Berlin clinic.”[55] This mention of US special service officers by Putin seems to suggest that he thinks that Navalny is working with them. However, Putin then quickly insists that “this does not mean at all that he must be poisoned,” before further distances himself from the accusation of his involvement in Navalny’s poisoning by stating “Who cares about him? If they wanted to they would have, most likely, carried it through.”[56] Suggesting that Navalny is not enough of a threat to Putin’s position for Putin to concern himself with. This, Putin states, is evident in the fact that there was no follow-through, as Navalny survived the attack. Putin then goes on to question Navalny’s credibility by suggesting that his opposition is “led … by personal ambitions [instead of] by the interest of the people of the Russian Federation.”[57]

c) The Systemic Threat that Navalny Poses to Putin’s Regime

Navalny has introduced a new form of opposition to Russian politics. His approach relies on his charismatic nature and ability to unite, even opposing parties behind his goal of dismantling the corrupt and insular government which has kept Putin in power for decades. His goal is clear as he calls for the removal of President Vladimir Putin through fair elections to create a new more transparent Russian government that is run on political aptitude instead of corruption.[58]

The threat that Navalny poses to Putin’s regime is not based on rallying support around him as an individual, but rather on eliminating public complacency and acceptance of Russia’s corrupt government. To achieve this, Navalny challenges Putin’s regime by informing citizens of the full extent of Russia’s political corruption, amplifying public dissatisfaction and organizing opposition into a united front.

Navalny is also able to unite public opinion. He is aware of popular concerns with the existing government and consequently can find a common ground even across different ideologies, as he has with nationalist and liberal activists. Smart voting is an extension of this, as it allows for the unified organization of oppositions voters strategically behind preidentified candidates across hundreds of regional elections.[59]

The success of Navalny’s efforts to overcome widespread complacency with Russia’s corrupt government is evident in the public response that his documentaries inspire. Investigations into the 2011 elections that saw Putin’s party winning a majority in government resulted in widespread public turnout in protest. Consequently, revealing the full extent of public dissatisfaction with the electoral fraud that had allowed Putin to remain an unrivalled political candidate. Additionally, Navalny’s imprisonment in 2021 has similarly brought Russian citizens to the streets. This time, however, not in protest of corruption but instead in solidarity with the man who had been tirelessly fighting against it.

d) Navalny’s Recommendation of Foreign Action

Navalny’s call for action also extends to the international community. In an interview with BBC, Navalny is reported stating, ‘The best thing Western states could do for justice in Russia was to crack down on dirty money.’[60] He then went on to say: ‘I want people involved in corruption and persecution of activists to be barred from entering these countries, to be denied visas.’[61]

V. The Poisoning and Imprisonment of Navalny and Democracy, Rule of Law, and Human Rights: Russia’s History with Chemical Poisoning of Political Dissidents

On September 2, 2020, German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced that Alexei Navalny was “beyond a doubt” the victim of a biochemical poison attack, issued by the Novichok group.[62] Mr. Navalny’s encounter, however, was not the first time a political dissident was attacked with a Russian-originated chemical nerve agent. With origins dating back to the KGB era, chemical poisoning has been a tactic used by the Russian state to directly impede the opposition of those in political power. During the Cold War, Georgi Markov, a Bulgarian dissident, died after being pricked by a KGB agent with a ricin-tipped umbrella. During the same period in 1957, Nikolai Khokhlov, a KGB defector, came into a critical condition after sipping a cup of coffee laced with an unknown trace of thallium.[63] Although poisonings can be dated back to an era long ago, it is during the Putin regime that poison attacks are seen to be more prominent. With this, a timeline can be created to highlight the attacks that Putin and the Kremlin are accused of orchestrating.

a) History of Poison Attacks under Putin Regime [64]

???2004 - Presidential candidate for Ukraine, Viktor Yushchenko, was poisoned with dioxin, leaving him disfigured. He ran against a Kremlin-favored incumbent for Ukraine’s presidency.

???2004 - Anna Politkovskaya, investigative journalist, fell ill after drinking a cup of tea on a plane and lost consciousness. She was flying to Beslan, Russia to report the school siege occurring there, and although she survived, she was killed two years later, on Putin’s birthday.

???2006 - Alexander Litvinenko, a Russian defector from Russia’s FSB security service turned critic, was killed in the heart of London after being exposed to polonium-210, a radioactive isotope.

