November 20, 2006
A poisoning in London
There is a slightly tasteless element of relish in some of the reporting of the attempted murder of Alexander Litvinenko in London. News editors like nothing more than a foreign news item which sounds like a film plot – and the poisoning of a former Russian agent turned dissident certainly fits the bill. As a result some of the newspaper stories have introductions which read like pulp fiction.
Most commentators assume that – directly or indirectly – the Kremlin had a hand in the poisoning, although there is no direct evidence to support this. Edward Lucas puts the case for the prosecution eloquently. By contrast Mary Dejevsky in The Independent argues for a verdict of “not proven”. Note, incidentally, that both commentators cannot resist starting their articles with a reference to James Bond.
It seems unlikely that anyone will ever find a smoking test-tube proving the direct involvement of Vladimir Putin. But what is increasingly clear is that several people who have got under the Russian leader’s skin have, in fact, been poisoned by somebody.
The most famous case was the attempt to murder Viktor Yuschenko, the Ukrainian leader, which left the unfortunate victim with a hideously pock-marked face. Anna Politkovskaya, the campaigning journalist who was murdered last month, had also been the subject of a poisoning attempt.
Mr Putin has a notoriously foul temper. And Mr Livinenko has been an irritant on two subjects that particularly rankle with the Russian leader – Chechnya and the fate of Boris Berezovsky, the Russian oligarch. Mr Litvinenko has accused his former employers at the FSB – the successor to the KGB – of directly ordering him to murder Berezovsky; at a time when Mr Putin was head of the FSB. And in a book “Blowing Up Russia”, which was published in 2002, Mr Litvinenko also accused the FSB of being behind the bombings of Moscow apartment buildings which killed 300 people – and which provided the impetus for the renewal of the war in Chechnya.
Potentially, the timing of the Litvinenko poisoning is very awkward. Later this week there is an EU-Russia summit due to take place in Helsinki. It could be embarrassing timing for Mr Putin, if he were capable of being embarrassed by this sort of thing. But there is not much sign of that. The Russian leader had to attend a dinner with EU leaders last month in the wake of the Politkovskaya murder and managed to shrug the whole thing off. Perhaps he calculates that EU leaders are currently too pre-occupied by their energy dependence on Russia to make much of a fuss about the occasional murder. Perhaps he is right.
I too would not assume that Mr Putin or the Kremlin definitely “had a hand in the poisoning.” One can only say that it appears extremely likely, wouldn’t you agree? If the poisoning was the work of Russian agents, they would not have done it without authority. And who would take it on himself to authorise such an action, without referring the matter to his superior?
There was a similar case of thallium poisoning in 1957 which involved a KGB defector. More than 20 years prior to the 1978 assassination of the Bulgarian dissident Georgi Markov, with ricin, another dissident, Nikolai Khokhlov, almost died when he was poisoned with thallium which had been intensely irradiated. It seems that poisoning is a KGB trademark and it is still a favoured modus operandi.
Yesterday the FT listed several well-known cases of journalists and others who have been poisoned in recent times. Another victim deserves to be remembered: the liberal politician Sergei Yushenkov was murdered, by shooting, in April 2003. He had been head of the unofficial commission investigating the 1999 apartment building bombings in Moscow and other Russian cities. The deceased (probably murdered) politician and journalist, Yuri Shchekochikhin, was a member of the same commission. Mikhail Trepashkin, now in prison following a trial on trumped-up charges, had assisted the commission. Alexander Litvinenko wrote a book accusing the Russian security services of responsibility for the bombings.
The unofficial commission discontinued its work without publishing its findings. No proper investigation into the 1999 bombings was ever carried out.
So, when Bush and Putin meet and embrace each other in public, I find the spectacle revolting. The US president should be more fastidious. So should our prime minister.
Posted by: Jeremy Putley | November 21st, 2006 at 11:47 am | Report this commentI do not want to sound facetious, but as my wife pointed out both Mr Yushenko and Litvinenenko ate sushi. Did it include the “Japanese puff fish?” The story in the Daily Tel is pure “pulp fiction” Reminds me of the opening paragraphs of Time Magazine’s stories in the 60’s.more seriously:(a) Saw an interview by Badawi of the BBC of a Russia expert in the US, who seems to know more about the History of Litvineneko. This fellow has been in the pay of a russian mafioso (Berezofsky) and, according to the expert, was involved in two assassination jobs in the 90’s. We are probably faced with a “settling of accounts story”(b) As the FT has reported, several times, there have been a number of assassinations in Russia (Central Bank high official, attempt on the life of Chubais, killing of Politofskaia etc). What can one say about it?Obviously the security of Russia is not what it ought to be. It is still a fragile state. Can one one blame Putin for it? A moot question. One notes that Putin still has to govern while some of the oligarchs are still around. Furthermore in the russian political zoo there are groups (such as the national bolsheviks and others) any one of which could bump off people they don’t like e.g Politovskaia etc.
Posted by: Max Papadopoullos | November 22nd, 2006 at 3:46 am | Report this commentPutin’s main crime is to establish a Russian state that is independent of Washington, that objective means that his regime will be vilified by the “liberal” press and the “liberal” Washington based think tanks. Their definition of “democracy” is being subservient to Washington and any country that dares to pursue its own policies is judged undemocratic and is thrown into the “Rogue State” category. The Russian regime is very far from perfect, but this is an issue for the Russian people to deal with, the same people that somewhat inconveniently voted overwhelmingly FOR Putin. I am note sure what right the oligarchs and their dissident entourages have to preach their “right” (anti-Putin) view from the comforts of London whilst enjoying the protection of U.K. citizenship. The oligarchs main contribution to the development of Russia was to strip every possible asset that they could get their hands on for their own personal benefit - this hardly gives them the moral high ground. Rather than screaming for a Kremlin apology (since the Kremlin is presumed guilty until proven innocent), readers should be asking cui bono (who benefits)? In Russia Litvinenko is an irrelevance, why try and kill him for writing a book in 2002 - four years later? As Mr.Rachman points out the main result will be to spoil EU-Russia relations, which is certainly not in Russia’s interests - perhaps it is in somebody else’s interest?john_rhodes@canada-11.com
Posted by: John Rhodes | November 22nd, 2006 at 7:10 am | Report this comment