November 27, 2006
The new Cold War debate
It is unfortunate that the murder of Alexander Litvinenko has coincided with the release of a new Bond film in Britain. The result has been that the British media has been tempted to treat the assassination of a British citizen as just an extension of the Bond series – witness the headline in the Sun newspaper, "From Russia with Lunch".
But I must say that the papers probably accurate reflect the public mood. The Litvinenko killing has become one of those “water cooler” stories, which are the subject of fascinated conversation by lots of ordinary people. And to judge from the conversations I’ve overheard in London, the tone is pretty much one of hilarity. At a breakfast with a bunch of corporate types last Monday, somebody made a reference to "Russian sushi" to guffaws all round. Then on Saturday I was at a lunch at the Carlton Club, the home of Tory London (not my usual hang-out, I assure you) and the old gentlemen could scarcely contain their mirth as they discussed the poisoning. But while Vladimir Putin may be regarded in much of Britain as simply the latest in a long line of amusing Bond villains, that is a signal that the Russians seem to have lost the public-relations battle about responsibility for the killing. Whatever the real truth, in all the casual conversations I’ve overheard, everybody seems to assume that the order to kill Litvinenko came from the Kremlin.
People who have to think professionally about Russia are, naturally, rather less amused by these recent events. An interesting debate has broken out in the media about whether "this is war" – or rather whether this is "cold war". The splenetic Edward Lucas has what he accurately describes as a rant in the Times (of London), arguing that a new cold war is indeed underway – and making various recommendations for how to conduct it. My colleague John Thornhill has a rather more measured piece, pointing out all the differences between the cold war and the situation we face today. Oddly enough for all the differences in their analysis and attitudes, Lucas and Thornhill come to some of the same conclusions – in particular, they emphasise the need to diversify away from over-dependence on Russian energy. And what is the current thinking in government circles?
Peter Hain, a British cabinet minister, has signalled a hardening of the official line by worrying publicly about "huge attacks on individual liberty and democracy" in Putin’s Russia. But the chances of this marking a real hardening of the British government position are lessened by the fact that Hain was speaking well outside his brief. He is secretary of state for Northern Ireland and – perhaps more significantly in this context – a candidate for the deputy leadership of the Labour Party. Hain has a record of carefully-timed indiscretions which usually serve his own political ends. He was also, in the distant past, a prominent anti-apartheid campaigner – so one should not completely discount the possibility that he genuinely feels strongly about human rights. And even if his remarks are timed largely to serve his own political ends, they are interesting for all that. Skilful politicians often prosper by being the first politician to say publicly, what everybody else is already saying in private.
May I splenetically mention that it seems more and more obvious, as time passes, that the Russian security services were responsible for the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko?
I would recommend anyone who is seriously interested in this topic to read the book, “Blowing Up Russia: Terror From Within” by Yuri Felshtinsky and Alexander Litvinenko (2nd edition). You can download it at this URL:
http://www.felshtinsky.com/books/FSB2ndEngEd.doc
Posted by: Jeremy Putley | November 27th, 2006 at 3:16 pm | Report this commentyea, but hypocracy usually bites you in the ass.
And furthermore, I don’t think there is any new cold war…that’s ridiculous. The whole planet has changed technologically and economically and the snobbery and secrecy that used to exist has subsided due to the internet.
Things are too open for a cold war anymore. I do however, think there will be “tense” relations from now and then, but then again, due to the global economy…I suspect relations to change over-night—such as buddies with russia one day, mad at them the next, and then friends with them again the next day.
It will be an interesting time. But I think the world has changed and it doesn’t have the serious undertone it once used to have. We will see what happens.
Posted by: obel | November 27th, 2006 at 4:41 pm | Report this commentGood on Peter Hain.
Some things just should not be tolerated and should be criticised in public and the offenders be brought to account.
We all know they won’t but thank god that at least one senior UK politician out of that shambolic spineless bunch in Westminster has the integrity and courage to do the right thing and say what needs to be said.
With decent Russian citizens being so disgracefully abused the onus is on the free world to stand by them and do what is right and demand freedoms for all.
What a pity that in Westminster we have so few people of principle, prepared to do the right thing. Good for Peter Hain.
Posted by: Peter Matthews | November 27th, 2006 at 5:34 pm | Report this commentFrom my point of view, the west and in particularly the UK have been too soft to long with Mr Putins Russia. It´s about time to stiff up the attitude.
