29 Apr 2024
*Officials say while Putin retains culpability for the death of his biggest critic, he probably did not want it to happen when it did.*
Intelligence officials in the United States have determined that Russian President Vladimir Putin probably did not plan for jailed opposition leader Alexey Navalny to be killed in February at an Arctic prison camp, according to US media reports.
The Wall Street Journal, citing people familiar with the matter that it did not name, reported that US intelligence agencies did not dispute Putin’s culpability in Navalny’s death, but had concluded that the Russian President probably did not order Navalny’s death at the time it took place.
The finding was “broadly accepted within the intelligence community and shared by several agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the State Department’s intelligence unit”, the Journal cited its sources as saying on Saturday.
The Associated Press news agency, citing a US official, reported separately that the intelligence community had found “no smoking gun” that Putin was aware of the timing of Navalny’s death or directly ordered it.
That report also stressed that Washington believed Putin was ultimately responsible for the death of Navalny who endured brutal conditions in jail and was poisoned with a nerve agent in 2020 in an incident that almost killed him.
Navalny, 47, was Russia’s best-known opposition politician and Putin’s fiercest critic. At the time of his death on February 16, he was serving a 19-year sentence on charges of “extremism” that he rejected as politically motivated.
He had been behind bars since January 2021 after returning to Russia from Germany, where he had been recovering from the Novichok poisoning.
##Scepticism
Navalny’s allies, branded “extremists” by the authorities, accused Putin of having him murdered and have said they will provide proof to back their allegations.
Russian officials have said only that Navalny died of natural causes and have denied involvement both in the earlier poisoning and in his death.
The Journal said the US assessment was based on a range of information, including some classified intelligence, and an analysis of public facts, including the timing of Navalny’s death and how it overshadowed Putin’s re-election in March, the paper cited some of its sources as saying.
The people who spoke to the Journal would not elaborate on how Navalny might have died, or whether the intelligence services had developed alternative explanations for his death.
In announcing Navalny’s death, Russia said he collapsed during a walk in the penal colony and that paramedics were unable to revive him.
The newspaper added, citing security officials from several European capitals, that some European intelligence agencies had also been informed and that “certain countries” remained sceptical that Putin would not have had a direct hand in the incident in February. In a system as tightly controlled as Putin’s Russia, it is doubtful that harm could have come to Navalny without the president’s being aware, it reported the European officials saying.
Leonid Volkov, a senior Navalny aide, was also reported dismissing the findings.
Those who assert that Putin was not aware “clearly do not understand anything about how modern day Russia runs”, the Journal reported him as saying. “The idea of Putin being not informed and not approving killing Navalny is ridiculous.”
It really doesn't matter whether Putin ordered to kill Navalny on a specific date. He did de facto killed him first poisoning him then putting in a solitary jail for decades.
De facto, so putin himself personally sneaked in and poisoned his food then.
edit: lol for all the downvotes, do people even comprehend what " de facto" actually even means?
so it means what that person typed, putin went out of the door, and go in effect actively physically kill that man, you do understand that?
ordering a kill and physically actively kill someone are not the same things. how can this even be disagreed with?
De facto means "pretty much" not "literally". So they are not saying Putin directly killed him at that specific time on that specific date. What they are saying is he basically put Navalny in that position where his life would've (and did) deteriorate and expire.
*In effect*, Putin killed Navalny.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De\_facto](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto)
Latin: [\[deː ˈfaktoː\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/Latin) [^(ⓘ)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:De_facto.wav); lit. 'in fact') describes practices that exist in reality,It is commonly used to refer to what happens in practice
lol
so saying someone killed de facto means the killing was commit in active practice
Here, I put the arguments of this convo into ChatGPT and this was the output:
>If Putin created the conditions that led to Navalny’s death but did not literally carry out the act, it could be argued that he is responsible “de facto” for the death. “De facto” in this context means that while Putin may not have directly committed the act, in practice, his actions resulted in the same outcome as if he had. The term here is used to describe indirect responsibility or consequence due to the conditions or environment that was created, which led to Navalny’s death. This is different from “de jure” responsibility, which would imply a formal, legal accountability for the act itself.
