Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Two weeks since Navalny’s murder. Two years since the invasion.

Opinion

Two weeks since Navalny’s murder. Two years since the invasion.

Supporters of the late Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny place candles around a makeshift memorial in front of the Russian consulate in Krakow, Poland, on Feb. 25.

Omar Marques/Anadolu via Getty Images

Epshtein is the chief executive officer of the Renew Democracy Initiative and chairs the Peace & Dialogue Leadership Initiative.

From our brief interaction, Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny probably thought I was — generously speaking — naive.

I met Navalny in 2010 when he was a Yale World Fellow and I was an undergraduate. Over coffee, I asked him if I could work for him in Russia over the summer. Influenced by my Soviet-born, anti-communist parents, and shielded from harm by my American hubris and passport, I had grown up with the romantic notion of a swashbuckling life combating dictatorship.

Navalny patiently, perhaps with some amusement, informed me that what he was doing was illegal and not particularly conducive to a summer internship for an American college student. His underlying point was more direct: If you take a vacation from democracy, you might not return. Russia isn’t the sort of place where an 18-year-old American kid could just drop in for eight weeks, agitate against the leader, have some kvass and then come back stateside for the fall semester.


Now I’m safely writing from Virginia with a cup of coffee in my hand and Navalny is dead in an Arctic penal colony, murdered by Vladimir Putin. The Russian state will not even allow his mother to conduct a proper burial.

Perhaps most tragically of all, Putin had help, not only from his cronies in the Kremlin but from useful idiots, tankies, and cynical self-promoters in the West who offered him the legitimacy and impunity he needed to silence the press, invade his neighbors, and kill one of his most prominent opponents. Every handshake with a Western leader, every call for Ukraine to offer concessions, every cynical justification offered for Putin’s actions was another nail in Navalny’s coffin. The actions (and inaction) of Western leaders have real consequences for those living under the heel of authoritarianism.

Change in countries like Russia can only come from within but it can be supported (or thwarted) from without. When Western leaders treat Putin as a respected peer, they legitimize him in front of his own people. Justifying his actions and claiming that they are no worse than perceived U.S. misdeeds undermines the Russian dictator’s domestic opponents by overshadowing their harrowing and true tales of oppression. It may well be no accident that Navalny’s death followed so closely on the heels of Tucker Carlson and Putin’s puppet show earlier this month. After all, if a “leading American voice” is willing to come to Moscow and meekly submit to Putin over the course of a two-hour “interview” at the same time that the speaker of the House reflexively dismisses support to one of our closest allies in Eastern Europe, then is it such a stretch for Putin to conclude that free societies are too divided to actually hold him accountable?

How many times over the last century have we learned that dictators never stop – that they are stopped? Sensing the West’s weakness, division and lack of resolve, Putin saw an opportunity and he took it. At a panel in Dubai, Carlson was asked why he didn’t bring up the plight of Navalny and the other regime critics Putin had already assassinated.

“Every leader kills people,” Carlson blithely retorted. “Leadership requires killing people.”

It could very well have been a preemptive justification for an action Tucker intuited Putin might take soon. His callous and cynical response offers an incredible contrast in style, substance and spirit to the bravery that Alexei Navalny demonstrated. Nearly three years ago, Navalny was in Berlin having narrowly survived a poisoning attempt by Putin. He could have remained there, ensconced in the relative (but not foolproof) security that distance and democracy provide. Yet he chose to return to Russia, hoping that his example might spark a movement of people fed up with Putin’s dictatorship. And thousands of people did take to the streets, but they were mercilessly suppressed by Putin’s thugs. While Tucker was welcomed with open arms on his pilgrimage to Moscow to pay tribute to his political idol in the Kremlin, Navalny was arrested and imprisoned immediately upon his arrival.

And he isn’t the only one. There are countless people filling dictators’ prisons and body bags who refused to back down – who took upon themselves the incredible risk that comes with fighting for a better future for their children while living in a dictatorship. Considering how many people in the free world abuse their freedom to carry water for dictators, it’s worth asking what motivates the incredible individuals who put everything on the line to confront them.

My friend and Renew Democracy Initiative colleague Evan Mawarire faced a similar dilemma to Navalny’s back in 2017. Evan, a pastor, had launched a protest movement against Zimbabwe’s strongman ruler, Robert Mugabe, and was imprisoned shortly thereafter. He was forced to flee — but ultimately chose to go back to Zimbabwe, consigning himself to more time in a maximum security prison, to more hours being tortured by a dictator's goons.

