Who is trying to sabotage better British-Russian relations?
By Mary Dejevsky
On Monday, Gordon Brown met the new Russian President, Dmitry Medvedev, on the fringe of the G8 summit in Hokkaido. It was the first meeting between the two political leaders at a time of deep depression in UK-Russian relations, and the hope was that it would lay the foundation for some improvement.
And how did the BBC report this event? At least on Newsnight, much watched by the chattering classes, entirely through the prism of a certain Boris Berezovsky, exiled Russian oligarch and self-proclaimed enemy number one of Vladimir Putin.
Newsnight claimed to have exclusive confirmation, via 'sources' in MI5, that Alexander Litvinenko's radiation poisoning in November 2006, had been carried out by Russian intelligence. Well, well. It offered nothing more than a few random, unattributed quotations, to assert what had been a favoured - if never corroborated - view since the start.
Now I assume, to give the reporter the benefit of the doubt, that his 'sources' are known to him and reliable, otherwise he would not have made such a big deal out of their assertions. And no one would expect MI5 to go on camera.
But the only person Newsnight produced In support of its new, supposedly exclusive, theory was, well, who else? but the very same Boris Berezovsky, who rehearsed the selfsame story he had peddled to the media a year ago, about how he had been targeted by an assassin at the Hilton Hotel in Park Lane.
This time, Newsnight told us, in breathless excitement, the would-be assassin was a man of Chechen appearance, already named (but not arrested) in connection with the murder of the campaigning journalist, Anna Politkovskaya. He had been apprehended by the London police, but then released, without charge, to return to Russia!
Newsnight offered no explanation, nor has Berezovsky offered any, of why the police released the supposed assassin rather than charging him and putting him on trial.
Yet this needs an explanation. An arrest and trial would offer the best possible corroboration of the theory that the Russian state was involved in both the killing of Litvinenko and the alleged attempted killing of Berezovsky. Yet, even as they tried to make the case for the extradition from Moscow of Litvinenko's presumed assassin, Andrei Lugovoi, and made a diplomatic incident out of Russia's refusal, the British seem calmly to have let Berezovsky's would-be assassin go. Why?
Put the Newsnight feature together with the British intelligence report - conveniently released on the eve of the Brown-Medvedev meeting - that Russia was now the third- biggest threat to British security after al-Qa'ida and Iran(!), and you have a concerted attempt to sabotage the improvement in British-Russian relations that the Brown-Medvedev encounter might have heralded.
For all the hype, there was nothing new in the Newsnight report. It smacked rather of an elaborate - and hugely successful - put-up job by Berezovsky and his PR people to reheat old accusations and pre-empt any improvement in British-Russia relations. I wonder in whose interests that might be?
I would have expected a more critical approach to the source material by a programme such as Newsnight.
Well said Mary Dejevsky!
I have been extremely sceptical about the Litvinenko case from the outset, consider the disadvantages of the method used:-
1) The Polonium isotope is both very expensive and not readily available to non-nuclear states.
2) If smuggling radioactive materials through airport security is not risky, I want to know why.
3) It allegedly left a clear trail all the way to Moscow and contaminated everywhere that Lugovoi went for weeks. Do they not have sealed containers in Russia? It is hard to believe that the material is that difficult to contain.
4) The victim was guaranteed a slow death and hence plenty of publicity and sympathy. It was also practically certain that he would name the Russian secret service as his killers.
5) Who benefited from this? it certainly wasn't the Russian secret service or Vladimir Putin.
I have real difficulty trying to imagine how anyone could think that this was a good plan. There must be literally hundreds of ways of killing someone while leaving little or no trace. Even regarded as a 'message' to defectors it is flawed, a simple bullet through the head or an obvious fast acting poison would carry exactly the same message, without generating a wave of sympathy for Putins opponents or ruining Anglo-Russian relations.
Whatever else Putin and the Russian secret service might be, they are not stupid. This affair looked like a frame-up from the word go.
Posted by: Mark Underwood | Tuesday, 08 July 2008 at 05:22 PM
Another fair article by someone who knows about Russian politics and who has lived in Russia. The entire media is so stupid and full of self-indulgent 'decents' who are desperate to write about how wonderful they are because they don't like the lastest 'Hitler' or 'Stalin' without knowing the complex history and cultures of the countries that they write about.
