So now that odd organisation Interpol has joined the ever more multi-national hunt for Alexander Litvinenko’s assassins. This all completely pointless. If the Kremlin or anyone else had wanted Alexander Litvinenko dead with no one knowing who had killed him, they would have simply have hired some thug in London to push him under a bus or stick a knife in him. But no… instead the murderers chose an absurdly sophisticated method of assassination by using an exotic toxic isotope only available to someone with access to the resources of a nuclear industry. The conclusion to draw from this is screamingly obvious: Vladimir Putin wants his critics to know who killed Litvinenko in order to frighten them into silence. I can see no other plausible explanation.
So why keep pretending it is a mystery who murdered this man? He was killed in London by agents of the Russian government and as a result the only discussion needed is how to react to a foreign government using violence to decide who can say what about people in Britain. At least the sort of response directed at Iran in the aftermath of the Salman Rushdi affair must be implemented. At the very least.
And used $30 million worth of the stuff at that. If nothing else, that shows why it wasn’t, eg, Chechnyen rebels: if they had $30 million worth of 210Po, they’d sell it and buy C4, not use it all on one guy.
Who’s got all the oil! Who’s got all the oil!
I Have!
So if you nice Special Branch officers will take yourselves off home and write the meaningless and contradictory report that my friend Tony sent you out to do- Well then we can all get back to normal.Are you listening dissidents?
V Putin
To our eternal shame, we will do precisely nothing about this.
Rats Perry. You’ve solved the case, and here was I enjoying all the convoluted arguments over at AJ’s between those who believe it was a Putin hit job, those who believe it was a Mafia hit job designed to place the blame on Putin and those who believe it was an accident among smugglers who were either building a dirty bomb or replenishing the triggers of an old suitcase nuke, (or selling the stuff to those who would).
Seriously, the idea that Putin or his henchmen would use PO 210 to murder an enemy in such a way is pretty frightening. Yes, it sends a message, but there are a lot of people, both here and in Hamburg – not to mention the travellers on those planes – who may have received a dose of poison which could cause them real problems down the line. (Irene Joliet-Curie, the only other known case of Polonium poisoning died more than ten years after her accidental exposure.)
I think the sanctions on Russia and Putin better be pretty severe if ever the case was proven since this amounts to an act of war. Of course, these circumstances pretty much guarantee that the case will never be proven.
Even more frightening is the idea that people are smuggling PO 210 since it would be a nasty addition to a dirty bomb but it is also used in the trigger device of primitive nuclear devices. The Chechen links of some of the players and the Islamic conversion of Litvinenko are nor reassuring on that score.
I vacillate between the “It was Putin Wot Dun It”, “It’s the Russian Mob – Putin wouldn’t make such a mess”, and “Smugglers mate, they thought they’d see what they was carrying or divvy it up or something” camps, but none of them provide any comfort.
I reckon they’ll be 1000 books, a hundred TV docs and 10 movies on this one, and no-one will ever be the wiser. Unless the dirty bomb or nuke goes off this Christmas.
Read a post including comments from a former KGB operative who’s a friend of some right wing blogger (the only kind I read, I confess) who completely debunked the idea that this was a Kremlin/KGB or other alphabet soup hit–just way too messy and slow. It is absurd that a sophisticated assassination squad, trying to silence a critic, would kill him in a way that allowed him to linger, talk, provide forensic evidence, and generally dangle in front of media to entice all kinds of scrutiny. I’m far more convinced of the smuggling connection and either an ad hoc underworld double agent offing or just a horrible (for Litvinenko) accident. Truly, no explanation is comforting with that stuff apparently just floating around. Glad I don’t really like sushi anyway.
Who’s got the oil?
Alberta!
And if Euros eren’t caught in the time warp of the old mantra that there’s only so much of the stuff and down the road we’re all going to freeze in the dark so we’d better make nice to all the assorted thugs and crazies so they won’t cut off the supply they would wise up and put their investment where the trouble free resources are – in Alberta.
