Russia’s Position
Official position
At the moment, Russia has an official version of what happened with Navalny. It is set out in the results of the pre-investigation check, which is described in more detail in the “Criminal Case” section. The check lasted six months and established that the poisoning of Navalny was a staged act for the sake of political provocation. This staging was carried out by Alexei's associates, most notably Maria Pevchikh, who took the water bottles from the hotel — or rather, carried out a “demonstrative act of breaking into the hotel room.” And Alexei himself and his wife acted as accomplices, because they concealed from the organs “the signs of the development of the disease preceding the incident.” No criminal case was initiated following the check.
Here is an excerpt from this conclusion — the full version is attached below:
The data obtained in the course of the criminal procedural check indicates that it was a staging planned in advance by persons from the entourage of A. A. Navalny of a series of events related to the hospitalization of the latter with the aim of preparing a provocation for political purposes.
In particular, on 20.08.2020, while media reported a possible poisoning of A.A. Navalny at the airport of Tomsk, a group of persons including M. K. Pevchikh, V. K. Los, G. V. Alburov and A. V. Timofeev carried out a demonstrative act of breaking into the room of Xander Hotel and taking several water bottles from there without the consent of the hotel staff, which is confirmed by the statements of its employees (T.O. Litvinova and O.S. Zlatkus). At the same time, such actions were not carried out in other organizations and food outlets at the place of stay of A. A. Navalny. The aforementioned items were not handed over to the law enforcement agencies of the Russian Federation, and none of the participants in the penetration were able to report their further whereabouts.
According to public statements of M. K. Pevchikh, the water bottles were delivered by her personally to the Charité clinic (Berlin). At the same time, it has been reliably established that during the pre-flight inspection at the airport of Novosibirsk (on the day of A. A. Navalny's hospitalization), only one such container was transported in her carry-on luggage.
M. K. Pevchikh avoided participating in the proceedings within the framework of the inspection, the Federal Republic of Germany, upon request for legal assistance, refused to interview her due to the lack of information about the whereabouts of the latter. However, according to data published in the media interviews and photographs with positioning in specific locations in Berlin), Pevchikh M. K. is currently in Germany.
During a survey, Y. B. Navalnaya and A. A. Navalny concealed the signs of the development of the disease in the latter prior to the incident, which was established by highly qualified medical specialists and forensic examinations.
Thus, according to the results of the procedural check, no sufficient data indicating either the presence of signs of a crime event under Part 1 of Art. 111 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, or any other harm caused to A. A. Navalny A.A., has been found.
Versions of officials
The version of a staging began to be voiced publicly already in the first week after the poisoning. As such, on August 25 Chairman of the State Duma Vyacheslav Volodin asked the question: “Could this be a provocation on the part of Germany and other EU countries, designed to formulate new accusations against our country?” At the same time, he instructed the deputies to make inquiries to law enforcement agencies — as the chairman of the Committee on Security and Combating Corruption commented, “there is reason to believe that what happened to Navalny could be an attempt at foreign intervention in order to threaten the life and health of a Russian citizen and cause tension inside our country.”
The Foreign Ministry asked a similar question on August 25: “At the same time, the attention of the American interlocutor was directed to the suspicious haste with which the version of the deliberate poisoning of Navalny was picked up in Washington and Brussels. The question inevitably arises — who benefits from it? The Russian leadership clearly does not.”
On September 3, Volodin repeated the same thought more confidently: “What’s happening around the situation with Navalny is increasingly proving that this is a planned action against Russia, in order to impose new sanctions as a result and try to restrain the development of our country."
The same version was supported by the “negotiations between Nick and Mike” allegedly intercepted by the Belarusian special services, from which it followed that Navalny wasn’t poisoned and all this was a provocation of the German authorities. However, even the Russian state propaganda was skeptical about this hoax.
On October 1, Peskov claimed that CIA specialists were working with Navalny. Vyacheslav Volodin spoke about this on the same day: “It is quite obvious that Navalny is working with the special services and authorities of Western countries. He works in their interests.” A statement from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of November 6 says: “Everything that is happening is an amateurishly staged performance, the main idea of which is another “shot” of sanctions against Russia.” After the publication of the conversation with Kudryavtsev, the FSB stated that “the use of the method of substituting a subscriber number is a well-known technique of foreign special services, previously tested more than once in anti-Russian actions”.