The Russians have made great advances in the past two decades. I wish I could say the same about Britain.
As for Litvinenko, it was a horrific tragedy but I do not trust the British intelligence services or Berezovsky. That they are asking us to blindly swallow their version of events is vile.
Posted by: Gregor | Tuesday, 08 July 2008 at 06:12 PM
Mark Underwood is to be commended for exposing the full ridiculousness of the British state's version of the Litvinenko killing. It is obvious that the murder was the work of forces intent upon manufacturing a cause celebre the better to bash Putin et al. Who are these "forces"? CIA and their mininions in British intelligence.So much for the notion that UK foreign policy is under the control of democratically elected politicians.
Posted by: Paul Rigby | Tuesday, 08 July 2008 at 06:56 PM
Hmmm, fishy. Yet more suspiciously pro-Putin comments from seemingly impeccably British-sounding posters in these newspaper forums who always seem to pop up when Russia is mentioned. OK "Mark Underwood" and "Paul Rigby". I challenge you to say who you really are and where you are from. I don't believe you exist. Go ahead and prove you do. Where are you really from?
Posted by: Genuine British person from London NW6 | Tuesday, 08 July 2008 at 07:28 PM
Genuine British person from London NW6:
As I am using my real name, telling you where I am from specifically would open me up to all sorts of potential risks (not from the security services who could track me down anyway but from religious nutters) I comment regularly on this site and you can find my posts on almost every science vs religion thread, environmental threads and such like. Recently I have posted on Johann Hari's the decline of science in schools threads, the 'no ice at the North pole thread and the recent food waste article. To suggest that I 'pop up' simply to comment on pro-Putin threads is ridiculous. Oh and by the way, who the hell are you? you are not even using your real name!
I also note that your comment amounts to no more than an ad hominem content-free attack, but thats all you people have got isn't it?
Posted by: Mark Underwood | Tuesday, 08 July 2008 at 08:16 PM
To Mark Underwood. I am appalled by "you people", as you say, who defend Russia and Putin's regime to the detriment of Britain. If Russia is so good, why do thousand of ordinary Russians (not only oligarchs with dubious pasts) choose to move here to live freely and educate their children? Where would you rather live? A place where there are no free newspapers or debate, where journalists are regularly murdered for their views, or a place where we are free to have this kind of discussion? Why don't you go and live there yourself?
If you are genuinely British you are all the more foolish for espousing these kinds of views. I am all for questioning official explanations and challenging authority, but I think that in this case, given the brutality of the Russian state, we all know where the balance of probabilities lies.
You want some content? Here goes:
1) The Polonium isotope is both very expensive and not readily available to non-nuclear states.
Reply: All the more reason why it must have come from official state sources
2) If smuggling radioactive materials through airport security is not risky, I want to know why.
Reply: Security checks are carried out on the way onto the plane i.e. in Russia, not when you come off it.
3) It allegedly left a clear trail all the way to Moscow and contaminated everywhere that Lugovoi went for weeks. Do they not have sealed containers in Russia? It is hard to believe that the material is that difficult to contain.
Reply: A properly sealed container for a radioactive substance would probably be cumbersome and large, hence difficult to conceal
4) The victim was guaranteed a slow death and hence plenty of publicity and sympathy. It was also practically certain that he would name the Russian secret service as his killers.
Reply: The fact of a painful, slow death and publicity would also act to deter other deserters from the secret services. Maybe he named the Russian secret service as his killers because they actually were.
5) Who benefited from this? it certainly wasn't the Russian secret service or Vladimir Putin.
Reply: Maybe they were incompetent enough not to realise the effects this type of gruesome killing would have in a liberal western democracy, while back home they raise barely a comment. They are used to acting callously and with impunity.
So I do not believe your arguments stand up to scrutiny. Pure and simple. It was their flimsiness that raised my suspicions about your identity.
Posted by: Robert NW6 | Tuesday, 08 July 2008 at 09:02 PM
You also have to look at it from the point of view of the British. What point would there be in picking at fight with one of the world's growing powers. To what end? As far as discrediting the Russians is concerned, they have already done that perfectly well by themselves by their general bully-boy conduct in domestic, commercial, foreign and energy policy. There is simply no motive for the UK to need to concoct any "plot". Cui bono indeed.
