By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Laboratories in at least two Western countries independently concluded that Alexei Navalny was killed by poisoning, according to his widow, Yulia Navalnaya. These findings were based on biological samples secured and transported abroad by Navalny’s team following his death in a penal colony. Navalnaya accused Western governments of hindering the investigation for political reasons, while also presenting testimony from penal colony staff detailing Navalny’s final moments, which she argued support the poisoning claim. Navalny’s previous poisoning in 2020 and his history of opposing Putin highlight the political context surrounding his death and the ongoing crackdown on Russian opposition.
Read the original article here
Russian oppositioner Navalny killed ‘by poisoning’ in 2024, widow cites Western labs… Well, it certainly feels like a tragic story that many people saw coming, doesn’t it? It’s almost as if we’ve been bracing ourselves for this outcome for a while. The details might be new, with confirmation that, as reported by his widow and supported by findings from Western labs, poisoning was indeed the cause of his death, but the underlying reality seems to have been an open secret. Russia, as history shows, has a troubling track record when it comes to silencing its critics, and poisoning has unfortunately become one of their preferred methods, allowing for that oh-so-necessary layer of plausible deniability.
This latest incident, particularly the specifics of the death within a prison setting, doesn’t exactly offer any real surprises. Given that Navalny was incarcerated, the usual “falling out of a window” narrative wasn’t going to cut it this time. Instead, it required a more discreet approach, one that could be masked as a natural decline or complication, while ensuring Russia could plausibly distance itself from the direct action. The focus now, with the confirmation of poisoning, feels like simply solidifying what many of us already suspected, even expected. Putin’s intent to eliminate Navalny, whether through direct action or the calculated neglect of his well-being, was likely the driving force.
The specifics of the murder method, whether a deliberate poisoning or the indirect consequences of neglect – withholding medical care, inadequate living conditions – might seem to be of secondary importance to many. Ultimately, the outcome remains the same: murder. Navalny’s courage was undeniable. He understood the risks inherent in his fight for change, and he continued to challenge the regime. His resilience in the face of adversity made Putin’s decision to resort to such tactics all the more revealing and, frankly, cowardly.
It’s like a dark comedic play, the “Surprised Pikachu” face that would likely be seen from many on hearing the news. Poisoning is the means, at least he didn’t fall out of a window this time, but the result – death – remains just as tragic. It’s a stark contrast to the supposed standards of justice, as they often apply around the world. The circumstances, as described by his widow and now corroborated by Western labs, point to a cold-blooded act. It also leaves us to wonder if it was even possible that he was beaten to death or succumbed to illness, as the conditions of his imprisonment must surely have taken their toll.
The confirmation, however, is still powerful. It’s not just the specific cause of death that matters, it’s the acknowledgment of responsibility. Even if the conditions within the Arctic prison contributed to his death indirectly, through starvation or disease, the culpability of the Russian regime wouldn’t lessen. For most people, the manner of death was less important than the identity of the person behind it, it’s hard not to look at it as a planned and orchestrated affair.
There’s a crucial legal distinction between committing an action that results in death and withholding life-saving assistance. Throwing someone into a pool to drown is, of course, a far more active and intentional act than refusing to help someone who is already drowning. But we shouldn’t let this legal minutiae distract from the bigger picture when it comes to Russia. We see time and time again, that the moral implications far outweigh any legal ones.
We need to remember, when it comes to Russia, that the best course of action is to channel all our resources toward supporting Ukraine. It’s vital to focus our investment on investigations, forensics, and, most critically, providing Ukraine with the military support it needs to defend itself. The actions and the history of Russia is of a nation of terrorists, and in such cases, it’s hard to make a determination of “innocent until proven guilty”. The guilt in their actions is a given.
It’s a depressing reality, given the number of people Russia has allegedly poisoned over the years. It’s a horrific reminder of the lengths a regime will go to silence its critics. But even within the context of the potential death of the opposition leader, that it seems there’s an inherent distrust in the justice system.
It’s important to recognize that in this specific situation, it’s hard to make valid comparisons to things like “falling from a window” or the like. Russia had complete control over Navalny’s jail conditions, and the decision not to provide potentially life-saving care was a conscious one, a choice that was likely a violation of their legal obligations. The laws are not relevant to Putin, as it seems.