05 Dec 07
2 edits
Originally posted by Northern LadI doubt that Putin is responsible for the Politkovskaya murder and the death of Litvinenko for the following reasons:
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on the main points regarding Putin's Russia. One final thought though. You seem to be arguing throughout that you doubt whether Putin (or even his people in the Kremlin) was responsible for the various murders, because he would have done them more professionally. But the rigging of the elections (in which Put e friends who are Marxists. I disagree with their politics but respect their point of view.
(1) Each individual was more of a threat to Putin as a martyr than as a living critic. Politkovskaya was critical of just about everybody, the Chechens as well as Putin, but the West did not care about Putin's adventures in Chechnya, especially insofar as he was battling Muslim extremists. And the Russian people cared less and less about Politkovskaya because she became more and more marginalized and forgotten as Putin's control of the mass media in Russia expanded. She had been diagnosed with cancer and was too weak even to attend her husband's funeral. The natural progression of events is that she should have faded away. Instead, she was killed gangster-style on Putin's birthday and on the eve of his visit to Germany to close a key energy deal with Angela Merkel. Suddenly, the western media has the fuel for a bonfire, with Vladimir Putin as tinder. (Note your comments that Merkel has since become a vitriolic Putin critic.)
Litvinenko was a washed up has-been. Any information he had to give to the West had long since been imparted. Since then he had fallen onto bad times, fronting absurd propaganda for his pimp, Boris Berezovsky, as long as Berezovsky had a use for him. Finally, even Berezovsky tires of him, and there is a falling out. Nodody in the West or inside Russia gives a rat's ass about Litvinenko in any politically significant way. Then, timed to coincide with Putin's G8 Summit meeting, he is (apparently) the victim of an incredibly flamboyant, Goldfinger style assassination plot involving smuggled nuclear materials which, once (inevitably) detected, scream their probable Russian origin at the top of their lungs. Note that the method of lingering death involved gave Litvinenko plenty of time to point fingers and spill anything else he knew. It was scarcely a method of assassination to be used by anyone concerned that Litvinenko was about to reveal inconvenient truths. And even Litvinenko did not at first accuse the Kremlin. Much of "what Litvinenko said" came from Boris Berezovsky's PR machine, ostensibly taken by dictation from Litvinenko upon his deathbed -- impossible to confirm since the putative source is dead.
In order to be able to order such extreme and controversial measures, Putin, in addition to having a (nonexistent) compelling personal motive, would also have had to be able to justify this with the bureaucratic apparatus which (ostensibly) organized and carried out these assassinations. Yet, he had no legal power to do so, and nothing in the recent history of Russia or the Soviet Union justified this, the last defector killed on foreign soil being Walter Krivitsky in Washington in 1941. Furthermore, we are asked to believe that Putin, as a professional politician and the President of Russia, would undertake these highly controversial and attention grabbing assassinations, requiring the knowledge of numerous persons throughout the bureaucratic structure, with no thought that he might open himself up to his domestic enemies and without concern that his policies and ambitions might be scrutinized and opposed by the foreign elements whose cooperation he wanted to cement his power. In a Russia where everyone is potentially double-dealing and nobody is to be trusted, this is absurd. To compare this with the relatively minor matter of influencing an election through illegal advertising, offers of hot food to old people, raffles, and other illegal but (by Russian standards) trivial activities, is nonsensical.
Also, I honestly do not believe that the evidence in the Litvinenko case is consistent with an official assassination plot conceived and carried out by the Russian government. To explain this would require extensive analysis of the entire case, but suffice it to say that, clearly, nothing published hitherto in the popular media has established any sort of actual case against Putin or his ministers. It is all not only highly circumstantial, but weakly so. Can you name even a single piece of evidence tying Putin or official Russian government policy to the death of Litvinenko? The actual chain of argument seems as follows: (a) Litvinenko died as a result of exposure to Polonium 210; (b) This is made at a handful of facilities of which Russia is the most likely source; (c) Litvinenko had for many years been a critic of the Russian government; (d) individuals formerly with the Russian security service (just like Litvinenko) had been associating with him at the time of his death; (e) One of them had apparently been smuggling the radioactive substance through Europe for weeks prior to Litvinenko's death; (f) "There is no such thing as a former Chekist", therefore this was an officially ordered political assassination originating in the office of the Russian presidency.
