Navalny Received an Oscar. Some Ukrainians Aren’t Completely satisfied

When Alexei Navalny’s namesake documentary received an Oscar on Sunday, its victory was hailed by many within the U.S. as a rebuke of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Certainly, talking by means of director Daniel Roher, the Russian opposition chief cited the “unjust battle of aggression in Ukraine” as the explanation he’s presently in solitary confinement in a Russian prison. However there was a minimum of one contingent who weren’t able to reward the movie: some Ukrainian journalists, students and politicians.

On Twitter, many customers criticized the Academy for feting a Russian household in Los Angeles whereas so many Ukrainians stay imperiled by the invasion.

“The primary picture is the battle for freedom. The second picture is the battle for energy. Don’t confuse them,” wrote Taras Mishchenko, editor-in-chief of the publication Mezha.Media, juxtaposing a picture of Navalny’s household in black tie on the Oscars with a picture of Ukrainian troopers on a battlefield.

Mikhail Podolyak, a Ukrainian politician, additionally criticized the Academy for failing to incorporate Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky in the course of the broadcast. For the second yr in a row, the Academy has reportedly rejected a request from Zelensky to talk on the grounds that the occasion isn’t political.

Extra from TIME

However Christo Grozev, a journalist with the investigative group Bellingcat who was featured within the documentary, pushed again on Twitter towards the criticism:

He added that he was “completely satisfied” that Roher “used the quick time he had on the world’s largest stage to explicitly condemn Putin’s barbaric assault on Ukraine.”

Alexei Navalny is broadly esteemed for his willingness to risk his life to push for democracy in Russia, however many Ukrainians proceed to be cautious of the Russian opposition chief. The elemental downside, says Maria Popova, an affiliate professor at McGill College who research political improvement in Ukraine, is that Navalny “has denounced the battle, however not Russian imperialism.”

In Popova’s view, the problems Navalny has centered on, together with combating autocracy and corruption in Russia, should not instantly related to Ukrainians; in the meantime, Navalny has been gradual to supply help for Ukrainian territorial integrity and has a “lengthy historical past of nationalism and xenophobia.” Navalny has additionally not endorsed Ukraine’s NATO membership, Popova famous. “That, to Ukrainians, signifies that they’re not absolutely their allies,” she says. “They’re type of the enemy of the enemy, however not an ally.”

One other sticking level is Navalny’s previous stance on the territory of Crimea, which Russia invaded and seized in 2014. In a 2014 interview, as an illustration, Navalny stated that Crimea ought to “stay a part of Russia,” whereas in a blog post that very same yr, he criticized the 1954 switch of Crimea to Ukraine for going down within the first place. As just lately as January, Maria Pevchikh, a Russian journalist and head of the investigative arm of Navalny’s Anti-Corruption Foundation (FBK), refused to comment on Crimea.

In February, Navalny’s group appeared to strengthen their help of Ukraine in a blog post on the battle, which commented that Ukraine’s territory was established in 1991—lengthy after the incorporation of Crimea. Nonetheless, this shift doesn’t appear to have persuaded some Ukrainians. Following the Navalny movie’s victory, Andriy Sadovyi, the Mayor of Lviv, referenced a remark Navalny made in 2015 rejecting the suggestion that Crimea needs to be returned to Ukraine, during which Navalny stated, “Is Crimea a sandwich or one thing which you can take and provides again?”

Writing on Twitter, Sadovyi stated: “Navalny is a sandwich packed in a lunchbox and carried all over the world for example of the truth that there’s nonetheless opposition in Russia. They focus on its recipe, stale bread, spoiled cheese and the particular odor of Russian propaganda, which now smells of the Oscar statuette.”

In response to Popova, Navalny’s current statements are unlikely to be sufficient for a lot of Ukrainians, particularly amid a battle along with his countrymen. “It’s a difficulty of belief,” says Popova. “His views may effectively have advanced, however, sadly, Ukrainians—or anyone, actually—can not know whether or not this evolution is honest or strategic, as he presently must say the proper issues with a view to have the help of the West to fight Putin’s regime.”

Others additionally famous Navalny’s historical past of racist and xenophobic feedback, together with utilizing an ethnic slur towards Ukrainians and derogatory statements about many peoples, together with Georgians, following the 2008 Russo-Georgian Struggle. Journalist Ostap Yarysh famous that on the time, Nalvalny wrote a weblog submit calling Georgians “rodents;” saying that he’d prefer to ship a missile at Georgian navy leaders; and comparing Mikheil Saakashvili, the Georgian prime minister on the time, to Hitler.

“Being anti-Putin doesn’t negate Navalny’s imperialist and chauvinist views” tweeted Yarysh. “Is Navalny anti-Putin? Sure. Was he wrongfully imprisoned by [the] Kremlin for this? Completely. Is he anti-war? He says so.

“However does he reject the colonial method and the thought of Russian superiority/dominance over different nations? Undoubtedly not. And that is one thing to bear in mind.”

Contact us at letters@time.com.