No, Ay Uaxe,
That, as Perry points out is exactly why it is a clear example of state terror: messy, slow, expensive, complicated and with maximum news exposure. Messy and slow is how all gangsters would prefer their enemies to die if it can be arranged, as a demonstration of power; but non-statal gangsters normally want it cheap, simple, and only notified to the people they want to frighten, not all the world. The point with such public execution, and with torture too, is not to punish one so much as to inspire fear in others. That reduces the likelihood of challenge and the long term costs of getting cooperation. State terrorists don’t have to worry about restricting the audience, and expense and complication multiply the drama and clarify the message.
Of course it also asserts power very absolutely, proving there are no limits, and thereby has a good deal of affinity with the crimes of self-esteem of some serial killers. (Which is I believe one of main reasons that democratic politicians do from time to time connive at torture: to know they are powerful enough, and have enough will, to step beyond the civilised constraints.)
The whole point of killing Mr Litvinenko in such a dramatic and slow way was exactly so everyone would see (as Perry points out). “Look I can do something this obvious and no one will anything” – like the bully in school who kicks (or spits on, or whatever) another child in front of a teacher.
If the teacher does nothing (for fear of the bully making a charge of sexual abuse – or playing some other card) then the bully has gained total power.
Mr Putin has form.
Let us say that he was NOT responsible for the destruction of the housing blocks in Russia 1999 (and that the F.S.B. people found, by local police, with explosives in another housing block were really “on a training exercise of which the local police were not informed”). Let us just say that Mr Putin was fortunate that there were terrorist attacks that allowed him to start a new war and come to power.
Although President Yeltsin had already been undermined by the credit money bubble (not just asset price inflation as we have – but open goods-in-the-shops massive inflation) and the banking and economic crises that this led to. Yeltsin got the blame for all this – but (of course) it was clever advisers who really thought that allowing lots of extra money would be a good idea. The old drunk (left to himself) might have declared that only gold coins (or some other commodity) were money, or that if the money was fiat (government command) then they should not print lots of it – of create lots of it via the banking system. There are many types of drunk (drink tends to bring out what is there anyway) and Yeltsin was a good drunk.
Mr Putin still did the following:
Killed off the moderate Chechen leadership (and vast numbers of civilians) – thus leaving the resistance to Russian rule dominated by Islamic nutters.
Allied (unofficially) with Iran (in spite of the killing of lots of Muslims the Iranian regime is happy to be friends with Mr Putin because he sells them lots of nice stuff and they understand that he hates America and the West in general – in this the Iranian regime show themselves to understand Mr Putin a lot better President Bush does).
Made nice with Chevez (selling him lots of weapons, entertaining him in Moscow and so on) – no great reason for this (Russia certainly does not need oil), but Chevez hates America (indeed the West in general – hence his fantasy about recreating pre Columbian society) – and having a bit of extra money is always nice.
Got rid of all the independent television and radio stations (for the newspapers see later).
Nationalized the companies of any businessman who opposes him (the businessmen being sent to labour camps – or worse). This gives Mr Putin the added bonus of more oil money to spend – although (of course) long term investment in the natural resource companies that Mr Putin has stolen is not going to go very well.
Undermined trial by jury. Introduced by reforming Emperors (one of the aspects of Russian history that gets left out of the general books) and destroyed by the Marxists, trial by jury was reintroduced by Boris Yeltsin, and is now (under Mr Putin) and empty shell.
Ditched Yeltsin’s plan to get rid of conscription – thus each generation of young Russian males (that can not bribe their way out – the idea that Mr Putin has got rid of corruption is, to use a technical term, bullshit) has to undergo the rituals of the Russian army for new conscripts (beatings, rape, sometimes murder).
Done away with the election of state governors – appointing them instead.
Set up various paramilitary thug “associations” – including one for children.
De facto banned (via regulations) most independent charitable organizations (especially ones with links to other countries).
As for the newspapers. Mr Putin has indeed left one independent newspaper – which hardly anyone outside Moscow can buy (and it is not exactly easy to get in Moscow either).
He kills journalists of this newspaper from time to time (President Bush telephoned about the latest murder wishing Mr Putin good luck with the investigation, which must have given Putin a good laugh – as, sadly, President Bush was not being ironic). But few people seem to notice – so a more dramatic gesture was clearly needed (to get people’s attention about who is the big man).
The bombing in the U.A.E. (after which some F.S.B. people were caught) did not get Mr Putin much attention (even the Muslims do not seem to care – just as they do not care about the vast numbers of Muslims killed by the “resistance” in Iraq).
