Has happened over and over again that the Western political class prioritizes alignment with some entity on some short term goal over checking that the entity shares any other sentiments. And then being all surprised-pikachu when they dont.
US funding mujahideen against the Soviets.
Israel funding Hamas to keep the PA weak.
Europe lauding Aung Sang Suu Kyi in Myanmar
etc.
Any time you see a puff piece in mainstream Western media about some leader abroad that "we find we can work with" or has similar cheese, beware.
Seems to depend on whether someone believes Russia's security interests have some level of legitimacy. If the war is unfounded then it is an act of madness and the motivation is probably attributable to a single charismatic individual (and Putin must be that person). The view is part of the "Russia's unprovoked attack on Ukraine!" narrative.
If Russian has legitimate security interests in the region then it doesn't matter so much who the president is and Putin's role in events is important but it is likely others would have made the same choice.
> He did recant any notion of Ukrainians being Russian. He also asserted ukrainians Right to independent self-governing.
I never followed Navalny very closely, but my understanding was he opposed Putin but he was also a Russian nationalist, so (at least pre-2022) there wasn't tons of distance between them on the topic of Ukraine.
Since Trump and especially since the more recent invasion of Ukraine, I think there's been a tendency for Western liberals to concentrate on Putin, oppose him, and therefore idealize his opponents as just like them. So the liberals would tend to avoid thinking about certain uncomfortable facts, and Navalny may have been incentives to conform to their views (given he was in prison and his main protection was the attention and sympathy of foreigners)