At the same time, Russian officials do not seem to have a consensus on whether the poisoning itself took place. On September 15, the head of the Foreign Intelligence Service Sergei Naryshkin said: “At the time when Alexei Navalny flew out of Russia, his body did not contain any toxic substances. In this regard, we, of course, have many questions for the German side.” On November 12, Sergey Lavrov spoke out more definitely: “We have every reason to believe that everything that happened to him in terms of the penetration of chemical warfare agents into his body could have happened in Germany or on the plane where he was loaded and taken to the Charité clinic.” No evidence was provided for this. All accusations against the West remain absolutely unfounded.
In addition, on September 22, the French newspaper Le Monde, citing an unnamed source, wrote that Vladimir Putin, in a conversation with French President Emmanuel Macron, suggested that Navalny could have ingested Novichok himself.
The statements made by Russian doctors and medical officials boil down to the fact that there was no poisoning. On August 21, Alexander Murakhovsky, chief physician of the Omsk hospital where Navalny was admitted, said that the main provisional diagnosis was a metabolic disorder caused by a drop in blood sugar. The Omsk Ministry of Health announced on August 22 that alcohol and caffeine were found in Navalny's samples. Chief toxicologist of the Omsk Oblast Alexander Sabaev claimed that Navalny had problems with digestion related to diets before hospitalization, and unequivocally rejected the version of poisoning. This corresponds to the above conclusion, according to which Navalny and his wife allegedly concealed Alexei's existing diseases from the investigation.
On August 1, Sergei Naryshkin said in an interview with Vladimir Solovyov that the Foreign Intelligence Service knew “part of the truth” about what happened to Navalny, and suggested that the toxic substances were added to Alexei's biomaterials outside of Russia. On December 15, in another interview, Naryshkin called the poisoning of Navalny “an operation with the blogger playing the role of a 'sacred victim'” and said that “the West still has not given any intelligible explanation for the appearance of traces a chemical warfare agent in the samples of a Russian citizen after he was sent to Berlin.”
Claims against Germany
On September 2, German Chancellor Angela Merkel issued a statement on Navalny's poisoning. She said that experts from the Bundeswehr had found Novichok in Alexei’s samples, and said: “We expect the Russian government to provide an explanation on this matter. Now extremely serious questions arise that only the Russian government can and must answer.”
In response, Russia has chosen a coherent defense strategy: insist that the accusations are groundless, and constantly demand that Germany, as well as other countries and independent organizations, “present evidence.”
On September 2, Maria Zakharova stated: “Once again we are witnessing a situation when our partners prefer loud public statements without presenting any substance and completely neglecting existing legal mechanisms of cooperation to thorough work based on concrete facts and evidence and substantive interaction between law enforcement agencies and medical institutions.” Since then, dozens of similar statements have already been made. The Russian side demands month after month to provide them with some kind of data and is outraged that this is not happening. Lavrov claims that the German authorities “refuse categorically to fulfill their obligations under the European Convention on Legal Assistance and to respond to official requests from the Prosecutor General's Office.”
The Prosecutor General's Office of Russia has already sent eight requests to the German side. It demands to be provided with data on what Navalny is being treated with, whether he suffers from diabetes mellitus, what his glucose level was when he entered Charité, and so on. The Prosecutor General's Office sends these requests under the European Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters and accuses Germany of violating the convention:
The Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation, after studying the materials transferred by Germany about the alleged complete fulfillment of requests for legal assistance regarding the hospitalization of A.A. Navalny, sent another request to the competent judicial authorities of the Federal Republic of Germany.
Since most of the petitions of the Russian investigative body were rejected, and the transferred interrogation protocols of A.A. Navalny and his wife turned out to be meaningless, the Prosecutor General's Office of Russia regarded this as a complete failure to comply with Russian requests for legal assistance on formal grounds.
Considering the statement by the official representative of the Federal Office of Justice of the Federal Republic of Germany about the proper fulfillment by the German side of its obligations on legal assistance, this particular circumstance, in fact, testifies to the concealment of the true circumstances of the incident.
