
Could the US have saved Navalny?
In the passenger seat rode Odessa Rae, a flame-haired Canadian actress and Oscar-winning filmmaker. She had flown to Monaco to meet Stanislav Petlinsky, a self-described 'security consultant" with a background in military intelligence who once worked in Vladimir Putin's office and still boasted access to the president. The night before, he had treated her to a €190 tasting menu of seaweed-garnished langoustine tartare and braised sea bass. But Rae wasn't sure how Petlinsky would react when she revealed the reason for this trip in July 2023, and her friends in New York worried he might abduct her.
As the wind tousled her hair, she floated an audacious question: What would it take to get Putin to release his archnemesis from prison?
Rae had grown up in Asia, spoke Japanese in a 1990s Levi's commercial with Brad Pitt, helped bring the rom-com 'Crazy Rich Asians" to theaters and once played a wild, underworld spirit in the Superman series 'Smallville." Now, she was playing a central role in 'Secret Project Silver Lake," a discreet effort to free a real-life hero: the subject of her Academy Award-winning documentary, 'Navalny."
Her film had helped make Alexei Navalny, a charismatic Russian opposition leader, the world's most famous dissident, chronicling his almost unbelievable endurance run of arrests, assaults and a near-fatal poisoning with the nerve agent Novichok. He had vowed from a German hospital bed to return to Russia and defy Putin, who loathed him so much he refused to utter Navalny's name. Arrested on arrival in Moscow, Navalny was in solitary confinement at the IK-6 penal colony east of the capital.
Rae had a trump card of sorts. She knew Putin wanted to spring one of his own cronies from prison in Germany—an FSB hit man, Vadim Krasikov, serving life for murdering a Kremlin opponent in a Berlin park.
A trade sounded like a fascinating idea, Petlinsky said. He promised to take it to Putin, and Rae returned to Manhattan, hopeful that she and her cohorts were furthering their unlikely bid to free the closest figure Russia ever had to a Nelson Mandela.
Thousands of miles away, the White House was largely unaware of this Monaco back channel. The Biden administration was trying to tightly control negotiations with Moscow over one of its gnarliest foreign policy problems, the rising number of Americans wrongly imprisoned—effectively taken hostage—in Russia. They included a former Marine, Paul Whelan, and our Wall Street Journal colleague, Evan Gershkovich, both jailed as political pawns on espionage charges the U.S. government rejected as bogus.
The FSB, successor to the KGB, had offered the CIA a trade for the Americans, but only for an unconscionable price—America must convince Germany to free Krasikov. The Biden administration was reluctant to force such a nauseating compromise onto a valued ally—and worried that even entertaining the idea would encourage Putin to ensnare more Americans. Months earlier, they had released arms dealer Viktor Bout for WNBA player Brittney Griner, and before her first game back, the FSB had snatched Gershkovich. America needed to look less eager, the White House felt.
Seven months would pass before Washington and Berlin were ready to move on a deal modeled on that first proposal by Rae, but just as soon as they were, it was too late. On Feb. 16, 2024, Russian state media announced that Navalny had died at the notorious 'Polar Wolf" prison at the age of 47. Authorities at the gates told his mother the cause was 'sudden death syndrome."
To this day, a debate continues over whether the U.S. missed a chance to save Navalny, or whether back-channel efforts to free him inadvertently precipitated his demise. One camp believes he could have been exchanged if the Biden administration had moved faster, before he was sent to the harsh arctic prison in Dec. 2023. They place particular blame on Jake Sullivan, Joe Biden's national security adviser, who was simultaneously assembling a complex, multinational agreement to save Navalny and jailed Americans and juggling an unmanageable set of geopolitical threats, including wars in Ukraine and Gaza.
The aging president, working limited hours and occasionally struggling to remember where negotiations stood, wasn't pressing enough for a deal, these people contend.
On the other side is an alternative thesis, shared by some top U.S. officials: Russia's paranoid president was never going to release his most popular opponent. Some involved in the negotiations wonder if the efforts to free Navalny pushed Putin, or his security chiefs, to finally reach a fatal decision on what to do with the meddlesome activist who routinely exposed the corruption of their regime.
The truth, wrapped inside Kremlin secrecy and the psychology of Russia's longtime autocrat, may never be known. The CIA later concluded that Putin might not have meant for Navalny to die when he did, though some European officials doubt such unintended harm could befall the most important dissident in a country as tightly controlled as Russia.
