It was a particularly unusual choice of poison. Experts are still pondering whether the toxin that killed Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny was meant to send a message. The killer toxin, called epibatidine, comes from dart frogs in South America. This means Navalny couldn’t have taken it by accident.
The UK government claimed that only the Russian state had both the means and motive to use this poison while Navalny was incarcerated in a Siberian prison. This toxin is particularly potent—it’s hundreds of times stronger than morphine and can stop muscles from working, leading to suffocation. Alastair Hay, a toxicology expert, noted that breathing would become impossible because the chest muscles wouldn’t work.
Adding to the chilling nature of this toxin, there’s no known antidote. While epibatidine is studied for its potential as a painkiller, its high toxicity makes it dangerous for use in medicine. Researchers in various countries, including Russia, are trying to create similar compounds, hoping to develop effective pain relief without the risks.
Historically, Russia has a track record of using poison against political adversaries. Cases like Alexander Litvinenko, who was killed with radioactive polonium-210, and the Skripal poisoning with the nerve agent novichok highlight this grim trend. Russia is known to have skilled chemists and even a facility for producing such toxins. This raises questions about the message behind using epibatidine against Navalny. Yvette Cooper, the UK’s foreign secretary, suggested it was a demonstration of the state’s ruthless power against political threats.
Some experts believe that the nature of the poison itself may indicate a calculated decision. Dr. Brett Edwards, a biological and chemical weapons expert, pointed out that if avoiding detection was a goal, there are many other poisons that could have been used. Instead, the use of a rare toxin seems deliberate, signaling capability rather than discretion.
Interestingly, expert opinions diverge on whether this act was aimed at broadcasting a message. Dr. Luca Trenta, an international relations expert, argued that unlike the overt actions taken in previous cases, this one could have flown under the radar if not for the diligent efforts to analyze samples from Navalny’s body.
However, some experts, like Hay, noted that the sheer effectiveness of the toxin might have been chosen precisely to convey fear and showcase Russia’s capabilities. The macabre efficiency of epibatidine serves as a reminder of the lengths to which state actors may go to eliminate opposition.
In addition to the sobering reality of political violence, it’s worth noting that the understanding of toxins and poisons is evolving. What may seem exotic today could become more common in discussions about statecraft and political survival in the future.
With such a grim history and sophisticated methods, it’s clear that the dynamics of political conflict can have deadly consequences. The implications of Navalny’s poisoning reach far beyond the individual, shedding light on the dark interplay of power, fear, and control in the political landscape.
For more on the use of poisons in statecraft, check out this analysis from the Journal of Political Violence.