Posted by: Robert NW6 | Tuesday, 08 July 2008 at 09:12 PM
Very interesting thread. It is mindbending how facts are presented here based on "who you like". You don't like MI6 - then naturally they are guilty. More interesting is that the demise of UK-Russian relations seems to be driven by Russia, if you remember:
(1) The humilation of the British Council and suspicion of all foreign groups as anti-russian.
(2) The "fake brick in the park" affair.
(3) The current swiping at BP interests in Russia.
(4) The blatant use of Putin supporters to chase the opposition off the streets.
(5) The current nuclear threats because of an early warning system and interceptor missiles in Poland or the Czech republic. Just how is that a threat?
Sorry, but there seems to be a clear state of paranoia in Russia these days and a revengeful attitude to any kind of opponent.
Anyone who doesn't "pay respect" to the land of Gospardar is heading for all sorts of bad relations.
Posted by: PHCO | Tuesday, 08 July 2008 at 10:04 PM
Robert NW6:
At least we have content this time. Point by point then:-
1) Berezovsky is a very rich man with very powerful friends and an openly declared agenda, he is rich enough and well connected enough to get anything he wants.
2) If what you say is true (I have never flown) then I suppose I should concede that one.
3) I see no reason for bulky packaging at all if radioactivity is not an issue, Polonium is quite high up on the periodic table, so we are not dealing with particularly small molecules.
4) Only a total ninny would be unable to imagine that a man suffereing a slow death would not attract sympathy and produce considerable adverse publicity.
5) So you are claiming that they would have no insight into the effect of the affair on the UK public, what utter rubbish.
As for your suggestion that pointing out the ludicrousness of the assassination plan is somehow unpatriotic, I reject it utterly.
The only positive comment that I made about Putin was "Whatever else Putin and the Russian secret service might be, they are not stupid." (apparently I am some sort of traitor for stating this obvious fact)
If you honestly believe that I have been a regular contributer to an obscure and barely noticed comment site, simply to eventually put in a good word for Putin, then you are a sick man.
No I do not believe it is in the UK's interest to pick a fight with the Russians but that won't stop them will it? because it is the US calling the tune.
The assassination plot still does not make sense, I note that your responses are still inadequate and still depend on the low-insight or incompetence theory and are consequently not credible. And one more thing, how many people called Robert do you think live in NW6? hundreds I should imagine, how do I know that you are not a paid troll? you have no history on this site, at least as far as I know.
Posted by: Mark Underwood | Tuesday, 08 July 2008 at 10:29 PM
PHCO:
You seem to be blissfully unaware that an anti-ballistic missile system is an important component of a first-strike capability. While a missile defence system is not much use in the event of a first-strike by the opposition, it has a function as a 'sweeper' in the event of a first-strike by our side. Why do you think that there was an anti-ballistic missile treaty in the first place? It is because it jeopardizes the principle of Mutual Assured Destruction and is inherently destabilising for that reason.
It is also a fact that an agreement was made with the Russians that we would not expand NATO eastwards after the reunification of Germany, this agreement was reneged upon by NATO, we are now building missile defence systems on their very borders. There are usually two sides to every story, I see no reason to believe that patriotism requires a blindness to that fact.
Posted by: Mark Underwood | Tuesday, 08 July 2008 at 10:48 PM
Can see we have the Tory intellectual heavyweights out in force: 'If you like Russia so much go and live there'. Two words: Grow up.
I don't want to live in Russia precisely because it is ruled by the sort of guy that these tories would fawn over if he was British. It is quite comical that this weirdo points out that we have free debate in this country so we shouldn't question the government when they make unfounded assertions about dangerous foreign countries.
His type said the same thing after questions were raised concerning the Iraq dosier it is pretty obvious that our government thinks nothing of telling us fibs. I do not think that the British Intelligence Services killed Litvinenko, but it is possible that Berezovksy did.
Remember, Lugavoi met Litvinenko at one of Berezvsky's parties. And the Litvinenko autopsy report has not been released.
