Patriot

Navalny recounts his political activism after being expelled from Yabloko, focusing on creating social and political initiatives. In 2004, he joined forces with young political activists, including Maria Gaidar, to form the Democratic Alternative. One of their most successful projects was organizing political debates, reminiscent of 1990s Russian televised debates. 

The debates attracted prominent politicians and gained popularity among “a whole new audience” (191): politically active internet users. However, increasing state interference, violent disruptions, and threats forced the project to shut down. The challenges with the debates pushed Navalny to explore the internet as a platform for activism. He began blogging on LiveJournal, posting about political events and exposing corruption. His blog quickly became one of the most read blogs in Russia. He saw the internet as a critical political tool, free from state censorship, and leveraged it to mobilize supporters and organize protests.

Determined to fight corruption, Navalny pursued legal action by purchasing shares in major state-owned companies like Gazprom, Rosneft, and Transneft. This allowed him, as a shareholder, to request documents, attend meetings, and file lawsuits against corporate mismanagement. He regularly confronted corporate executives at shareholder meetings, exposing corrupt practices and posting findings on his blog. One notable investigation involved VTB Bank’s purchase of overpriced oil-drilling rigs through a Cyprus-based intermediary owned by the bank’s executives. Navalny gathered evidence, visited the rigs abandoned in Siberia, and filed multiple complaints and lawsuits about this “incredibly convoluted” scheme (197). His persistence attracted media attention and rallied supporters. 

Later, Navalny uncovered another VTB-related scandal involving its CEO, Andrei Kostin, and journalist Nailya Asker-zade. The investigation revealed that Kostin had secretly given Asker-zade expensive real estate, a yacht, and a private jet, all allegedly bought with state funds. Despite efforts by Russian authorities to suppress the story, Navalny exposed the affair, continuing his fight against corruption through detailed investigations and public disclosures.

In the 2000s, Russia had two key democratic parties: Yabloko and the Union of Right Forces (URF), which frequently clashed. Navalny, advocating for their unification, maintained ties with URF’s young leader, Nikita Belykh. 

After URF’s poor showing in the 2007 Duma elections, Belykh was offered the governorship of Kirov Region as a token “liberal” governor under Dmitry Medvedev’s presidency. Belykh accepted, aiming to implement democratic reforms in the “terribly corrupt” (203), impoverished region. Navalny joined Belykh as an unpaid anti-corruption adviser, managing his family life between Kirov and Moscow before moving his family to Kirov. However, he soon realized that regional governance in Russia was heavily constrained by federal oversight, where even small initiatives like installing Wi-Fi faced bureaucratic resistance. Corruption plagued the system, with state officials demanding personal favors in exchange for funding.

Navalny encountered the severely mismanaged state-owned company Kirovles, run by the corrupt Vyacheslav Opalev. Despite initiating reforms and an external audit, Opalev was reinstated through backdoor dealings, prompting Navalny to leave the region. He applied and was accepted to Yale’s prestigious World Fellows Program to study governance, anti-corruption measures, and international law. 

At Yale, he learned from global experts while continuing anti-corruption work remotely. His major investigation of a “huge scandal” during this time exposed $4 billion in embezzlement at Transneft, a state-owned oil pipeline company (207). The Accounts Chamber’s secret audit revealed extensive fraud involving offshore shell companies and inflated construction costs. His findings went viral, angering the regime. 

Following the Transneft investigation, Russian authorities reopened the dormant Kirovles case, likely to deter his return. Undeterred, Navalny returned to Moscow, despite the risk of arrest, prepared for the next phase of his political activism as Russia’s political landscape entered a critical phase in 2011.

Navalny describes how he mobilized thousands of people through his LiveJournal blog to combat corruption in Russia. He shared investigative findings and encouraged readers to file complaints with their real names and addresses. Expertise was crowdsourced, with specialists volunteering their services. 

In one notable instance, he exposed a fraudulent government contract for a health ministry website. His efforts led to the project’s cancellation, inspiring the launch of RosPil, a platform dedicated to exposing corrupt procurement practices. As RosPil grew, volunteers built additional platforms like RosYama for reporting damaged roads and RosVybory for recruiting election observers. Realizing the need for sustainable funding, Navalny initiated Russia’s first large-scale crowdfunding campaign. He collected micro-donations, bypassing oligarch support, and raised significant funds transparently. His Anti-Corruption Foundation (ACF), registered in 2011, unified these projects under one organization.

The ACF attracted public support despite state intimidation tactics, including raids, equipment seizures, and threats against donors. Its team maintained a sense of normalcy, operating from a modern, open-plan office, despite constant pressure from the authorities. Investigations were shared via YouTube and social media, helping bypass state-controlled media. Navalny popularized the label “party of crooks and thieves” for United Russia (215)—Putin’s political party—sparking a viral political meme. 

When United Russia rigged the 2011 Duma elections, mass protests erupted. Initially skeptical of demonstrations, Navalny joined after witnessing blatant election fraud. His blog post calling for protests drew thousands to Moscow’s Chistye Prudy. Following the protest, riot police arrested him and hundreds of others. Sentenced to 15 days in a detention center, Navalny discovered widespread public support even among fellow detainees. 

While detained, he missed “a lot of interesting things” (218), including the historic Bolotnaya Square protest, where over 100,000 people gathered. Upon release, he joined the massive December 24th rally on Sakharov Avenue, stunned by the sheer size and diversity of participants, including prominent political and public figures.

The year 2012 marked the beginning of an “endless vicious circle” for Navalny (219): protest rallies, arrests, and criminal charges. In December, the Kremlin launched four criminal cases against him, including embezzlement charges related to Kirovles and the French company Yves Rocher. His brother, Oleg, was also implicated, intensifying the personal toll. 

Despite the threats, Navalny resolved to make the cases public to expose their political motivations. The Kirovles case resurfaced multiple times, driven by political motives, eventually leading to a trial in 2013. The prosecution’s case, based on weak and illogical claims of embezzlement, was widely considered a show trial. Despite this, the court sentenced Navalny to five years in prison and his associate, Pyotr Ofitserov, to four years. However, mass protests in Moscow following the sentencing prompted the authorities to release them temporarily.

During this turbulent time, Navalny made a spontaneous decision to run for mayor of Moscow after the incumbent, Sergei Sobyanin, announced an early election. His campaign was launched within minutes, involving close allies like Vladimir Ashurkov and Leonid Volkov. Their campaign headquarters quickly filled with volunteers eager to contribute, creating an atmosphere of dynamic, grassroots political energy. 

The campaign strategy centered on direct voter engagement through innovative tools like mobile propaganda “cubes” and public meetings across Moscow. Despite facing media censorship and state-backed disruptions, Navalny embraced debates, using challenging questions from planted attendees to his advantage. His ability to connect with voters—especially older citizens typically loyal to state media—boosted his popularity.

On election day, Navalny secured 27.2% of the vote, placing second. Independent exit polls indicated that Sobyanin fell short of the 50% needed to avoid a runoff, but official results were manipulated to declare Sobyanin the winner with 51%. The campaign, however, shattered the illusion that only Kremlin-backed candidates could succeed. Navalny’s success proved the existence of a significant, mobilized opposition eager for genuine political competition. Despite the state’s relentless efforts to discredit and suppress him, he demonstrated that grassroots activism could challenge entrenched power. After this campaign, the Kremlin banned him from running in future elections, recognizing the real threat he posed to its political dominance.