???2015 - Vladimir Kara-Murza, an activist of pro-democracy, was nearly killed in 2015 & 2017 after sudden organ failure, with a French lab finding large amounts of heavy metals in his blood.

???2018 - Petr Verzilov, a member of a protest group against Putin, fell spontaneously ill and was in critical condition. He was taken to Germany for recovery and was kept in a medically induced coma, where doctors there indicated that he had been poisoned.

???2018 - Russian military officer Sergei Skripal and Yulia, his daughter, were the victims of an assassination attempt in England which British authorities attributed to the Russian state. The poison at hand was Novichok, the same nerve agent Navalny was attacked with.

???2020 - The attempted assassination of Alexei Navalny.

b) Russia’s Justification of Navalny’s Poisoning

On February 2, 2021, a Moscow court ruled that Alexei Navalny violated his terms of probation and sentenced him to three and a half years in prison. The Russian Penitentiary Service (RPS) denoted that Mr. Navalny failed to report to his probation service between August 2020 and January 2021.[65] Mr. Navalny, however, was poisoned in August 2020 and was evacuated to Germany while in a coma, meaning he could not have been physically or mentally able to report for his probation hearing. Navalny noted to the court that he had reported on schedule for the entirety of the five years before this infraction, however, the RPS had placed Navalny on a wanted list for failure to report to a probation officer on the last day before his probation period expired. The Russian government did not put Navalny’s situation up for consideration and handled the case in a positivist-oriented manner, carrying forth the sentence.[66]

The Kremlin denied all ties to Mr. Navalny’s poison attack and did not address it when carrying out his sentencing. Russia noted that all chemical attack cases need to be viewed “individually,” as poisonings are a thing of constant occurrence, and a trend cannot be denoted. Human Rights Watch, a non-profit non-governmental organization, reported on this situation and publicly posted their denotation. HRW, who has holdings around the world, viewed Navalny’s sentencing as “monstrously unjust,” and stated that the trial was “fundamentally unfair.” The aggressive stance that HRW is holding is under their conceived notion that Mr. Navalny’s human rights were violated. With the organization having zero governmental influence, the opinion is to be seen as non-bias with no ulterior motive. A relation between Navalny’s poisoning and his arrest, however, is something that the Russian government will not make, with the Kremlin denying further comment on the poisoning of Alexei Navalny.[67]

c) International response to Navalny’s poisoning

The world’s international response to Navalny’s poisoning has been one that caused a lot of uprisings not only from world leaders but citizens. The international response left quite an impression on a global note ranging from citizens, states and international organizations. The responses of International organizations and states have been analyzed to better understand the effect of NATO’s suggestions based on intervention in this humanitarian and rule of law global crisis about what their allies or states have done or lack thereof.

The European Union (EU) and European Parliament played a role concerning the topic of the Alexei Navalny poisoning. The EU and Russia both recognize each other as important partners in the international arena and thus strive for political corporations.[68] However, like NATO, when the illegal annexation of Crimea occurred in 2014, some of the policy dialogues and strength for cooperation weakened. Nonetheless, Russia remains a partner to the EU in aspects of global challenges and there is a political dialogue open.[69] In light of recent events as well as news sources posted from the European parliament which declared that EU-Russia relations were at an all-time low in 2020.[70] Ryszard Czarnecki, chair of the European Parliament’s Russia Delegation, argued that EU-Russia relations could not be normalized unless Russian authorities guaranteed universal human rights. Since 2018, the EU has had a legal framework for chemical weapons-related restrictive measures, applied in 2019 to Russian military intelligence agents implicated in the Novichok attack against former agent Sergey Skrip.[71]The EU did impose sanctions in October 2020, these sanctions issued by the EU primarily concerned Navalny’s arrest upon his return to Russia.[72][73]The EU imposed bans on travel and froze the assets in Europe of Alexander Bastrykin, head of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, Igor Krasnov, the prosecutor general, Viktor Zolotov, head of the National Guard, and Alexander Kalashnikov, head of the Federal Prison Service.

In response to this case, Germany acted as a policing officer with the EU and ensured that EU intervention in the rule of law was imposed. The case further affects Germany and German relations because Navalny fled to Germany after the poisoning to seek treatment.[74]

In September 2020, German chancellor Angela Merkel pressured the EU with a statement saying that it should take the poisoning seriously and take action, for if they don’t, they risk becoming irrelevant, meaning that they have had issues in the past about not effectively policing EU rule of law.

