Alexej Navalny: What does the poison attack mean for relations between Germany and Russia

What happened?

Russian Kremlin critic Alexej Navalny fell into a coma on a flight in his home country on August 20, then was flown to Germany at the insistence of his family and treated at the Berlin Charité. There he is in the intensive care unit and is artificially ventilated. On Wednesday, the federal government announced that it had provided “unequivocal evidence” that he had been poisoned with a nerve chemical from the Novichok group. A special laboratory of the Bundeswehr has determined this.

Chancellor Angela Merkel reacted extremely brusquely and unusually clear. She spoke of an “attempted poisoning” of one of the leading Russian opposition figures: “It should be silenced.” Now there are “very serious questions” that only the Russian government can and should answer, Merkel said: “The world will wait for answers.” Merkel’s choice of words shows that the German government is prepared to put the relationship with Russia to the test in light of its findings.

Who examined Navalny in Germany? Are the results reliable?

The Charité quickly put the Bundeswehr into the investigation. Civil experts in Berlin soon concluded that Navalny had been poisoned. But the substance itself could not be isolated. The Bundeswehr also needed a few days in a special laboratory in Munich, then came to the clear conclusion that Navalny had come into contact with a poison from the Novitschok group. There were only minimal traces, but experts found the internationally illegal substance in skin, blood and urine samples. The results are reliable.

What responsibility does Vladimir Putin have for the poison attack?

Ironically, the fact that the Russian president is responsible for the various attacks against members of the opposition and dissidents is due to his almost unlimited power. Even within the German government there is now the conviction that the regular series of assassinations or poison attacks against political opponents in an authoritarian state like Russia was tolerated by the Kremlin or, in the worst case, even orchestrated by the powerful secret services. and the Kremlin nodded.

In the case of Navalny, there are two more points: On the one hand, the use of the neurotoxin of the Novitschok group is considered an advantage in the leadership of the Kremlin. Russia had developed the poison and strictly protected it because of its dangerousness. As a result, it is difficult to imagine that the material could be used without the help of the state apparatus. Furthermore, Navalny was monitored at all times by the secret service, making an assassination attempt by criminals or other Navalny opponents seem almost impossible.

What is Putin’s strategy?

Under his leadership, dealing with critics has intensified and members of the opposition are arrested, persecuted or killed. With Navalny, he has now struck out at Putin’s most prominent and powerful critic. It is unclear why he was poisoned now and who ultimately commissioned the attack. The Kremlin rejects any responsibility and relies on misinformation rather than education.

Since Navalny’s admission to the hospital, rumors about previous illnesses, medications and the influence of alcohol have spread in media close to the Kremlin; a Kremlin spokesman later announced that he would seek a “provocation” from Germany and the West. This mixture of defense and attack is intended to cast doubt on the Western statement and buy time for the Kremlin.

Now we are talking about sanctions against Russia. What are possible?

If Moscow’s response to the federal government’s accusations is not satisfactory, then, in addition to political reactions, economic sanctions in particular are conceivable. Because trade policy is the responsibility of the EU, Germany has to coordinate with the other 27 member states.

It would be conceivable to ban the export of capital goods such as production facilities and other machines that affect the extraction of Russian raw materials, for example. However, this would also make it difficult to import oil and gas from Russia, for example.

Just as difficult would be to prohibit the export of consumer goods. That would affect luxury car makers that are in demand in Russia, among others. For its part, the Kremlin could, in retaliation for sanctions, ban these imports and thus damage the German and European economies. So it might be easier to freeze the assets of Kremlin people or other regime favorites in Germany or Europe.

Are there no sanctions against Russia already?

Yes, EU sanctions have been in place since the beginning of the Ukraine crisis. In 2014, Russia annexed Crimea and supported pro-Russian separatists in the war in eastern Ukraine. The reaction of the Europeans: First, measures were taken against individuals and entities “that undermine the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine.”

This includes travel restrictions and freezing of funds. It affects the separatists and their Russian supporters. Economic relations with Crimea were largely disrupted and trade restrictions and import bans have been applied since then.

After Flight MH17 was shot down over Ukraine in July 2014, sanctions were tightened and are now also directed directly against the Russian economy. For example, the EU restricted access to the European capital market for certain Russian banks and companies. It also imposed an arms embargo and made it difficult to access technologies and services in the field of oil production. Since then, all sanctions have been repeatedly extended.

What role will the planned Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline play in the Navalny case?

It is becoming more and more focused. In particular, the Greens and parts of the FDP are calling for the nearly completed billion-euro project to be halted. “The whole project must now be put to the test,” said FDP politician Bijan Djir-Sarai. Party leader Christian Lindner said in the morning magazine ARD: “A regime that organizes poisonous assassinations is not a partner for large cooperation projects, not even for oil pipeline projects.” Foreign green politician Omid Nouripour demanded: “The German government must finally withdraw from this gas project.” The federal government, especially the SPD, has so far stuck to the project.

Nord Stream 2 is the extension of the current Nord Stream gas pipeline from the Baltic Sea, through which natural gas has flowed from Russia to Germany since 2011. In reality, the new pipeline is supposed to import up to 55 billion cubic meters of natural gas per year, the total production of the two gas pipelines would then amount to around 110 billion cubic meters. Nord Stream 2 consists of two pipelines, each 1230 kilometers long, running from the Russian Bay of Narva through the Baltic Sea to Lubmin near Greifswald. The project is almost finished, only about 150 kilometers of pipes are missing.

The sole shareholder is the Russian state company Gazprom, which will cover half of the total anticipated costs of 9.5 billion euros. The remainder is financed by the five European energy companies Uniper (Germany), OMV Austria, Engie (France), Wintershall (Germany) and Shell (Holland). The project was controversial from the start, and EU partners from Poland and the Baltic countries in particular fear that Russia is pursuing geostrategic goals with Nord Stream 2 and may use gas as a means of pressure. There is also strong criticism of the project from the United States.

Are there critics of Nord Stream 2 in the field of government?

The clear words come from the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Norbert Röttgen (CDU). If the project were completed now, it would be a confirmation and an encouragement for Vladimir Putin to continue precisely this policy, Röttgen said: “The only language Putin understands is that of difficulties.” The head of the PPE Group in the EU Parliament and Vice-President of the CSU, Manfred Weber, has long been a critic of the project: “Germany’s rigid adherence to Nord Stream 2 has been causing frustration in Europe for years. You have to understand that also in Berlin “Weber told SPIEGEL. The Navalny poisoning is now a “serious new development.” The end of Nord Stream 2 should no longer be ruled out.

Does Germany need gas from the pipeline?

The Federal Ministry of Economy is supporting the construction of the gas pipeline because the European gas market will change significantly in the coming years. Deliveries from the UK, the Netherlands and Norway will decline, which could drive up prices, unless new sources are found, such as those found through the Nordstream tube. Furthermore, with the phase-out of coal-fired electricity generation and the end of nuclear power, natural gas will become more important, also to offset fluctuating electricity returns from the wind and the sun.