What is clear, as new reporting on the negotiations show, is that efforts to save Navalny and American prisoners in Russia proceeded at a pace the White House was never going to be able to control. Tech billionaires, celebrity journalists, spies and even Hillary Clinton stepped in to advance Secret Project Silver Lake. Gershkovich's arrest brought the collective power of Rupert Murdoch and his media conglomerate into the fray, as his family and executives called on world leaders from Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban to Saudi crown prince Mohammed bin Salman to help sway Putin.
Was Navalny's death inevitable? Or did the U.S. miss its chance to save him and the prospect of a different Russian future? It certainly seemed possible to rescue him in the summer of 2023, when Rae returned to Manhattan and met up with her partner in 'Silver Lake," one of the world's most famous spy-hunters: a Bulgarian investigative journalist-in-exile who was nervous about texting Petlinsky. After all, a Russian spy ring had tried to abduct him.
Christo Grozev was living in one of the few places he hoped Russia wouldn't dare touch him, Manhattan, an ocean away from his Bulgarian homeland or his family in Vienna, whom he would visit accompanied by armed bodyguards. A lanky, funny and restless ball of nerdy energy, he made his name scouring flight records, satellite imagery, social-media posts and other digital breadcrumbs to reveal the identities of Russia's most dangerous undercover agents, including Krasikov. He befriended Navalny and helped him identify, and even prank call, the FSB team that poisoned him, a scene captured in 'Navalny," Rae's documentary.
It was Grozev who identified Petlinsky as a possible line to Putin. Rae had found him amenable and rather charming in Monaco, and on her return to New York, she huddled with Grozev and the head of investigations at Navalny's Anti-Corruption Foundation, Maria Pevchikh, who first hatched this plan to free him 18 months earlier. Over Signal, the encrypted messaging app, the three began texting Petlinsky to outline an exchange calibrated to satisfy each side. He replied with messages, suggestions and prisoners' names.
Bulgarian investigative journalist Christo Grozev.
In effect a trio of friends, more experienced in Hollywood and investigative journalism than prisoner diplomacy, was outpacing the White House, concocting a creative solution to retrieve Russia's most celebrated dissident. By August, they had assembled a draft of roughly 20 names, a trade larger and more complicated than any in U.S.-Russian history. Petlinsky, circulating their idea in Moscow, received encouraging feedback. But to propel it, he needed proof the U.S. government backed it. He wanted Sullivan to broach the offer.
Sullivan, Rae complained to the Russian, was too cautious. Instead, Navalny's friends turned to a former Green Beret who had helped free Americans held in Venezuela, Iran and Afghanistan. Roger Carstens, appointed during Trump's first administration as the special presidential envoy for hostage affairs, then retained by Biden, was fascinated with Grozev. Carstens, who still wore combat boots with his suit, called Grozev one of the world's 'back-channel wizards," the kind of street-smart fixer who could open doors the Ivy League law-school alumni in the Biden White House didn't even know existed.
This was an extraordinary opportunity for three friends and a mysterious, bon vivant Russian operator to align two of the most powerful, and hostile, governments on earth. And yet Petlinsky was worried about a variable they couldn't control—media coverage—particularly from the newspaper most invested in the story.
'No press," he texted.
Wall Street Journal Publisher Almar Latour entered the White House carrying a note in his pocket, handwritten with his message for Sullivan: 'Now is the time to act."
The Journal's front page lay on the national security adviser's desk, bearing a giant portrait of Gershkovich and a two-word headline, a prison-time count: '100 Days."
'He has committed no crime, only journalism," the text read.
Fox News and MSNBC were broadcasting images that morning of the prisoner, standing tall in a Russian courtroom's glass cage. The Journal's advocacy campaign was firing on all cylinders, and Gershkovich's face looked out from a digital billboard on Times Square and from banners at Shea Stadium in Queens and Arsenal Stadium in London.
Editor in chief Emma Tucker was only eight weeks into her new job, sleeping on a mattress on her unfurnished Manhattan apartment's floor, when Gershkovich was jailed. But she had swiftly mobilized the newsroom's staff to 'scream from the rooftops" about the injustice. Murdoch had confidentially allowed executives to allocate a 'limitless" budget to free the reporter and, along with his family and executives, had been dialing world leaders—the prime minister of Qatar and crown prince of Saudi Arabia. Senators from both parties had demanded Gershkovich's release.
