Do Russian oligarchs condemning the war make any difference for Putin?

Only a handful of Russian oligarchs have spoken out against the invasion of Ukraine since February 2022. Has their public condemnation of the war reached the Russian public, and the Kremlin?

“Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is barbaric, and I’m categorically against it,” declared Arkady Volozh, the co-founder of Russia-based search engine Yandex last week. 

ADVERTISEMENT

He’s one of the many oligarchs who was hit by EU sanctions in June 2022.

“I am horrified about the fate of people in Ukraine – many of them my personal friends and relatives – whose houses are being bombed every day,” Volozh added in a statement published on Thursday.

It was a firm, headline-grabbing statement that unequivocally condemned Vladimir Putin’s war against Ukraine, and that put Volozh on the rather short list of Russian oligarchs who have spoken out against the invasion since February 2022.

Volozh, who co-founded Yandez in 1997 and moved to Israel in 2014, resigned as chief executive of the company and left its board last year after the EU included Yandex in a list of sanctioned Russian businesses.

At the time, the EU wrote that the search engine was “responsible for promoting state media and narratives in its search results, and de-ranking and removing content critical of the Kremlin, such as content related to Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine.”

It also accused Volozh of “materially or financially” supporting the invasion. He called the decision “misguided.”

Are Russian oligarchs crumbling to Western pressure?

Volozh’s recent public condemnation of the war could appear as an example of the fact that the EU-imposed sanctions worked as intended, breaking down Volozh’s alleged loyalty to Putin.

But that’s hardly the case, according to Emily Ferris, Research Fellow in Russian and Eurasian Security at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), a British security and defense think tank.

“It’s very easy to speak out against the regime when you’re not in the country and when most of your assets are no longer in the country,” Ferris told Euronews.

“Most of the oligarchs, frankly, have not spoken up against the war,” she added. “And that is because most of them are still in Russia, and still have their assets there. I’ve not seen so many oligarchs moving their assets out of Russia – and that’s partly because it’s actually very hard to do so.”

Among the few other prominent Russian oligarchs who have publicly condemned the war is Oleg Tinkov, the founder of Tinkoff Bank – one of Russia’s biggest lenders – who renounced his Russian citizenship last year to condemn “Putin’s fascism.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Before him, Israeli-Russian investor Yuri Milner – who had left Russia for the US in 2014 – had done the same.

What all these oligarchs have in common is that they are outside of Russia. 

“If you’re in Russia, it’s very hard to speak against the war as you may end up facing prosecution,” David Lewis, Professor of Global Politics at the University of Exeter, UK, told Euronews. 

“Those who want to retain business ties with Russia are largely staying silent and only those who are outside the country and have largely cut their business ties with Russia feel able and willing to speak out. And even among those, they are not that many people.”

Lewis added that the idea that sanctions will turn the oligarchs against Putin was always “rather naive.”

ADVERTISEMENT

“Politics and business are so closely intertwined in Russia that it’s almost impossible to retain your business if you come out in opposition to the government’s policies,” he said.

Members of the Russian elite within the country who have been eager to distance themselves from the Kremlin’s position on Ukraine have had a muted reaction to the war, opting for avoiding publicly supporting the invasion rather than speaking out against it, Ferris said.

This is part of the reason why, in Russia, Volozh’s harsh condemnation of the war hardly caused a stir.

“I think it had very little practical impact,” Ferris said. “People in Russia don’t see the oligarchs and those local businesspeople as a kind of moral compass for the nation.”

Oligarchs’ statements condemning the war also receive very little coverage in Russian media, “if they’re covered at all,” Ferris said.

ADVERTISEMENT

“They may have a marginal effect on others from the same demographic – Russian business elites -, simply by nornalizing the verbalization of certain rhetoric and discontent,” Anastassia Fedyk, an Assistant Professor of finance at the Haas School of Business at UC Berkeley, told Euronews.

“They are unlikely to have an effect on other layers of Russian society: the modal Russian will neither value nor relate to a dethroned businessman exiled to Israel.”

What’s going to take for the oligarchs to turn against Putin – and would this make any difference?

“These sort of individual cases are not really enough to change the terms of the debate or to shift that discourse very soon,” Lewis said.

“Oligarchs have very little influence on decision making, particularly on decisions about the war itself. They are much more dependent on Putin than he is on them,” he added. “They are quite a weak group in Russian politics, and they’ve been for some time.”

Ferris agrees that the few acts of rebellion from Russian oligarchs abroad cannot even scratch Putin’s image at home.

“His hold on power is not really dictated by these minor oligarchs, he’s dictated by military leaders, the armed forces, people who are close to him – and there hasn’t been any kind of breach in this group in their consensus of the war,” Ferris said.

