On the situation around Alexei Navalny

Mr Navalny was detained, in full accordance with the law, for violating the terms of probation. He was convicted for fraud back in 2014, and the European Court on Human Rights dismissed his claim that the case was politically motivated. He was released on probation, but neglected to comply with its conditions even before his alleged “poisoning” last August. He was not bothered during his hospital stay, but after the discharge he continued to break probation rules and ignored the warnings of penitentiary authorities, which led to his current detention. He is not a “political prisoner”, but a common criminal, who flaunted the law to look like a victim for political gains.

As for his so-called “poisoning”, first and foremost – no traces of any poison have been found in Mr Navalny during his thorough examinations at the hospital in Russia on 21 and 22 of August last year. Neither was anything of the sort discovered by the “Charité” clinic in Berlin. Only after his samples have been transferred to a Bundeswehr medical facility, all of a sudden traces of weapons-grade chemical agent were allegedly discovered by German military.

This reminds us of the Skripal affair, when another alleged poisoning took place right next door to the UK’s Porton Down chemical weapons facility.

In both cases the alleged targets of so-called chemical weapon attacks “miraculously survived”, and in case of Navalny and Yulia Skripal even made a full recovery. (What happened to Sergei Skripal the world still does not know, as the British authorities have apparently kept him under lock and key since the Salisbury incident). Some facts about the cases are swept under the rug or simply do not come under the scrutiny of agencies like “Bellingcat” or the Western media. For instance, such as that the person who published the formula of “Novichok” has been living and working in the United States since 1995; or that according to an investigative report by German media, the German government had access to “Novichok” since the 1990’s and conducted active research on it.

For nearly a half a year Germany rejected any kind of cooperation with Russia on investigating this suposedly henious crime, contrary to its obligations, inter alia, under the European Convention on Co-Operation in Criminal Matters. In particular, Berlin refused to provide samples indicating that Mr Navalny was indeed poisoned, or disclose the actual substance allegedly used. This undermined the Russian authorities’ attempts of inquiry into the incident. Germany also forbade the OPCW to share this information with Russia, claiming that it was “against Mr Navalny‘s wishes” – which contravened its obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention. Why would the victim of a crime be against submitting evidence for its investigation, and why would a country condone this against its own international obligations?

The incident with “poisoning” of A.Navalny was willingly exploited by some Western political actors to fan anti-Russian sentiment and impose new sanctions. The fact that this is happening the second time in a row only serves to corroborate the obvious conclusion – if Mr Navalny is a victim, he is a victim of a hoax. Or, given his political stance, a willing participant. As for the organizers and propagators of this hoax, the conscious abuse of the threat of chemical weapons for political purposes is truly deplorable. 

As for Russia’s role the fact that even according to Mr Navalny’s own narrative he owns his life to Russian doctors and his treatment at the Russian State hospital in Omsk speaks for itself.

22 January 2021, 17:45