[fblike]
The assassination of Russian political activist Boris Nemtsov in Moscow on February 27 shocked elements of the Russian dissident community. Nemtsov, a former deputy prime minister in the late 1990s, had been active in protesting Russia’s involvement in the Ukrainian civil war, and he was a vocal critic of the authoritarian tactics of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Some of his supporters allege that Putin was to blame for the assassination. They contend that Putin may not have ordered the killing, but his nationalistic rhetoric that has labeled dissident Russians as “traitors” and “fascists,” created the atmosphere that led to Nemtsov’s death. The Russian government argues that Putin is not responsible for the crime, saying that Nemtsov’s fellow opposition leaders, radical Islamists, or a scorned lover in Nemtsov’s past – or that of his young Ukrainian girlfriend Anna Durytska – were to blame. American and European officials condemned Nemtsov’s killing, arguing that it shows that Russia is continuing to veer away from democratic processes and growing increasingly intolerant of dissenting views as its economic situation worsens.
This topic brief will highlight Nemtsov’s political career and activism, explain the circumstances surrounding his death and reactions to it, and then analyze what his death means for the future of Russian politics.
Readers are also encouraged to use the links below and in the related R&D to bolster their files about this topic.
The Career of Boris Nemtsov
At the time of his death, Nemtsov was not a significant power player in the Russian opposition movement. The Nation explains on March 4 that the dissident movement in Russia today is now spearheaded by Aleksey Navalny, who has been fighting corruption in the Russian government in recent years. Shortly after Nemtsov’s murder, it was said by Russian bloggers that Nemtsov was a “political corpse,” having enjoyed his fame in earlier years.
Indeed, Nemtsov’s political career reached its peak in the 1990s. Standing as a reformer, he served a six-year term as governor of the Nizhniy Novgorod region from 1991-1997. While there he implemented market reforms, which The Economist says on February 28 earned him the praise of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. In 1997, Russian President Boris Yeltsin invited Nemtsov to join his government and Nemtsov served as deputy prime minister from April 1998-August 1998. It was reported at the time that Yeltsin liked Nemtsov and saw him as a possible presidential successor. However, Nemtsov was tarred with serving during a period of economic difficulty, which eventually resulted in Russia defaulting on its sovereign debt in August 1998. While Nemtsov pursued a series of anti-corruption reforms and actually labeled Russia’s emerging business tycoons as “oligarchs,” his association with the Yeltsin administration made him an easy target of political opponents who never failed to smear him for championing the “shock therapy” reforms that created much suffering among the Russian population after the fall of the Soviet Union.
After leaving his post as deputy prime minister, Nemtsov served in the Duma (Russia’s legislature). He served as its deputy speaker in 2000, but his liberal-democratic Union of the Rightist Forces failed to win five percent of the vote in Russian elections in December 2003, thereby eliminating the party’s parliamentary representation. Nemtsov stepped aside as the leader of that party and later went on to win a seat in the regional parliament of Yaroslavl Oblast. He also ran for the mayor of Sochi, the city that hosted last year’s Winter Olympics, where he finished second with 14% of the vote in 2009. Nemtsov went on to allege that the election featured several irregularities.
As mentioned in the introduction to this brief, Nemtsov was a critic of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who he warned had authoritarian tendencies in the early 2000s. His criticisms of Putin grew over the years, with Politico explaining on March 3 that he spent the last few years publishing reports on governmental corruption. In one of those reports he alleged that Putin and his inner circle took billions in bribes during the construction of facilities for the Sochi Olympics. The New Yorker reveals on March 1 that following a Chechen terrorist siege of a Moscow theatre in 2002, Nemtsov collected evidence to show that most of the 130 hostages that died were due to a botched rescue operation, but Putin did not act on Nemtsov’s findings. However, the biggest criticism levied over the last year against Putin was that he was sending Russian troops to fight in Ukraine. CNN reports on March 5 that shortly before his death Nemtsov was preparing papers that showed Russian soldiers were operating in Ukraine, something that Putin has told Russians is not taking place, and that he was preparing a march against such actions. That march was scheduled to take place on March 1. The proof that Nemtsov allegedly had was in “documentary” form, but as The Guardian reveals on March 3, Russian security personnel seized his hard drives shortly after his death, so that footage, if it exists, may never be revealed.