The United States of America is globally noted as a hegemon and thus nation-states look to them when a crisis occurs. The European parliament and other states followed in the footsteps that the U.S laid out regarding this case.[75] In March 2021, the U.S. imposed sanctions under the Biden Administration, these sanctions align with those of the European Union,[76] as a similar position was expressed by Ryszard Czarnecki, chair of the European Parliament’s Russia Delegation. Under the imposed sanctions, the assets of the officials in the US are frozen. Those targeted include Alexander Bortnikov, who heads the FSB, Russia’s main intelligence agency, as well as deputy Defence Ministers Alexei Krivoruchko and Pavel Popov. The sanctions are the first imposed on Russia by the administration of President Joe Biden, which later influenced other nation-states. Canada, Germany, the UK as well as the EU followed in the U.S footsteps in their decisions to impose sanctions on Russia. Biden and his administration have taken a tougher stance than his predecessor Donald Trump towards President Putin.[77] Biden pressed Putin in a phone call on Tuesday about the poisoning of the opposition leader, which U.S. intelligence has publicly blamed on Russia’s Federal Security Service. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron also quizzed Putin about Navalny in a March 30 phone call.

Canada joined the international response call in February 2021 with world leaders to discuss the actions of Russia and this humanitarian cause. [78] Canada condemned the decision by Russia to extend the detention of Navalny, stating that Russian authorities must immediately release him because the ongoing persecution, in light of the failure to adequately investigate his poisoning, underscores the political motivations behind his imprisonment.[79] Canada, like many, followed the steps of the U.S. and EU in imposing sanctions and further expects Russia to bring to justice those responsible for crimes against Mr. Navalny and the use of chemical weapons. Canada imposed sanctions on nine high-ranking Russian officials in response to what the foreign ministry called gross and systematic human rights abuses — including the attempted assassination and subsequent jailing of popular opposition figure Alexey Navalny. The sanctioned individuals include two senior officials from the country’s defence ministry and the head of the FSB, Russia’s main security agency.[80] The sanctions freeze any assets those officials have in Canada. They also ban them from travelling to Canada and forbid Canadian citizens and businesses from providing them with financial services.

Discourse Analysis: New York Times V The Deutsche Welle

New York Times Article on EU preparing Sanction on Putin Allies over Navalny Poisoning (Micro): The New York Times news article outlines the response of the international community including the response of the EU in a more unbiased manner through the use of formal language. The news article delves into the sanctions imposed by the EU, and the U.S, however, does not explicitly take a stance on whether they agree or disagree with the imposed sanctions. The news article provides an in-depth background of the case from its beginning to the present. Furthermore, the news article takes an international viewpoint by comparing the sanctions imposed by the EU and U.S to those imposed by Germany and France.

The Deutsche Welle Article on EU and U.S Sanctions on Russia over Alexei Navalny Poisoning (micro): The Deutsche Welle further reported the Alexi Navalny poisoning and the sanctions imposed by the EU and the U.S. The article uses more informal language. The report provided a brief background to the case and highlighted Russia’s response and the international response. The report also suggests through the informal language and terminology that the article has some bias in favour of the imposed sanctions, for example in the context of what will happen to those who are related to or close to Putin they were referred to as “Putin’s billionaire cronies.”

New York Times Article on EU Preparing Sanction on Putin Allies over Navalny Poisoning (Meso): The New York Times is an American daily newspaper based in New York City with a worldwide readership. The newspaper is owned by the New York Times company which is publicly traded. Moreover, the newspaper has a left-leaning bias in its reports. In its reporting on the sanctions imposed on Russia, the findings were neutral and did not favour the western view, the EU view or the Russian defence. Where the Deutsche Welle reporting focused on favorability to the sanction imposed.

The Deutsche Welle article on EU and U.S Sanctions on Russia over Alexei Navalny Poisoning (Meso): The Deutsche Welle, an English language and news programme. The DW is funded by the German government, however, is barred from broadcasting in Germany itself. Focusing on news and politics, the reporting takes a left centre bias. The reporting does not explicitly state whether or not sanctions should be imposed; the informal language and terms indicate its favour of sanctions. Furthermore, as the newspaper is owned by the German government is heavily involved in this case and has pushed the EU to impose sanctions on Russia it is expected that the reporting indicates favour for sanctions.