If the oligarchs speaking against the war were the ones with a significant presence in the country, leading companies employing hundreds and thousands of people who could lose their jobs because of their insubordination, then that would make a difference to Putin and Russian society. But that’s unlikely to happen.

“Everybody who earns a significant amount of money in that country owns much of it to Putin, because he has created the conditions to allow them to become that powerful,” Ferris said. “It would be incredibly foolish to go against him.”

But Fedyk said that the words of condemnation from exiled Russian oligarchs are “definitely still a good thing.”

“These statements don’t have much impact and are just symptoms – but they are symptoms of things not going well in Russia,” she said.

“They highlight the increasingly tight authoritarianism and isolationism of the Russian government, how it’s an increasingly small group of people who still benefit from the regime’s actions. These things do not offer good prospects for Russia’s long-term economic development, innovation, and even political stability.”

Source link

#Russian #oligarchs #condemning #war #difference #Putin

Racist or revolutionary: The complex legacy of Alexei Navalny

Controversy surrounds some of what the Russian opposition leader – currently imprisoned in Moscow – has said in the past.

Alexei Navalny is a many-sided man.

The 45-year-old is a lawyer turned blogger, YouTuber, protest organiser, anti-corruption activist and face of Russia’s opposition. 

He is currently in prison in Russia on charges of extremism, which supporters say are politically motivated. 

Speaking in court recently, Navalny added yet another face to his character by urging his fans to campaign against the Russian invasion of Ukraine. 

What identity is paramount depends on who you ask, explains Jade McGlynn a researcher specialising in Russian politics at King’s College London.

For Russian supporters – mostly social media-savvy young people – Navalny is a rare figurehead for anti-establishment feeling.

Many outside Russia came to know him from the Oscar-winning, self-titled documentary based on the events related to his poisoning with a nerve agent in Russia and the subsequent investigation in 2020.

That helped cement Navalny’s identity as a powerful opponent of Vladimir Putin and elevated him in the eyes of the West. The Russian president refuses to refer to him by name even to this day, typically calling him “that gentleman”. 

‘Not a Western liberal democrat’

Yet there is a darker side to him, some say. 

Navalny’s ‘ideal’ image conflicts with his past remarks, McGlynn tells Euronews, pointing to his controversial views on Muslims in the Caucasus, Georgians and Central Asian migrants in Russia.  

“Immigrants from Central Asia bring in drugs [to Russia],” Navalny said in an interview in 2012, defending what he described as a “realist” visa requirement for “wonderful people from Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.”

While he has reflected on some of these past remarks, they frequently re-surface, causing some to question if Navalny is what many in the Western world think he is.  

Navalny’s controversial statements stem from his political origins in the nationalist movement, according to McGlynn. 

“He used to attend the Russian march, a very far-right nationalist group generally behind the slogan of ‘Russia for ethnic Russians’. Anybody who expects Navalny to be an ideal Western liberal Democrat has been mistaken,” she tells Euronews. 

His ultra-nationalist sentiment was prominent in a video dating back some 17 years filled with xenophobic comments. 

“Everything in our way should be carefully but decisively removed through deportation,” Navalny said in the video dressed as a dentist, comparing immigrants to dental cavities. 

Amnesty International stripped the opposition leader of the “prisoner of conscience” status based on this clip. It reversed this decision in 2021, recognising an “individual’s opinions and behaviour may evolve over time” in a statement.   

Kremlin cheerleaders have also sought to discredit Navalny, with Russia’s state-owned RT channel publishing a thread by freelance columnist Katya Kazbek that blasted him as an “avowed racist” and accused supporters of “whitewashing” his nationalism.

‘Nobody in Georgia cares what he thinks now’

Navalny has apologised in the past. But this has not been good enough for some groups outside Russia, particularly Georgians. 

“The Georgian public felt betrayed by Navalny after the 2008 Russo-Georgian war,” says Kornely Kakachia, Political Science Professor at Tbilisi State University. 

“Everyone expected Navalny to be anti-Putin and anti-imperialist, but he supported the invasion.” 

Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, accusing its neighbour of committing genocide against Russian speakers in the border regions. Others say Russia actually invaded to further its geopolitical interests and assert regional dominance. 

The European Court of Human Rights later penalised Russia in 2023 for human rights abuses, including civilian murders, looting, illegal detention and torture, during the fighting. 

Kakachia says the Georgian public now perceives Navalny as in the same bracket as Putin, largely due to his support for the war and calling Georgias “rodents”. 

