No description available.

What were the main goals in Navalny’s political agenda and how did this influence his rhetorical approach? This paper explores how Navalny and his aspirants were disqualified as political candidates in Russian elections, and how this affected his approach to being focused on contentious politics as it became the only viable means to push for political change in the country. Two of his most viral videos are analysed to investigate the rhetorical strategies he used to set frames on the political elite, and the main answers revolved around corruption, theft, and the self-image of Medvedev and Putin. Although there were clear similarities between the two videos, the most recent “Palace for Putin” displayed new and more moral, judgmental and offensive methods than the previous “He is not Dimon to you”. Furthermore, this paper investigates the large-scale protests of 2021 and how public opinion about Navalny has developed in Russia. The expectation was that public opinion would be more favourable in recent times than it has been in the past, largely due to the massive protests which he managed to spark. However, the answer was surprisingly the opposite, as statistics tilted slightly against him rather than the other way around. Part of the explanation to this was that the highest number of people who disapproved of Navalny used state television as their main source of information, as opposed to the majority of the younger population who frequently used the internet, and thereby had a more positive view of him. When examining the protest trajectories, it was possible to find elements of Navalny’s political message amongst the people in terms of keywords and phrases that they chanted, evidence of his success above the fact of the protests themselves. The final aim was to review how the authoritarian regime responded to Navalny’s contentious politics, and in this regard, it was concluded that both domestic and international pressure moved the regime to increasingly repressive measures against Navalny’s Anti-Corruption Foundation and further deteriorated the relationship between the EU and Russia.

The diploma thesis examines why did the non-systemic opposition in Russia between 2011 and 2016 fail to reach any significant success. Even though during 2011 and 2012 Russia witnessed mass anti- government protests the non-systemic opposition was not able to enforce any relevant change in the regime, obtain representation in the state institutions or induce larger public dissatisfaction with the regime. The study analyses problematic internal features of the non-systemic opposition (lack of public support, coalition potential, election programs and campaigns, party financing) and external repressive means of the Vladimir Putin's regime against the opposition (legislation, direct confrontation, judicial trials, elections and means of rigging). The thesis offers a complex insight into the functioning of the non-systemic opposition in Russia in the observed period and accentuates the authoritarian character of the Russian regime. Based on the evaluation of the key variables the study concludes that the repressive policies of the regime cardinally affected the weakness and fragmentation of the non-systemic opposition which moreover was not able to overcome the internal conflicts and gain broader public support.

The purpose of this study is to analyze security risks regarding the Navalny-case for acquiring a broader understanding concerning the sanctions and the security development regarding Nord Stream 2. Furthermore, upholding an perception concerning definition of security and the impact of a finalized Nord Stream 2-project. Consequently, comprehend the understanding with a liberal and realistic perspective interpreting of the case and the controversial infrastructure project. For a comprehensive apprehension of security, military-, environmental-, energy- and economy security is given. To investigate the scientific problem, a qualitative case study with content analysis is utilized. I will argue of using the criteria contained in the theory that my questions to be answered. All safety dimensions have been considered to be affected, some more than others. At the same time, insecurity is being expressed regarding the military security surrounding increased military activity in the Baltic Sea which could lead to a NATO membership. Higher water temperature and contamination of the seawater is reflected in the environmental security. The effect on energy security is considered to be higher on the agenda after the impact of the Navalny-case, regarding for a reliable trade partner. At the same time, financial security is affected on the basis regarding job insecurity.