Evidence in Navalny poisoning case released: Five countries jointly accuse Russia of using chemical weapons.

On February 14, 2026, the governments of the United Kingdom, Sweden, France, Germany, and the Netherlands issued a joint statement, announcing the findings of an investigation into the cause of death of Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny. The statement indicated that independent analysis of Navalny's body samples detected a lethal toxin known as epibatidine. This toxin naturally occurs in South American poison dart frogs and is not naturally distributed in Russia. Based on this, the five governments concluded that Navalny, who died two years ago at the IK-3 penal colony in the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug, was poisoned with this biotoxin. The statement accused the Russian government of violating the Chemical Weapons Convention and the Biological Weapons Convention and stated that a formal complaint had been filed with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

A report released at a specific time.

The timing of the joint statement's release is noteworthy. February 14, 2026 coincides with the Munich Security Conference. Two years ago, on the same occasion, news of Navalny's death in prison was announced, and his widow Yulia Navalnaya's accusations at the conference were impressive. This year, Navalnaya reappeared in Munich, writing on social media: "I have been convinced from day one that my husband was poisoned, and now there is evidence. Putin murdered him with chemical weapons." The five countries chose to announce their conclusions at this moment, clearly aiming to amplify the political and public impact of the event and bring the Navalny case back onto the global security agenda.

From a technical perspective, the wording of the five-nation statement is quite strong. They used expressions such as "confirmed unequivocally." The choice of the toxin epibatidine also sends a clear message—this substance is not a common Novichok or ricin, and its unique source undermines any potential defense from Moscow regarding accidental exposure. The statement points out: "He died while in custody, which means Russia had the means, motive, and opportunity to administer this poison to him." This reasoning based on means, motive, and opportunity directly attributes responsibility to Russian state institutions.

The High-Risk Situation of Russian Dissidents

The Navalny case is not an isolated incident. Over the past two decades, multiple critics of the Kremlin have died or been attacked in similar ways, either within Russia or abroad. In 2006, journalist Anna Politkovskaya was shot dead in her Moscow apartment; in 2015, former Deputy Prime Minister Boris Nemtsov was gunned down near the Kremlin; in 2006, Alexander Litvinenko was poisoned with polonium-210 in London, and in 2018, Sergei Skripal and his daughter were targeted with Novichok nerve agent in the UK. The victims in these cases were all outspoken critics of the Putin regime, and investigations have mostly ended in deadlock or pointed to individuals linked to Russian intelligence agencies.

Navalny's personal experience is more representative. In August 2020, he was sent to Germany for treatment after falling into a coma in Siberia. The German government announced at the time that traces of the Novichok nerve agent were found in his body. Although Russian authorities denied it, the recent five-country accusation regarding epibatidine points to another poisoning incident. This means that after surviving in 2020, Navalny ultimately died under prison custody due to another chemical agent. This pattern reinforces the view that eliminating political opponents may be seen as an acceptable risk management measure within certain decision-making circles.

The Practical Dilemmas of Legal Accountability

A key action of the five-nation statement is to submit Russia's violations of the Chemical Weapons Convention to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. This is a procedural step to initiate international accountability, but the realistic prospects are not optimistic. As a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council with veto power, Russia makes it difficult for any mandatory sanctions or accountability resolutions under the UN framework to pass. Looking back at the Skripal case and the Litvinenko case, the response from Western countries mainly involved symbolic sanctions such as expelling diplomats, imposing asset freezes, and travel bans. While these measures can express political stances, they have failed to alter Russia's behavioral patterns.

The deeper dilemma lies in the application of judicial evidence. Although the five countries claim to possess conclusive toxicological evidence, it is nearly impossible to link such scientific evidence directly to specific state directives and executors in an international court or a Russian court, thereby forming a complete chain of evidence. The Russian Prosecutor General's Office has already refused to initiate a criminal investigation into Navalny's death, with the official stance being a denial of all allegations. Following the release of the statement, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova quickly dismissed the poison dart frog theory as propaganda. This cycle of investigation-denial-deadlock has repeatedly occurred in a series of past cases, highlighting the structural challenges of holding major powers substantively accountable through judicial means.

The Shadow of Chemical Weapons and European Security

The impact of this incident extends beyond the individual case, touching a sensitive nerve in Europe's security architecture—the use of weapons of mass destruction. At the conclusion of their statement, the five nations emphasized: "We are even more concerned that Russia has not destroyed its entire chemical weapons stockpile." This statement echoes the lingering doubts from when Russia announced the completion of its chemical weapons destruction program in 2017. Linking Navalny's death to the issue of Russia's chemical weapons stockpile control essentially redefines the nature of the threat: Russia's actions are not only a violation of domestic human rights but also a challenge to the international arms control system and security norms.

From a strategic perspective, this has intensified the security anxieties that have emerged in Europe since the outbreak of the Ukraine war in 2022. Countries on NATO's eastern flank, particularly the Baltic states and Poland, have long warned about Russia's hybrid warfare tactics, including the use of non-traditional weapons such as chemical or biological agents for assassinations or to sow panic. The release of evidence in the Navalny case provides new grounds for these concerns. It may prompt European nations to further adjust their security policies, including strengthening capabilities against chemical terrorism, deepening intelligence sharing, and incorporating the behavioral patterns of the regime into the assessment framework when formulating long-term strategies toward Russia. After meeting with Navalnaya in Munich, UK Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper stated that these findings reveal the Kremlin's brutal plan for silencing his voice. Such rhetoric itself serves to securitize the incident and seeks policy coordination within the alliance.

Navalny has been dead for two years, and the truth about his death is unlikely to be officially recognized in court for the foreseeable future. However, the significance of this evidence jointly submitted by five countries does not lie in whether it can initiate successful international litigation. It is more like an official record archived in history, using scientific data and the joint credibility of five sovereign nations to lock in one version of the narrative. In an era where relations between Moscow and the West have hit rock bottom, this case will not bring reconciliation, but it deepens a chasm of trust, prompting the world to once again examine how close those lethal weapons hidden in the shadows are to ordinary lives when power goes unchecked.