Those who opposed Nemtsov often referred to him as a “charismatic troublemaker.” Al-Jazeera reports on March 2 that Nemtsov had not accomplished much in recent years and that his new party, the Republican Party of Russia – People’s Freedom Party, which he created in 2012, had failed to win representation in the Duma. Critics of Nemtsov also allege that he liked talking about Russia’s political, social, and economic problems, but offered few solutions for fixing them. The Atlantic adds on March 3 that he spent the last few years organizing protest events, but they were not well attended. Nevertheless, Nemtsov did provide somewhat of an official voice for the opposition movement, having professional political experience and a link to a period of Russia’s past when a free, democratic Russia seemed possible.
Nemtsov’s Assassination and Reaction
Nemtsov was killed on the evening of February 27 when he was walking with his girlfriend, Ukrainian model Anna Durytska, toward the Bolshoy Moskvoretsky Bridge. The pair had recently eaten dinner and, according to The UK Independent on March 3, when they approached the bridge a gunman shot Nemtsov four times in the back with a pistol. The killer then jumped over a barrier, ran toward a light-colored car, and then sped away. One of the bullets fired at Nemtsov hit him in the heart and he died instantly. As The Guardian article previously cited explains, there was a great deal of symbolism in Nemtsov’s death as he was killed near the walls of the Kremlin (Russia’s presidential residence) and he was slain next to the country’s most famous landmark: St. Basil’s Cathedral. The Economist reports on March 7 that there was another piece of symbolism in Nemtsov’s killing: he was slain on the one-year anniversary of Russian soldiers seizing Crimea’s parliament and thereby beginning the process of annexing that territory. Nemtsov had opposed that operation.
The Russian opposition immediately jumped on the idea that Putin was involved in the killing and if he did not directly sign off on it, then rogue elements of Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) – formerly known as the KGB – were involved. Politico explains that those supporting this conspiracy theory note that all of the CCTV cameras near where Nemtsov was killed were reportedly “under repair” and that cameras on the walls of the Kremlin were pointed in the wrong direction. Also, a snowplow blocked the view of some of the cameras despite no snow having fallen on the night Nemtsov was assassinated. Additionally, Newsweek reports on March 2 that Putin’s motive for killing Nemtsov would be linked to revelations about Russia’s operations in Ukraine. It explains that 58% of Russians oppose sending troops to fight in Ukraine, so Putin has concealed the extent of Russia’s military involvement in the region. Reports have emerged that the government is burying dead Russian soldiers in secret, threatening those who have been wounded while fighting there, and last August it labeled the Committee of Mothers of Russian Soldiers as a “foreign agent” after its leader said Russian soldiers were serving in Ukraine.
Other opposition voices said that extreme nationalists might also be responsible for the killing. These groups have aligned themselves with the Russian government, supporting Putin’s brand of Orthodox, conservative nationalism in recent years. The Economist article from March 7 notes that Putin has patronized nationalist groups such as the “Night Wolves,” a leather-clad biker gang that helped seize Crimea last year. It says that this is a dangerous trend because it means that the state is losing its monopoly on violence and thereby sets the stage for street battles that the state may not be able to control in the future. The Brookings Institution explains on March 4 that Sergey Ivanov, Putin’s Chief of Presidential Administration, said last October that extreme nationalists were becoming a “clear risk,” and some wonder whether the shooting of Nemtsov is a warning to Putin not to withdraw from Ukraine, Crimea, or give into Western sanctions.
National Public Radio reports on March 4 that Putin said that Nemtsov’s killing was a “shameful tragedy” when giving a televised address to the Interior Ministry. However, Reuters writes on March 2 that he also said that Nemtsov was a “muzhik,” which translates as a typical Russian “bloke” or “charmer.” The Russian government has launched an investigation into Nemtsov’s death, but instead of it being independent, which some Western media outlets such The Hill from March 3 have demanded, Putin has vowed to oversee it. This has raised suspicions that the investigation will not be impartial and will result in a government cover up. The Guardian notes in a separate article on March 3 that investigators have already ruled out Putin, saying that he had no motive, but they have implicated other possible suspects, such as other opposition leaders who wished to kill Nemtsov so as to raise people’s ire against Putin’s administration, Islamic terrorists who may have taken issue with Nemtsov’s support of Charlie Hebdo, or militants linked to the Ukrainian civil war. Putin’s supporters claim, according to the BBC on March 3, that foreign intelligence services such as the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) were responsible, arguing that they are trying to discredit Putin’s leadership and stir a rebellion. Some have also implicated Chechen terrorists, and indeed the Russian government over the weekend arrested four men of Chechen ethnicity for complicity in the crime. However, supporters of Nemtsov say this makes little sense because Nemtsov was a supporter of Chechen causes, presenting a petition with a million signatures to President Yeltsin opposing the First Chechen War in the early 1990s.
