UK and allies say epibatidine killed Navalny in 2024
Two years after Alexei Navalny died in a Siberian penal colony on 16 February 2024, the UK and several European allies say they have identified the poison: epibatidine, a compound derived from dart frog toxins. Announced at the Munich Security Conference in mid‑February 2026, the finding comes with a clear political charge as governments hold the Russian state responsible for his death while under custody.
UK Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper said there was no innocent reason for epibatidine to appear in material taken from Navalny’s body. A joint statement from the UK, Sweden, France, Germany and the Netherlands argued that only the Russian authorities had the means, motive and opportunity during his imprisonment. Moscow, via the state agency Tass, dismissed the claim as an “information campaign”. At Munich, Cooper also met Navalny’s widow, Yulia Navalnaya, who has long argued he was poisoned.
Let’s straighten out the science you can teach in class. Epibatidine is a naturally occurring alkaloid first identified in a small poison dart frog species native to the north of South America. Researchers once explored it as a painkiller because it is extraordinarily potent - BBC Russian quoted toxicologist Jill Johnson describing its analgesic strength as around 200 times that of morphine - but it is far too toxic for medical use.
What does epibatidine do to the body? It targets nicotinic acetylcholine receptors in the nervous system. When these receptors are over‑activated, muscles can twitch and then fail, seizures can begin, the heart rate can slow, and breathing can stop. This pathway is different to the Novichok nerve agents used against Navalny in 2020, but the end result - catastrophic nervous system failure - can look grimly similar.
Why the frog detail matters for evidence: in the wild, only one frog species produces epibatidine and only when its diet supplies the right building blocks. Frogs raised in captivity do not make it at all. That shuts down theories of accidental exposure and points instead to a laboratory route. Producing and delivering a rare neurotoxin inside a high‑security prison suggests access, planning and specialist chemistry that are usually found in state systems.
How do investigators reach attribution? Forensic teams work with chain‑of‑custody samples from the body and belongings. Laboratories use techniques such as mass spectrometry to look for chemical fingerprints and metabolites. Officials then compare those results with what they know about who controlled the victim’s environment. A toxin not found naturally in Russia, detected in a prisoner under total state control, narrows the field fast.
The UK says it has informed the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons about a likely breach of the Chemical Weapons Convention. The treaty bans using any toxic chemical to harm people, whether it comes from nature or a laboratory. If the OPCW becomes involved, it can support technical clarification and report to member states, who decide next steps - from questions to Moscow to potential sanctions.
Russia rejects the accusation. Kremlin spokesperson Maria Zakharova called the announcement a Western distraction. Here’s a media‑literacy move for your classroom: separate claims from evidence. Note what is public (the stated detection of epibatidine), what is denied (state responsibility), and what would count as disproof (credible alternative source, method, or chain‑of‑custody flaw). This keeps discussion grounded when politics and science collide.
Yulia Navalnaya has pushed for answers since February 2024. She previously said tests on smuggled biological samples pointed to murder and challenged the laboratories to publish. After this weekend’s update she thanked European governments for two years of work and said the finding matches what she believed from day one.
Remember the wider story. Navalny, Russia’s best‑known anti‑corruption campaigner, survived a Novichok attack in 2020, recovered in Germany, and then returned to Moscow where he was arrested on charges widely condemned as politically motivated. According to Russian accounts, he felt unwell after a short walk in his Siberian penal colony and collapsed. He was 47.
What does this mean for you as a learner or teacher? It shows how chemistry underpins accountability. Scientific claims rest on methods you can explain: how samples are collected, how results are replicated, and which bodies oversee the process. Track the timeline, check the language officials use - “means, motive, opportunity” - and watch whether independent organisations, such as the OPCW, are invited to test the case.
If you are teaching this tomorrow, try a simple exercise: write one paragraph setting out the claims from each side, then one paragraph translating epibatidine’s effects into plain English without jargon. By doing both, you join the dots between toxicology, international law and civic responsibility - and you model careful, evidence‑first thinking.