European Parliament on the Poisoning of Alexi Navalny (Micro): Applying the Critical Discourse Analysis CDA to this document outlines the EU-Russia relations as well as EU rule of law and international law. The document takes a firm stance as to where the EU stands concerning Russia through formal language by referring to terms such as “condemning,” “rule of law”, and “universal human rights” throughout the document indicating that the EU does not stand with the actions of Russia. However, the document outlines that the EU at the time did not decide to implement sanctions on Russia and whether or not the EU decides to will depend on Russia’s cooperation through the EU’s investigation. The term “cooperation” used in this context in the documents insinuates that an open dialogue remains between the EU and Russia.

European Parliament on the Poisoning of Alexi Navalny (Meso): This document is prepared for and addressed to the members and staff of the European Parliament. It can be accessed online by individuals who wish to read; however, the purpose was to assist members of parliament in their parliamentary work.

d) NATO’s Response to Navalny’s Poisoning

Following the international community’s response to the Navalny case, NATO has spoken publicly, with Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg “utterly condemn[ing]” the use of this nerve agent.[81] Ever since the Russian state’s military intervention in Ukraine in 2014, NATO has severed ties with them and had suspended practical cooperation. NATO has also publicly wished for the safe recovery of Mr. Navalny and has called for Russia to “immediately disclose any information relevant” to bring justice, bearing Russia’s obligation under the Chemical Weapons Convention.[82] Stoltenberg also denoted that the attack on Navalny is not simply an attack on an individual, but rather “an attack on fundamental democratic rights.”[83] The NATO chief, however, did not specify concrete consequences this may entail for Russia.

During the Skripal case of 2018, his attempted assassination prompted NATO to decrease the size of its Russian Mission by one-third, as more than twenty allies ordered the expulsion of dozens of Russian diplomats in response to the nerve agent attack. NATO is under pressure to denote a similar action in response to Navalny’s poisoning, yet no action has been made yet. NATO, however, is aiding other parties in responsive rhetoric towards Russia. While reaching out to NATO to help find a common response, Chancellor Angela Merkel is now under unprecedented pressure to cancel the almost completed Nord Stream II gas pipeline from Russia to Germany, In light of the attempted assassination of Navalny.[84] The $10.5 billion project hopes to ship upwards of 55 billion cubic meters of gas per year, but its creation is threatened by pressure from the international community. Merkel hopes to receive the opinions and support from NATO on this topic, as NATO is seen to hold the opinion of the greater international community, the same community pressuring her to take action on the pipeline. Russia has not collaborated with NATO for an extended period, and they have not commented on NATO’s stance on this matter either. Therefore, the interaction at hand between NATO and Russia over the Navalny case is one-sided currently but may shift as the story progresses.

Discourse Analysis: North Atlantic Treaty Organization vs RT Media Network

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s Public Statement on the Alexei Navalny Poisoning (Micro): In September of 2020, NATO issued a public statement on their standpoint on the poisoning of Alexei Navalny.[85] The statement was brief with a notation of four paragraphs, yet the language used by NATO is that of high formality. By utilizing vocabulary such as “condemn[s] in the strongest possible terms,” NATO has established that they are in full support of Mr. Navalny and that their stance is alongside him. This is further confirmed in Paragraph Four of their statement which wished Mr. Navalny to have a “swift and full recovery,” as well as thanking the Charité hospital was thanked for treating him.[86] This statement falls in line with the general thoughts of the Euro-American nations, showcasing a mutual agreement on the matter.

The RT Media Network’s Article on the Demand of Action Issued by NATO (Micro): RT Media, Formerly known as Russia Today, released a news article also in September 2020 regarding the demand by NATO for Russia to be complacent in the ongoing investigation of Mr. Navalny’s attempted assassination.[87] The article itself surrounds the various statements that world leaders have issued on the situation, including that of Jens Stoltenberg, NATO’s own Secretary-General. RT uses more informal language and uses lighter and calmer phrasing. With sentences describing Navalny’s attack as for him to “take ill on a flight,” and by not referring to the “cholinesterase inhibitor” by its more common name as the Novichok Nerve Agent, a softer approach to the situation can be seen. This implies a bias and difference of viewpoint, as the language and tone used in this article are highly dissimilar to the Euro-American language used.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s Public Statement on the Alexei Navalny Poisoning (Meso): The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has placed its stake in a multitude of human rights issues as such with Alexei Navalny. NATO, being funded in scalar by its members, issues its opinions on behalf of all nations within the organization. NATO holds its motto as animus in consulendo liber, translating to “a mind unfettered in deliberation.” This motto is meant to reflect the embodiment of consultation, deliberation, and mediation. NATO is known to intervene in cases involving human rights all around the globe. The NATO Enlargement Facilitation Act of 1996 included a section that denoted “the protection and promotion of fundamental freedoms and human rights are integral aspects of genuine security.”[88] This notion is authenticated through their interest in the human rights case of one Alexei Navalny.