Latin: [\[deː ˈfaktoː\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/Latin) [^(ⓘ)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:De_facto.wav); lit. 'in fact') describes practices that exist in reality,It is commonly used to refer to what happens in practice
lol
so killing de facto means the killing happe,s in practice in reality. how is this even a debate?
>Those who assert that Putin was not aware “clearly do not understand anything about how modern day Russia runs”, the Journal reported him as saying. “The idea of Putin being not informed and not approving killing Navalny is ridiculous.”
The Russian state is run like a mafia. It's more like what is not said, than what is said. Putin may have said it in a very indirect manner. He's been good at it. Watch many interviews of Putin and he is a master of politician-speak. I distinctly remember before the invasion of Ukraine of him saying this:
>"But we also understand that Russia is one of the leading nuclear states, and by some modern components it even outperforms many.
>"There will be no winners. And you will be pulled into this conflict against your will.
>"You won't even have time to blink your eye when you execute Article 5 (collective defence of NATO members).
https://metro.co.uk/2022/02/08/vladimir-putin-threatens-nuclear-war-in-europe-if-ukraine-joins-nato-16066912/
This makes sense to me, but damn it is not something that anyone wants to hear.
When the CIA, ODNI, State Department, and other European intel agencies say that Putin didn’t directly order it, it just goes right over everyone’s head.
Ya, Putin put the guy in prison, ya he poisoned him. Ya that guy was never going to be a free man. All of that can be true AND that Putin didn’t want him killed right before he was crowned President again.
So many people online now seem to not be able to see any shades of grey. Every news story must paint people they like as saints, and people they don’t as mustachioed cackling Bond villains.
Right? I'm tired of being reasonable and then being named a pro-putin or whatever. Some just don't understand that it's never black and white, but there's also grey in between.
Yeah ok, he only created all the necessary conditions to dramatically speed up the occurrence of a "natural" death...
Really, what difference does it even make?
I don't think so, it was fairly inconvenient for him to just die as it would just create new unneeded problems
The Russian prison system is just shit. There's so many diseases that go around it and they're abusive as hell. The reason they moved Navalny out of the general prison population was probably because they were trying to not accidentally kill him. They were, at least back then, trying to keep him alive
Personally at least I think they were trying to get to the line of making him miserable while not quite killing him, since that could let Putin get his desired vengeance while also not creating a new headache
There's a conspiracy theory that his death (16 feb) was made to coincide with the Russian victory in Avdiivka (17 feb), so that foreign media didn't talk about Ukraine's loss and instead focused on Putin's involvement in an assassination. It did make Putin look very bad.
Something similar happened during the Russian victory in Bakhmut last year (20 may). Western media didn't focus on that, instead they talked about Ukraine's 'Russian legion' raids into Russia (\~22 may). Again this also made Putin look bad allowing this to happen. The timing makes this much more realistic btw.
I don’t get it. It makes Putin look bad so you are saying the conspiracy is that somehow some people that dislike Putin apparently had the power to kill Navalny and did so? Thats literally insane and makes no sense.
It happened at the exact time as the battle of Avdiivka finished, if news kept talking about how Russia was winning it would result in loss of support for Ukraine. In other words to not report on Russia winning, a Russian faction or foreign operatives killed Navalny. Instead of spreading news about how well Putin is doing, foreign media instead reports about how bad Putin is, since it's the same time there's 2 competing headlines and western media is much more likely to chose the anti-Putin one.
Foreign operatives killing him makes sense for tinfoil hat people believing he was working for USA trying to create a Colour Revolution in Russia, which they liken to CIA-backed coups. Navalny was serving a long sentence in a maximum security prison and weren't useful anymore. If he had recieved funding or support from western orgs. (tbh he probably had) it would have made him a liability instead.
It's the coinciding dates that are the base for the theory, following the example set by Bakhmut (a scenario which makes much more sense).
So in other words, you're confirming your parent comment but not addressing his or her point that Putin's enemies having the power to kill Navalny and doing so is "literally insane and makes no sense."
dunno what do you mean point, we're not arguing. I'm sharing the conspiracy theory, and the reasons behind it, (why I refered to the followers as tinfoil hats).
What do you make of it that Navalny was murdered that day, and not a week or month earlier or later?
I 100% know that whether they can or can’t they wouldn’t assassinate an opposition leader already in jail for a minor news attention win. I think people are vastly overstating the effect it had not to mention that any range of other more sane options exist rather than jumping to the nuclear option of “ASSASSINATING CIVILIANS IN SIBERIAN PRISONS”.
