THREAD:  A few quick thoughts on #Navalny and why the Kremlin opted for such a harsh sentence. 1/10

Ever since news broke about the failed assassination attempt last August it’s been clear the security services have been operating according with very simple logic.  2/10
The overriding goal was to destroy Navalny and to demonstrate that no move aimed against the security services would remain unpunished.  3/10
Thus, there was no way for the authorities to accept that Navalny could return and operate freely against Putin and the security establishment in the new political conditions created by the fact of the assassination attempt. 4/10
The current ruling is only the first part of a saga.The Kremlin has plenty of other potential criminal charges it can bring against Navalny.The goal is to make Navalny—and others-realize that they face the prospect of spending the rest of their lives behind bars. 5/10
Other groups will face increased pressure - liberal media, NGOs, opposition-minded activists, and average citizens. 6/10
Make no mistake:  the Kremlin is not terribly afraid of protests. The Kremlin’s spin doctors clearly have elbowed aside.  Outfits like the FSB can take problems like protests, social discontent, opposition activity, and falling approval ratings in stride.  7/10
For them, Navalny and the people who have marched in recent weeks are nothing less than enemies of the state and a tool for foreign meddling and interference. That excludes the possibility of dialogue or concessions let alone the legitimate right to protest. 8/10
The current situation is a pivotal moment for Putin’s regime. For the first time in 20 years it faces a completely new situation. This is the first time the Kremlin is unable to channel public discontent in a controllable direction. 9/10
The authorities will resort to repressions but they are no longer able to consolidate people around Putin.  That effort will, in turn deeply divide and polarize society with all the attendant, unpredictable consequences. END

More from Society

You May Also Like

1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”

Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?

A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:


2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to

- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal

3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:

Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.

Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.

4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?

To get clarity.

You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.

It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.

5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”

Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.