Nor did the “laws” passed by the rubber stamp Duma – allowing people to be killed overseas – for expressing dissent (not for anything they have done or may be trying to do).
So Mr Putin needed something really theatrical.
Other than jumping up and down shouting “It was me, I am really bad cat” (which really would mean that noone could meet him again) this was about as good a point making exercise as Mr Putin could manage.
For “balance” the positive side.
He has not generated hyperinflation (although inflation is rather high in Russia).
He has replaced the “progressive” income tax of President Yeltsin (a farce, suggested by Westerners such as the people that President Clinton and Vice President Gore sent). Mr Putin at least had the wit to notice that high income tax rates get in less revenue than more moderate ones (he had the example of Estonia to look at), although Mr Putin has left a lot of other taxes in place.
And – well that is about it really. As I pointed out above the idea that Mr Putin has ended (or greatly reduced) corruption is nonsense -as is the idea that he has “smashed organised crime” (or the “Russian Mafia”) actually he and the type of K.G.B. (Chekist -, a name that comes from Lenin’s swine, that Mr Putin regards with pride) man he represents (there were some decent people in the new F.S.B., including in the anticorruption section, but they are long gone – the ones that are not dead) get on well with criminals (they always did – even back in the 1930’s).
As for “I have looked into his soul and he is a good man” (what President Bush is supposed to have said). This comment (if accurate) shows that President Bush is (in this case at least) a bad judge of character, and also a bad theologian (again in at least this case) – as human beings do not have the power to look into the souls of other human beings.
Guy Herbert’s comment was good.
Sorry for three comments in a row – but Guy’s mentioning of “gangsters” reminds of something I was told by some Russian speakers (I can not speak Russian).
Mr Putin sometimes chooses to talk in the language that emerged in the camps from the 1920’s onwards (a mixture of the old Russian thief slang and Soviet forms) – a language that spead to the Cheka, N.K.V.D., M.G.B., K.G.B.
For example (in a PUBLIC utterance) Mr Putin choose to talk not about “killing” certain Chechens – but, rather, he used words similar to (in English) “doing them in, in the bog” – Soviet camp speech.
This may be partly force of habit (from all his years in the K.G.B.) – but it is hard not to see it as also a deliberate statement that he (Mr Putin) is a gangster and that he will use criminal methods.
Mr Putin certainly has (as his type have always had) links with criminals (i.e. ordinary criminals – although the line in Russia between ordinary criminals and the government is rather a blur and has been since 1917) – including (oddly enough) Chechen criminals.
I have found over the past few weeks that 2 words work wonders with Putin defenders and their “its too obvious/too elaborate for an FSB hit” argument, namely
Georgi Markov
OK, Guy and Paul, you almost have me convinced that Putin is Psychopathic enough to top his enemies in this garish and extremely dangerous fashion, but I still have one question left.
Why Litvinenko?
Sure, Sasha is an outspoken critic of Putin, but the world is full of outspoken critics of Putin and Litvinenko is, despite his death bed assertions not really a big cheese in the Russian dissident scene.
If Putin wanted to get rid of Sasha, a bullet or even a ricin pellet up the jacksy would suffice.
No, if he wanted to make an example of someone in such an obvious way, why not Berezovsky.
Berezovsky was part of the Putin pustch, but they had a big falling out. He’s recently been making noises about reclaiming the rebublic, and he has a few Chechen links, including his next door neighbour Zakayev who is part of the Chechen Government in exile.
So why make an example of Kos when you could go after Soros?
Of course the assassins could have missed or maybe Sasha took the bullet for his pal Boris, but other than that it has me puzzled.
Then there’s this article in Mosnews, which strikes a sinister chord. Especially this bit:
Of course, considering the source, it could be misinformation designed to put us off the scent, but it’s disquieting none the less.
I should add that I don’t want to excuse Putin for any of his many crimes. My big fear is that people will accept the “Putin did it, and there’s nothing we can do about it” theory and fail to rigorously follow up on the smuggling theory, and the consequences of that could be dire.
He was killed in London by agents of the Russian government and as a result the only discussion needed is how to react to a foreign government using violence to decide who can say what about people in Britain.