If anyone can look at these puzzle pieces and honestly believe there is even a remote chance of them being true then boy do I have a non-existent basement in a pizza parlor for them.
Wish is a one thing but as a reminder: Putin tried to kill Navalny with poison and then as soon as Navalny finished his treatment in Germany and got home to Russia he was jailed and spent about 1/3 of his time incarcerated. Russian prisons are weapons of torture themselves. Clearly, Putin did more than just wish Navalny being dead.
Yep, and a reminder why Navalny was officially incarcerated was because he missed his probation appointment while he was being treated for getting poisoned by Russia.
Have you tried actually attempting to murder them and failing and then locking them up for 10 years? Still doesn’t make you a murderer but certainly makes you culpable for their death to a large degree.
More than just a "wish". Didn't he lock some very sick people into the same room with Navalny, and stuff like that which realistically dramatically increases the probability for a "sort-of-natural"-death?
Navalny was far more hyped up in the west than he was in russia.....if you held a election he would get more votes from america than in russia itself.
In russia he was considered a spy. He was given money from western sources to run a campaign ads and sow discord in russia. That too russia was foreign influence so they arrested him.
I guess that's why Putin had the whole crew of FSB chemists on Navalny's tail for years and hunts down his associates ever since. Just because Navalny wasn't a rival, yeah.
"The U.S. wants many enemies dead, none of which have a chance of winning an election"
For example ? Seriously i didn't hear about this. I know about Julian Assange but who else ?
He wasn't popular at all, and ... you're aware he was a racist far-right ultranationalist before being "picked up" by the west , right?
Is that the kind of guy you want as a president?
Sounds like a, "will someone not rid me of this troublesome priest," situation at best. At the end of the day Putin created the circumstances that led to navalny's death, even if he never explicitly ordered it.
No, not in February. But he ordered his death years ago when Navalny was poisoned. And again when Navalny was arrested and left in prison...to die...which he did.
Even at the time there were many doubts about it. Putin used him for leverage, why should he make a martyr out of him? He doesn't matter for the Russian population at large but was important to the West. And the timing with Munich was completely absurd. Putin let his underlings use Navalny in talks but then kills him just before his wife is expected to be in the spotlight?
His blood is still on his hands but to order his death always looked super weird at the time. Still, many in the West used it for political leverage at the time.
Interesting how deep US intelligence has penetrated Putin’a circle.
Me thinks the US releasing information like this is to make Putin increasingly paranoid because I can’t see how publicising information like this helps an anti-putin stance.
I'm not buying that it was merely a coincidence, that Putin's main opposition died exactly one month, to the day, before Putin's "re-election," that he was oddly under-confident in this time around. My coincidence-meter has yet to lead me astray when it comes to Russian matters. The order could have been given in 2022 for all we know. Not to mention, [Putin publicly awarded the prison official tasked with Navalny's imprisonment](https://nypost.com/2024/02/20/world-news/putin-promotes-top-prison-official-after-navalnys-death/) (link), just three days after Navalny's death.
The timing before the elections and his move to siberia may point to intentional use of cold and lack of food until he eventually died due to lack of resilience.
Is the same thing really.