Do you really think this would stand up in court? Do the British authorities? No. They know that the case will never come to court and are therefore prepared to make as much political hay as they can of it. "Goddam Vladimir Putin and his nationalization of natural gas resources. The man's an authoritarian and an old Communist and KGB apparatchnik and Britain would be better off with someone less intractable in power."
05 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsAbout Politkovskaya - dont you know that leaders of undemocratic regimes (especially in Russia) in practice have never agreed with your statement "Each individual was more of a threat to Putin as a martyr than as a living critic." ? And if Putin`s regime was not involved then Putin should be interested to find real murderers - but passivity from police does not show that. Also your evaluation of Politkovskaya matches with official line of Putin`s regime which is interested to lower her role in opposition to Putin`s regime.
I doubt that Putin is responsible for the Politkovskaya murder and the death of Litvinenko for the following reasons:
(1) Each individual was more of a threat to Putin as a martyr than as a living critic. Politkovskaya was critical of just about everybody, the Chechens as well as Putin, but the West did not care about Putin's adventures in Chechnya, ratchnik and Britain would be better off with someone less intractable in power."
About Litvinenko:
I dont think that intelligence services share with you about all information Litvinenko have given them 🙂 so statement "Any information he had to give to the West had long since been imparted" sounds baseless - we have no (and probably won`t have) access to these information.
Argument "Putin had no legal power to do that" shows only your misunderstanding of informal power of dictators in Russia which official post usually was lower that their real power.
About killing method - don`t you understand that its not so easy to kill professional (as Litvinenko was) in more simple way?
Do all materials of investigation are always published in mass media? I think no - so argument "nothing published hitherto in the popular media has established any sort of actual case against Putin or his ministers" does not seem serious.
About arguments for court - dont you know that there have been done many crimes (especially crimes which have been done by criminal organisation) in which guilty person is obvious, but police has not enough evidences for court? And if crime is made by organisation there are always difficult to prove guilt of organisers.
05 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsYou are completely wrong in what you say in your final paragraph. You are clearly not particularly au fait with the political realities in Britain (and why should you be?). Our Foreign Office always prefers to cringe and grovel rather than stand up in a principled way for what is right (unless they can do it without cost). There was absolutely no attempt to make "political hay" out of it. In fact the British Government, despite making a few token noises of disapproval, were fairly embarrassed by the whole thing and are probably relieved that the affair seems to have died a death and may soon be forgotten. With all that natural gas we can't really afford to offend Putin, just as we recently rolled out the red carpet for the revolting Saudis.
I doubt that Putin is responsible for the Politkovskaya murder and the death of Litvinenko for the following reasons:
(1) Each individual was more of a threat to Putin as a martyr than as a living critic. Politkovskaya was critical of just about everybody, the Chechens as well as Putin, but the West did not care about Putin's adventures in Chechnya, ratchnik and Britain would be better off with someone less intractable in power."
I remain convinced that Scotland Yard had built up a compelling case against Lugovoi, though I would agree it's not clear exactly on whose behalf he was acting. It is a sad reflection on today's Russia that splits and faction-fighting within the FSB/KGB and other security agencies may be more of a problem for Putin than any democratic opposition.
I have never claimed that Putin was definitely responsible for Livinenko's murder, but neither would I entirely rule out the possibility as you seem to. (It's touching to see your faith in his keeping to the letter of the Russian Constitution.) You seem to infer that Berezovsky was probably responsible for Litvinenko's fate. I find that highly unlikely, but you must be aware that that was the official Kremlin line, and a huge amount of propaganda was put out in support of that. I hope you have not been unduly influenced yourself.