I disagree, Perry. The Economist put it well a week or so back:
And as I said myself:
Um look I’m no scientist,
But you dont cook polonium210 up in the garden shed with your number two chemistry set.
I am given to understand, that our scientists have the ability to trace it back to the reactor that produced it.
So be it! But of course it wont be will it?
Personally my front-runner has to be the FSB, perhaps as some sort of misguided attempt to demonstrate loyalty. But any other permutation of suspects (hostile Putin critics, discredited oligarchs, free-lance banditos) is also possible.
On the Polonium 210 issue, the absurd lengths the Russians can go to to demonstrate their total incompetence can be entertaining.
Why Litvinenko?
I don’t have a theory more detailed than that the murder is obviously an example of state terrorism. It need not be on the orders of Putin for it to have been done in order to promote Russian interests. Most vicious absolutist regimes have examples of what was called in Germany once “working towards the Führer”. (Actually many pleasant, functional, organisations do too: it is a good way of managing the unmanageable.)
But Russian politics is (and seems always to have been) both labyrinthine and occult. Even someone who knows far more about the players and the game than I do is not going to discern all the currents involved. I daresay few of the players do.
I do wish I’d followed a plan I toyed with in the 93-94 to go and have a closer look at the post-Soviet gold rush. But I was diverted into CD-ROM instead. Much less interesting, if less frightening. Though much more depressing, ultimately, I suspect.
Tim, the reason I regard it as so obvious is that if an arm of the Russian government wanted him dead without Putin’s approval, they would not use a baroque method of murder that attracts such attention, they would just push him under a bus.
This article by former Romanian chief spy says that radiation poisoning has long been used by East block secret services.
Has anyone else heard the theory that Israel did it in order to distract Russia from aiding Iran?
Yeah, Simon. You just can’t have a good conspiracy without Mossad can you?
Also, this had been nagging away in the pits of my memory:
(Link)
In an era when Britain still had balls, Francis Drake was unofficially licenced by Q.E I to singe the Spanish beard. If Putin correctly calculates we are not likely to send a task force across the Baltic or Black Seas to give him a fright, we should at least return his freelance murderous favour with one of our own; he’s no more likely to ‘overreact’ with overt military force than are we.
Why not Boris? I do not know. This does not alter the things that Mr Putin has done (which I listed) – or make it any less likely that he had Mr Litvinenko murdered.
General Denikin (forgive my spelling of the name highest ranking “White” General) died peacefully in Michigan in 1947. Stalin had many lesser ranking people overseas murdered so why not Denikin? I do not know – but that does not alter the fact that Stalin had many other people murdered.
Out of control elements:
I agree with Perry – they would have used a different method.
Putin’s regime has links with criminals:
The “Economist” has a habit of giving accurate infromation and then drawing the wrong conclusion.
For example, it will list some of the harm the European Union does and then say something like “and that is why Britain should stay in” (because of our “influence” or other rot).
Or (to take a recent example) it lists the total domination Chevez has in Venezula (including his smashing victory in the recent election) and then say “this is hopeful for the opposition” (no comment).
On Russia – the argument seems to be “lots of people in the regime have criminal links therefore Putin is not in control”.
Errrr no – Putin is at the heart of the criminal links.
It is a bit like the early episodes of the B.B.C. science fiction series “Blake’s 7” (before the show got rather camp).
The President of the Federation contolled most things – but there was a massive organized crime network and it had links even within the highest government circles…..
Sounded hopeful – till it turned out that the President was the secret leader o the organised crime network.
I do not say that Mr Putin is exactly in the position of the Federation President with his “to control absolutely one must control both sides of the law”, but he has a lot of influence in criminal circles as well as with the (to use an old Chinese term) “official bandits” who are the government.
“Putin’s anti crime crack down has not worked” – not a sign of weakness (unfortunatly) as the “crack down on crime and corruption” was intended only to take out elements independent of the regime (and to impress the public).
Endless “crack downs” are good for the regime – and for its various para military groups (such as the one I mentioned for children.
A nuke in the hands of Islamic nutters.
Always possible.