From the statement of the Prosecutor General's Office of Russia
However, the mechanism of mutual legal assistance referred to by Russia only works when the requesting party has initiated a criminal case and is conducting its own investigation. Accordingly, Germany has no obligations to Russia. It did not investigate the poisoning of Navalny and could not investigate it, since this crime did not take place on the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany. Germany responds to inquiries in a logical way — it calls on Russia to start an investigation and adds: “All the necessary data to start criminal proceedings, such as samples of blood and tissue and Navalny's clothes, are at the disposal of Russia.” You can see for yourselves that this is really the case by studying the “Hospitalization in Omsk” section.
On January 28, 2022 Sergey Lavrov gave an interview to several radio stations. He once again accused Germany of not answering Russia's questions, and then blurted out a lie that had not been said on air before: allegedly, a medical flight for Navalny “was ordered one day before he became unwell.” Lavrov finished on a familiar note: “So far I am inclined to believe that the West has no reason to accuse us and all this was orchestrated with the aim of provocation.”
Claims against the OPCW
Russia is making similar claims to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which, at the request of Germany, conducted an independent examination and confirmed that Navalny was poisoned with a substance from the Novichok group. As a result of the examination, 56 countries turned to Russia with a demand to start an investigation. However, Russia refused to initiate it, questioned the conclusions of the OPCW and once again demanded proof.
In an official statement from Russia, published on the OPCW website, the following is said:
To put it bluntly, we see that the situation in the OPCW is inexorably sliding downhill, or, in other words, degrading. It would seem that all 193 parties to the Convention are interested in strengthening it. In fact, we are dealing with an outrageous politicization of the work of the OPCW, we practically speak in different languages and do not hear each other. Adherence to the principle of consensus is already out of the question, and more and more hysteria is kindled even around issues that are technical by their nature.
On October 1, even before the results of the OPCW investigation became known, Russia invited the OPCW Technical Secretariat to conduct an independent examination. The very next day, consent was obtained. However, the visit did not take place, as Russia began to put forward demands that run counter to the adopted regulations of the organization. All this can be seen in the officially published correspondence between the OPCW Directorate and the Russian side. Here is an excerpt from a letter dated November 11, which shows that Russia is proposing to the OPCW a joint investigation in a St. Petersburg laboratory:
Upon completion of consultations in Moscow, the OPCW experts are invited to jointly study with Russian specialists the remaining volumes of biomaterials collected from A.Navalny in Omsk at the OPCW-certified 62nd Laboratory of Chemical Analytical Control and Biotesting, Research Institute of Hygiene, Occupational Pathology and Human Ecology (RIHOPHE) of the Federal Medical-Biological Agency of Russia (Saint-Petersburg) using the specialized equipment and reagents delivered to Russia by representatives of the Secretariat (similar to those used in two other designated OPCW laboratories for the analysis of samples previously taken from A.Navalny at the Charité hospital).
The OPCW replied that such a procedure is not applicable and they are ready to conduct a completely independent examination, the same as they did at the request of Germany. The letter describes the procedure for this examination: OPCW specialists take samples and send them for analysis to specially authorized laboratories to ensure the independence of research. However, Russia refused such a procedure, accusing the OPCW of bias and of fulfilling the “political order” of the Euro-Atlantic community.
As a result, the Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying that the OPCW was again “held hostage” by those who persistently seek to use it in their geopolitical interests. The Permanent Representative of Russia accused the OPCW of disrupting the investigation. The Russian side makes accusations against the OPCW almost as often as against Germany. The official position is that Russia is ready to conduct an investigation, but they refuse to cooperate with it and do not provide it with the necessary data. In addition, Russia claims that part of the data on the poisonous substance has been removed from the secret report of the OPCW, and demands to show it the full version of the report provided to Germany. That said, Russia has no obstacles to receiving a similar report if it applies to the Technical Secretariat with a request for an independent examination.
In July 2021, a regular session of the OPCW Executive Council was held. It presented a draft report on the implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention in 2020. There was a misprint in the report — it was indicated that the Technical Secretariat sent a group of experts to assist Germany on August 20. The typo was soon corrected, as announced by the German Foreign Ministry, but in Russia this launched a new wave of accusations and propaganda. Maria Zakharova said that the OPCW is “loudly silent” in response to questions about inconsistencies in the report and called what was happening “a series of forgeries”, and the Permanent Representative of Russia to the OPCW, commenting on the situation, said: “It seems that a certain group of countries, everyone knows them, is trying to keep the topic of Navalny's alleged poisoning afloat.”