Incidentally I don't find the blatant fraud in the Russian election "trivial" and "relatively minor". Apart from the inducements you mention, there is strong evidence of systematic multiple voting, ballot stuffing, and widespread intimidation and threats. (I think Kasparov made a good point that fear of the authorities is now virtually genetic within the Russian people.) And this is to say nothing of the farcical Soviet-style results which came in from some of the "Autonomous" Republics.
05 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Northern Lad(1) On the contrary, a great deal of political hay has been made, not merely in the British press (though certainly in that) but also in the Western media in general. Propaganda battles are fought in the court of public opinion. They in turn give governments the moral authority to carry out actions which have other motivations. Ever since the "police case" and Russia's refusal to extradite were announced, Vladimir Putin has been all but hung in effigy. Governments that were formerly prepared to overlook the "unpleasantness in Chechnya" and Putin's authoritarianism for reasons of realpolitik now take quite a different line on a variety of matters having great importance to Russia (and to western businessmen).
You are completely wrong in what you say in your final paragraph. You are clearly not particularly au fait with the political realities in Britain (and why should you be?). Our Foreign Office always prefers to cringe and grovel rather than stand up in a principled way for what is right (unless they can do it without cost). There was absolutely no attemp cical Soviet-style results which came in from some of the "Autonomous" Republics.
(2) I do not categorically rule out the involvement of Putin in the Litvinenko case. It is always possible that additional information will surface which makes this more plausible than is currently the case. Until then I must continue to be profoundly skeptical and ask Cui bono?
As for Berezovsky, it is amazing how many individuals in the case have direct connections to him -- far more than to Putin. Many of the principals of the case (as well as those on its margins) are known to have met with him just before Litvinenko's death -- can this be demonstrated of Putin? As an oligarch with enormous wealth, strong political connections within Russia, and equally enormous political ambitions -- he has vowed on British public radio to overthrow the government of Russia by extra-legal means -- he has very strong motives to embarrass and undermine the Russian government in general and Vladimir Putin specifically. Putin has no such motives. Is this a case for murder against Berezovsky? Of course not. I do, however, think that his involvement with whatever occurred -- murder or accidental death -- is much more plausible on its face than that of Vladimir Putin. And regardless of this, he certainly took full advantage of the death from a propaganda standpoint. Perhaps you are not aware of the extent to which his public relations machine influenced coverage of the case in the Western press. If Putin were signing death warrants, Berezovsky would have been well forward in the queue compared to Litvinenko (who was, after all, just another of the prostitutes in Berezovsky's harem).
I do not think Putin is a strict constitutionalist. In fact, the idea is laughable. I do however think he has much stronger and more canny instincts for political self-preservation than he seems to be credited with in the Western press. A bit of electioneering is hardly a great risk to him in this regard: his domestic political opposition is outside the system and therefore of no consequence, and those within his own ruling party are scarcely likely to press a case against him for presiding over a political apparatus which attempts to advance their own cause; and as regards Western attitudes, well, it is an internal matter of domestic Russian politics and a fait accompli in any case. Ordering wholesale, extralegal assassinations of one's domestic, civilian political enemies (e.g., Politkovskaya) is quite another matter. Putin lacks the power to safely take such matters into his own hands.
(3) I came to my own conclusions about the Litvinenko case quite early and quite independently. I was surprised to see the Russian government take many of the same positions, in public communiques, shortly after I did. It seems unlikely that they took their cues from me, so it must be that we think alike in such matters. Scary. Well, as you chaps are so fond of saying, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. I think that there really is a great deal of prejudice in the Western media against Vladimir Putin and Russia. More objective standards of evidence would have been applied had he been just another lap-dog of the West. There was a great deal of presumption of guilt even though the evidence didn't warrant it.
More about the elections: Vladimir Putin is the President of Russia and the highest ranking member of the ruling party, Unified Russia (commonly translated as United Russia), and the elections were for legislative seats, not the office of the president. Do you really think he sat in on meetings of the street level party tacticians, giving orders? "Post our signs closer to the voting booths. Never mind if it is illegal." No. He is not, of course, beyond reproach even in such matters, so I said nothing about this earlier.
