It is about time Kyiv abandoned its claims to the [Crimean] peninsula, which has never belonged to [Ukraine] either by law or spirit, and was always a foreign territory.
The presence of foreign diplomats in the court trying Alexey Navalny is not only a clear interference in Russia’s domestic affairs. It is also exerting psychological pressure to the judges.
Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative about Alexei Navalny.
Anti-corruption campaigner Alexei Navalny has long been the most prominent face of Russian opposition to President Vladimir Putin. His candidacy in the 2018 presidential election was banned by authorities over his conviction by a Russian court of embezzlement, which bars him from running for office. He has been arrested and imprisoned several times during his political career. He is also a prominent figure outside Russia and this justifies the interest of foreign countries and officials.
Alexei Navalny was arrested following his return to Russia from Germany, where he was treated for poisoning with a Novichok-type chemical nerve agent. The European Union has condemned his arrest and demanded his immediate release.
Court hearings are, as a rule, open to the public. Diplomats have the right, just as any other member of the public, to attend a court hearing. This is a century long, normal part of diplomats’ work. Russia is a member of the Council of Europe (CoE) and bound by the same conventions incl. the European Convention on Human Rights, which, among others, defines Russia's international obligations on human rights.
Contrary to the claim, criticism on the handling of the Navalny case is not tantamount to interfering in Russia’s domestic affairs but a legitimate stance in regard to human rights and the rule of law in the country. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the charges against Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny are politically motivated and arbitrary and manifestly unreasonable. As a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights, Russia accepts the jurisdiction of the ECHR and forced to comply with its rulings.
Read similar cases claiming that the US hopes that the Navalny case will lead to the cancellation of Nord Stream 2, that the West will falsely accuse Russia of poisoning Navalny, as with Skripal and Litvinenko, that the West has an interest in the death of Navalny to launch a new wave of sanctions against Russia, that Navalny is financed by the West as a fifth column against Russia, or Europe evacuated its agent Navalny, and poisoning is fake.