The Journal's reporters had obtained an important insight: German Chancellor Olaf Scholz would consider releasing Krasikov, especially if it meant Navalny and Gershkovich could go free in the bargain. To proceed, Germany wanted the White House to make the request, essential political cover.
Quiet diplomacy fell to Latour, who worried that if the White House didn't act quickly, Gershkovich might get snagged in a yearlong trial.
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, left, and national security adviser Jake Sullivan, shown in the Oval Office during the Biden presidency.
Yet as Latour sat down in the West Wing office, he could see Sullivan, the youngest national security adviser since John F. Kennedy's Camelot cabinet, was on another page. Scholz's government wasn't psychologically ready to release Krasikov, Sullivan argued. Freeing a murderer was an unprecedented ask of America's most important NATO ally. Germany's coalition government was fragile and divided, and its foreign minister was aghast at the prospect of crossing this moral threshold.
The dilemma weighed on Sullivan, who had taken flak from Murdoch-controlled Fox News for swapping an arms dealer for the WNBA's Griner. The administration needed to explore alternative trades that wouldn't include the murderer or other ways to pressure the Kremlin. Sullivan had considered punishing Putin by expelling Russian hockey players in America, including Alexander Ovechkin, the NHL star chasing Wayne Gretzky's all-time scoring record. He decided against it.
Sullivan lamented to Latour that he didn't yet see 'a pathway." 'I do not want to give false hope," he added. 'All I can do is tell you that we have a clear commitment." Latour left the White House meeting confused. Germany wouldn't be ready until the U.S. sent a formal request. And Sullivan was reluctant to send one until Germany was ready. The two most powerful governments in the NATO alliance were circling each other like two teenagers at a school dance, each waiting for the other to make a move.
Roger D. Carstens, the special presidential envoy for hostage affairs during the Biden presidency and first Trump administration.
Latour sent a meeting summary to Carstens. Time was wasting, the special envoy felt, his concern boiling into frustration. The pathway was obvious, he believed, yet the White House had discouraged him from even visiting Germany, where he could advance talks. His emails to White House staff were going unanswered.
Rae proposed a workaround: Petlinsky could fly to New York and meet Carstens there. But when the day finally came, in November, the Russian texted to say he had been mysteriously blocked from boarding his plane in Dubai. Carstens was suddenly needed in Israel. Talks were stuck.
But as fate had it, another 'back-channel wizard," happened to be in Tel Aviv—a Russian billionaire Carstens knew could slip a message to Putin. And this time, the White House wouldn't have time to stop him.
Drew Hinshaw and Joe Parkinson are leaders on The Wall Street Journal's World Enterprise Team. This piece is adapted from their new book, 'SWAP: A Secret History of the New Cold War," which will be published on Aug. 19 by HarperCollins (which, like the Journal, is owned by News Corp).
Write to Joe Parkinson at joe.parkinson@wsj.com and Drew Hinshaw at drew.hinshaw@wsj.com
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


India.com
26 minutes ago
- India.com
US changes colour of fighter jet F-16 out of fear of..., why is US Air Force afraid of Russian stealth jet?
US changes colour of fighter jet F-16 out of fear of..., why is US Air Force afraid of Russian stealth jet? The US fighter jet F-16 has been changed to color of Russia's stealth fighter jet SU-57. The fighter plane F-16 which has been painted in the color of SU-57 was earlier in the Israeli Air Force. In fact, an F-16A fighter jet of US' private defense training company Top Aces has recently been seen in Arizona in a unique paint scheme, which is raising many questions. Where was the inspiration taken from? This new look given to the F-16 is inspired by the Russian fifth-generation fighter aircraft SU-57 Felon. Called 'Felon paint job', this design has a low-visibility, splinter-style gray camouflage pattern, which reflects the stealthy, angled and radar-evading design of the SU-57. The most special thing is that red stars have also been made in Soviet-style on the tail and wings of the F-16 aircraft. This F-16 has the tail number N871TA and the bort number is '284' red. It has previously served in the Israeli Air Force as 'Netz 284' and shot down a Syrian MiG-23 in 1981. Is US afraid of the Su-57 fighter jet? According to the Aviationist report, the two-tone scheme includes angular changes across the airframe, which mimics the radar-evading design of the T-50/Su-57. Earlier last year, another F-16 fighter jet from the Top Aces fleet was spotted in the 'Flanker Blue' color, inspired by the scheme used by some F-16s of the US Air Force's 64th Aggressor Squadron at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada. In 2021, these aircraft were purchased from Israel by the US company Top Aces, which provides 'adversary training' for the US Air Force, i.e. training to fight against a simulated enemy.


