Icon: enlarge
Russian opposition politician Navalny (March 2018)
Photo: Anton Novoderezhkin / imago images / ITAR-TASS
What happened?
The Russian Kremlin critic Alexej Navalny fell into a coma on a flight in his home country on August 20, was then later flown to Germany at the insistence of his family and treated at the Berlin Charité.
There he lies 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 chemical nerve agent from the Novichok group.
A special laboratory of the Bundeswehr has determined this.
Chancellor Angela Merkel reacted extremely sharply and unusually clearly.
She spoke of an "attempted poisoning" of one of Russia's leading opposition figures: "He should be silenced."
There were now "very serious questions" that only the Russian government could and should answer, said Merkel: "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.
Icon: enlarge
Chancellor Merkel will address the Navalny case on Wednesday
Photo: Markus Schreiber / dpa
Who examined Navalny in Germany?
Are the results trustworthy?
The Charité quickly switched the Bundeswehr into the investigation.
The civilian experts in Berlin soon came to the conclusion 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 the experts found the internationally outlawed substance in skin, blood and urine samples.
The results are trustworthy.
What responsibility does Vladimir Putin have for the poison attack?
Ironically, the fact that the Russian President is held responsible for the various attacks on opposition members and dissidents is due to his almost limitless power.
Even within the German government there is now the conviction that the regular series of murder or poison attacks on political opponents in an authoritarian state like Russia was either tolerated by the Kremlin or, in the worst case, even orchestrated by the powerful secret services and the Kremlin nodded.
In the Navalny case, there are two more points: On the one hand, the use of the neurotoxin from the Novitschok group is considered a lead in the direction of the Kremlin.
Russia had developed the poison and strictly guarded it because of its dangerousness.
As a result, it is hard to imagine that the material can be used without the help of the state apparatus.
In addition, Navalny was monitored at every turn by the secret service, making an assassination attempt on him by criminals or other opponents of Navalny seem almost impossible.
Icon: enlarge
Russian President Putin
Photo: Alexey Druzhinin / Sputnik / AFP
What is Putin's strategy?
Under his leadership, dealing with critics has intensified, and members of the opposition are arrested, persecuted or murdered.
With Navalny it has now hit Putin's most prominent and powerful critic.
Why he was poisoned now and who ultimately commissioned the attack is unclear.
The Kremlin rejects any responsibility and relies on disinformation instead of education.
Since Navalny's admission to hospital, rumors about previous illnesses, medication and the influence of alcohol have been spread in media close to the Kremlin;
a Kremlin spokesman later announced that he would look into a "provocation" of Germany and the West.
This mixture of defense and attack is intended to sow doubts about the Western declaration and buy time for the Kremlin.
We are now talking about sanctions against Russia.
Which are possible?
If the answer from Moscow to the federal government's allegations is unsatisfactory, 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 27 other member states.
It would be conceivable to prohibit the export of capital goods such as production facilities and other machines that affect Russian raw material extraction, for example.
However, this would also make it more difficult to import oil and gas from Russia, for example.
It would be just as difficult to ban the export of consumer goods.
That would affect manufacturers of luxury cars that are in demand in Russia, among others.
For its part, the Kremlin could, in retaliation for sanctions, prohibit these imports and thereby damage the German and European economies.
It could therefore be easier to freeze the assets of people from the Kremlin or other favorites of the regime in Germany or Europe.
Aren't there already sanctions against Russia?
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 persons and entities "who undermine the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine".
This includes travel restrictions and freezing of funds.
It affects separatists and their Russian supporters.
Economic relations with the Crimea were largely discontinued, and trade restrictions and import bans have been in place ever since.
After flight MH17 was shot down over Ukraine in July 2014, the 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 access to technologies and services in the field of oil production more difficult.
Since then, all sanctions have been repeatedly extended.
Icon: enlarge
The "Audacia" lays pipes for the Nord Stream 2 pipeline off the island of Rügen (November 2018)
Photo: Bernd Wüstneck / DPA
What role will the planned Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline play in the Navalny case?
It is moving more and more into focus.
In particular, the Greens and parts of the FDP are calling for the almost completed billion-euro project to be stopped.
"The whole project now needs to be put to the test," said FDP politician Bijan Djir-Sarai.
Party leader Christian Lindner said in the ARD morning magazine: "A regime that organizes poisonous murders is not a partner for large cooperation projects - not even for pipeline projects."
Green foreign 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 existing Nord Stream Baltic Sea pipeline, through which natural gas has been flowing from Russia to Germany since 2011.
The new gas pipeline is actually supposed to import up to 55 billion cubic meters of natural gas annually, the total output of the two pipelines would then amount to around 110 billion cubic meters.
Nord Stream 2 consists of two pipelines, each 1230 kilometers long, which lead from the Russian Narva Bay through the Baltic Sea to Lubmin near Greifswald.
The project is almost finished, only around 150 kilometers of pipes are missing.
The sole shareholder is the Russian state-owned company Gazprom, which is to cover half of the planned total costs of 9.5 billion euros.
The rest are financed by the five European energy companies Uniper (Germany), OMV Austria, Engie (France), Wintershall (Germany) and Shell (Netherlands).
The project was controversial from the start, and the EU partners from Poland and the Baltic states in particular fear that Russia is pursuing geostrategic goals with Nord Stream 2 and could use the gas as a means of pressure.
There is also strong criticism of the project from the USA.
Icon: enlarge
CDU politician Röttgen
Photo: Kay Nietfeld / DPA
Are there any Nord Stream 2 critics in the government camp?
Clear words come from the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Norbert Röttgen (CDU).
If the project were to be completed now, it would be confirmation and encouragement for Vladimir Putin to continue with precisely this policy, said Röttgen: "The only language that Putin understands is one of hardship."
The head of the EPP Group in the EU Parliament and CSU Vice-President 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 in Berlin too "said Weber to SPIEGEL.
Navalny's poisoning is now a "new serious development".
The end of Nord Stream 2 should no longer be ruled out.
Does Germany need the gas from the pipeline?
The Federal Ministry of Economics is supporting the construction of the 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 prices up - unless new sources such as those via the Nordstream tube are found.
In addition, with the phase out of the generation of electricity from coal and the end of nuclear power, natural gas will become more important, also to compensate for the fluctuating electricity yields from wind and sun.
In a transitional period, hydrogen is also to be produced from natural gas, which is to be used, among other things, as a climate-friendly energy carrier in the production of steel.
The share of gas in German primary energy demand is therefore likely to increase in the coming years.
An alternative source would be liquefied gas from Qatar or the USA.
But that is more expensive than the cheap Russian gas from the pipeline.
How much would the financial damage for Germany be if it left?
The direct damage from a politically motivated construction freeze would initially be relatively minor.
The ten energy companies involved divided the costs of 9.5 billion euros.
For the German group Uniper it would be 950 million euros.
Wintershall Dea is also involved from the German side.
Uniper announced this summer that the construction cost participation had already been paid out in full.
The sums of money are painful for the companies involved, but such a high risk is not unusual in this industry.
However, the corporations had hoped for considerable income from operating the line.
Icon: The mirror