On August 18, 2021, in the wake of the anniversary of Navalny's poisoning, the Foreign Ministry issued a press release, which once again contained the aforementioned claims against Germany and the OPCW. The Foreign Ministry said: “The actions taken over the past 12 months by the German authorities and their allies clearly indicate that a planned provocation was carried out against our country, aimed at discrediting the Russian Federation in the eyes of the world community and damaging its national interests.”
A new round of correspondence with the OPCW began in the fall of 2021, when questions were sent to Russia regarding the poisoning of Navalny. Instead of replies, Russia once again put forward claims to the OPCW and a number of Western countries. Read more about this in the “International Position” section.
Versions of the propaganda
If in the statements of Russian officials, one can see a general line (which boils down to the fact that everything that happened to Navalny is the intrigues of the West), then the state propaganda offers a very motley set of completely wild options.
The first of them began to appear immediately after the poisoning. Alexei abused alcohol the night before in Kaftanchikovo. He switched to a new diet. He was poisoned by a hallucinogenic substance. He didn't eat a sweet on time and fell into a hypoglycemic coma.
When information appeared that Novichok was found in Navalny's samples, propaganda forces were used to refute this version. Since the end of August, more and more statements have appeared from experts and pseudo-experts on chemical weapons, who assured that Navalny's symptoms did not correspond to a poisoning by Novichok. For example, Leonid Rink, one of the developers of Novichok, repeatedly spoke out on this occasion and categorically stated: “This is not Novichok, this is not a poisoning."
The discovery of cholinesterase inhibitors in Navalny’s body has been associated with the use of drugs that are used in the treatment of neurological and psychiatric diseases. Over the course of many months, the version that Navalny had poisoned himself with bad alcohol continued to surface — it was mentioned, among others, by Leonid Rink. Wilder suggestions were also put forward: RT chief editor Margarita Simonyan, for example, suggested that Navalny could have been poisoned by Khodorkovsky.
One of the versions, which was actively promoted by propaganda and supported on the level of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, is that Navalny poisoned himself with lithium, which he allegedly took while recovering from a mental disorder. It was put forward by a certain “doctor from Switzerland” Vladimir Kozak. He first appeared in a propaganda program by Vladimir Solovyov, and then wrote a letter to Sergei Lavrov, noting a number of contradictions in the Lancet article about Navalny's treatment. Lavrov posted an answer to Kozak; then the Foreign Ministry “sent a message to OPCW Director General Fernando Arias, as well as colleagues in Germany, France and Sweden with a request to comment on the concerns expressed in the letter.” Maria Zakharova then stated that the West rejects uncomfortable questions about Navalny. This is despite the fact that the conclusions of Kozak themselves do not stand up to criticism — for example, lithium is present in the blood of any person.
But the centerpiece of state propaganda was the attack on Maria Pevchikh, head of the FBK investigation department, who accompanied Navalny on the trip. Maria is unsubstantiatedly accused of working for British intelligence and contributing to the CIA's interference in the affairs of the Russian Federation. This has long been one of the key topics on federal channels. Sergei Lavrov stated on Solovyov’s show: “Maria Pevchikh surrounded herself with some kind of mystery. German colleagues are assisting her so that this “veil” does get ripped off. ” According to the investigation, Maria is the one responsible for the “staging” of the poisoning.
In November 2020, Maria Pevchikh released a video where she analyzed the attacks of the propagandists.
One of the main lines of attack is accusing Maria of theft and falsification of evidence. When it became known about Alexei's poisoning, FBK employees went to his hotel room and took water bottles from there, suggesting that traces of poison might have remained on them. These bottles were delivered to Omsk, and then, together with other Navalny's luggage, they we flown to Germany, where, as a result of an examination, traces of Novichok were found on two of them: obviously, Alexei first grabbed the poisoned clothes with his hand, and then the bottle.