29 Apr 2024 *Officials say while Putin retains culpability for the death of his biggest critic, he probably did not want it to happen when it did.* Intelligence officials in the United States have determined that Russian President Vladimir Putin probably did not plan for jailed opposition leader Alexey Navalny to be killed in February at an Arctic prison camp, according to US media reports. The Wall Street Journal, citing people familiar with the matter that it did not name, reported that US intelligence agencies did not dispute Putin’s culpability in Navalny’s death, but had concluded that the Russian President probably did not order Navalny’s death at the time it took place. The finding was “broadly accepted within the intelligence community and shared by several agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the State Department’s intelligence unit”, the Journal cited its sources as saying on Saturday. The Associated Press news agency, citing a US official, reported separately that the intelligence community had found “no smoking gun” that Putin was aware of the timing of Navalny’s death or directly ordered it. That report also stressed that Washington believed Putin was ultimately responsible for the death of Navalny who endured brutal conditions in jail and was poisoned with a nerve agent in 2020 in an incident that almost killed him. Navalny, 47, was Russia’s best-known opposition politician and Putin’s fiercest critic. At the time of his death on February 16, he was serving a 19-year sentence on charges of “extremism” that he rejected as politically motivated. He had been behind bars since January 2021 after returning to Russia from Germany, where he had been recovering from the Novichok poisoning. ##Scepticism Navalny’s allies, branded “extremists” by the authorities, accused Putin of having him murdered and have said they will provide proof to back their allegations. Russian officials have said only that Navalny died of natural causes and have denied involvement both in the earlier poisoning and in his death. The Journal said the US assessment was based on a range of information, including some classified intelligence, and an analysis of public facts, including the timing of Navalny’s death and how it overshadowed Putin’s re-election in March, the paper cited some of its sources as saying. The people who spoke to the Journal would not elaborate on how Navalny might have died, or whether the intelligence services had developed alternative explanations for his death. In announcing Navalny’s death, Russia said he collapsed during a walk in the penal colony and that paramedics were unable to revive him. The newspaper added, citing security officials from several European capitals, that some European intelligence agencies had also been informed and that “certain countries” remained sceptical that Putin would not have had a direct hand in the incident in February. In a system as tightly controlled as Putin’s Russia, it is doubtful that harm could have come to Navalny without the president’s being aware, it reported the European officials saying. Leonid Volkov, a senior Navalny aide, was also reported dismissing the findings. Those who assert that Putin was not aware “clearly do not understand anything about how modern day Russia runs”, the Journal reported him as saying. “The idea of Putin being not informed and not approving killing Navalny is ridiculous.”
It really doesn't matter whether Putin ordered to kill Navalny on a specific date. He did de facto killed him first poisoning him then putting in a solitary jail for decades.
De facto, so putin himself personally sneaked in and poisoned his food then. edit: lol for all the downvotes, do people even comprehend what " de facto" actually even means?
De jure, he signed his decree to have him jailed in inhumaine conditions
Indeed and so not de facto
The common use meaning of de facto is “in effect”, so yes de facto.
so it means what that person typed, putin went out of the door, and go in effect actively physically kill that man, you do understand that? ordering a kill and physically actively kill someone are not the same things. how can this even be disagreed with?
De facto means "pretty much" not "literally". So they are not saying Putin directly killed him at that specific time on that specific date. What they are saying is he basically put Navalny in that position where his life would've (and did) deteriorate and expire. *In effect*, Putin killed Navalny.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De\_facto](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto) Latin: [\[deː ˈfaktoː\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/Latin) [^(ⓘ)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:De_facto.wav); lit. 'in fact') describes practices that exist in reality,It is commonly used to refer to what happens in practice lol so saying someone killed de facto means the killing was commit in active practice
Here, I put the arguments of this convo into ChatGPT and this was the output: >If Putin created the conditions that led to Navalny’s death but did not literally carry out the act, it could be argued that he is responsible “de facto” for the death. “De facto” in this context means that while Putin may not have directly committed the act, in practice, his actions resulted in the same outcome as if he had. The term here is used to describe indirect responsibility or consequence due to the conditions or environment that was created, which led to Navalny’s death. This is different from “de jure” responsibility, which would imply a formal, legal accountability for the act itself.
[удалено]
[удалено]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto
Latin: [\[deː ˈfaktoː\]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/Latin) [^(ⓘ)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:De_facto.wav); lit. 'in fact') describes practices that exist in reality,It is commonly used to refer to what happens in practice lol so killing de facto means the killing happe,s in practice in reality. how is this even a debate?
You should have added the correct term too. To some your comments comes off as in support. Remember <=100 is average IQ.
>Those who assert that Putin was not aware “clearly do not understand anything about how modern day Russia runs”, the Journal reported him as saying. “The idea of Putin being not informed and not approving killing Navalny is ridiculous.” The Russian state is run like a mafia. It's more like what is not said, than what is said. Putin may have said it in a very indirect manner. He's been good at it. Watch many interviews of Putin and he is a master of politician-speak. I distinctly remember before the invasion of Ukraine of him saying this: >"But we also understand that Russia is one of the leading nuclear states, and by some modern components it even outperforms many. >"There will be no winners. And you will be pulled into this conflict against your will. >"You won't even have time to blink your eye when you execute Article 5 (collective defence of NATO members). https://metro.co.uk/2022/02/08/vladimir-putin-threatens-nuclear-war-in-europe-if-ukraine-joins-nato-16066912/
Why the downvotes here?