Navalny’s lack of criticism of Russia’s imperialistic policy has further bolstered the sentiment and “nobody in Georgia cares what he thinks”, according to Kakachia. 

“Georgian national interest is not wanting to be part of any new empire that derives from the old Soviet playbook. Navalny’s comments indicate he’s not against the regime in that regard,” he adds. 

His incendiary comments on immigrants and Georgians re-surfaced when Navalny’s daughter, Dasha Navalnaya, was invited to speak at Georgetown University in May 2023. 

Students filed a petition against the speaker selection, calling for a meritocratic appointment and that “being anti-Putin doesn’t imply being a pro-democratic, anti-war, and liberal leader.” 

Following the backlash, two new speakers were added by the university to diversify perspectives, refusing to “disinvite” Navalnaya. 

Anti-corruption and the route ahead

Navalny’s political ideology, however, doesn’t impact his popularity within Russia, since his stance against corruption and oligarchs strikes the chord, McGlynn says.

“Not all Navalny supporters are pro-West. In fact, many of them are very angry, with countries like the UK and the US for facilitating that top-level corruption,” she adds. 

Despite the criticisms against him, Navalny’s efforts to challenge Putin – an act that almost got him killed – is laudable, according to McGlynn.  

“It was heroic to go back and investigate topics that are completely off limits relating to Putin’s wealth and the wealth of the elite,” she says.  

Navalny has repeatedly accused Putin and his inner circle of “sucking the blood out of Russia,” by developing Russia into a “feudal state.” 

Putin, on the other hand, has continuously dismissed Navalny and his Anti-Corruption Foundation (FBK), terming the movement a “boring pseudo-investigation.” 

The future route for Navalny in Russian politics depends on his release at a personal level, but the broader movement is what matters, McGlynn insists. 

“There is definitely a populist streak [behind Navalny],” she says. “That means we are missing some other important actors and the political movement as a whole.”



Source link

#Racist #revolutionary #complex #legacy #Alexei #Navalny

U.S. seeks to expel Russian mercenaries from Sudan, Libya

The United States has stepped up pressure on Middle East allies to expel the Wagner Group, a military contractor with close ties to Russia’s President, from chaos-stricken Libya and Sudan where it expanded in recent years, regional officials told The Associated Press.

The U.S. effort described by officials comes as the Joe Biden administration is making a broad push against the mercenaries. The U. S. has slapped new sanctions on the Wagner Group in recent months over its expanding role in Russia’s war in Ukraine.

The group is owned by Russian oligarch Yevgeny Prigozhin, a close ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin. The Pentagon has described it as a surrogate for the Russian Defence Ministry. The Kremlin denies any connection.

The Joe Biden administration has been working for months with regional powers Egypt and the United Arab Emirates to pressure military leaders in Sudan and Libya to end their ties with the group, according to more than a dozen Libyan, Sudanese and Egyptian officials. They asked for anonymity to speak freely and because they were not authorised to discuss the issue with the media.

“Wagner obsesses them (American officials),” said an Egyptian senior government official with direct knowledge of the talks. “It is at the top of every meeting.”

The group doesn’t announce its operations, but its presence is known from reports on the ground and other evidence. In Sudan, it was originally associated with former strongman Omar al-Bashir and now works with the military leaders who replaced him. In Libya, it’s associated with east Libya-based military commander Khalifa Hifter.

Wagner has deployed thousands of operatives in African and Middle Eastern countries including Mali, Libya, Sudan, the Central African Republic, and Syria. Its aim in Africa, analysts say, is to support Russia’s interests amid rising global interest in the resource-rich continent. Rights experts working with the U.S. on January 31 accused the group of committing possible war crimes and crimes against humanity in Mali, where it is fighting alongside government forces.

“Wagner tends to target countries with natural resources that can be used for Moscow’s objectives – gold mines in Sudan, for example, where the resulting gold can be sold in ways that circumvent Western sanctions,” said Catrina Doxsee, an expert on Wagner at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Mr. Prigozhin did not respond to a request for comment sent to the press department of the Concord Group, of which he is an owner. The group’s role in Libya and Sudan was central to recent talks between CIA director William Burns and officials in Egypt and Libya in January. Secretary of State Antony Blinken also discussed the group with President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi in a late-January trip to Cairo, Egyptian officials said. Weeks after the visits, Mr. Burns acknowledged in a Thursday speech at Georgetown University in Washington D.C., that after recent travel to Africa he was concerned about the Wagner’s growing influence in the continent.

“That is a deeply unhealthy development and we’re working very hard to counter it,” Mr. Burns said. Mr. Burns and Antony Blinken called on el-Sissi’s government to help convince Sudan’s ruling generals and Libya’s Hifter to end their dealings with the Wagner, an Egyptian official briefed on the talks said.

