The Dadin case is similar. The harsh sentence he was given was intimidating to many who might otherwise have followed his lead; and “initially everything went according to plan. People really were in shock from such a harsh sentence and didn’t intend to sit in prison alongside Dadin.” “However,” Eidman argues, this “political technology totalitarianism turned out to be an unrealizable utopia.”“The Kremlin is trying to use Navalny’s investigations to force the ruling hierarchy to close ranks ever more tightly around Putin given that he like any dictator (including Stalin) needs a weak, subordinate and entirely dependent entourage.” Navalny “psychologically terrorizes” the elite, whose members are thus reminded that only Putin can defend them.
“The most recent events show,” Eidman concludes, “that the Kremlin cannot take the political situation in the country under total control, that it is not all-powerful, and that it can be outplayed. Political technology totalitarianism hasn’t been established, and thus there is a chance for the rebirth of a massive protest movement.”Navalny’s investigations became the talk of the country, discrediting not so much Dmitry Medvedev who is not all that popular but rather Putin himself. And Dadin’s “heroic behavior” had the effect of “destroying the Kremlin’s scenario” for him. In short, what the Kremlin achieved was exactly the reverse of what it wanted.
Related:
- Dadin case has given a face to the horrific practice of torture in Putin's prisons
- Russia's criminalization of protest: Ildar Dadin's appeal and Article 212.1
- In the depths of disinformation: this is how RT propaganda works
- Putin's reign of terror: "Cossacks' attack Navalny, women & children as Russia's police watch
- Garry Kasparov: Navalny is wrong on not arming Ukraine
- Why Khodorkovsky and Navalny will return Crimea