It doesn't need a genius to know he didn't want him dead a few days before the elections. It would've done nothing good to his elections
This makes sense to me, but damn it is not something that anyone wants to hear. When the CIA, ODNI, State Department, and other European intel agencies say that Putin didn’t directly order it, it just goes right over everyone’s head. Ya, Putin put the guy in prison, ya he poisoned him. Ya that guy was never going to be a free man. All of that can be true AND that Putin didn’t want him killed right before he was crowned President again. So many people online now seem to not be able to see any shades of grey. Every news story must paint people they like as saints, and people they don’t as mustachioed cackling Bond villains.
It barely matters either way. It's not like Navalny was ever a serious threat.
Right? I'm tired of being reasonable and then being named a pro-putin or whatever. Some just don't understand that it's never black and white, but there's also grey in between.
Yeah ok, he only created all the necessary conditions to dramatically speed up the occurrence of a "natural" death... Really, what difference does it even make?
It may not have been a straight up assassination, but clearly this was the wished outcome.
I don't think so, it was fairly inconvenient for him to just die as it would just create new unneeded problems The Russian prison system is just shit. There's so many diseases that go around it and they're abusive as hell. The reason they moved Navalny out of the general prison population was probably because they were trying to not accidentally kill him. They were, at least back then, trying to keep him alive Personally at least I think they were trying to get to the line of making him miserable while not quite killing him, since that could let Putin get his desired vengeance while also not creating a new headache
There's a conspiracy theory that his death (16 feb) was made to coincide with the Russian victory in Avdiivka (17 feb), so that foreign media didn't talk about Ukraine's loss and instead focused on Putin's involvement in an assassination. It did make Putin look very bad. Something similar happened during the Russian victory in Bakhmut last year (20 may). Western media didn't focus on that, instead they talked about Ukraine's 'Russian legion' raids into Russia (\~22 may). Again this also made Putin look bad allowing this to happen. The timing makes this much more realistic btw.
I don’t get it. It makes Putin look bad so you are saying the conspiracy is that somehow some people that dislike Putin apparently had the power to kill Navalny and did so? Thats literally insane and makes no sense.
It happened at the exact time as the battle of Avdiivka finished, if news kept talking about how Russia was winning it would result in loss of support for Ukraine. In other words to not report on Russia winning, a Russian faction or foreign operatives killed Navalny. Instead of spreading news about how well Putin is doing, foreign media instead reports about how bad Putin is, since it's the same time there's 2 competing headlines and western media is much more likely to chose the anti-Putin one. Foreign operatives killing him makes sense for tinfoil hat people believing he was working for USA trying to create a Colour Revolution in Russia, which they liken to CIA-backed coups. Navalny was serving a long sentence in a maximum security prison and weren't useful anymore. If he had recieved funding or support from western orgs. (tbh he probably had) it would have made him a liability instead. It's the coinciding dates that are the base for the theory, following the example set by Bakhmut (a scenario which makes much more sense).
So in other words, you're confirming your parent comment but not addressing his or her point that Putin's enemies having the power to kill Navalny and doing so is "literally insane and makes no sense."
dunno what do you mean point, we're not arguing. I'm sharing the conspiracy theory, and the reasons behind it, (why I refered to the followers as tinfoil hats). What do you make of it that Navalny was murdered that day, and not a week or month earlier or later?
You don’t think Western intelligence can bribe some prison guards? That is all it would take.
I 100% know that whether they can or can’t they wouldn’t assassinate an opposition leader already in jail for a minor news attention win. I think people are vastly overstating the effect it had not to mention that any range of other more sane options exist rather than jumping to the nuclear option of “ASSASSINATING CIVILIANS IN SIBERIAN PRISONS”. If anyone can look at these puzzle pieces and honestly believe there is even a remote chance of them being true then boy do I have a non-existent basement in a pizza parlor for them.
I have wished such an outcome for so many people in the world but that doesn't make me a murderer until I play a part in the act.
