At this point, our old pal Valdamir could strangle people live on TV and it would somehow be less suspicious than his current MO.
Gee, I am shocked, SHOCKED, that a doctor in Russia would say that a previously healthy man showing obvious symptoms of poisoning isn't really poisoned when the main suspect is the leader of Russia. Sadly, this probably has the desired chilling effect on Russian nationals internationally condemning Putin. No one wants to end up drinking hazardous radioactive isotopes or getting poison injected into them by a modified umbrella.
Sort of. I think the idea is that a lot of these poisonings are deliberately suspicious: we're all supposed to know who it was, just not be able to prove it.
There are arguments that due to endemic crime and colossal corruption in the Russian state, rogue government personnel and organised crime may be responsible for a lot of this sort of stuff rather than Putin, and they might actually be a hindrance to Putin rather than his intent. Putin still rules with a veneer of legitimacy: poisoning spies that have defected can be passed off as national interest, but poisoning opposition leaders is tyranny. However, even if Navalny's poisoning was not Kremlin-sanctioned, everyone's going to think it was, so it's still worth trying to control the media story and fudge the issue.
* * *
The pharmacologist in me also disapproves of this statement I saw in a report: "Doctors later stated that he had most likely been poisoned by antipsychotics or neuroleptics." This is a tautology: neuroleptic is just an obsolete term for antipsychotic.