UK confirms Russia poisoned Navalny with epibatidine

Here’s the news in plain English. On 14 February 2026, the UK Foreign Office said laboratory tests on samples from Alexei Navalny’s body detected epibatidine, a rare toxin linked to South American dart frogs. The UK says Russia is responsible and has notified the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). The timing coincides with the Munich Security Conference and the second anniversary of Navalny’s death on 16 February 2024. (gov.uk)

What this means in law: the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) bans using any toxic chemical as a weapon, not just famous gases on set “lists”. Article I prohibits use outright, and Article II defines a toxic chemical as any substance that can cause death or harm through chemical action. If a state uses a toxic chemical to hurt people, it breaches the treaty. (opcw.org)

Quick science bit you can teach: epibatidine is a naturally occurring alkaloid first isolated from Ecuadorian poison dart frogs. Captive frogs don’t make it, and the compound acts on nicotinic acetylcholine receptors; researchers once explored it as a painkiller because it’s far more potent than morphine, but it’s too toxic for safe medical use. (edu.rsc.org)

Why the UK points to the Kremlin: officials argue only the Russian state had the means, motive and opportunity to administer such a rare agent while Navalny was imprisoned. Partner governments in Europe echoed the finding as the joint announcement was made in Munich; Russia denies wrongdoing. For students tracking sources, note the attribution to governments and labs, and that Moscow disputes it. (gov.uk)

How could a poison be confirmed two years on? States can retain and securely share biological samples for cross‑checking in accredited labs. The UK says partner laboratories in Sweden, France, the Netherlands and Germany contributed to the analysis, a standard practice in sensitive cases so findings don’t rest on a single lab. (gov.uk)

Setting the timeline helps: Navalny died on 16 February 2024 at Penal Colony IK‑3 in Kharp while serving a 19‑year sentence widely condemned as politically driven. Hours later his widow, Yulia Navalnaya, addressed the Munich Security Conference, where leaders held the Kremlin responsible in moral and political terms. Russian authorities have insisted on natural causes. (cnbc.com)

What happens when a state reports a breach: the OPCW can receive information from member states and, if requested through the Convention’s procedures, provide assistance or help examine alleged use. That process is technical and legal, not instant, and depends on formal requests and access. The UK says it has reported the case to the OPCW. (opcw.org)

A rule students often miss: “tear gas” can’t be used in war. The CWC explicitly bans using riot control agents as a method of warfare. Separately, the United States said in May 2024 that Russia used the choking agent chloropicrin in Ukraine, and Dutch and German intelligence later warned of increased use of banned chemicals; OPCW has said it is monitoring allegations. (opcw.org)

Why officials cite a pattern: international inspectors confirmed a Novichok nerve agent was used in the 2018 Salisbury attack on Sergei and Yulia Skripal. That case shaped how governments read later incidents linked to Russian security services. Understanding past, verified cases helps you evaluate new claims. (itv.com)

Important context for your lesson: Russia completed destruction of its declared chemical weapons stockpile in 2017 under OPCW verification, and by July 2023 all declared global stockpiles were destroyed. The CWC still applies if any toxic chemical is used as a weapon-declared stockpile destruction doesn’t legalise new or undeclared use. (opcw.org)

Media literacy tip: when governments make forensic claims, look for who did the testing, whether more than one lab was involved, which treaty body is being notified, and exact dates. Here, the UK cites multi‑country lab work and says it has reported the case to the OPCW on 14 February 2026, with public statements anchored to the Munich conference. (gov.uk)

What it means for students and teachers: if a substance isn’t on a specific “schedule”, it can still be illegal as a weapon because the Convention covers any toxic chemical used to cause harm. That’s why a frog‑derived alkaloid, not designed as a battlefield agent, still falls under the ban when used to kill. (opcw.org)