Otherwise, what will be the next thing? Despite three more dead Britons, maybe the Russians buying up West European energy companies or building an own military base in the mid-east?
Posted by: Joshua E | November 28th, 2006 at 12:10 am | Report this commentPlease excuse me for being naive and not well-versed in the ways of “diplomacy”, but how does Mr. Hain weigh his worrying about huge attacks on liberty and democracy with the British government’s silence (and George W Bush’s vocal support) of the genocidal policies of Mr. Putin and his predecessors against the Chechen people? For example, does Mr. Hain realise that most Chechen women under the age of 40 are widows?
Does the alleged killing of a former spy (who may or may not have been bumped off by the KGB or by others, as part of a settling of scores due to his past actions as a spy) matter more because took place in London, compared to the hundreds of thousands of Chechens who have died at the hands of the Russian state and the virtual destruction of Grozny, their capital?
One cannot help thinking that Mr. Hain’s concerns are more to do with trying to get trade and political concessions from Moscow, through a “good cop / bad cop” act of the British ministers, rather than any genuine concern for Human Rights.
Alternatively, perhaps, Mr. Hain, like many white Europeans, does not think the lives and concerns of people in faraway places matter as much as those in Western Europe or North America.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | November 28th, 2006 at 12:12 pm | Report this commentTo Pacifist -
Very right about sorry for the Chechen widows. And do not forget thousands of Russian citizens, that have been killed or pressed out from Chechnya by the Chechens before the war
started, and the young sons of the grass root families that died or were badly injured and will forever stay handicapped.
They died and still die, because, prior to and at the times of the 1st Chechen war beginning, the Moscow Eltzin mafia was hardly busy sharing around the special task transfers and credits from the West, which were being granted with a definite purpose to corrupt the state power and disintegrate what had been left of the Soviet Union.
People like to get interest of their investments. However risks may be latent.
That war, like the many others, started as a COMMERCIAL ENTRPRISE. With many “consultants” from the West “assisting” Eltzin’s team
in Moscow. For good wages and to the best of their national expertise.
As to the late Mr. Litvinenko. In the US they say “Once a marine is always a marine”. I gather one can reasonably suppose something alike with the KGB or any other special service in the most “democratic” and “free” states.
And for such servicemen to forget this basic rule No.1 may and must be much more harmful then for the marines.
On the other hand, it may be the good way to try and harm Putin and Russia, knowing that everyone would readily point out there.
Any responsible man before declaring something should prepare evidence that can support his declaration. Otherwise it is a kindergaten.
Posted by: Alexander K. | November 28th, 2006 at 2:26 pm | Report this commentThe best thing for anyone of us is to mind our own circle of responsibility. And to remember that a response comes upon an action.
At the expense of being:
1. branded an apologist for Peter Hain
2. on the wrong side of a semantic….innocent Chechen people are also “decent Russians” in my book.
To suggest that Peter Hain’s concerns are more to do with “trying to get trade and political concessions from Moscow” is crass, ill informed and poor judgement.
Who on this planet has any right to question Peter Hain’s integrity regarding civil rights.
From South Africa under the Apartheid system to rightly demanding clarity regarding potential state sanctioned murder under President Putin’s management, Peter Hain says what needs to be said and doesn’t hide under a Pseudonym like “p”. In a “democracy” you hide when millions of Russian’s can’t. You are a coward and have no right to an opinion or comment. Shame on you “P
Right that is that dealt with…let’s move on.
For me this episode is 2 things.
1. It is, yet again, another reason for us to look strong and hard at our values, our allies and our choices. The enduring campaign for true freedom and democracy is imperfect…the USA without a doubt remains the role model for the world.
2. Time for us all to make our choices ? To question the power and size of the state or meekly sit back and do nothing whilst abuses may or may not have happened. Not just in Russia I might add..but lets not deviate.
Under President Putin abuses in Russia appears to have grown. Power seems to have become more concentrated and opposition has strangely developed a tendency to die before their years in somewhat strange situations.
I wonder how well Mr Putin sleeps at night trying to balance that equation.
And with all the power he [thinks he] holds, wealth at his fingertips and with so many abuses happening in mother Russia that he seems so impotent to deal with it must be a terrible burden for him.
You know it may be such a burden that I wouldn’t be surprised if perhaps Mr Putin might not wake up one morning. Stalin would be petrified of such things and had his own way of managing them but I am sure Mr Putin is much more grounded and balanced.
