Dart frogs in captivity do not produce the toxin, and it is not found naturally in Russia, five European governments said.

cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/55370711

cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/55370708

Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, who died in a remote Siberian prison two years ago, was almost certainly poisoned with a deadly toxin found in South American dart frogs, five European governments said Saturday.

A joint statement from Britain, France, Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands said they were “confident” Navanly had been poisoned after an analysis of samples taken from his body “conclusively confirmed the presence of epibatidine,” and that the Russian government was the likely culprit.

“Russia claimed that Navalny died of natural causes. But given the toxicity of epibatidine and reported symptoms, poisoning was highly likely the cause of his death. Navalny died while held in prison, meaning Russia had the means, motive and opportunity to administer this poison to him,” it continued.

The five countries said they were reporting the case to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, alleging Russia violated the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Russian authorities had previously claimed Navalny, 47, died of natural causes while serving several sentences totaling more than 30 years at a high-security prison above the Arctic Circle.

“Scientists from five European countries have established: my husband, Alexei Navalny, was poisoned with epibatidine—a neurotoxin, one of the deadliest poisons on earth. In nature, this poison can be found on the skin of the Ecuadorian dart frog. It causes paralysis, respiratory arrest, and a painful death,” she said.

“I was certain from the first day that my husband had been poisoned, but now there is proof: Putin killed Alexei with chemical weapon. I am grateful to the European states for the meticulous work they carried out over two years and for uncovering the truth. Vladimir Putin is a murderer. He must be held accountable for all his crimes.”

French Foreign Minister Jean-Noël Barrot said the poisoning shows that “Vladimir Putin is prepared to use chemical weapons against his own people to remain in power. France pays tribute to this opposition figure, killed for his fight in favor of a free and democratic Russia.”

British Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper added: "Only the Russian government had the means, the motive, and the opportunity to use that toxin against Alexei Navalny in prison. We are here today to shine a spotlight on the Kremlin’s barbaric attempt to silence Alexei Navalny’s voice.”

Russia announced Navalny’s death on Feb. 16, 2024, just as that year’s Munich Security Conference opened. On that day, Navalnaya delivered a speech, pledging that Putin “would pay for what they have done to our country, to my family, and to my husband.” After a weeklong dispute over custody, Russia released Navalny’s body to his mother.

  • freagle@lemmy.mlEnglish
    31·
    2 days ago

    typically rejected or at least heavily qualified by most actual academics

    This is more of a continuation of the university system being a tool of empire than it is representative of which ideas are worthy of merit. We cannot forget the role that American medical colleges, like Harvard, played in the propagation and development of race “science” to justify slavery, nor can we forget that these academic institutions not only have not engaged in full truth and reconciliation about their past but actively fight against any such movement.

    We see today the university system fighting against pro-Palestinian movements and we think somehow that they are bastions of independent thought after a century of not merely purging their ranks during 2 red scares and a yellow peril but actively engaging in the development of academic anti-communism, academic Russophobia, and academic yellow peril?

    Zizek is a really good example of the way Western academia and anti-communism work together to control what is considered “valid” discourse. Zizek is promoted as a “leftist”. Meanwhile, he was a literal anti-communist in Slovenia. But, in American academics, he styles himself as a lefist. How are we to interpret this? Well, through his conclusions, which always support American and European imperialism, no matter how brutal, and always oppose any movement that is against the interests of the West.

    This is the state of academia. Where someone like Michael Parenti could never secure a position but Chomsky can. What are the major things that separate Parenti and Chomsky? 1) Chomsky was a linguist and Parenti was a historian 2) Chomsky critiqued empire but sided with it while Parenti critiqued empire and did not side with it 3) Epstein.

    Western academia is not separate and apart from Western empire. On the contrary, it’s an integral part of the maintenance of empire. Revolutions, generally speaking, do not come from academia, they come either from the military or the masses. And when they come, academia goes through a purge precisely because it is a tool of the ruling class.