The RT Media Network’s Article on the Demond of Action Issued by NATO (Meso): RT Media’s article showcases a viewpoint different from that of the Euro-American outlook. RT is a Russian governmentally-funded network, mainly broadcasting to viewers outside of Russia. The network focuses on politically-oriented content and is seen to hold a more pro-Russia point of view on the Navalny story. The article, which can be accessed online by anyone, articulates key notions in a manner that portrays Russia as nonpartisan, which highly differs from the depictions made by North Atlantic Nations. With funding directly from the Russian administration, the notions issued by RT would adopt those of the Russian government, similar to how the statement by NATO adopts the thoughts of its member nations.

e) Sanctions against Russia

The attack on Alexei Navalny has had severe ramifications for the Kremlin and Russia, as the incident is widely being condemned by the international community. Multinational organizations such as NATO and the United Nations have publicly castigated the Kremlin’s imprisonment of Navalny, as well as the attempted assassination itself. A statement issued by NATO in September 2021 highlights the organization’s thoughts on the attack, desiring severe reprimanding of those responsible.[89] Sanctions have also been issued by various parties to limit the global holding of Russian diplomats and officials.

United States

In light of the attack, the United States, under the administration of President Joe Biden, has issued sanctions and has frozen the assets of seven high-ranking Russian dissidents and fourteen separate bodies, all of which were involved in the production of chemicals and biological entities.[90] The Biden Administration is seen to have taken a harsher stance against Russia than the preceding Trump Party, and with further sanctions incoming as the situation progresses, this dissonance between the United States and Russia will only grow.

Canada

Canada has also implemented sanctions of their own, with the disciplining of nine senior Russian officials, two of which are officials from the Russian Defence Ministry and the Superior of the Federal Security Bureau (FSB), Russia’s prime security agency.[91] These sanctions freeze any assets that the Russian officials hold in Canada, as well as a ban to enter Canada. Canadians and Canadian businesses are also forbidden to aid these officials financially, as failure to do so would result in infractions with the federal government. These measures were implicated three weeks following the United States sanctions, kickstarting a chain reaction.

European Union

In a coordinated move, the European Union has also placed sanctions on six Russians and a chemical research facility in light of the attack on Navalny. Sergei Menyailo, President Vladimir Putin’s envoy to the Siberian Federal District (SFD), was among the six individuals who were sanctioned by the EU. Two of President Putin’s top aides, Andrei Yarin and Sergei Kiriyenko were among those sanctioned, as they played a hand in the countering of Navalny’s political prowess. Two deputy defence ministers, Pavel Popov and Alexei Krivoruchko, were also placed on the sanction list for their part in controlling the chemical weapons stocks before the weapon’s planned self-destruction. The EU also incarcerated the Russian State Research Institute of Organic Chemistry and Technology, as it is believed to be connected to the Novichok programme. Finally, the EU has also imposed sanctions on Yevgeny Prigozhin, known as “Putin’s Chef” by the Russians. The wealthy businessman has been the winner of many profitable government arms contracts, which according to the EU violates the UN arms embargo on Libya. Prigozhin denies these allegations, stating that he has “no business projects in Libya.”[92] The EU announced publicly that more sanctions will be imposed as the Navalny poisoning story progresses.

VI. Strategic Recommendations

When interacting with volatile nations such as Russia, NATO’s deter and defend strategy is limited in scope. That is, attempts at dialogue and condemnation neither deter Russia from undermining democracy, the rule of law, and human rights nor sufficiently defend the Allies’ interests in the region. For this reason, in addition to NATO’s 2030 vision of strengthening deterrence and defence, a further comprehensive strategy is needed. In this regard, the authors of this report recommend that to exercise its commitment to democracy and human rights, NATO adopt two key strategies when interacting with volatile nations like Russia. Specifically, we advocate for a blend of short-term actions focused on placing further economic pressures on Russia, as well as a long-term strategy of transformation that will assist Russian citizens with the process of becoming a democratic nation.