But don’t worry my old china. One person it won’t be is me….but I bet you a trillion Ruble that the people that might get you will know you a billion times better than they will ever know me….for the short time I may have left on this world.
And for the rest of us i.e. the living…never ever underestimate or undervalue, just how important freedom of speech is.
Sleep well and sleep deeply Mr Putin.
If you die in your sleep then my bet is god will judge you harshly. Lenin will rip your throat & heart out and tear the limbs from your body in anger. But don’t worry Stalin will befriend you…and no matter what you may think now that’s still an upside
Mr Putin, my friend I don’t know. One piece of advise.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Hedge your bets my son. Get down to church on sunday. Pray long, pray hard and repent of all your sins cos you ain’t in for an easy ride brother.
Peter Matthews
Posted by: Peter Matthews | November 28th, 2006 at 8:42 pm | Report this commentFreedom of speech is not a well understood concept in russian culture unfortunately, maybe it is even better understood on the highest level but even more among ordinary people - a communist-militarist legacy I believe and a consequence of genocide against highly educated Russian people first of all carried out by Stalin.
That kremlin or anyone now in power in russia is behind assasinations of Politkovskaya, Litvinenko sounds like a fairy tale that soviet newspapers used to publish, very unprobable as Putin is the first person to suffer in power from these events, whereas anything that could have been uncovered cannot damage it in no way as could not damage Blair’s position the fact that a report on iraqi WMD was a copy-paste from a Masters thesis of an unknown student, but rather a failure in iraq did damage his position.
Popularity of Putin is so big in russia now because what he is doind is percieved a success by ordinary russians as their quality of living actually does improve over time and there seem to be good economic prospects, at least what is happening is definitely a step forward from what was happening during Eltsin era and in many respects an attempt to crean up at least something that was has gone wrong during that time. Of course russia is still full of big problrms now, such as corruption, lack of national idea or pride, social alienation, problems with different ethnic groups, religions. And these problems do not make life actually what can be called ‘nice’.
Posted by: Ego | November 29th, 2006 at 12:36 pm | Report this commentThe news today (December 1st) from AP is that the Russian FSB (formerly KGB) set up a hit team to assassinate people around Boris Berezovsky and Alexander Litvinenko. This makes clear the essential criminality of the FSB - if you had any remaining doubts. The clear evidence that the FSB were responsible for the 1999 apartment-building bombings in Moscow and other Russian cities established that the FSB was a criminal organisation, seven years ago, and this was well set out in the book by Felshtinsky and Litvinenko.
So I hope not to read in the FT, editorially or otherwise, that “rogue elements” are responsible for the FSB’s crimes. It is the FSB as a whole that must be regarded as corrupt and hopelessly compromised, fit only to be disbanded.
Posted by: Jeremy Putley | December 1st, 2006 at 2:06 pm | Report this commentJeremy Putley - I am sure even you don’t believe that every bizarre theory or lame insinuation you stumble across or any canard released by a propaganda outfit - some story so outlandish like the one of KGB or FSB setting up assassination teams in London - is indeed the truth; I am sure you don’t take propagandist books at their face value? If you do, then you should not be writing silly messages in people’s blogs - instead you should get your head examined.
Posted by: Roobit | December 4th, 2006 at 6:07 am | Report this commentFor anyone interested in the story, here is a link to the “hit squad” article. I am inclined to believe in Mr Trepashkin’s veracity. He is in a Russian jail following a mock trial on fictitious charges, so his letters are not the work of a “propaganda outfit”.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/chechnya-sl/message/50767
Posted by: Jeremy Putley | December 4th, 2006 at 9:53 am | Report this commentIt is easy to see what a deep thinker this Gideon Rachman is while reading this passage:
Posted by: Anatoliy Rivkin | December 14th, 2006 at 4:19 pm | Report this comment“The unsolved poisoning is an old Russian tradition. Historians are still arguing about the role of poison in the death of Ivan the Terrible…”
Blah, blah, blah. Since Mr. Gideon is “representative of western school” he should be aware of long tradition of using poison on political life in Italy, France etc. But it is probably much easier to blame Russia for everything counting on readers most of which don’t know History from Geography… The rest of this article is a compete B.S. America is a birthplace of democracy which has to much of it and always ready to share it with others, G. Britain is teaching others what to do with their countries. It looks like Mr. Gideon moved back in time and it is 1951 outside. Get real at least for the sake of you own dying country.
And Merry Christmas to you all.