Another point, far more important: though the West is loath to admit it, Putin and his party ARE enormously popular in Russia. Far more than the most popular opposition (the communists). Many of those who strongly oppose some of his domestic policies still planned to vote for Unified Russia. Russians also like a strong leader. (Yes, I know it is a stereotype, but there is truth to it.) If all matters involving the election had been run with absolute integrity, his party would not have been routed; it would simply have had to share a little more of the power, that is all. Greedy s.o.b.s? Yes.
05 Dec 07
4 edits
Originally posted by Korch(1) Russian leaders have regularly maintained that such individuals (e.g., Politkovskaya), were no threat to the Russian state and therefore unlikely to be the targets of state planned assassinations. And no known facts contradict this.
About Politkovskaya - dont you know that leaders of undemocratic regimes (especially in Russia) in practice have never agreed with your statement "Each individual was more of a threat to Putin as a martyr than as a living critic." ? And if Putin`s regime was not involved then Putin should be interested to find real murderers - but passivity from police does f crime is made by organisation there are always difficult to prove guilt of organisers.
Failure to convict a suspect is not the same as "passivity" by the police. Professional assassinations, whether carried out by gangsters or others who do not identify themselves, are notoriously difficult to solve, because ordinary circumstances involving means, motive, and opportunity do not obtain. In an ordinary murder, one begins by questioning family, neighbors, and co-workers, unless the investigators already have a line to follow. That is because in most cases a relationship exists between murderer and victim. That sort of routine does not get one very far in a case like Politkovskaya, which depends to a much greater extent on the shadowy world of police intelligence. The fact that the police and prosecutors have not arrested and convicted a convenient scapegoat, despite the fact that this would take some of the pressure off of Putin and his government, actually argues a greater degree of independence and integrity than one might think.
(2) Litvinenko: again, if you want to shut someone up because you fear they are about to tell inconvenient truths, you do not do so in a manner which causes a lingering death. Litvinenko was hard-up for money and had been in the West for years. He had already been milked dry -- even his usefulness to Berezovsky was at an end. (Why, we do not know: but there was a quarrel between them not long before Litvinenko's death -- this much is a matter of public record.)
(3) Speculations about the secret powers of the Russian President constitute an argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy. The Western press made much of the recently passed anti-terrorism legislation authorizing assassinations in some limited circumstances, as if this made it much more plausible that Putin would begin engaging in such acts. Too bad they didn't do their homework because the language refers only to "terrorists and their bases abroad".
(4) Arguing that the British police have secret (unpublished) evidence against Vladimir Putin is another argument from ignorance. The burden of proof is on his accusers. Since *you* do not have access to putative "secret proofs" it is *your* presumptions that cannot be taken seriously.
(5) I do not think that the Litvinenko death, if an assassination, was carried out in a particularly professional manner. It was more like the Keystone Cops. These individuals clearly had not even been instructed in the proper handling of the materials -- something which trained assassins acting with government support would not have neglected. Nor were the containers used adequate to safely transport them. Furthermore, the very nature of the radioactive materials -- being produced by only a handful of laboratories, chiefly in Russia -- was scarcely an intelligent way to poison an enemy of the Russian state even if one accepts that radioactive poisoning is the way to conduct such assassinations. There are far less rare but equally deadly substances. Some of these are much more easily obtainable and much less expensive. Some of them can be obtained in the country where the operation is to take place, without having to smuggle them in. The same is true of ordinary poisons (non-radioactive). The planning involved is, quite frankly, bizarre, byzantine, and unprofessional. One can only conclude that, if his death was the result of assassination, the main object was to attract media attention and implicate the Russian government in the minds of the gullible. The death was flamboyant, prolonged, and guaranteed to attract worldwide scrutiny, and timed to coincide with a summit of world leaders at which Putin was a participant.
05 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Mark Adkins(1) If you would know history of Russia/USSR (20th century) then you would know that in 70th-80th dictatoric governments (when they had to talk about such unpleasantness) have claimed disidents small number of people harmless to their regime (and most of disidents could not make serious danger). But it did not prevent to oppress them.
