International laboratories confirm: Navalny was poisoned with a deadly toxin, and the traces lead to the Russian state

When Alexei Navalny died in the Siberian Polar Wolf prison colony in February 2024, Russian authorities were quick to chalk it up to “sudden death from natural causes.” Two years later, five European governments revealed what Moscow feared most: independent laboratories from different countries had found a deadly toxin in samples from the politician’s body, for which the Russian version simply had no innocent explanation.^{1 2 3} .

New findings: a deadly poison from the arsenal of special operations

On February 13, 2026, the governments of Great Britain, France, Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands issued a joint statement: analysis of samples taken from Navalny's body "unequivocally confirmed the presence of epibatidine," a toxin that occurs naturally in certain species of South American tree frogs.^{1 2 3} It is an extremely potent neurotoxin that blocks pain receptors and can cause respiratory paralysis at doses hundreds of times lower than those of morphine or nicotine.^{1 9} The very fact of its detection in samples from Navalny's body is not an exotic detail, but a direct indication of the artificial origin of the poisoning: there is no epibatidine in nature in Russia or in legal medical circulation.^{1 2 9} .

The British Foreign Office emphasizes in its release: in captivity, dart frogs do not produce epibatidine, therefore, this is not an “imported poison”, but a synthetic compound produced in a laboratory.² In addition, this is a laboratory with a high level of access and technological capabilities: the production of epibatidine is a complex process, the sources and methods of its production are strictly controlled.^{1 9} The combination of these facts – the absence of natural sources of the toxin in Russia, the specifics of the synthesis, the circumstances of Navalny’s death in an isolated colony – becomes the basis for a political conclusion: only the Russian state apparatus had access to such poison and the ability to use it.^{2 3} .

Who conducted the analysis and how: the chain of laboratories and the evidence base

Formally, the investigation into Navalny's poisoning lasted several years and consisted of several layers. The first was back in 2020, when the politician survived an attempt using the nerve agent of the Novichok group; then, confirmation was provided by military laboratories in Germany, and then by France and Sweden, as well as the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW).^{5 6 7} The second – after his death in the colony, when, according to Yulia Navalny's widow, samples of biomaterial from Navalny's body were smuggled to Europe, which were analyzed by two independent laboratories.^{3 8} The third layer is the current joint investigation by the governments of five countries, which have involved their own special laboratories and, according to TIME, in particular the British center Porton Down.^{1 2 9} .

London's statement said: "Continuous, collaborative work has confirmed through laboratory tests that a deadly toxin found in the skin of Ecuadorian dart frogs (epibatidine) was detected in samples from the body of Alexei Navalny and is likely to have caused his death."² Euronews conveys the position of the five governments even more strongly: "Only the Russian state had the means, the motive and the disregard for international law to carry out this attack."³ The case has already been referred to the OPCW as a possible gross violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention – with a request to investigate the use of a rare toxin by a state that already has a history of using banned agents against its opponents.^{2 6 7} .

From Novichok to Epibatidine: How the History of Navalny's Poisonings Developed

The story that exploded today did not begin today. In August 2020, Navalny felt sick on board a plane from Tomsk to Moscow; after an emergency landing in Omsk, Russian doctors “found nothing,” but already in Berlin, doctors at the Charité clinic established that he had been poisoned with a substance from the Novichok group.^{5 6} The German government transferred samples to military laboratories in France and Sweden, which independently confirmed the presence of the banned nerve agent.^{6 7 11} Later, an analysis conducted by Berlin at the OPCW found biomarkers of a new modification of Novichok in Navalny's blood, urine, and samples from the bottle - so specific that it had to be separately added to the list of controlled chemicals.^{5 6 7} .

Russia rejected this conclusion, but the chain of evidence – from the Berlin clinic to the OPCW – became the basis for international sanctions against Russian officials and scientists associated with military chemistry.^{5 7 11} . After Navalny returned to Russia in 2021 and a series of politically motivated sentences that gave him a total of 19 years in a maximum-security colony, the issue of the chemical attack seemed to recede into the background. But the oppositionist’s death in a remote Arctic colony in February 2024 – according to the official version, from a “sudden syndrome” – immediately raised suspicions that this was a new episode of the same scenario, this time without any chance of resuscitation and evacuation.^{3 8 10} .

Yulia Navalny: "This murder is now a scientifically proven fact"

The politician's widow played a key role in proving posthumous poisoning. In September 2025, Yulia Navalny stated that several independent laboratories abroad had analyzed samples secretly exported from Russia and found traces of toxic substances incompatible with "natural death."^{3 8 13} At the time, she did not name a specific agent, limiting herself to accusations against Putin and a demand for laboratories to publish their findings.^{8 13} Now, following a joint statement from five governments, Navalny has put it even more bluntly: “The murder of Alexei in the Arctic colony in 2024 is now a scientifically proven fact,” she was quoted as saying by Euronews.³ .

