67 pages • 2 hours read
Alexei NavalnyPatriot
Nonfiction | Autobiography / Memoir | Adult | Published in 2024A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
Part 3, Chapter 15 SummaryChapter Summaries & Analyses
Part 3: “The Work”
Part 3, Chapter 15 Summary
In 2014, Navalny faced intensified persecution from the Russian government, culminating in a politically motivated trial alongside his younger brother, Oleg. The charges, centered on alleged embezzlement involving the French company Yves Rocher, were widely seen as fabricated. Despite Yves Rocher’s representative stating in court that there was no complaint, the court proceeded, reflecting the Kremlin’s control over Russia’s judicial system.
Navalny was placed under house arrest for nearly a year, during which he was forbidden from using the internet or leaving his apartment. His confinement strained family life, but he tried to maintain normalcy and exercise, though the isolation took its toll. The government’s intent was clear: to isolate him while threatening his family.
The final court hearing took place on December 30, 2014, abruptly moved up from the planned January 15th date, likely to prevent large-scale protests. Alexei received a suspended sentence of three and a half years, while Oleg was sentenced to the same term in prison. The courtroom scene was emotional, especially as Oleg’s young children faced years without their father. Navalny defied his house arrest that night, joining protesters on Moscow’s Tverskaya Street. He was detained but not jailed, with police merely escorting him home and posting guards outside his apartment.
Oleg’s imprisonment was harsh and punitive. He was “tormented” for two and a half years in solitary confinement, frequent punishment cell stints, and limited family contact (234). These were all tactics aimed at pressuring Navalny. Despite these hardships, Oleg’s letters to Alexei encouraged him to continue his anti-corruption work, insisting that his own suffering should not be in vain.
Navalny’s “final words” during the Yves Rocher trial became a powerful manifesto against systemic corruption in Russia (236). He condemned the Kremlin’s reliance on lies, theft, and repression. He criticized the complicity of officials who followed orders without question and implored people to stop “staring at the table” in passive submission. Navalny vowed to continue fighting for justice, despite the personal costs. He asserted that taking hostages, like his brother, would not deter him and called on all Russians to reject the culture of lies that sustains the regime.
The passage concludes with Navalny’s unwavering belief in the power of truth and collective action. He declared that even if imprisoned, others would rise to continue the fight for justice and accountability in Russia.
Part 3, Chapter 16 Summary
In March 2014, Navalny’s popular blog on LiveJournal, which attracted millions of readers, was blocked by Roskomnadzor, the Russian media watchdog. This occurred just before Putin’s Crimea referendum, as the Kremlin sought to suppress independent media.
To continue his work, Navalny created an independent website, though he anticipated that it would be blocked eventually. Realizing that many people “wouldn’t bother” to bypass restrictions (244), he explored using video content despite his discomfort with being on camera. Initially hesitant, Navalny recognized that video was more effective than written articles for reaching Russians seeking alternatives to state-controlled television. A well-crafted investigation article might reach a million readers, while a simple video could attract millions more. His team began producing YouTube videos, starting with an exposé on Prosecutor General Yury Chaika, revealing ties to organized crime and corrupt businesses, including the notorious Tsapki gang. The video went viral, amassing over 5 million views.
Encouraged by this success, Navalny’s team investigated Deputy Prime Minister Igor Shuvalov, exposing his opulent lifestyle, including a private jet used to transport his corgis to international dog shows. This humorous yet shocking story resonated widely, prompting the team to produce regular YouTube videos. Their investigative films evolved into documentary-style reports, combining thorough research with engaging storytelling. One notable investigation targeted Moscow Prosecutor Denis Popov, whose family owned property abroad despite his role in prosecuting opposition activists. Navalny’s team rented one of Popov’s apartments in Montenegro and filmed an exposé, taking care not to alert Popov before publication.
The team also faced technical and creative challenges, including dealing with weather disruptions and perfecting on-camera jokes. Despite Navalny’s discomfort with being on camera, their videos continued gaining popularity. Navalny reluctantly embraced Instagram after realizing its potential to engage women, who were initially underrepresented among his supporters. His Instagram strategy revealed that women were just as politically active and often more determined than men.
Navalny also grappled with TikTok, acknowledging its power to engage younger audiences despite his initial disdain for its frivolous content. He even experimented with TikTok trends to reach more viewers. Throughout his digital evolution, Twitter remained Navalny’s preferred platform for sharing news, opinions, and personal updates, including lighthearted posts about everyday moments like eating dumplings.
Part 3, Chapter 17 Summary
On December 13, 2016, Navalny announced his candidacy for the Russian presidency through a secretive and carefully orchestrated video. With limited resources and under the constant threat of surveillance, he and his team rented a Moscow office under a false name and recorded the video, launching his campaign through email and social media. Within a day, they raised 6 million rubles and attracted thousands of supporters.
The Kremlin responded swiftly, ramping up surveillance and legal pressures. The Kirovles case, previously dismissed, was reopened, resulting in a second conviction. Despite these legal obstacles, Navalny intensified his campaign with a nationwide tour. His team opened campaign headquarters in 82 cities, making it the largest opposition network in Russia. He connected directly with voters through rallies, personal meetings, and live broadcasts on YouTube.
Navalny’s outreach was hindered by numerous state-sponsored disruptions. In various cities, he faced physical attacks, including being splashed with zelyonka (a green antiseptic) and even a chemical-laced version that almost blinded him. He was also detained several times, with police raids targeting his staff and headquarters. Nevertheless, these efforts only brought “even more support” (258), with his YouTube videos garnering millions of views.