Some of the more immediate and concrete measures that NATO can take include a series of targeted sanctions and economic punishments against governmental actors who actively undermine the democratic process in Russia. Such sanctions should target those actors or agencies within and close to the Kremlin who are known to have jeopardized both, Alexei Navalny and his supporters, as well as the broader Anti-Corruption Foundation. A leading governmental body to consider in this category is the Kremlin’s Investigative Committee, which not only helped to disband the Anti-Corruption Foundation under the pretext of it being an extremist organization earlier this year but most recently brought new criminal charges against Navalny for creating “a non-profit organization that infringes on the persons and rights of citizens.”[93]

In addition to taking short-term economic measures against specific agencies, the authors of this report recommend a broader and more long-term reorientation of strategy towards Russia. Such a strategy entails thinking of how best to assist Russia’s transformation into a democratic nation by assisting and empowering citizens who actively and openly oppose the Kremlin. This includes supporting Navalny’s direct political allies, such as Leonid Volkov and Ivan Zhdanov, both of whom were charged this August for raising funds for Navalny’s political network. Similarly, measures should be taken to support the thousands of everyday citizens who have shown up to protest Putin’s government in the last year and who have since been subject to widespread imprisonment and intimidation.

[1] Nato. “Brussels Summit Communiqué.” NATO, June 14, 2021.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Nato. “Statement by the North Atlantic Council on the poisoning of Alexei Navalny.” NATO, September 4, 2020.

[6] Nato Parliamentary Assembly. “Statement by the President of the NATO PA on the sentencing of Alexei Navalny.” Nato Parliamentary Assembly, February 3, 2021.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Alan Greenspan, “Remarks by Chairman Alan Greenspan,” Federal Reserve Board Speeches (The Federal Reserve Board, June 10, 1999), https://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/1999/199906102.htm.

[9] “The North Atlantic Treaty,” The North Atlantic Treaty official texts (NATO, April 1, 2009), https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Mircea Geoan?, “Monumental Shift of Power to the Asia-Pacific and China,” in Speech by NATO Deputy Secretary-General Mircea Geoan? at the Delphi Economic Forum 2021 (Delphi: North Atlantic Treaty Organization, 2021), https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_183471.htm.

[15] NATO, “Operations and Missions: Past and Present,” NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization, June 11, 2018), https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_52060.htm.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Steve Morgan, “Cybercrime to Cost the World $10.5 Trillion Annually by 2025,” Cybercrime Magazine, April 27, 2021, https://cybersecurityventures.com/cybercrime-damages-6-trillion-by-2021/.

[18] Laura Brent, “NATO’s Role in Cyberspace,” NATO Review, February 12, 2019, https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2019/02/12/natos-role-in-cyberspace/index.html.

[19] K. Floyd, “Cyber Threats and NATO 2030: Horizon Scanning and Analysis,” ed. P. Pernik, A. Ertan, and T. Stevens (NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence, 2020), https://www.ccdcoe.org/uploads/2020/12/Cyber-Threats-and-NATO-2030_Horizon-Scanning-and-Analysis.pdf.

[20] Steve Morgan, “LinkedIn,” LinkedIn (blog), June 1, 2017, https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/35-million-cybersecurity-job-openings-2021-steve-morgan/.

[21] Tarik Kafala, “Gaddafi’s Quixotic and Brutal Rule,” BBC News (BBC, October 20, 2011), https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-12532929.

[22] Matthew Green, “To What Extent Was the NATO Intervention in Libya a Humanitarian Intervention?,” E-International Relations, February 6, 2019, https://www.e-ir.info/2019/02/06/to-what-extent-was-the-nato-intervention-in-libya-a-humanitarian-intervention/#_ftnref32.

[23] NATO, “Operation UNIFIED PROTECTOR NATO-Led Arms Embargo against Libya,” Operation Unified Protector fact sheet (North Atlantic Treaty Organization, October 2011), https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2011_10/20111005_111005-factsheet_arms_embargo.pdf.

[24] “Relations with Russia,” NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization, April 22, 2021), https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_50090.htm.

[25] Valery Gerasimov, “The Value of Science Is in the Foresight: New Challenges Demand Rethinking the Forms and Methods of Carrying out Combat Operations,” trans. Robert Coalson, Military Review, February 27, 2013, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/military-review/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20160228_art008.pdf.

[26] NATO, “Operations and Missions: Past and Present,” NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization, June 11, 2018), https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_52060.htm . (Ibid from source 15)

[27] Nato. “Russia Relations: The Facts.” NATO, July 9, 2016.

[28] Nato. “Russia Relations: The Facts.”

[29] Nato. “Relations with Ukraine.” NATO, April 27, 2021.

