FLASH
Shkruar nga Pamfleti
The case of Alexei Navalny brings to light a practice rooted in Russian and Soviet history!
When Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny died two years ago, the main question was not who killed him, but how the murder was carried out.
His wife, Yulia Navalnaya, immediately declared that he had been poisoned and announced that supporters had taken tissue samples for analysis. Recently, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands announced that a joint intelligence operation had concluded that Navalny was killed with epibatidine, a neurotoxin found in the skin of Ecuadorian poison dart frogs.
The announcement, made at the Munich Security Conference, was met with skepticism, mockery on social media and official denials from Moscow. The fact that the statement was made at an international security forum also suggests a political dimension, at a time when the alliance against Russian President Vladimir Putin has shown signs of fatigue and discord. The United States did not join the five European countries in this public outing.
However, there is no public evidence to directly refute the claim. The main debate has centered on the manner of death: whether Navalny was directly poisoned, or whether his body, damaged by exposure to the Novichok nerve agent in a previous assassination attempt, could not withstand the harsh conditions of the Arctic prison camp “Polar Wolf”.
The latest allegations bring attention back to a well-known Russian tendency to use poison. Other states and actors throughout history have used similar methods, from the Borgia family in Renaissance Italy to the CIA's documented attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro, but in the Russian case, poisoning appears as a continuous historical thread.
Russian chronicles mention cases of poisoning since the Middle Ages. Prince Dmitry Shemyaka was poisoned in 1453 during the war for the Moscow inheritance. Tsar Ivan the Terrible believed that the Shuisky family poisoned his mother, Elena Glinskaya, in 1538. In 1610, Prince Mikhail Skopin-Shuisky was allegedly poisoned. Even in the 20th century, figures such as Rasputin faced attempted poisonings.
In the Soviet period, this practice took on institutional form. In 1926, the state established a specialized poison laboratory, known variously over the years as Laboratory No. 12, Laboratory X, and today Scientific Research Institute No. 2 (NII-2). The laboratory, often called “Camera,” developed new lethal agents for the secret services and, during the Stalinist period, tested substances on Gulag prisoners.
This institution is linked to several well-known international cases: the murder of Ukrainian nationalist Stepan Bandera with cyanide in 1959; the poisoning of Bulgarian dissident Georgy Markov in London in 1978 with ricin; the polonium-210 poisoning of former agent Alexander Litvinenko in London in 2006; the Novichok attack on Sergei and Yulia Skripal in 2018; and the poisoning of Navalny himself in 2020.
The use of rare and often expensive substances, such as the polonium used on Litvinenko, raises the question of why these methods are chosen instead of more common means such as firearms or explosives.
One reason may be deniability. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova responded to the Navalny allegations by demanding evidence and formulas of the substances before any official comment. This approach allows Moscow to deny responsibility and argue that other actors may have committed the act in order to blame Russia.
However, the use of agents historically associated with state structures creates a double signal: a formal denial, but with an implicit message to opponents. In this sense, poisoning serves not only as a means of elimination, but also as an instrument of intimidation.
The psychological effect is part of the strategy. Poisonings often cause prolonged and visible suffering. The case of Litvinenko, who died after 22 days of agony, and the poisoning of Navalny in 2020, when he fell seriously ill on a flight to Moscow, show the public dimension of these acts. The target is not limited to the victim; the message is aimed at a wider audience.
Navalny returned to Russia after treatment in Germany and continued his political activity, but other cases have influenced the behavior of Kremlin opponents abroad, making them more cautious.
In this context, poisoning is presented not only as a method of murder, but as an instrument of political and psychological pressure./ Adapted from "Pamphlet" by "The Spectator"
Lini një Përgjigje