Indeed Mr Putin might order things in such a way that a nuke found its way to Islamic nutters – in the hope it would be used on London, New York or Washington (how much Mr Putin hates the West is not generally understood). If the nuke was traced back to Russia, the government could simply say “it was stolen by Muslims – we are going to execute the Russians who helped them” well more likely “we have executed the Russians who helped them”.
However, dealing with Islamic nutters is a mistake (even for clever people like Mr Putin) – he could well find such a Russian nuke used on Moscow.
Of course such a terrible event would be an ideal excuse for a vast “crack down” – but Mr Putin might be in Moscow at the time the nuke went off. And if I am certain that this rat values his own life.
Indeed Mr Putin might order things in such a way that a nuke found its way to Islamic nutters – in the hope it would be used on London, New York or Washington (how much Mr Putin hates the West is not generally understood).
I’m sorry Paul, but this is ridiculous. Putin does not hate the West (witness his close relations with Schroeder’s Germany, for instance), and the anti-western noises he makes are simply him playing to the crowd, which doesn’t hate the west either but likes to pretend it does. The idea that Putin will willingly give a nuke to Islamic nutters – who Putin genuinely despises – in the hope that it will be used on a western city is preposterous.
I agree Tim,
I think Paul’s been at the Clancy again…
The Islamic nutter will get their nukes when the wheel finally comes off Musharref’s Pakistan.
Although I have to say I have a weakness for his idea that Servalan is Czarina of all the Russias… Should make diplomacy much more fun…
Actually I do not think that Mr Putin would order things in such a way that a Russian nuke found its way into the hands of Islamic nutters – because he knows he can not trust them.
As for “Putin does not hate the West” – sorry, he does. “Playing to public opinion” – no this is the public opinon that he carefully helped create. Mr Putin hates the West because he hates its political-philosophical principles. He is not a Marxist (I doubt he believes in any doctrine as such), but that does not mean that he can not hate sets of principles – and freedom and civilization are things that he hates (to put it in simple terms – he is a bad man).
I would also guess (although I do not know) that Mr Putin also hates “his friend George Bush” as a person. Partly because President Bush is a trusting fool (that part of the leftist attack is correct) and people of Mr Putin’s type hate weakness of this sort. But also (and this would shock the leftists) because President Bush has a streak of goodness in him (however wrongheaded he is President Bush really does mean the stuff he says about wanting the people of America, Iraq and so on to be free and happy) – being what he is Mr Putin hates goodness in anyone and longs to destroy such people.
As for links with Islamic nutters – extensive.
Not just with countries like Iran – but also closer to home. Some of the Chechens who were won over to the Moscow side were very much of the Islamic nutter type (indeed some of the Islamic nutter groups in that unhappy country that are NOT under Russian control were originally supported [in complex ways] by the Russian regime, as a way of undermining more moderate Chechens – discrediting resistance by eleminating or undermining sane resistors, an old tactic for a K.G.B. man).
“But Putin despises Muslims” – yes, he despises everyone (Muslim or not), that does not alter the above.
B.B.C. Radio 4. just broadcast a programme (1030 Saturday morning) in which it was argued that Mr Litvinenko was mudred in this messy way because he had complied a report for a private company on the activites of a man “very close to President Putin” and thus ruined a deal worth vast sums of money.
The idea behind the messy method was (as Perry suggests) to send a message to other people who might consider messing up Russian deals (or the Russian regime generally).
Two “ex” F.S.B. officers have been identified as having met Mr Litvinenko and at least one of them (most likely both) is still really F.S.B.
There is, as has been known for some time, the trail of P210 that one of the “ex” F.S.B. men left whereever he went BEFORE he met Mr Litvinenko (such as in Hamburg).
Mr Litvinenko himself was ashamed that he had accepted a tea which he had not seen being made (a childish mistake). Whether there was a third man (it is normal for K.G.B. murder units to be made up of three individuals) is as yet unknown.
The B.B.C. programme finally understood (which the B.B.C. has not understood in the past) that Mr Putin’s “war against organised crime” was not about reducing crime – it was about gaining control of it for himself and the rest of the K.G.B. (and about public relations of course).
To Tim Newman, my first thought, on reading your post, was “who will rid me of this troublesome priest”. I don’t think that excuse can really have been considered to have worked that well for Henry II ;o)