[30] NATO Summit Takes on Challenges from Russia, China, Climate Change.” Reuters. Thomson Reuters, June 14, 2021.

[31] Roache, Madeline. “Inside the Complicated Relationship between Russia and NATO.” Time. Time, April 4, 2019

[32] Gorelov, Dmitri. “How Alexei Navalny Created Russia’s Main Opposition Platform.” Fair Observer. September 14, 2020. Accessed August 11, 2021.

[33] Gorelov, Dmitri. “How Alexei Navalny Created Russia’s Main Opposition Platform.” Fair Observer. September 14, 2020. Accessed August 11, 2021.

[34] Gorelov, Dmitri. “How Alexei Navalny Created Russia’s Main Opposition Platform.” Fair Observer. September 14, 2020. Accessed August 11, 2021.

[35] Gorelov, Dmitri. “How Alexei Navalny Created Russia’s Main Opposition Platform.” Fair Observer. September 14, 2020. Accessed August 11, 2021.

[36] Regina Smyth Professor. “How Alexei Navalny Revolutionized Opposition Politics in Russia, before His Apparent Poisoning.” The Conversation. March 08, 2021. Accessed August 11, 2021.

[37] Regina Smyth Professor. “How Alexei Navalny Revolutionized Opposition Politics in Russia, before His Apparent Poisoning.” The Conversation. March 08, 2021. Accessed August 11, 2021.

[38] Navalny, Alexei. YouTube. January 19, 2021. Accessed September 10, 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipAnwilMncI&ab_channel=АлексейНавальный.

[39] Navalny, Alexei. YouTube. January 19, 2021. Accessed September 10, 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipAnwilMncI&ab_channel=АлексейНавальный.

[40] Navalny, Alexei. YouTube. January 19, 2021. Accessed September 10, 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipAnwilMncI&ab_channel=АлексейНавальный.

[41] Navalny, Alexei. YouTube. January 19, 2021. Accessed September 10, 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipAnwilMncI&ab_channel=АлексейНавальный.

[42] Navalny, Alexei. YouTube. January 19, 2021. Accessed September 10, 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipAnwilMncI&ab_channel=АлексейНавальный.

[43] Navalny, Alexei. YouTube. January 19, 2021. Accessed September 10, 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipAnwilMncI&ab_channel=АлексейНавальный.

[44] “Alexei Navalny: Russia’s Vociferous Putin Critic.” BBC News. April 21, 2021. Accessed August 11, 2021.

[45] Regina Smyth Professor. “How Alexei Navalny Revolutionized Opposition Politics in Russia, before His Apparent Poisoning.” The Conversation. March 08, 2021. Accessed August 11, 2021.

[46] Presse, AFP - Agence France. “Timeline of the Alexei Navalny Poisoning.” Barron’s. September 14, 2020. Accessed August 11, 2021.

[47] Presse, AFP - Agence France. “Timeline of the Alexei Navalny Poisoning.” Barron’s. September 14, 2020. Accessed August 11, 2021.

[48] “Alexei Navalny: Russia’s Vociferous Putin Critic.” BBC News. April 21, 2021. Accessed August 11, 2021.

[49] “Alexei Navalny: Russia’s Vociferous Putin Critic.” BBC News. April 21, 2021. Accessed August 11, 2021.

[50] Regina Smyth Professor. “How Alexei Navalny Revolutionized Opposition Politics in Russia, before His Apparent Poisoning.” The Conversation. March 08, 2021. Accessed August 11, 2021.

[51] President of Russia. “Vladimir Putin’s Annual News Conference.” President Of Russia. December 17, 2020. Accessed September 10, 2021. https://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/64671.

[52] President of Russia. “Vladimir Putin’s Annual News Conference.” President Of Russia. December 17, 2020. Accessed September 10, 2021. https://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/64671.

[53] President of Russia. “Vladimir Putin’s Annual News Conference.” President Of Russia. December 17, 2020. Accessed September 10, 2021. https://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/64671.

[54] President of Russia. “Vladimir Putin’s Annual News Conference.” President Of Russia. December 17, 2020. Accessed September 10, 2021. https://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/64671.

[55] President of Russia. “Vladimir Putin’s Annual News Conference.” President Of Russia. December 17, 2020. Accessed September 10, 2021. https://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/64671.

[56] President of Russia. “Vladimir Putin’s Annual News Conference.” President Of Russia. December 17, 2020. Accessed September 10, 2021. https://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/64671.