This phrase has an important political dimension. While in 2020 it was still possible to argue about the degree of the Kremlin's responsibility (Russian propaganda tried to promote versions of "self-poisoning" or "provocation by the West"), now, after Navalny's death, under the full control of the FSVP and the FSB, there is practically no room for maneuver.^{2 3 10} . The state kept the politician in isolation, controlling his every movement, contact, and every item that entered the colony. As the joint statement of the governments emphasizes, Russia had the “means, motive, and opportunity” to use the toxin – a classic formula of criminal and political investigation^{1 2 3} .

International legal dimension: violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention

From the point of view of international law, the new laboratory findings place Navalny's case in the category not only of political assassination, but also of an alleged systemic violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention.^{2 6 7} The OPCW already has experience working with the Novichok case – both in the attack on the Skripals in Salisbury and in the poisoning of Navalny himself in 2020, when a new type of nerve agent, not yet included in the list of controlled substances, was found in samples from his body and belongings.^{5 6 7} Now, adding to this portfolio is epibatidine, a toxin that, although derived from natural sources, is considered a chemical weapon in military use.

Britain said it had already notified the OPCW of the established fact of the use of epibatidine against Navalny and demanded an investigation as a "flagrant violation of the Convention by Russia."² For allies, this is not only a moral but also a legal issue: a state that already has a history of using Novichok against opponents and diplomats is now suspected of expanding its arsenal of poisonings.^{1 3 9} This strengthens the argument of those who insist on tougher sanctions against the Russian military-industrial complex, scientific institutes involved in chemical research, and specific officials responsible for chemical weapons programs.

Political consequences: an “accidental death” turns into a case of state terror

The joint statement of the five countries was not accidentally released on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference: Western leaders seized the moment when world attention was already focused on discussions about Russia and the war in Ukraine.^{1 2 3} . They thus clearly fit the Navalny case into a broader picture of Russian state practice – from massive missile strikes on civilian Ukrainian cities to targeted attacks on opposition figures, journalists and defectors abroad. As the British Foreign Office puts it: “We know that the Russian state used this deadly toxin to target Navalny because it feared his resistance.”³ .

In the domestic political dimension, this is another blow to the remnants of the Russian myth of “fighting extremism.” If only yesterday Moscow could say that Navalny is a “con” and a “radical,” today the international investigation shows: we are talking about a person who was first tried to be killed with a combat nerve agent, and then, after the failed attempt, was brought to death in isolation using another toxin.^{1 3 8} This is not “exceeding the powers of individual security forces,” but a consistent state practice of eliminating an opponent who managed to create the largest anti-corruption network in modern Russia.

What do these findings mean for Ukraine and the region?

For Ukraine, the story of the internationally confirmed poisoning of Navalny is another link in the chain of arguments about the nature of the Russian regime. A state that uses chemical agents against its own citizens and oppositionists, which has already been caught using Novichok in several countries, has no red lines in a war against its neighbors.^{5 6 7} For us, this is not an abstraction: in every missile strike on a Ukrainian city, in every terrorist attack or sabotage, there is the same logic - demonstrative disregard for people's lives for the sake of maintaining power.

At the diplomatic level, the laboratory findings on epibatidine may become an additional argument for increasing pressure on Moscow in international courts, the UN General Assembly, the Council of Europe, and other forums where Ukraine is already seeking recognition of the Russian Federation as a state sponsor of terrorism.^{2 3 10} They also make life difficult for those governments that are still trying to maintain a "gray" position on Russia: from now on, ignoring scientifically proven facts about the use of deadly toxins against an oppositionist in a colony means taking some of the political responsibility upon yourself.

Sources

1. TIME: "Navalny Poisoned With 'Dart Frog' Toxin, Europeans Say" - an analysis of the joint statement by five governments about epibatidine, details of the toxin, and the political context.
2. UK Government: "UK confirms Russia poisoned Navalny in prison with rare toxin" – an official release from London with a description of laboratory findings and an appeal to the OPCW.
3. Euronews: "Russia poisoned Navalny, according to five European countries' scientific findings" – joint position of the UK, France, Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands; quotes from Yulia Navalny.
4. ABC News / other English-language media: news about confirmation of Navalny's poisoning with epibatidine and reaction of allies.
5. OPCW, document S/1906/2020: Technical assistance on the 2020 Navalny poisoning and the detection of Novichok.
6. DW: "OPCW: Novichok found on Alexei Navalny samples" – confirmation of the nerve agent in samples from Navalny's body.
7. RFE/RL: "OPCW Confirms Novichok-Like Nerve Agent Used In Navalny Poisoning" – details of the analysis, reaction of the OPCW and the German government.
8. CNN / BBC: materials on Yulia Navalny's statements regarding laboratory tests that proved poisoning in the colony.
9. Evrimagaci / other popular science resources: explanation of the properties of epibatidine, its origin and toxicity.
10. Reuters / BBC News archive 2020–2025: a timeline of the Novichok poisoning, international sanctions and the reaction of the Russian authorities.
11. Official materials of the OPCW: the context of the use of chemical weapons and mechanisms for investigating violations of the Convention.
12. Analytical articles about the political assassination of Navalny and its impact on the sanctions policy towards the Russian Federation.