After Navalny famously stepped off the plane in Moscow, Evan reflected on the reasoning behind his own decision to return: “To send a message simultaneously to both dictator Mugabe and the people of our nation, that a new generation of freedom seekers was no longer prepared to run from the regime.” For those living under the yoke of dictatorship, fighting for freedom is not only a full-time job, but one for which you may have to be willing to give your last full measure of devotion. Navalny refused to ask a naive American college kid to take that risk, but he didn’t hesitate to take it himself.

That is why he went home.


Read More

U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche

U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche at the Robert F. Kennedy Department of Justice building on September 30, 2026 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Trump’s Weaponization of the DOJ Threatens Democratic Governance

The dust from the November 2026 midterm elections has barely settled, yet a familiar, toxic chorus of political warfare is already drowning out the clear message from American voters.

With Democrats securing majorities in both the House and Senate, voters signaled a desire for checks, balances, and a focused effort on the pressing economic issues squeezing everyday families. Instead, President Donald Trump has chosen to meet the incoming legislative branch not with an open hand, but with a weaponized Department of Justice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Democratic Presidential candidate U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) holds his first presidential campaign rally at Brooklyn College on March 02, 2019 in Brooklyn, New York.

A lobbyist who worked for both Bernie Sanders and Fortune 500 clients explains what democratic socialist wins mean for business, and how to prepare.

VIEW press/Getty Images

I Campaigned for Bernie Sanders Then Lobbied for Amazon

In 2016, my political outreach company, Firehouse Phones, worked on the presidential campaign of a democratic socialist. It was one of many campaigns my firm touched, but that one stays on my resume for a reason: it taught me more about how persuasion actually works than any client engagement before or since.

Today I run Ohio River South, a government affairs firm focused on the nation's fastest-growing region — the American South. Over the past decade we've advocated for nearly two dozen Fortune 500 companies — Amazon in my earlier lobbying years, and later growing a client roster that included Alphabet, Microsoft, General Motors, United Healthcare, and Capital One.

Keep ReadingShow less
The White House
The white house with green lawn and trees
Photo by Josh on Unsplash

The Politics of Gratitude: Why Washington Punishes the Loyalty It Cannot Price

On a Sunday night in August, Senator Jon Ossoff told a campaign rally in Atlanta that President Trump would rather build his ballroom and “travel with Natalie” than do his job. He never used her last name. He did not need to. Natalie Harp, the White House aide known to colleagues as Trump’s “human printer” for trailing him with a portable printer and transcribing his social-media dictation, had become a punchline before most Americans knew who she was.

The backlash arrived within hours. White House officials accused Ossoff of insinuating an affair; Republican Rep. Brandon Gill noted that Harp survived bone cancer only because the Right to Try Act, which Trump signed in 2018, let her seek an experimental treatment outside the normal approval process, and dismissed any other reading of the moment as unfair. Weeks earlier, Harp had been at the center of a far more consequential story: in July, she was one of a handful of aides, alongside the defense secretary and two senior staffers, chosen to accompany Trump on a covert switch of aircraft as he left a security summit in Turkey after officials detected a credible Iranian threat, while most of the traveling delegation stayed behind on a decoy plane. That is the real proximity Ossoff's line was needling. Then came a detail that complicated the story further: Trump had personally given Harp and several other aides cash gifts of $45,000 apiece, which a former federal ethics official called troublesome, since money on that scale can leave a recipient feeling indebted to whoever signs the check.

Keep ReadingShow less
A map labeling Lake Ontario as "Lake America" is displayed behind U.S. President Donald Trump.

A map labeling Lake Ontario as "Lake America" is displayed as U.S. President Donald Trump signs an executive order during an event in the Oval Office of the White House on August 27, 2026 in Washington, DC.

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Cartography of Convenience: Why Rushed Renaming Erodes Public Trust

In tough economic times, governments often reach for the easiest kind of progress: a new name on an old sign. Wage stagnation, inflation, crumbling roads, and rising rents are hard problems that take years and real money to fix. Renaming a street, a lake, or a strait is not. It costs a fraction as much and lets officials point to something they “did.” A new name never fixes a pothole or lowers a grocery bill. This year offered an unusually rich catalogue of the habit, reaching from a city council in Texas to a wartime waterway in the Persian Gulf.

A Concept Borrowed From the Cremation Ground

Indian philosophy has an old idea called shmashana vairagya, describing the sudden clarity a person feels standing at a cremation ground, when ordinary ambitions look small. The feeling fades once the mourner goes home. Public policy has its own version of this cycle. In the raw hours after a tragedy, a scandal, or a surge of national feeling, officials decide, sometimes within a single social media post, what belongs on a map or a sign forever. The emotion passes in hours. The bill, when there is one, stays for years.

Keep ReadingShow less