(1) Russian leaders have regularly maintained that such individuals (e.g., Politkovskaya), were no threat to the Russian state and therefore unlikely to be the targets of state planned assassinations. And no known facts contradict this.
Failure to convict a suspect is not the same as "passivity" by the police. Professional assassinations, whether uld not have neglected. Nor were the containers used adequate to safely transport them.
If government have special interest to disclose some crime, then they makes hint to police and then police is using much more resources to that crime than usually. It happens in almost all countries, especially in such police states as Russia.
(2) Even if he milked dry there might be motive to show other Russian spies whats happening with traitors.
(3) I`m not talking about "secret powers". Cant you understand that in undemocratic states dictator may take decisions about everything? And do you really believe that acts with serious consequences would be done without permission of dictator?
(4) Jesus - are you really so naive to believe that police is publishing all investigation materials in newspapers?
(5) I didn`t know that you are professional killer who knows how to kill in a particularly professional manner. 😀
Then please share your knowledge with us and say how could they kill Litvinenko in more professional manner?
05 Dec 07
3 edits
Originally posted by Korch(1) Even in the USSR in the 70s and 80s, most dissidents were not assassinated. Nor is Russia today the USSR. You have yet to demonstrate why, under the circumstances, it was necessary to kill a cancer ridden woman who was too weak even to attend her husband's funeral (Politkovskaya), whose complaints had been politely but disinterestedly received by Western governments, repressed into obscurity by Russian state media, and ignored or forgotten by all but a tiny group of Russian liberals. You have yet to explain why, in a state without the massive societal and legal controls available in the USSR, the President undertook to have such an assassination carried out gangster-style, on his birthday, on the eve of an important meeting with Germany's Angela Merkel at which he was to close an important energy deal. You have yet to explain how it would be possible to have such a monumentally illegal act organized and carried out without any whiff of scandal from a security service and bureaucratic apparatus staffed with double-dealing, infighting, self-serving individuals serving multiple political masters.
(1) If you would know history of Russia/USSR (20th century) then you would know that in 70th-80th dictatoric governments (when they had to talk about such unpleasantness) have claimed disidents small number of people harmless to their regime (and most of disidents could not make serious danger). But it did not prevent to oppress them.
If government have spe are your knowledge with us and say how could they kill Litvinenko in more professional manner?
(2) Which is it? Are the police in the Politkovskaya case passive, or overactive? Why have they and the prosecutors not arrested and convicted a scapegoat for Politkovskaya's death, thereby relieving some of the pressure on Vladimir Putin and his government, if they are serving Putin's political interests?
Even our local authorities in the U.S. can do better than that! There was an infamous case involving the murder of Buddhist monks at a local temple. There was much pressure to arrest suspects. Not surprisingly, suspects were duly arrested and convicted, on the basis of confessions given by them. After serving years in prison, it came to light that the individuals had nothing to do with the crime, and that their confessions were coerced and given to avoid harsher sentences by cooperating. They were released.
(3) Very well. First of all, if I chose poison, I would use a poison (not necessarily radioactive -- either chemical or biotoxin) that was easier to handle and administer, not so expensive, not so easily aerosolized (and therefore not able to affect persons other than its intended target) and not something which can be traced back to its country of origin, unless that country of origin is the one in which the operation is to take place (here, Great Britain). It would be something which induces symptoms resembling illness at the diagnostic level (autopsies might reveal it if looked for properly). Better still, I would surveil the target to establish habits and routes, then stage a fatal robbery (mugging) indistinguishable from dozens of similar, ordinary events at a suitable location and time, with the get-away organized ahead of time. If insuring death was not strictly necessary, a hit-and-run accident (with similar preparation) could be considered. There are still better ways but I do not care to make suggestions on a public forum since it would be extremely simple for a psychopath to carry out with little or no expertise.
06 Dec 07
3 edits
Originally posted by Mark Adkins(1) Yes - in 70s and 80s many dissidents were also pent up in prisons or psychiatric hospitals. Nowadays its easier to send some killer and pretend that its done by some third person. As we can see from you and other naive people that works. Most of dissidents were people "whose complaints had been politely but disinterestedly received by Western governments, repressed into obscurity by Russian state media, and ignored or forgotten by all but a tiny group of Russian liberals.", but it does not disturb Soviet regime to oppress them.