Time of India
40 minutes ago
- Time of India
Raghuram Rajan flags a 'bigger issue' if India stops buying Russian oil
President Donald Trump has been cranking up the pressure on India, a country the US has courted as a strategic counterweight against China. Trump has announced a 50 per cent tariff on the country, a higher rate than many other major economies in Asia. His message to India is clear: Stop buying Russian oil . This raises a crucial question: Can India afford to stop buying Russian oil? As per former Reserve Bank of India (RBI) Governor Raghuram Rajan , 'It wouldn't be a disaster for India', but he pointed to a 'bigger issue' that might be of concern. 'Stopping purchases of Russian oil wouldn't be a disaster for India, since current prices aren't much higher than for Russian crude.' If Russian oil were cut off entirely, prices would rise, but India could handle that, he stated in an interview with International Valor. The bigger issue is 'political: an overt public decision to stop buying from Russia would be seen domestically as bowing to U.S. pressure, which plays badly in any democracy.' If Washington had quietly asked India to phase out Russian oil, it might have been acceptable, the former RBI Governor said. 'Making it public, and tying it to a tariff threat makes it much harder politically.' On trade, there are many areas where liberalisation would be good for India, he stated adding that lowering tariffs can help our economy. 'But, it's hard to negotiate with a gun to your head. I hope that tempers cool and talks resume, because a 50 per cent tariff is unsustainable—not just for India, but also for the U.S., which risks alienating a country it hopes will be a strategic partner. People remember these things for a long time, and turning them away is rarely smart geopolitics.' Although a deal is still possible to avoid the higher rate, Trump's recent barrage against India has quickly damaged ties with a nation that successive administrations have sought to court as a counterweight to China. He's called India's economy 'dead,' its tariff barriers 'obnoxious' and its people indifferent to the plight of Ukrainians — adding to tensions after Trump angered India by claiming to have brokered peace with Pakistan earlier this year. The Indian government has fired back at Trump's tariff threats, saying the purchases are necessary for the nation's energy security and has blasted Trump for singling out India when other countries are also buying Russian oil. 'We reiterate that these actions are unfair, unjustified and unreasonable,' a spokesperson for the Ministry of External Affairs said in a statement. 'India will take all actions necessary to protect its national interests.' If implemented, the higher rates would be a further hit to India's economy. Bloomberg Economics estimated that a 50 per cent tariff may cut US-bound exports by 60%, putting 0.9 per cent of gross domestic product at risk. It would particularly hit labor-intensive industries such as gems and jewelry, textiles, footwear, carpets and agricultural goods. While India is still open to talks, Trump's tariff threats are eroding goodwill and risk prompting India to shift closer to Russia and China. Prime Minister Modi is planning to visit China later this month for the first time in more than seven years.


New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
India's electronics sector unaffected by US tariffs for now: Union minister Ashwini Vaishnaw
NEW DELHI: The electronics sector is currently not impacted by the United States' reciprocal tariff, said Minister for Electronics and Information Technology Ashwini Vaishnaw on Tuesday. His clarification follows the U.S. government's announcement of a 25% tariff on select Indian imports, effective August 1, along with an additional 25% penalty linked to India's ongoing procurement of Russian military equipment and oil. 'As of now, there are no taxes or tariffs on electronics,' said Vaishnaw. India's electronics exports have witnessed a sharp surge in the first quarter of FY26, rising 47% year-on-year, driven largely by record mobile phone exports to the United States. According to industry data, smartphone shipments from India to the US soared 240% year-on-year and now account for 44% of all smartphones imported into the American market. In April 2025, the US granted a 90-day exemption on select electronics, allowing Indian exporters to continue shipments without being subject to the new tariffs. These exemptions are set to expire on August 14. A review meeting is expected in Washington before the deadline to decide whether the relief will be extended under Section 232 of the US trade law. Vaishnaw also addressed the shortage of rare earth magnets in the country, which are essential for high-performance electric motors, wind turbines, medical devices, and other advanced technologies. With around 85% of global rare earth magnet production controlled by China, India is working to reduce dependency.