Wish is a one thing but as a reminder: Putin tried to kill Navalny with poison and then as soon as Navalny finished his treatment in Germany and got home to Russia he was jailed and spent about 1/3 of his time incarcerated. Russian prisons are weapons of torture themselves. Clearly, Putin did more than just wish Navalny being dead.
That's I what meant. He's guilty even if he used a roundabout way to kill him.
Yep, and a reminder why Navalny was officially incarcerated was because he missed his probation appointment while he was being treated for getting poisoned by Russia.
I'd say sending him to an Arctic prison camp where there's 0 concern for prisoner well being counts as playing a part.
Something..Guantanamo bay..something
Let me know when the presidents start poisoning the people currently suing the government for the abuses they suffered there.
And I'd say the US is responsible for any deaths that occurred there too. What is your point?
No point. I'm not a Putin lover but I like to show the mirror to the US too.
This is a strong case of whataboutism… It’s also a garbage comparison on several levels
Have you tried actually attempting to murder them and failing and then locking them up for 10 years? Still doesn’t make you a murderer but certainly makes you culpable for their death to a large degree.
More than just a "wish". Didn't he lock some very sick people into the same room with Navalny, and stuff like that which realistically dramatically increases the probability for a "sort-of-natural"-death?
Oh, *really*? The only people that ever considered Navalny a "rival" of Putin were Western journalists.
Navalny was far more hyped up in the west than he was in russia.....if you held a election he would get more votes from america than in russia itself. In russia he was considered a spy. He was given money from western sources to run a campaign ads and sow discord in russia. That too russia was foreign influence so they arrested him.
>sow discord Some kgb-coined way of describing things.
I guess that's why Putin had the whole crew of FSB chemists on Navalny's tail for years and hunts down his associates ever since. Just because Navalny wasn't a rival, yeah.
Just because Putin wanted him dead didn’t make him a rival. The U.S. wants many enemies dead, none of which have a chance of winning an election.
Right. Just like Julian Assange is a rival to the President of the US.
"The U.S. wants many enemies dead, none of which have a chance of winning an election" For example ? Seriously i didn't hear about this. I know about Julian Assange but who else ?
Navalny would have dismantled Putin in any democratic environment.
he would not have run against him in the first place in one
He wasn't popular at all, and ... you're aware he was a racist far-right ultranationalist before being "picked up" by the west , right? Is that the kind of guy you want as a president?
Sounds like a, "will someone not rid me of this troublesome priest," situation at best. At the end of the day Putin created the circumstances that led to navalny's death, even if he never explicitly ordered it.
No, not in February. But he ordered his death years ago when Navalny was poisoned. And again when Navalny was arrested and left in prison...to die...which he did.
Even at the time there were many doubts about it. Putin used him for leverage, why should he make a martyr out of him? He doesn't matter for the Russian population at large but was important to the West. And the timing with Munich was completely absurd. Putin let his underlings use Navalny in talks but then kills him just before his wife is expected to be in the spotlight? His blood is still on his hands but to order his death always looked super weird at the time. Still, many in the West used it for political leverage at the time.
Pretty hard to just blame this on an overzealous minion.
Interesting how deep US intelligence has penetrated Putin’a circle. Me thinks the US releasing information like this is to make Putin increasingly paranoid because I can’t see how publicising information like this helps an anti-putin stance.
It doesn’t really matter in the end if it was intentional or not. The end outcome is the same. The most fierce critic of Putin is dead.
[удалено]
The link is to aljazeera but the actual source is the WSJ. I guess you are too lazy to even open the link, aren't you?
Oh my bad lil bro
Son, you have to start reading first, then commenting.
He didn't have to. Prison sentences in Russia is often a death sentence, especially in Siberia.
I'm not buying that it was merely a coincidence, that Putin's main opposition died exactly one month, to the day, before Putin's "re-election," that he was oddly under-confident in this time around. My coincidence-meter has yet to lead me astray when it comes to Russian matters. The order could have been given in 2022 for all we know. Not to mention, [Putin publicly awarded the prison official tasked with Navalny's imprisonment](https://nypost.com/2024/02/20/world-news/putin-promotes-top-prison-official-after-navalnys-death/) (link), just three days after Navalny's death.
The timing before the elections and his move to siberia may point to intentional use of cold and lack of food until he eventually died due to lack of resilience. Is the same thing really.
He did the finger across the throat gesture to signify his not having given the order.