The Russian authorities have put these bottles into the propaganda spotlight. Pictures from the Novosibirsk airport where you can see Maria Pevchikh buying a bottle from a vending machine were published, as well as X-rays of her luggage. Based on this, it was concluded that no bottles with traces of poison were brought to Germany. Foreign Ministry officials have raised the issue of the bottles in interviews and official statements. Peskov accused Alexei's associates of taking away the evidence. The topic of the bottles was harped on by propaganda. The pro-Russian ultra-right party “Alternative for Germany” appealed to the German government with parliamentary inquiries about the bottles.
Attacks are made not only on Maria, but also on other people from Navalny's entourage. One of the targets of the propaganda was his wife Yulia. In February 2021, Artemy Lebedev published information about her having a German citizenship (he himself was later forced to admit that this was a fake, but the information had already spread through the pro-government media). And Oleg Kashin said that Yulia Navalnaya's father was a KGB general living in London despite the fact that Julia's father was actually a research assistant and died in 1996.
As can be seen from all these examples, the strategy of state propaganda is to blur the topic, draw public attention to insignificant details, throw in unsupported versions in order to create a feeling of ambiguity and doubtfulness of everything related to Navalny's poisoning.
Putin’s comments
Vladimir Putin has spoken out several times about the poisoning of Navalny, although, as usual, he never said Alexei’s name. On October 22, 2020, Putin made a speech at a meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club and, in response to a question about Navalny, said the following:
We have heard many times about the poisoning, here and there. This is not the first time this has been said. This is the first thing. Second, if the authorities really wanted to poison the person you are talking about, they would hardly have sent him to Germany for treatment, now would they?
As soon as the wife of this citizen turned to me, I immediately instructed the prosecutor's office to check the possibility of allowing him to go abroad for treatment. I mean, they had the option to not let him out, because he had restrictions related to the judicial investigation and criminal case. He had travel restrictions. I immediately asked the Prosecutor General’s Office for permission to do this. And he left.
Then we were told that traces of Novichok, a notorious substance well-known all over the world, had been found. I said: well, give us the materials, please. First of all, the biological material and the official conclusion, so that we, in turn, can further investigate this and so that we have official and legal, formal grounds for initiating a criminal case. We haven’t asked for anything unusual, now have we? The Prosecutor General's Office, in accordance with our agreements with Germany, has repeatedly made official requests to provide us with these materials. What’s unusual about that? Moreover, in one of my conversations with one of the European leaders, I suggested that our specialists come to Germany together with French, German, Swedish specialists, work on the spot, and receive some materials. Then we could use these materials as the basis for initiating a criminal case. And if this is indeed a criminal event, investigate it. But nobody gives us anything. How do you explain why? There is no explanation, there is simply no explanation. What’s happening is strange.
Okay, they said: we found traces of Novichok there. Then everything was transferred to the OPCW, to the International Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. And suddenly we are told: this is not Novichok, this is something else. So is this Novichok or not Novichok? There are already doubts about what was said at the beginning. Well, let's investigate this together. I say this once again now: if this is so, then we will undoubtedly carry out this investigation. Unfortunately, we have had cases when public figures and businessmen were assassinated. And all this has been investigated in Russia, the perpetrators have been found and punished, which is important, everyone has been punished. In this case, too, we are ready to work with full dedication.
On December 17, after the release of the investigation, Putin held a press conference, during which he was also asked a question about Navalny. It was then that he uttered the famous “If they really wanted to [poison him], they probably would have brought it to the end.”
Now for the patient in the Berlin clinic. I have already said this many times, but I can only repeat a few things. By the way, Peskov just told me yesterday about the latest speculations in this regard regarding the data of our special services and so on. Listen, we perfectly understand what it is. Both in the first and in this case, it is legalization. This is not some kind of investigation, this is legalization of materials from the American special services.
Do you think that we do not know that they are tracking locations or what? Our special services understand this well and know it. And the employees of the FSB and other special bodies know and use telephones where they consider it necessary not to hide their location, and so on. But if it is so — and it is so, I assure you — it means that this patient of the Berlin clinic is supported by the special services, the American ones in this case. And if this is correct, then it is interesting, then our special services, of course, should look after him. But this does not mean at all that it is necessary to poison him. Who needs it? If they really wanted to, they probably would have brought it to the end. But when his wife turned to me, I immediately gave the command to release him for treatment in Germany, the very same moment.
