That’s interesting, since apart from his fight against elite corruption and a general commitment to democracy, we haven’t yet heard the substance of what exactly Navalny is fighting for, not least because of his ideological flip-flopping. https://twitter.com/mcfaul/status/1358348028801785856

I also doubt Gandhi or King would have advocated the use of cruise missiles against a neighbour, or the annexation of another’s’ territory.

Or called a neighbouring, formerly colonised people ‘rodents’ (‘Gryzuny’) for that matter.

And unfortunately, Navalny has to date not apologised for or retracted these comments — which sound very different depending on whether you are seated in DC or London, or in Kyiv or Tbilisi.

Then there are the dissidents around the world who’d probably be equally deserving of such secular beatification if only US or British interests aligned as easily with values in their particular cases.

For one, there isn’t much of a risk for sanctions on Saudi Arabia over its recent - and quickly forgotten - jailing of an equally heroic feminist activist whose only sin was demanding the right to drive.

Lucky for everyone the Saudi government is so repressive that her supporters would never be able to make an embarrassing scene.

Oh yes - and there’s also the implausibly deniable chopping up of dissidents in consulates, of course.

Any sanctification or sanctions on the cards over NATO member Turkey’s blatantly political jailing of Osman Kavala, I wonder?

“Who?”, I hear you say.

Well, exactly.

Men or Women of peace are worthy of totalist moralising when it suits, much less so when they’re an embarrassment.

That’s when we are suddenly reminded of the complications of international politics, resulting meekly lowered voices.

All the finger-pointing at Germany’s, France’s or any other country’s more pragmatic stance towards Russia ‘because Navalny=Gandhi’ appears to conveniently set aside many instances where finger-pointers have watered down their values because their own interests were at stake.

So let’s temper this moralising a bit, as if Germany putting interests over values is some kind of scandalous once-in-a-blue moon event: it isn’t.

It just so happens that Berlin has divergent interests where Russia is concerned.

And politics is complicated: no one has a claim to an entirely values-based foreign policy. Interests always play a role.

Your moralising outrage may very well be the result of a lack of alignment in such interest rather than some kind of moral superiority.

And much of the ire directed at realists often emerges from their annoying tendency to remind liberals of this inconvenient fact: that the world is not black and white, a Manichean struggle of liberal good vs illiberal evil.

As for this particular instance of selective sanctification:

Navalny is courageous, but not more so than many others fighting for their rights around the world.

Including against regimes supported by the West.

The fact that he’s singled out as a quasi-saint by some is as much a function of selective perception born of interest, as of principle.

Neither should his opposition to Putin suddenly cleanse him of his sins and set him up for secular beatification.

Keeping both feet on the ground regarding one’s own moral limitations, and those of imperfect individuals - who can still accomplish feats of heroism - would go a long way towards more clear-headed policymaking, less prone to overreach, frustration and disappointment. /End