The widow of the late Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny has secured backing to launch a satellite TV channel aimed at audiences inside Russia, with support from Reporters Without Borders. Yulia Navalnaya is quick to denounce corruption within Russia but falters when pressed on the status of Crimea. This raises a question: is funding this media project truly a wise move?
On Russia’s national day, U.S. Secretary of State Mark Rubio declared on the official State Department website that America “is committed to supporting the Russian people in their quest for a brighter future.” This comes as little surprise. With Donald Trump back in the White House, both the Russian populace—and especially their leadership—are benefiting from a level of U.S. support previously unimaginable.
Yet imagining a bright future for the modern ‘Russian empire’—a vision shared not only by Rubio but apparently also by Navalny’s widow—remains a challenge. In early June, backed by Reporters Without Borders, Yulia Navalnaya launched a television channel boldly named Russia’s Future.
At the channel’s launch in Paris, hosted at Reporters Without Borders’ offices, Navalnaya vowed to focus on uncovering corruption within Russian politics. “Just like on Alexei Navalny’s investigative channels, Popular Politics and Navalny Live,” she said. Expressing gratitude to Reporters Without Borders, she expressed hope that “the cooperation will be long-lasting.” That hope seems well-founded—corruption in Russia runs so deep it could keep her busy for years.
One question remains unresolved: if these determined investigators succeed in curbing corruption within the Kremlin, more money will inevitably flow into the Russian state’s coffers—providing Moscow with greater resources to continue its war against Ukraine. It’s unclear whether the Russian opposition in exile has fully grappled with this consequence.
The channel Russia’s Future is aimed “at all Russian speakers, and especially at residents of the occupied territories.” So far, it has made no mention of Ukrainian children who have been abducted and forcibly Russified, women raped by occupying forces, or the looting of Ukrainian museums. When asked directly during her press conference, Navalnaya sidestepped the question: “Who does Crimea belong to?” She also stopped short of calling for the withdrawal of Russian troops from occupied Ukrainian territories or for reparations to be paid to Ukraine. Instead, she said the channel would promote a renunciation of violence. A noble goal—but is it realistic?
Broadcasting will take place via the French Eutelsat satellite, which requires a satellite dish capable of receiving the signal. “It’s an exaggeration to say that the majority of Russians support Putin—in reality, they’re simply deprived of information,” argued Ruslan Shaveddinov, a member of the Anti-Corruption Foundation founded by Navalny. He claims many Russians have satellite dishes installed at their dachas and could become viewers of the new channel. “Perhaps housewives, all those people who watch too much state TV, will tune in to our programmes and start to have doubts, to think for themselves,” said Mr Shaveddinov—sharing a bright dream of his own.
At the same time, the Russian army—still dangerous and not to be underestimated—remains a threat not only to Ukraine but also to its neighbours, particularly the Baltic states. Recently, German intelligence revealed that Moscow was preparing to deploy “little green men” in Estonia, aiming to test how Article 5 of the NATO treaty, which guarantees mutual defence in the event of an attack, would actually be enforced.
The Kremlin, not without reason, suspects this mutual defence clause might not hold. After all, if Viktor Orbán insists that Hungarians “don’t want to die for Ukraine,” why would they be willing to die for Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania?
By refusing to take a clear stand with Ukraine in the current war and by perpetuating the illusion of a “kind but misled Russian people,” these dreamers unwittingly align themselves with their criminal homeland. Because to refuse to wish for the defeat of the Russian army is, in effect, to side with it. Without such a defeat, without a reckoning for Russia’s elite, the so-called misled people have no chance to improve, to rethink their politics, or to imagine new ambitions without destroying everything around them.
Interestingly, Yulia Navalnaya reacts sharply to comments about Russia’s collective responsibility for the crimes in Ukraine, almost like someone who has been conditioned by too much state television. She displays the same irritation when confronted with talk of the possible collapse of the Russian empire. But what seems to provoke her most is the issue of European financial support for Radio Free Europe.
“It’s an American outlet reporting on Russia. Meanwhile, there are numerous high-quality Russian media organisations that have been working in forced exile for over three years, braving strong opposition from Russian authorities, all while maintaining—or even growing—their audiences inside the country. So why is the European Union choosing to back American media covering Russia instead of supporting Russian media themselves?” Navalnaya asked during her speech at the European Parliament.
Reporters Without Borders may also be prone to wishful thinking—hoping, for example, that the widow of opposition figure Alexei Navalny possesses the same talent, charisma, and breadth of knowledge as her late husband, who died in prison. However, leadership qualities aren’t inherited through marriage or biology. Miracles do happen, of course, but for now, as her public appearances have shown, Navalnaya embodies much the same imperial mindset as many of the so-called “brave but misled Russians.”
All of this points to a paradox: the only force capable of offering the Russian people even a faint hope for a better, more dignified future is the Ukrainian army. Should Russia suffer defeat in its war of aggression, its people might finally begin to reckon with their past, and its elites could start to imagine political projects beyond centuries of relentless expansion. Without that reckoning, Russia will continue to circle endlessly, no matter who holds power. It will remain a country without a future—despite the grand promises voiced by the Russian opposition through their media outlets.