His investigative journalism also continued. A bizarre incident involving provocateurs dressed as erotic police officers led to a major exposé on oligarch Oleg Deripaska and Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Prikhodko. Navalny’s team discovered evidence of Deripaska’s ties to US election interference and Russian political corruption, producing a viral video that received over 10 million views. One of Navalny’s most impactful investigations was Don’t Call Him “Dimon,” targeting then-Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. The film exposed Medvedev’s secret luxury properties, financed through corrupt charitable foundations. Symbols from the investigation, such as sneakers and a duck house on Medvedev’s estate, became emblems of anti-corruption protests. When Navalny called for nationwide demonstrations, thousands of Russians took to the streets in over 100 cities.
Despite facing continuous harassment and escalating charges, Navalny remained determined. On December 24, 2017, he formally submitted his presidential nomination with support from thousands of volunteers. However, Russia’s Central Electoral Commission disqualified him due to his politically motivated criminal record. Navalny responded by organizing a nationwide election boycott, urging citizens to become election observers and report fraud.
Although barred from running, Navalny’s campaign created a lasting infrastructure for Russia’s opposition movement. His network of headquarters became a vital political force capable of mobilizing protests and winning local elections, solidifying his legacy as a major opposition leader against Vladimir Putin’s regime.
Part 3, Chapter 18 Summary
Navalny reflects on his political struggle in Russia, emphasizing the challenges of fighting corruption and authoritarianism under Vladimir Putin’s regime. He recounts his political activism, starting with the 2011 protests against election fraud by United Russia. Navalny highlights the development of tactical voting in 2018, aimed at defeating United Russia by consolidating votes for the strongest opposition candidates, often from the Communist Party. Despite Kremlin interference, this strategy successfully reduced United Russia’s hold on the Moscow City Duma.
Navalny describes his political persecution, including arrests and surveillance. He recounts the harrowing events of August 2020 when he was poisoned with Novichok by FSB agents. His near-death experience underscored the personal risks he faced, though he asserts that he accepted these dangers as part of his mission. He also reflects on the 2015 assassination of Boris Nemtsov, recognizing the unpredictable and deadly nature of Putin’s regime.
Despite personal threats, Navalny expresses an unwavering commitment to his cause. He acknowledges the potential consequences for his family but insists that fear cannot deter him. He emphasizes that his motivation comes from a deep love for Russia and its people, culture, and history. He contrasts this love with his hatred for Putin, not just because of his personal attacks but because of the immense damage done to Russia through systemic corruption, wasted potential, and the entrenchment of authoritarian rule.
Navalny envisions a “Beautiful Russia of the Future” (275), a democratic and prosperous country governed by the rule of law. He advocates reducing presidential powers, strengthening regional governance, and ensuring fair elections and independent courts. He believes that Russia must break free from its historical cycle of authoritarian rule and create a government that serves its people.
He concludes Part 3 with optimism, asserting that, despite current hardships, Russia’s future holds the possibility of becoming a thriving, democratic state. He calls on his fellow citizens to fight for this vision, believing that truth and justice will eventually prevail.
Part 3, Chapters 15-18 Analysis
Navalny presents himself as brave but modest in his activism in The Battle Against Authoritarianism. He describes the way in which the government has persecuted him, but he frequently reframes the discussion around the need for political change rather than the impact on his life. Whether being targeted by the police, thrown in prison, or being threatened by strangers, Navalny was willing to place himself in harm’s way because he felt that he was fighting for a worthy cause. Since his opponents were not quite as honorable, however, he was less sure about allowing his loved ones to suffer on his behalf.
The persecution of Oleg, more than any other incident in Part 3, angers Navalny. He believes that Oleg was innocent and that Oleg was being targeted as a way to get at Navalny. Navalny dwells on this incident for two reasons. First, he is genuinely outraged by the government’s actions, even if he is not surprised. Second, he feels guilty that he brought suffering into his brother’s life. Importantly, Oleg has absolved his brother of this guilt. Oleg insisted to Navalny that the political campaign was worth his suffering—Oleg was willing to share the burden placed on Navalny, which Navalny wishes to praise him for. Navalny might not want to praise himself for his bravery, but he praises his brother because he has so few ways to truly thank him for what Oleg has endured in the name of their cause.
Navalny’s political activism is a system of trial and error. He, along with many in Russia, is relearning a language of dissent after decades of repression across two forms of authoritarian government. While Navalny’s attempts have often been thwarted, the Internet emerged as a vector for viable political activism. Blogs and social media provided Navalny with a way to reach many people at the same time. His blog was a huge success, mobilizing many people, but the government threatened to silence him. Navalny changed and adapted. He began to use social media, even though he admits that apps such as Instagram are “torture” (247).
Navalny is being sarcastic when he describes Instagram in this manner, especially in the context of the very real torture that he and his fellow activists have had to endure. However, his choice of words speaks to his willingness to move out of his comfort zone in order to reach as many people as possible. His messaging evolved to combat the government clampdown and reach as many people—especially women, he notes—as possible.
The need to take advantage of vectors such as social media illustrates the extent to which the sides are greatly outmatched. The Russian government has a vast security services network, working at the behest of an authoritarian government. Navalny and his comrades had social media. When Navalny wanted to run for office, he had to make the announcement in complete secrecy. When he wanted to register for a campaign, he had to submit his application simultaneously in many different cities to avoid government interference. At all times, he had to operate in accordance with a set of rules that can simply be ignored by his opponents. Even when he did succeed in registering and stood as a candidate, the government could simply lie to get the results they wanted.
Navalny found a way to turn this power imbalance into a weapon. He points out the ways in which the government targeted him and, thanks to his social media, could draw attention to the corruption at the heart of the government. The small donations from supporters were confounded by this corruption, imbuing the public with a sense of outrage. In this way, Navalny found a way to make his weakness into a strength, reinforcing The Enduring Hope for Democratic Reform in Russia.