At a press conference on December 23, 2022, Putin, in response to a question about Navalny, repeated the already mentioned propaganda theses and suggested to “turn this page”:
You mentioned the person who was allegedly poisoned. The Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation has sent multiple official inquiries asking to provide at least some materials corroborating that he was in fact poisoned. There are none. How can this be explained? Not a single thing about Novichok or whatever you call it.
We suggested that our specialists go there and join the investigation. I spoke with the President of France and the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, asking them to allow our specialists to come, take samples and verify things, so that we can at least have some grounds to open a criminal case. No response whatsoever. We ask them: how can this be explained? Silence. So, there is no need to discuss it, let us turn the page if there is nothing to say in response.
Statements about the poisoning of Navalny
Sergei Naryshkin, Director of the Foreign Intelligence Service
I just think there is no point in commenting on this rather stupid Russophobic propaganda ... We can assert that at the time when the blogger Navalny was on the territory of the Russian Federation, there were no toxic substances in his body. This is an indisputable fact.
Sergei Naryshkin, Director of the Foreign Intelligence Service
I just think there is no point in commenting on this rather stupid Russophobic propaganda ... We can assert that at the time when the blogger Navalny was on the territory of the Russian Federation, there were no toxic substances in his body. This is an indisputable fact.
Viacheslav Volodin, Chairman of the State Duma
I believed and still believe that he is a tool in achieving the goals set by foreign countries and special services, a pawn in this game, he was assigned a role. And they won’t let him go beyond those shores or, if you like, the restrictions that have been chosen for him. In addition, everything that is connected with his alleged poisoning makes me personally think that this is just a staging.
Viacheslav Volodin, Chairman of the State Duma
I believed and still believe that he is a tool in achieving the goals set by foreign countries and special services, a pawn in this game, he was assigned a role. And they won’t let him go beyond those shores or, if you like, the restrictions that have been chosen for him. In addition, everything that is connected with his alleged poisoning makes me personally think that this is just a staging.
Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of the Security Council
As I understand it, he recently said that he was healthy again. Well, thank God for that. Therefore, future arguments on this issue are apparently inappropriate.
Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of the Security Council
As I understand it, he recently said that he was healthy again. Well, thank God for that. Therefore, future arguments on this issue are apparently inappropriate.
Sergey Lavrov, Minister of Foreign Affairs
If you accuse, then prove the guilt. And if you say: “I won't tell you anything because it’s secret” or because the patient himself doesn’t allow it, then we have every reason to believe that this is a staging.
Sergey Lavrov, Minister of Foreign Affairs
If you accuse, then prove the guilt. And if you say: “I won't tell you anything because it’s secret” or because the patient himself doesn’t allow it, then we have every reason to believe that this is a staging.
Nikolay Patrushev, Secretary of the Security Council
There is zero evidence, there is no argumentation either, just some speculation that not even withstand an elementary check.
Nikolay Patrushev, Secretary of the Security Council
There is zero evidence, there is no argumentation either, just some speculation that not even withstand an elementary check.
Margarita Simonyan, editor-in-chief of Russia Today
The pre-investigation check did not find any [evidence of] poisoning... Every day Masha Zakharova and other wonderful people say: comrades Germans, comrades Europe and America, somebody, send us what you’ve found at Navalny. Then we will at least have grounds to investigate... Right now there is no reason to initiate [the case] — all the doctors were questioned, they did everything, nothing happened.
Margarita Simonyan, editor-in-chief of Russia Today
The pre-investigation check did not find any [evidence of] poisoning... Every day Masha Zakharova and other wonderful people say: comrades Germans, comrades Europe and America, somebody, send us what you’ve found at Navalny. Then we will at least have grounds to investigate... Right now there is no reason to initiate [the case] — all the doctors were questioned, they did everything, nothing happened.
Maria Zakharova, official representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
All this, apparently, hastily concocted provocation of the Euro-Atlantic “community” is so thinly veiled that upon closer examination any sane person will have a lot of questions about what actually happened to A. Navalny.
Maria Zakharova, official representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
All this, apparently, hastily concocted provocation of the Euro-Atlantic “community” is so thinly veiled that upon closer examination any sane person will have a lot of questions about what actually happened to A. Navalny.