Posted by: Gregor | Wednesday, 09 July 2008 at 05:59 AM
To Robert NW6:
you say: If Russia is so good, why do thousand of ordinary Russians (not only oligarchs with dubious pasts) choose to move here to live freely and educate their children? Where would you rather live?
i say: talk to thousands of expats in Moscow and St Pete who once here never want to leave for Dear Old Britain. Why do you think this is the case Mr Robert from NW6?
i also say in reply to your question - and i speak for myself here - we come to get a better understanding of the culture, economy, financial system as we are trying to build ours and avoiding appalling errors your policymakers made. we come to learn. and i assure you as soon as the learning curve flattens out - we leave back to so hated by you and so sweet for us no matter what you say Russia.
Posted by: Ivan Ivanchenko | Wednesday, 09 July 2008 at 06:58 AM
Let me make some replies. First of all, to Mark Underwood.
To go back to the question of contamination. It is obvious that in slipping something into a drink, you would be likely to have direct contact with it, so contaminating yourself. So the container argument does not hold.
"4) Only a total ninny would be unable to imagine that a man suffereing a slow death would not attract sympathy " Not much sympathy seems to have been attracted in Russia. Quite the opposite. Putin never seems to have cared a fig for what people thought of him abroad, especially in the UK. He believes that might is right, and his power does not derive from foreign public support. Overseas he would prefer to be feared rather than liked.
To Gregor: "It is quite comical that this weirdo points out that we have free debate in this country so we shouldn't question the government when they make unfounded assertions about dangerous foreign countries." First of all, your argument is not reinforced by calling me "comical" a "Tory" and a "weirdo". I am actually a lifelong Lib Dem and find the Tories utterly objectionable. I am absolutely in favour of questioning governments and their motives (often they are suspicious) but raising conspiracy theories on the basis of flimsy conjecture apparently solely in order to do down Britain in support of a Russia is not the same thing.
To Ivan Ivanchenko: You say: " talk to thousands of expats in Moscow and St Pete who once here never want to leave for Dear Old Britain. Why do you think this is the case Mr Robert from NW6?" Presumably they are just keen to siphon off some of your new-found oil wealth, not to enjoy the free, open, safe, benign and corruption-free paradise that is present-day Russia. I have met UK ex-pats there and they are only in it for the money.
Posted by: Robert NW6 | Wednesday, 09 July 2008 at 08:28 AM
If you can read Russian, there's a nice piece of analysis on the news website sobkorr.ru on the latest threat assessment - the general tone of the piece is "Well, what did the Kremlin expect?"
The Litvinenko case (which would seem to require access to Rosatom's tables of the effects of various doses of ingested alpha-emitters to carry out, and to me seems most likely part of an internal turf war) is an entertaining sideshow, which is why it gets on TV. The sheer volume of comments here shows how much prurient interest there still is in it. Even I've stopped understanding the TNK-BP case now, so it's hardly the sort of thing you can stuff into a ten-minute slot on Newsnight, even if it is critical to Russia's future participation in the global economy.
It would have been nice to see at least some English-language coverage of Mr Medvedev's comments last week that he considers that the establishment of a parliamentary democracy would spell the end for Russia, though. (These were also reported on sobkorr.ru) On that front at least, the British media seem to be giving the newcomer something of an easy ride.
Posted by: Ian Kemmish | Wednesday, 09 July 2008 at 09:27 AM
To Mark Underwood,
I am well aware of the effect of an ABM system but the treaties
were for the cold war during the Great Mexican Standoff.
However the cold war finished and no one is interested in attacking
Russia (and Russia knows this), and most Russians are not interested in attacking "the West". The point is that the current Russia government has the sickness of wanting to feel important and part of this is that its neighbours should ask its permission before they sort out their defences or treaties with others.
As to whether the Poles and Czechs should let their land be used to protect the US, it is up to them - I am not sure I would.
As for NATO, if the eastern states want to join it thats probably because they have a real fear and hatred of their former colonialists - you may think its all an American thing but the eastern states have there own motivation - and many of them are still sympathetic to the US for its opposition to their being forced into what a Czech border guard once described to me as the "Russian Commonwealth". They suffered under it - not you or me.
The villain here is Russian arrogance - not American paranoia.
Perhaps its more correct to say that the real villain is the top heavy great-leader/oligarch system of power that allows Russian policy to be dictated by the whims of a few small brained egos.
Posted by: PHCO | Wednesday, 09 July 2008 at 12:12 PM
Robert NW6:
I am afraid that the container thing does hold, not only would the alleged perpetrator have to unknowingly contaminate himself, he would also have to fail to carry out any form of precautionary decontamination, a very obvious step for anyone dealing with such a dangerous substance.