[57] President of Russia. “Vladimir Putin’s Annual News Conference.” President Of Russia. December 17, 2020. Accessed September 10, 2021. https://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/64671.

[58] Regina Smyth Professor. “How Alexei Navalny Revolutionized Opposition Politics in Russia, before His Apparent Poisoning.” The Conversation. March 08, 2021. Accessed August 11, 2021.

[59] Gorelov, Dmitri. “How Alexei Navalny Created Russia’s Main Opposition Platform.” Fair Observer. September 14, 2020. Accessed August 11, 2021.

[60] “Alexei Navalny: Russia’s Vociferous Putin Critic.” BBC News. April 21, 2021. Accessed August 11, 2021.

[61] “Alexei Navalny: Russia’s Vociferous Putin Critic.” BBC News. April 21, 2021. Accessed August 11, 2021.

[62] Morcos, Pierre, Center for Strategic and International Studies.

[63] Reevell, Patrick, ABC.

[64] Ibid. Reevell, Patrick.

[65] Aitkhozhina, Damelya. Human Rights Watch.

[66] Ibid. Aitkhozhina, Damelya.

[67] Ibid. Aitkhozhina, Damelya.

[68] “The European Union and the Russian Federation.” EEAS, March 3, 2021.

[69] Russell, Martin. “The Poisoning of Alexey Navalny.” European Parliamentary Research Service, September 2020.

[70] Russell, Martin. “The Poisoning of Alexey Navalny, 2.

[71] Schwirtz, Michael, and Katrin Bennhold. “E.U. Preparing Sanctions on Putin Allies OVER Navalny’s Poisoning.” The New York Times. The New York Times, October 14, 2020.

[72] Russell, Martin. “The Poisoning of Alexey Navalny, 2.

[73] Schwirtz, Michael, and Katrin Bennhold. “E.U. Preparing Sanctions on Putin Allies OVER Navalny’s Poisoning.

[74] Alexei Navalny: Germany URGES EU Action over NOVICHOK Poisoning.” BBC News. BBC, September 3, 2020

[75] “U.S. Warns of ‘Consequences’ If Kremlin Critic Navalny Dies.” Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg, April 2021.

[76] Russell, Martin. “The Poisoning of Alexey Navalny, 2.

[77] “U.S. Warns of ‘Consequences’ If Kremlin Critic Navalny Dies.” Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg, April 2021.

[78] “Canada and Allies Discuss Joint Response to RUSSIA’S Imprisonment of Kremlin Critic Navalny | CBC News.” CBC news. CBC/Radio Canada, February 8, 2021.

[79] Canada and Allies Discuss Joint Response to RUSSIA’S Imprisonment of Kremlin Critic Navalny | CBC News.”

[80] Canada Sanctions Russian Officials over Poisoning, Imprisonment of Alexey Navalny | CBC News.” CBC news. CBC/Radio Canada, March 25, 2021.

[81] Brzozowski, Alexandra. NATO Calls for INTERNATIONAL Response.

[82] NATO. Statement by the North Atlantic Council on the Poisoning of Alexei Navalny.

[83] Ibid. Brzozowski, Alexandra.

[84] Roberts, John M. “Navalny, Novichok, and Nord Stream ii.”

[85] Ibid. NATO Statement.

[86] Ibid. NATO Statement.

[87] Tickle, J. (2020, September). ‘Full & Transparent’ investigation: NATO & EU leaders DEMAND russia INVESTIGATES ‘attack’ on opposition FIGURE NAVALNY. RT International. Retrieved September 09, 2021, from https://www.rt.com/russia/499775-nato-eu-demand-navalny-investigation/ .

[88] CSCE. (2016, June 1). Report on human rights and the process of nato enlargement. NATO. Retrieved September 09, 2021, from https://www.csce.gov/international-impact/publications/report-human-rights-and-process-nato-enlargement?page=35 .

[89] Ibid. NATO Statement.

[90] Holland, Steve, Arshad Mohammed. U.S. Imposes Sanctions on Russia over Poisoning Of Navalny.

[91] Jones, Ryan Patrick. Canada Sanctions Russian Officials over Poisoning, Imprisonment of Alexey Navalny.

[92] BBC. Navalny Novichok Poisoning: EU SANCTIONS Hit Top Russians.

[93] The Investigative Committee. “Alexei Navalny charged with creating an organization that infringes on the personality and rights of citizens.” Sledcom.ru., August 11, 2021.