News

Moscow – Lyudmila Navalnaya, the mother of deceased Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny, is demanding justice, stating she believes her son was deliberately murdered, not simply died in prison as Russian authorities claim. Her plea comes after a new investigation by five European countries pointed to the use of a rare neurotoxin in his death.

Navalnaya made the statement while visiting her son’s grave in Moscow on Saturday, February 16, 2026, marking the second anniversary of his death. The investigation, conducted by the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands, concluded that Navalny was poisoned with a potent toxin, epibatidine, found in the skin of poison dart frogs native to Ecuador. This finding directly challenges the official Russian narrative surrounding his death.

“This confirms what we knew from the beginning,” Navalnaya said, according to reports from Il Sole 24 Ore and La Milano. “We knew our son didn’t simply die in prison, but was murdered.” She expressed confidence that the perpetrators would eventually be identified and brought to justice, ideally within Russia.

The investigation revealed that the toxin used against Navalny is not naturally found in Russia, strongly suggesting a deliberate act of poisoning. The European nations involved have indicated they believe the Russian state had the “means, motive, and opportunity” to carry out the assassination, as reported by Adnkronos. These conclusions were presented at the Munich Security Conference and have been supported by several Western allies.

Investigation Details: A Rare and Deadly Toxin

Epibatidine, the neurotoxin identified in the investigation, is described as a highly lethal substance. Its presence on Navalny’s body points to intentional exposure, rather than natural causes. The investigation’s findings have reignited international tensions with Russia, which has dismissed the accusations as “infundated” and “unfounded,” according to Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin spokesperson.

The timing of these revelations coincides with the second anniversary of Navalny’s death in a Siberian penal colony on February 16, 2024. His death sparked widespread condemnation from Western governments and human rights organizations, who have long accused the Kremlin of political repression and targeting opposition figures.

International Response and Russian Denial

The coordinated investigation by the five European nations represents a significant escalation in international pressure on Russia regarding Navalny’s death. While the Kremlin continues to deny any involvement, the evidence presented by these countries raises serious questions about the circumstances surrounding his demise. The findings have prompted renewed calls for an independent and transparent investigation into the matter.

“We naturally do not accept these accusations. We disagree. We consider them biased and unfounded,” Peskov stated, as reported by Adnkronos. This denial stands in stark contrast to the mounting evidence and the unwavering conviction of Navalnaya and her supporters.

What Comes Next

The investigation’s findings are likely to further isolate Russia on the international stage and could lead to additional sanctions or diplomatic measures. The focus now shifts to identifying those responsible for Navalny’s death and holding them accountable. While the path to justice may be long and arduous, Navalnaya’s determination and the international pressure for transparency offer a glimmer of hope for uncovering the truth. The continued scrutiny of the Kremlin’s actions will be crucial in ensuring that those responsible are held accountable for this alleged crime.

Share your thoughts on this developing story in the comments below.

In December 2025, the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR) convened a forum bringing together technologists, economists, business leaders, and government officials to address the economic impacts of artificial intelligence. The meeting revealed a stark divergence in perspectives, with technologists expressing optimism and economists adopting a more cautious outlook.

While past technological advancements have often been met with exuberant predictions from their creators, the current debate surrounding AI is notable for the contrasting views held by those building the technology and those studying its potential effects. Many technologists envision AI as a transformative force, capable of generating substantial economic growth. However, a growing number of economists are skeptical of such claims, suggesting that the actual impact may be far more modest.

MIT Institute Professor Daron Acemoglu, a 2024 Nobel laureate in economic sciences, recently published a paper, “The Simple Macroeconomics of AI,” offering a more conservative estimate of AI’s impact on the U.S. Economy over the next decade. Acemoglu estimates that only approximately 5% of tasks will be profitably performed by AI within that timeframe, leading to a potential GDP boost of around 1%. This contrasts sharply with predictions from organizations like Goldman Sachs, which forecast a $7 trillion increase in global GDP over the next 10 years, and McKinsey, which estimates annual growth between $17.1 and $25.6 trillion. Acemoglu’s analysis suggests these figures are “much less than both the revolutionary changes some are predicting and the less hyperbolic but still substantial improvements” offered by other institutions.

Acemoglu’s research indicates that while nearly 20% of tasks in the U.S. Labor market could be replaced or augmented by AI, the actual implementation of AI will be limited to roughly a quarter of those tasks – the 5% figure – due to the costs often exceeding the benefits. He arrived at this figure by analyzing prior scholarship on tasks exposed to AI and computer vision technologies, combined with expectations around productivity derived from studies of AI deployment in real workplaces. His calculations suggest a total AI-driven productivity increase of approximately 0.7% over the next 10 years.

This divergence in opinion echoes concerns raised in other forums. A recent Forbes article highlighted a similar split, noting that while some economists believe jobs lost to AI will be offset by new ones, technologists warn of a “universal worker” capable of performing a wide range of tasks, potentially displacing significant portions of the workforce. The Financial Times reported that AI evangelists often view economists as overly conservative, relying on past trends rather than anticipating future breakthroughs.

The differing perspectives likewise reflect a broader pattern of technologists being bullish on AI’s economic impacts, while economists remain more reserved. As reported by TIME magazine, economist Anton Korinek is among those sounding the alarm about the potential societal transformations brought about by AI, a view not universally shared within the economics community.

SIEPR has not released a public statement summarizing the conclusions reached at its December 2025 forum. A follow-up meeting is scheduled for the fall of 2026 to reassess the economic impacts of AI as the technology continues to develop.