In a sad piece of irony, the march that Nemtsov was organizing to oppose the Ukrainian war turned into a march of tribute to his life. The BBC reports on March 4 that 50,000 people turned out for the march, with some using the occasion to denounce Putin. A few marchers chanted “Russia without Putin” and “Russia will be free.” According to The New York Times on March 3, diplomats from all twenty-eight European Union (EU) members showed for the march as did John F. Tefft, America’s ambassador to Russia. However, the mood of those in attendance was very subdued, with liberal activists wondering what the future holds for their country in light of the open killing of a political dissident.
The Impact of Nemtsov’s Death on Russian Politics
Extempers are already aware of how Putin has gradually transformed Russia into a less democratic state. The New Yorker notes that Putin’s predilection for a strong state was made public in 1999, when he argued that a strong, central power was needed to guarantee and enact change. The Russia of today does not resemble the early 1990s, as media power has been curtailed and dissidents are subject to threats. Analysts predict that this situation will continue to grow worse as Western sanctions and low oil prices tear at the fabric of the Russian economy. In fact, as the Brookings Institution explains, the biggest threat to Putin does not lie with the Russian people. Instead, it comes from within the ranks of the Russian far-right. Brookings argues that the Nemtsov killing may serve as a warning to Putin of dampening his conservative attitudes and it also illustrates how he has very little control of his security forces (if those were the ones who truly committed the murder). Therefore, Putin’s concern over the next few months might be how he can start to rein in some of the extremist-nationalist elements within Russia so that these powers do not constitute a significant threat to his rule.
One of the long-term implications of Nemtsov’s murder is that it may continue the process of silencing liberal Russians. Some have likened his assassination to that of Sergei Kirov, head of the Communist Party in Leningrad, who was murdered in 1934. Kirov’s death was used as an excuse for the bloody purges of Joseph Stalin, which helped him solidify his rule. Others have warned that Nemtsov’s murder could bring back public killings of dissents, but these voices are ignoring a pattern of Putin critics being killed over the last decade. The Associated Press documents these killings on March 3. It recounts how in 2006 investigative journalist Anna Politkovskaya, who was critical of Russian behavior toward Chechnya and the human rights violations taking place in that conflict, was murdered in the elevator of her Moscow apartment building. Similarly, Alexander Litvinenko, a former KGB agent, was murdered in London with radioactive polonium-210 in 2006. British investigators believe that Litvinenko was murdered due to his criticisms of Putin and that two former KGB agents are to blame for his death. Two other Putin critics – human rights lawyer Stanislav Markelov and human rights activist Natalya Estemirova – were also killed in 2009. Nemtsov’s case is different from all of the above because he was once a significant figure in Russian politics, while the others operated as journalists or on the political margins. The fact that someone of Nemtsov’s recognition could be killed in a very public setting, so close to President Putin’s residence, will probably give other Russian liberals pause.
Nationalistic rhetoric is also likely to make the ascendancy of Russian liberal voices more difficult in the coming months. Economists are predicting that inflation will infect the Russian economy this year. The Russian central bank has already staved off a ruble collapse, but high interest rates, coupled with government austerity policies, will likely produce discontent. Those who oppose Russia in the United States want President Obama to authorize lethal military aid to the Ukrainian government since it would make Russia’s cost of intervention much higher and potentially cost Putin politically. Nevertheless, this is a risky gambit because it is unclear whether Russia would use that as a pretext to step up its operations in Ukraine. The Russian media would likely use overt American aid as a way to depict the Ukrainian government was a direct Western threat to Russian interests and that could reverse the Russian public’s hostility toward sending Russian troops into Ukraine. Also, Putin currently enjoys very high approval ratings, with the BBC saying that new polls peg it at 86%. Putin’s followers have labeled those critical of Russia’s foreign policy as “fascists” and they have also used homosexual slurs against Russian liberals. For example, Reuters notes that an Eastern Ukrainian rebel Twitter feed said that the march for Nemtsov was “a gay parade for Ukraine supporters and liberals.” Escalating nationalistic rhetoric was cited by Putin’s opposition as fostering an environment that made it acceptable to kill Nemtsov. If that rhetoric increases in an effort to divert Russians attention away from the poor state of the country’s economy, it could make Russian politics a very dangerous game.
Therefore, while Boris Nemtsov was no longer a significant player in Russian politics, his death represents the further closing of liberal dreams in the country. By stifling dissent, Putin can continue to exert substantial political control, but by ramping up tensions against internal and external enemies, Putin also risks creating forces that could one day destabilize the country. Russian liberals hope that Nemtsov’s death is an isolated incident, and indeed it might be, but it could also be the beginning of a series of politically motivated killings to squelch dissent and maintain the status quo.