(1) Even in the USSR in the 70s and 80s, most dissidents were not assassinated. Nor is Russia today the USSR. You have yet to demonstrate why, under the circumstances, it was necessary to kill a cancer ridden woman who was too weak even to attend her husband's funeral (Politkovskaya), whose complaints had been politely but disinterestedly received by Wes ce it would be extremely simple for a psychopath to carry out with little or no expertise.
Dont`t you understand that dictatoric and totalitar regimes oppresses each opposition and it does not matters how effective that opposition is?
(2) In this case police was passive as usually, which means that Putin`s regime was not interested to find guilty persons. If the police would arrest and accuse wrong person/persons then there is risk that many people wont believe that these persons have done that, and then suspicions to Putin`s regime will arise.
If Putin`s regime will keep any of dissidents in prison for years without believable reason it will remind how USSR oppressed disidents and the real reason will be obvious. It will dishonor Putin`s regime much more that murder without murderer found.
(3) But these are very foreseeable ways of killing and Litvinenko (as professional) could avoid them.
06 Dec 07
2 edits
Originally posted by Korch(1) During the Cold War the complaints of Soviet dissidents were NOT politely but disinterestedly received by Western governments. On the contrary, they were made into causes celebres and their every word uncritically accepted as gospel truth. You have yet to make a compelling argument showing how killing Politkovskaya, in the manner and with the timing in which it was done, was "easier" on Putin politically than ignoring her. How could he have made things worse for himself? Your only argument seems to be that "dictators cannot tolerate any dissent at all", and by implication, that he is a giggling psychopath who arranges to have his critics executed gangster style on his birthday but somehow expects to be able to plausibly blame unknown third parties. Why do you insist on making Vladimir Putin into an incompetent fool even if you believe that he is as ruthless and intolerant as you say? Also to the point, Putin is NOT a dictator. He does not have the legal or social powers of a dictator. He may someday become one, but until then he cannot afford to safely do the things you attribute to him.
(1) Yes - in 70s and 80s many dissidents were also pent up in prisons or psychiatric hospitals. Nowadays its easier to send some killer and pretend that its done by some third person. As we can see from you and other naive people that works. Most of dissidents were people "whose complaints had been politely but disinterestedly received by Western governments these are very foreseeable ways of killing and Litvinenko (as professional) could avoid them.
(2) Litvinenko was not a spy (this is a myth) and if he was poisoned in the manner suggested he let his guard down badly to drink a cup of tea prepared outside his observation, by individuals known by him to have ties to Russian security and/or by persons of dubious provenance who were unknown to him. This assumes, of course, that he actually expected the Russian government to make an attempt on his life -- as opposed to pretending that he did in order to enhance his own image. You are the naive one if you think that he was some sort of superman or spent his time minutely plotting to avoid assassination. It is quite remarkably simple to kill virtually anyone by the methods I suggested, unless they take very special precautions and insulate themselves to an unusual extent from uncontrolled contact with others.
(3) By definition, a scapegoat IS the wrong person. Naturally, some of Putin's detractors would not believe them to be the guilty party, but others will, and a larger group still will become sufficiently doubtful as to diffuse their criticism. Such methods would work in the international press as well as domestically. So, the fact that the police and prosecutors have not arrested and convicted anyone in the Politkovskaya case, argues to me that they are surprisingly independent of political pressures; I am sure that Putin would welcome the conviction of a scapegoat whether he (Putin) had anything to do with the murder or not. If, ten years later, it is suddenly revealed that the wrong men have been convicted, it may well be politically irrelevant to him at that point.
06 Dec 07
1 edit
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsAgain your constant sniping at the "Western media" makes me wonder what on earth you're talking about. I presume you're referring to the TV, press, magazines, news agencies, and other news outlets and publications in North America and democratic Europe. Of course, there are some appalling examples in the Western media (Fox TV in the States and the British tabloid press come to mind, and there are many others), but I contend that the "Western media" (intelligently and discriminatingly used) are a lot freer and more informative than anywhere else in the world, especially compared to countries where the media are state controlled (directly or indirectly).
