Was Navalny's poisoning by frog toxin a message from the Russian state? The choice of poison may have been peculiar, but experts are divided on whether it was intended to send a message.
Epibatidine, the poison extracted from dart frogs, is not something one would accidentally ingest. The UK government has stated that only the Russian state had the means, motive, and opportunity to deploy this lethal toxin to target Navalny during his imprisonment in Siberia.
While epibatidine is a powerful painkiller, hundreds of times more potent than morphine, its use in this case was more sinister. The poison causes muscle paralysis, leading to suffocation, and there is no known antidote.
The use of epibatidine is not entirely obscure. It has been studied as a painkiller for lung conditions, but its high toxicity makes it unsuitable for therapeutic use. Researchers in Russia and other countries have been attempting to create similar chemicals, hoping to harness its analgesic properties without the toxicity.
Russia has a history of poisoning those who pose a threat. The former KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko died after radioactive polonium-210 was slipped into his green tea, and the former Russian agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia survived being poisoned by the nerve agent novichok.
The UK foreign secretary, Yvette Cooper, suggested that the use of epibatidine in the killing of Navalny conveyed a message. She argued that Russia saw Navalny as a threat and that the use of this poison demonstrated the despicable tools at the Russian state's disposal and its overwhelming fear of political opposition.
However, some experts believe that the situation is less clear. The potency of the poison means only a small quantity would be present in the body, making detection difficult. The identification of the toxin was only possible due to state-of-the-art instruments and samples from Navalny's body, which his widow claims were smuggled out of Russia.
Dr Brett Edwards, an expert in biological and chemical weapons, suggests that if the goal was to avoid detection, there were many other poisons that could have been used. He believes that the choice of epibatidine was deliberate, as was the case with the novichok poisonings.
Dr Luca Trenta, an associate professor of international relations, notes that the case does not appear to involve overt signalling, unlike the attacks on Litvinenko or the Skripals. He suggests that Russia might have been testing the use of epibatidine, showcasing its capabilities if the toxin was discovered, or simply using a particularly hideous weapon in revenge.
In the end, the use of epibatidine raises questions about Russia's capabilities and its disregard for international norms, but it ultimately remains a case of political murder, a standard tactic for the Russian state.