The suggestion that Putin is completely oblivious to his public image in the world is too fatuous to require an answer.
As to the apparent lack of sympathy among Russians for the victim, perhaps much like yourself, they regard the exercising of their critical faculties when dealing with a government story to be an act of disloyalty. I am sure that you would fit in far better over there than I would.
One thing we might agree upon (assuming that your earlier claim was correct) is that leaving the security arrangements to foreign customs officals is a huge gap in our national security. If indeed it is possible to smuggle radioactive materials into the UK in this way, that is a disgrace and it should be rectified immediately.
To sum up, the (alleged) plan was unnecessarily costly, with an extra risk of detection (radioactivity) thrown in for no obvious benefit. Even a person of only modest insight could have predicted that it would generate a wave of sympathy for Putin's opponents and considerable adverse publicity for the whole regime. Not only that, but it was apparently bungled anyway, and not even the most obvious precautionary decontamination procedures appear to have been used. Even the fear-inducing motive doesn't seem to hold water, if they cannot even manage a straightforward assassination without creating a major diplomatic incident, then how scary are they?
I was sceptical about this affair from the beginning and nothing that you have said has affected my opinion at all.
Posted by: Mark Underwood | Wednesday, 09 July 2008 at 09:12 PM
PHCO:
Since you are still arguing, I think that its worth examining your comments in detail. The points from your earlier post were numbered, this makes life easier.
(1) The humilation of the British Council and suspicion of all foreign groups as anti-russian.
I don't know the situation with ALL foreign groups, but it would not surprise me one bit if the 'British Council' were funding agitators.
(2) The "fake brick in the park" affair.
So the Russians catch us spying on them and that is somehow evidence of THEIR aggression or THEIR paranoia. An interesting take on the situation to say the least.
(3) The current swiping at BP interests in Russia.
I don't know enough about this issue to have an opinion regarding the rights and wrongs of it. However, it could certainly provide a plausible motive for attempts to undermine Putin.
(4) The blatant use of Putin supporters to chase the opposition
off the streets.
Let me see, two thousand Russians have a demonstration in Moscow and twenty arrests are made, apparently this is big news in the UK and proves that Russian democracy is a sham. The same size demonstration in the UK would either be ignored or dismissed as a collection of beardy weirdoes, commies and agitators and would not (apparently) reflect on the state of our democracy at all.
(5) The current nuclear threats because of an early warning system and interceptor missiles in Poland or the Czech republic. Just how is that a threat?
Since in your later post you claim that you knew perfectly well that anti-ballistic missiles are an integral part of a first-strike capability, I put it to you that you have been deliberately disingenuous in one or the other of your claims, which one?
The suggestion that the Russians should not have any fears of attack are laughable. Since WW2 the US has bullied, threatened, attacked, invaded or staged military coups in a huge number of countries. They have openly supported butchers, torturers, murderers and jack-booted thugs in general. In 'Rebuilding Americas Defences' the neo-con defence document from the (recently removed) 'Project for the New American Century' website, the neo-cons are openly talking about establishing 'full spectrum dominance' in order to further US interests in the world. The US has already proved that they cannot be trusted to keep to their agreements; they agreed not to expand NATO eastwards in return for Russian complicity in the reunification of Germany; they agreed to guarantee Serbia's territorial integrity in return for Russian co-operation in the Balkans; both agreements were reneged upon. To claim that the Russians have nothing to be paranoid about is either ignorant or disingenuous.
Oh, and one more thing, to avoid the predictable comeback, the 'Project for the New American Century' website may be gone but millions of people know about it, most of it can still be found in the internet archives and there is an extensive Wikipedia article on the subject which includes most of the salient points and the juiciest quotes.
Posted by: Mark Underwood | Thursday, 10 July 2008 at 05:31 PM
So if we Scots get our independence and invite Ivan to set up bases on our soil, I guess that will be okay with our neighbours?
Some detailed and well-researched articles on Litvinenko, and why there was no black/ white in this case:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,,2246124,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/dec/03/russia.world
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/specter-that-haunts-the-death-of-litvinenko/73212/
Posted by: Gregor | Thursday, 10 July 2008 at 05:56 PM