(1) On the contrary, a great deal of political hay has been made, not merely in the British press (though certainly in that) but also in the Western media in general. Propaganda battles are fought in the court of public opinion. They in turn give governments the moral authority to carry out actions which have other motivations. Ever since the "police ly have had to share a little more of the power, that is all. Greedy s.o.b.s? Yes.
I am sorry to repeat myself, but what you say about the situation in Britain is just so so wrong. If there's an anti-Putin propaganda campaign going on, either by the British Government or the media, it's certainly passed me by. Just yesterday the Times (London daily) published a long article by Norman Stone (a wellknown, if somewhat iconoclastic British historian) largely in defence of Putin. And the BBC to my knowledge has never accused Putin, or even Kremlin forces, of involvement in the Litvinenko murder. Of course, it reported the accusations made by Litvinenko, his family, and the Berezovsky camp, but it also reported the Kremlin denial and made it clear that there was no independent verification of them. Is that irresponsible journalism?
As regards Berezovsky, I've no particular truck for him. No doubt he's a fairly dodgy character like most of the Russian oligarchs (both pro and anti-Putin). However, I'm sure that if the British police had found sufficient evidence against him (and they interviewed him several times), they would have brought charges against him, rather than Lugovoi. You have to realise that Berezovsky has become an acute embarrassment for the British Government. They would love to be rid of him, but they can't extradite him to Russia (as the Putin regime hypocritically demands), as they know he wouldn't get a fair trial there, so any application for extradition would almost certainly be thrown out by a British court at an early stage.
I've mentioned in previous posts the craven approach of the British Government in its dealings with Putin. For me there is a very strong case for the expulsion of the Putin regime from the Council of Europe (co-authors with the OSCE of the report condemning the Russian elections as "not free or fair" ), since Russia has made a mockery of the commitments it signed up to when it joined. But don't hold your breath waiting for the British Government to even suggest such a thing. In any case, you don't seem to think there was anything too seriously flawed with the elections. Are you really so naive as to suppose that "street-level party tacticians" were able to organise the nationwide intimidation, fraud, and ballot-rigging that took place? Poor old Vlad had nothing to do with it? I'm sorry to have to say it again, but you really are something of an apologist for Putin despite your denials.
06 Dec 07
Originally posted by Northern LadThe definition you provided for "Western media" demonstrates that you know exactly what I meant by the term.
Again your constant sniping at the "Western media" makes me wonder what on earth you're talking about. I presume you're referring to the TV, press, magazines, news agencies, and other news outlets and publications in North America and democratic Europe. . . . I contend that the "Western media" (intelligently and discriminatingly used) are a lot freer a ...[text shortened]... ut you really are something of an apologist for Putin despite your denials.
Freedom of the press is a completely different issue. A media which is free from state control may nevertheless be quite biased, when cultural, political, or nationalistic issues are involved. If you wish to tell me that you are familiar with the British and American coverage of the Litvinenko case, but found no evidence that the preponderance of their mass media demonstrated a strong tendency to reflexively presume the guilt of the Russian government in general and of Vladimir Putin in particular, I will draw my own conclusions as to your perspicacity and/or candor. Exceptional cases do not demonstrate your point.
I have already said that there is no criminal case to be made against Berezovsky on the basis of what has been revealed in the press -- the same is true for Putin. I have also said that, if the Litvinenko death is truly an assassination, Berezovsky makes a more plausible suspect given the circumstances of the case.
I am not familiar with the extent of manipulation in the recent Russian legislative elections, and since I do not believe this has been determined at this early stage, much less made public, I do not believe that you are either. I did not say that Putin had "nothing to do with it". Why do you employ these specious straw-man arguments constantly? I think you are angry that I said Putin and his party is popular in Russia. If you cannot even admit politically inexpedient facts then you have no business operating as an analyst, my friend. You begin to remind me of another well-known "northern lad", Mr. Justice "Ollie" Oliphant. I employ well reasoned, factual arguments which you dismiss with a wave of the hand and the expostulation "What we need here is a bit of common sense". Fine, old chap. I'm sure that line goes down very well at the club.
