Alexei Navalny's interview to the German magazine Der Spiegel could have become a bomb if it had not been poisoned by a previously non-existent chemical warfare agent of the Novichok type.
The headline itself, in which readers of Der Spiegel could see the name of Russian President Putin, sounded like a sensation.
But everything that Navalny told reporters further seemed to be truly invented, or more precisely, far-fetched.
The very description of how he came to Der Spiegel looked like a third-rate detective.
He went into the editorial office, the magazine writes, sat down on a green sofa, in front of which was a table with a bottle of water.
Four bodyguards, who are around the clock next to Navalny, explained that the likelihood of a new assassination attempt is so great that they themselves chose a bottle of water from the editorial staff.
Allegedly, they cannot allow putting an untested bottle on the table.
Therefore, the security guards chose a "random" bottle - this reduces the likelihood of a prepared bottle with a poisonous substance falling on the table, Der Spiegel explained.
One thing is certain: both this story and this water bottle chosen by the bodyguards smell bad.
It was no coincidence that this bottle appeared.
In the history of Navalny, it is the bottle on which, according to the German side and Navalny's entourage, the specialists of the Bundeswehr laboratory allegedly found traces of a chemical warfare agent from the Novichok series, plays a special role.
Der Spiegel willingly goes on about the directors of the game and introduces the notorious bottle of water into the conversation, and from that moment on, the entire interview is already a production, where the questions and answers are clear and understandable in advance.
Navalny starts to get confused from the very first words.
At the very beginning, he willingly tells how he felt bad on the plane and, falling to the floor, he managed to shout to the steward: "I was poisoned."
A person who went to the toilet because he was sick and, in his own words, felt bad, opens the toilet door, falls to the floor and already knows for sure that he has been poisoned.
Not sick, did not eat something bad, did not drink too much, did not get seasick, but was definitely poisoned.
It looks unconvincing, because, even according to Navalny, the steward, looking at him, asked if everything was in order with his heart.
Navalny talks about saving his life by doctors from Omsk, who gave him atropine on time.
But literally a few paragraphs later, his doctors turn into killers.
What he says about doctors does not fit into any framework.
It turns out that the doctors deliberately kept him for 48 hours and did not release him to Germany, hoping that during this time the traces of the nerve poison would disappear and they could not be found.
And this complete nonsense about combat poison, which can fade away, reporters in all seriousness include in interviews.
Even Navalny himself, actually mocking Der Spiegel, says that using combat poison is like killing one person with an atomic bomb.
These "trifles", which border on lies, make one ask: are we reading a real interview or is it some kind of preparation by Navalny's speechwriters?
However, this is not all.
Reporters and Navalny talk for a long time about who could have given the order to commit an assassination attempt on him.
And here he is not shy in expressions.
Of course, this is Vladimir Putin, the FSB, the SVR, and the GRU.
An old story, familiar from the time of the Skripals.
But this is probably what the editors wanted to hear.
Otherwise, it will be difficult for Germany to promote the idea of the need for new sanctions against Russia, for example against the construction of Nord Stream 2.
However, on this issue, Navalny is suddenly cautious.
When asked by a reporter about the possibility of applying sanctions, he cautiously replies that this is a matter for Germany.
Perhaps this caution is due to a "secret meeting" with German Chancellor Merkel.
When the German media wrote that Merkel had visited Navalny, they designated it as a secret meeting, but this was immediately denied by the Chancellor's press secretary.
He stated that the meeting was not secret, but private.
This is an amazing business - everyone who is even a little familiar with the behind the scenes of German political life knows that there can be no secret meeting of the chancellor.
Moreover, any actions of the Chancellor that could be regarded as an abuse of official position could easily lead to the resignation of even such an iron lady as Merkel.
Therefore, the words about a secret meeting, which were uttered by people from the environment of Navalny himself, were immediately disavowed.
It is possible that the issue of SP-2 was also the subject of Mr. Navalny's teachings and he was "prompted" how to answer such questions.
It's no secret that the construction of the SP-2 is practically a private matter of the chancellor.
And for sure, Angela Merkel would not like to hear words about sanctions from a person for whom she actually did a lot.
In this remarkable interview, it is impossible to ignore the question of Navalny's political credo.
Der Spiegel asked bluntly: can his views be considered nationalist?
Navalny talked for a long time and tediously that his support for the communists could in no way be regarded as support for the communist idea.
And the support of the trade unions has nothing, in his opinion, to the position on migrants.
He in every possible way avoided the topic of his own nationalism.
Navalny was confused about what is left, what is right nationalism, and did not want and could not decide.
Let's pay tribute to the persistence of the reporters: they still squeezed out an answer from Navalny.
Slightly embarrassed, he put forth a new definition of the nationalism that he professes: liberal nationalism of the entire opposition camp.
Nobody knows what liberal nationalism is.
Perhaps this should mean that the “main oppositionist” is a nationalist, but in a good sense of the word?
Navalny, as he was a nationalist, remained so.
And this should have scared him away from the publication, which willingly talks about the inadmissibility of nationalism in any form.
No, it didn’t scare me away or embarrass me.
In general, Navalny himself, and this whole interview looked like an inanimate production with the participation of an unknown actor.
Because Navalny has not yet been seen.
There are only photographs and written texts, but the video with his participation, in which he moves and speaks, is not.
This means that Navalny's interview is only a phantom and nothing more.
The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.