30 October 202012:03

The Guardian about the incident with Alexey Navalny

  • en-GB1 ru-RU1


On October 16, 2020, The Guardian published an “exclusive” item explaining the “reasons” for the EU sanctions against Russian individuals and entities over the incident with Alexey Navalny. In particular, it claims that he was poisoned by “the FSB’s Second Service (SZKSiBT)” with a substance known in the West as nerve agent Novichok “to force him into exile.”

Using a traditional set of manipulations, the British newspaper cites two “anonymous sources” in the Western security services. It actually invites the readers to take this information at face value because neither the existence of these “sources” nor the reliability of their information can be verified. Moreover, these sources themselves admit that their “assertion is hard to test.” But The Guardian nevertheless regards it as “entirely plausible.”

The newspaper has also cited the official conclusions of the European Commission, according to which “it is reasonable to conclude that the poisoning was only possible with the involvement of the Federal Security Service,” because, first, Navalny had been put under surveillance by the FSB, and second, that the service allegedly has access to Novichok.

The European Commission’s speculative and unsubstantiated conclusions fit the general tone of the item. However, The Guardian has not reported that Russia destroyed all its chemical warfare agents and production equipment in full and ahead of time in 2017, in compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention and under international supervision.

Moreover, Russian representatives have pointed out on numerous occasions that the laboratories in Germany, France and Sweden, which claim that they had never synthesised Novichok, nevertheless quickly and unerringly found traces of Novichok in the samples taken from Navalny. This is clear proof that NATO and EU countries have long known about Novichok and had the necessary equipment for its synthesis and analysis. British journalists could find this subject interesting, but researching it would take them beyond the propaganda limits set in the Western mainstream media with regard to Russia.

The item published by The Guardian is yet another product of the never-ending anti-Russia campaign waged by biased British media outlets, which have abandoned professionalism and journalistic ethics out of opportunistic considerations.



Additional materials