The group and its founder have been under U.S. sanctions since 2017, and the Biden administration in December announced new export restrictions to restrict its access to technology and supplies, designating it as a “significant transnational criminal organisation.”

SUDAN

Leaders in Sudan have received repeated U.S. messages about Wagner’s growing influence in recent months, via Egypt and Gulf states, said a senior Sudanese official.

Abbas Kamel, the director of Egypt’s Intelligence Directorate Agency, conveyed Western concerns in talks in Khartoum last month with the head of Sudan’s ruling sovereign council, Gen. Abdel-Fattah Burhan, the official said. Mr. Kamel urged Burhan to find a way to address Wagner’s “use of Sudan as a base” for operations in neighbouring countries such as the Central African Republic, the official said.

Wagner started operating in Sudan in 2017, providing military training to intelligence and special forces, and to the paramilitary group known as the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), according to Sudanese officials and documents shared with The Associated Press.

The RSF, which grew out of the feared Janjaweed militias, is led by powerful general Mohammed Hamdan Dagalo, who has close ties with the UAE and Saudi Arabia. Mohammed Hamdan has been sending troops to fight alongside the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen’s long-running civil war.

Wagner mercenaries are not operating in a combat role in Sudan, officials said. The group, which has dozens of operatives in the country, provides military and intelligence training, as well as surveillance and protection of sites and top officials.

Sudanese military leaders appear to have given Wagner control of gold mines in return. The documents show that the group has received mining rights through front companies with ties to Sudan’s powerful military and the RSF. Its activities are centred in gold-rich areas controlled by the RSF in Darfur, Blue Nile and other provinces, according to officials.

Two companies have been sanctioned by the U.S. Department of Treasury for acting as fronts for Wagner’s mining activities — Meroe Gold, a Sudanese gold mining firm, and its owner, the Russian-based M Invest firm. Mr. Prigozhin owns or controls both, according to the Treasury. Despite sanctions, Meroe Gold is still operating across Sudan.

The Russian mercenaries helped the paramilitary force consolidate its influence not only in the country’s far-flung regions, but also in the capital of Khartoum, where it helps run pro-RSF social media pages.

The main camp of Wagner mercenaries is in the contested village of Am Dafok on the borders between the Central African Republic and Sudan, according to the Darfur Bar Association, a legal group that focusses on human rights. “Nobody can approach their areas,” said Gibreel Hassabu, a lawyer and member of the association.

LIBYA

In Libya, Mr. Burns held talks in Tripoli with Prime Minister Abdul Hamid Dbeibah, head of one of Libya’s two rival governments.

The CIA director also met with Hifter in eastern Libya, according to officials with Hifter’s forces. One official briefed on the meeting in al-Rajma military complex, the seat of Hifter’s command just outside Benghazi, said Wagner was the main issue discussed.

U.N. experts said Wagner mercenaries were deployed Libya since 2018, helping Hifter’s forces in their fight against Islamist militants in eastern Libya. The group was also involved in his failed offensive on Tripoli in April 2019.

The U.S. Africa Command, AFRICOM, estimated that some 2,000 Wagner mercenaries were in Libya between July-September 2020, before a cease-fire. The mercenaries were equipped with armoured vehicles, air-defence systems, fighter aircraft, and other equipment, which were supplied by Russia, according to the AFRICOM assessment. The report also said the Wagner group appeared to be receiving money from the UAE, a main foreign backer of Hifter.

Since the 2020 cease-fire, Wagner’s activities have centred around oil facilities in central Libya, and they have continued providing military training to Hifter forces, Libyan officials said. It is not clear how many Wagner mercenaries are still in Libya. American officials have demanded that mercenaries be pulled out of oil facilities, another Libyan official said.

Hifter did not offer any commitments, but asked for assurances that Turkey and the Libyan militias it backed in western Libya will not initiate an attack on his forces in the coastal city of Sirte and other areas in central Libya.

Egypt, which has close ties with Hifter, has demanded that Wagner not be stationed close to its borders. There is no evidence yet that the Joe Biden administration’s pressure has yielded results in either Sudan or Libya, observers said.

Catrina Doxsee, the expert, said the U.S. and allies should resist promoting narratives that “Russia is bad and what we have to offer is good” and instead focus on offering better alternatives to Wagner.”

“Ultimately, at the end of the day, Wagner is a business. If you can cut out the profit and you can reduce the business case for using Wagner, that’s what is going to make it a less appealing case,” she said.

Source link

#seeks #expel #Russian #mercenaries #Sudan #Libya