06 Dec 07
2 edits
Originally posted by Mark Adkins(1) Seems like you have problems to separate Western governments from sources of mass media. And of you think that Putin`s regime is not dictatoric then you have no real idea about whats happening in Russia (considering into account your politic views and residence state it`s not surprising).
(1) During the Cold War the complaints of Soviet dissidents were NOT politely but disinterestedly received by Western governments. On the contrary, they were made into causes celebres and their every word uncritically accepted as gospel truth. You have yet to make a compelling argument showing how killing Politkovskaya, in the manner and with the timin wrong men have been convicted, it may well be politically irrelevant to him at that point.
(2) Is does not matter was Litvinenko spy or not - main thing is that Putin`s regime considered him as traitor. I dont see the point to discuss about killing methods, because dues to lack of knowledge in this area - but if you wanna be diletants who pretends to know everything - your choice.
(3) Your assumption that police in Russia is independent of political pressures only shows then you have no real idea about whats happening in Russia and your views are based on naive belief.
P.S. I don`t see the point to waste my time discussing with you about Russia and Putin`s regime because you are showing obvious lack of knowledges about that. I advice you travel to Russia to make sure how your illusions does not match with reality.
06 Dec 07
2 edits
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsI've just read this whole thread and I have some first hand experience of Russia and of Russians. The arguments you (Mark Adkins) present, in my opinion, demonstrates a great deal of insight and understanding on this subject. I would advise anyone interested to read your posts a couple of times as you deal with a complex subject in a condensed and succinct manner. (Sorry Northern Lad..no offense...you made some good points but I think an honest reassessment of some of what you've written and of what Mark Adkins has written would prove valuable).
The definition you provided for "Western media" demonstrates that you know exactly what I meant by the term.
Freedom of the press is a completely different issue. A media which is free from state control may nevertheless be quite biased, when cultural, political, or nationalistic issues are involved. If you wish to tell me that you are familiar wi common sense". Fine, old chap. I'm sure that line goes down very well at the club.
This does not mean that I am a supporter of Putin.
We can only speculate as to who was behind the murders and there is a credible argument as to why Putin would not have wished these murders to happen. Who knows?
What is known is that Putin is very popular in Russia at the moment and for some Russians the idea that he may have been behind these murders increases his appeal. Some view Putin's actions in Chechnya as a symbol of strength and they view him as a strong leader who is good for Russia. I don't agree with this point of view at all...nor is it the view of every Russian.. but I believe it is worth knowing about.
And I think it's worth repeating that I am not a supporter of Putin and I don't support his actions in Chechnya. I am opposed to racism and I believe in a free press but, like Mark Adkins, I don't believe that a free press is necessarily an unbiased press. I used to work as a news cameraman and have witnessed some shocking examples of self censorship..(and to be fair some excellent, insightful and honest reporting too).
What I find hard to understand is what motivates Kasparov. Is it a deep love of Russia and a belief that Putin is wrong? Did he believe he had a chance of becoming president...he must be surrounded by some sycophants? Is it all publicity seeking in order to make more money from book sales and lecture tours? Is he brave or foolish? Again we can only speculate.
What is interesting here is that people believe Kasparov is immune from assassination because of his high profile...but if we believe the argument about the assassination's being done by Putins opponents..then he is in grave danger.
Kasparov made an interesting comment when a Dutch journalist asked him if his chess abilities had helped him with his politics - he said something along the lines of:
"Chess is a battle between two opponents following a set of rules...with politics there are no rules"
PS: As no one else has had the patience to point this out I think CIV should get one of his Russian mates to explain the difference between "Soviet Union" and "Russia".
06 Dec 07
P.S. Northern Lad, you said something about "strong evidence of widespread ballot stuffing" in Russia in the legislative elections. Could you provide a source citing this? Roughly what percentage of cast ballots are regarded as being stuffed? How was this determined, and by whom?