Why figure out something, get to the bottom of the truth, when everything is clear: Alexei Navalny was poisoned by the damned Kremlin. The “tourists” of the GRU, skillfully disguised as hipsters by Mosfilm make-up artists, secretly, without attracting the attention of their colleagues from the FSB, poured an unknown poison into the blogger's tea. It is done! 

So? Don't say that sounds like gibberish. This is the typical rhetoric of the average Navalny supporter, which could be laughed at until it spilled out of social media and made a brisk step on the front pages of European newspapers.

Of course, it is quite natural that the "poisoning" of "oppositionist No. 1" caused a stir outside our country. Just give European politicians a reason - they will be happy to kick Russia once again, threaten with sanctions or draw up another missing list of executioners and corrupt officials.

However, no matter what they say, the "poisoning" of Navalny is the main news of the summer (and perhaps of the year) in Russia for sure, overshadowing the scandalous fatal accident involving the drunk actor Efremov. 

Only, unlike the show staged in a Moscow court, the situation with Navalny may have far from rosy consequences for Russia, and according to the first reaction of the European partners, it is obvious that it will not be easy: the propaganda weapons from that side have been uncovered, it remains to give the command “ To battle! " 

A million dollar question, no less: who really benefits from Navalny's poisoning? A long, almost endless list of applicants comes to mind, but "Russian power", whatever one may say, is in the last place in it.

Why?

To begin with, because the state, represented by all the emergency services of tiny Omsk, saved Navalny's life, saving the country from a hypothetical "sacred sacrifice." This is a great feat of Omsk doctors, whom especially gifted boys and girls from the opposition have been defaming for the fifth day, calling (the kindest) "killers" and "liars."

German specialists are quite another matter. This is not about doctors - for the time being, they maintained a silent neutrality. The first to shout in all its glory was the official representative of the German government Steffen Seibert, who showed the world a real miracle, which the seer Vanga never dreamed of.

Lacking a single medical document, it is unclear what guided (apparently, by the phases of the moon), on Monday morning Seibert denied two studies by Omsk doctors and said in his blue eye that Navalny was “quite likely” to have been poisoned.

Feeling of full deja vu. Exactly with the same words, a couple of years ago, British Prime Minister Theresa May, unsubstantiated, accused Russia of poisoning the traitor Skripal and his daughter. Hey guys, can you think of something new? ..

Naturally, after Seibert's statement, the Berlin clinic "Charite", where Navalny was brought, accompanied by a motorcade of nearly twenty cars and a special forces company armed to the teeth, could not give up its principles and issued a press release in a nutshell: "Navalny is poisoned."

And what, someone innocently thought that they would say something else?

True, the cautious Germans slightly diluted the word "poisoning" directly in the official message with a voluminous phrase about the signs of poisoning with an undefined substance, as if hinting at "Novichok".

By the way, Charite is an unusual clinic. Firstly, Stirlitz walked in the garden of the hospital. Secondly, fifteen years ago a local nurse confessed to the murder of several seriously ill patients (it is not for nothing that Navalny is guarded by special forces). And thirdly, the Charité doctors are the only magicians in the world who have discovered poison in the body of Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko. 

No one in the world could, but they found it, but the matter did not go beyond the press release. Yushchenko refused to undergo a second examination in another clinic, the conclusion of "Charite" did not show, which caused a completely justified doubt about the objectivity of the study of the Germans. Who poisoned Yushchenko and whether he was poisoned at all is still a secret, covered with orange gloom.

In no case do I accuse the Charité doctors of bias, forgery - there are no grounds for this, except for the army of secret agents who have flooded the clinic. But here's what is strange (although there is nothing strange about it) - when two people in civilian clothes showed up at the Omsk hospital, the navalnists howled: "They came to finish off Lyosha."

German specialists walk inside and outside the Charite just like at home, hold the cordon and seem to guard Navalny, as if he were the entire gold reserve of Germany.

Julia Navalnaya, who lost her voice in Omsk, demanding that she be allowed to see her husband immediately outside the rules, is for some reason silent in Berlin, obediently turns around when the strict "no" sounds, and even put on a mask. 

At Charité - or rather, in Germany - Navalny is the chancellor's personal guest. It seems that before the hospitalization of the Russian blogger, such honors (motorcade, security, personal attention of the entire top of the country and neighbors) were not given to any of the world leaders. What is so valuable about Russian Alyosha?

Probably those who believe in the Charité doctors' diagnoses will also believe that the Germans took Navalny to them for treatment. Naive simplicity. I will not persuade. I will note that Navalny, from the moment he landed at the military airfield, no longer belongs to himself, or to his family, or to his supporters.

Navalny, who flew away from Russia, is now hostage, his fate completely depends on the mood of the gallant men. For them, Navalny is not a person, not an oppositionist, Navalny is the main trump card in the game with Putin, which they will try to use more than once and soon.

Navalny can quickly recover (the Charité doctors declared for every fireman that nothing threatens the blogger's life anymore), or something bad can happen - a new reason to cry about the “bloody Putin” destroying political opponents, having come up with new ones for this case. sanctions (for example, curtailing Nord Stream 2). 

The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.