The west’s response to the Navalny attack was a missed opportunity to rein in Putin

Alexei Navalny is one of the most important leaders of what passes for political opposition in President Putin’s Russia. Some say he is, in effect, “the” leader of the opposition in Russia. He has just been the subject of an assassination attempt, and lies in an induced coma in a German hospital. It’s worth repeating: the leader of the opposition to Vladimir Putin has been poisoned, perhaps fatally, using novichok, a chemical weapon banned by international treaty. There is little doubt that, in one form or another, formal or informal agents of the Russian state would have been part of the plot, especially given the evidence of novichok, and that the highest circles of the Russian establishment would either have knowledge of the attack, or made it apparent to any shady irregular elements outside the security apparatus that such a move would not be met with any penalty.

The prime minister of Poland, a nation that has good reason to be wary of Russia, has put the attack on Mr Navalny into context succinctly in a tweet: “Georgia 2008. Crimea & Donbas since 2014. MH17. Salisbury 2018. Berlin 2019. Navalny 2020. How many wake-up calls do we need to finally realise that we are dealing with a hostile regime? Dialogue, partnership, compromise – these are alien words to them. Time to draw conclusions”.

It might be expected that the reaction of the west, in general, would follow Mr Morawiecki’s lead, draw the obvious conclusions, and be swift and effective. It has been neither. The usually voluble Donald Trump remains silent, preferring to pontificate on the use of cans of soup as a weapon and the merits of plastic straws. He condemns, absurdly, Joe Biden for appeasing domestic terrorists while he himself appeases the state terrorists occupying the Kremlin. Only recently further evidence of Russian manipulation and anti-Biden propaganda in the US election – faked videos – has come to light, according to the FBI, Facebook and Twitter. The White House says nothing about the St Petersburg trolling operation. The contrast with the trade wars and war of words with China is striking.

Perhaps no better should be expected of President Trump, but a higher standard surely applies to Angela Merkel. The long-serving German chancellor has grown even further in stature in recent years to become the leader of the free world. Germany is the pre-eminent power in the European Union. Germany has given Mr Navalny sanctuary and perhaps is saving his life. The chancellor declares there is “incontrovertible proof” that Mr Navalny was poisoned. And yet all she demands – and therefore all the European Union demands – is that the Russians set up a proper investigation into the case. It would be laughable were it not so pathetically dangerous.

The obvious consequence is that Russia will be tempted to carry on murdering its enemies and invading its neighbours, because it is being allowed to act with impunity. Indeed, the response of the west is growing progressively weaker; at the time of the attack on the Skripals the United States and other western allies were much more supportive of Britain, expelling Russian diplomats and exercising the “Magnitsky” laws, themselves named after a prominent anti-Putin dissident. Skripal was an ex-spy; Navalny is the effective leader of the opposition, but his near murder has been met with mere words.

Vladimir Putin is a man who enjoys pushing limits and testing the resolve of his enemies, at home and abroad. He gives the impression that he isn’t particularly concerned with what the west thinks of him, and, to an extent even thrives on the attacks made on him by foreigners. He can blame America (despite Trump’s acquiescence) and Europe for sanctions and the parlous state of the Russian economy. He can portray them as so many Soviet leaders did in the past, as set on destabilising, humiliating and dominating Russia when they side with democrats and free leaders in Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, the Baltic republics and ex-Soviet central Asian “stans” – independent states Russia clearly regards as temporarily lost parts of its rightful empire.

Chancellor Merkel knows what she needs to do; scale back and preferably end the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, running from Russia to Europe. This is an enormously lucrative project for Russia and its energy giants, but with its ready supply of natural gas comes two other noxious elements. First, it confirms the catastrophic manner in which Germany tries to separate economics from international politics, at least so far as Russia is concerned. It is unfortunate that when Germany and the EU is (rightly) pursuing financial sanctions against Poland and Hungary for contraventions of press freedoms and human rights, that much worse offences committed by Putin’s Russia carry no economic penalties.

Second, the gas pipeline sets Russia up with powerful leverage – energy blackmail – for the longer term. As it has in the past with closer neighbours, it will be able to cut supplies of gas to homes and industry across Germany and eastern Europe if it feels the need, either explicitly for political reasons or with some transparent excuses about technical problems. If she displeases Mr Putin, Chancellor Merkel or her successor will find themselves deprived of hot water when they head for their morning shower.

Any German government, or EU presidency, will be even less able to resist Russian aggression as a result. It is said that the gas project is too far advanced to be cancelled now; if so then Mr Putin has displayed once again his cynical gifts of timing. Compared to Huawei, the likes of Rosneft, with vast strategic importance in Europe and with plenty of state control, are treated with unaccountable courtesy as they make themselves indispensable to European infrastructure.

Unlike, say, China, Russia is not a huge economic power, given its population and its potential. Mr Putin, like all of his predecessors dating back to the tsars, with the possible exception of Mikhail Gorbachev (briefly), has run his nation’s economy into the ground, and with it his people’s living standards. He has, however, exploited two areas where Russia has developed an unusual competitive advantage – in commodities and in espionage. Moscow can boast plentiful supplies of natural gas and of skilled spies and cyberwarriors, as well as its stock of nuclear weapons and large, if inefficient, conventional armed forces.

The last two decades have been ones where President Putin has made the best of what it has to exert influence and power; and where the west has been too frightened to challenge him. Sooner or later, however, it will have to do so. Suspending Germany’s energy deals with Russia should be a turning point; thanks to the curious alliance of appeasement between Donald Trump and Angela Merkel, the signs are that Mr Putin will get away with it again.