Mikhail Sokolov: So is Russia continuing to travel along the path laid out by Putin – anti-Westernism, “soft” dictatorship, and so on, or not?

Yuri Felshtinsky: You know, I can’t really call what’s happening in Russia today anti-Westernism, or even soft dictatorship. The people in the government are mostly those who worked for the KGB all their lives, or sometimes for other law enforcement agencies. In addition to the fact that all these people were born and lived in the Soviet era and were trained in the Soviet system, these people have passed through the school of the law enforcement agencies.

I don’t mean to offend the former or current leaders of the KGB, but you and I both know how the selection process for this organization, especially the KGB, worked. In other words, let’s put it this way: there are no good people there. I can’t emphasize this enough. A good person did not go to work for the KGB. I know it from Sasha Litvinenko. I always said to Sasha Litvinenko: “Sasha, you know, there are two people in your organization. One needs to be rewarded, and the other needs to be punished.” He would say: “Who are they?” “The person who should be rewarded is whoever chose you to work in the FSB and the KGB. Because it’s incredible, I mean, you’re a typical KGB officer. And the person who ought to be punished is whoever let slip the moment when you decided to defect from the KGB, because it’s extremely dangerous for the KGB to have you as an enemy.” And as an enemy of the FSB Litvinenko was indeed very dangerous, and so they killed him. They couldn’t find any other way of fighting him, they had to kill him.

To return to our topic: a good person did not go to work for the KGB, so by definition absolutely all the people who served in the KGB were bad people. That may be a naive thing to say.

Mikhail Sokolov: Not very scientific.

Yuri Felshtinsky: No, but it’s true. In everyday terms, you and I and all of us know that all those people are bad people. So what can one expect of the political system of our country, whether present or future, when it’s overwhelmingly led by these same bad people? Of course, nothing good can be expected of it. The fact that from time to time we encounter some anti-Western statements, for example, or some minor wars such as the one in Georgia –it’s all the result of the fact that these people run Russia today. They can’t act any differently, it’s just the way they’re made.

http://felshtinsky.livejournal.com/4745.html

Poor David Miliband. The Britich foreign secretary can’t seem to do a whole lot right…Especially as regards Britiain-Russia relations. A Ria Novosti Article stated that relations between Miliband and his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, could not be worse. The problems all stem from the infamous Alexander Litvinenko poisoning case of 2006. The British Government have been repeatedly trying to extradite Andrei Lugovoi, a former KGB member and now a pro-Kremlin MP (just another one of Putin’s protective circle of friends!), who is a prime suspect in connection with the murder. This has been to no avail. The current visit to Russia was intended to clear up the souring of relations resulting from the Litvinenko case and the ensuing proceedings. However, as a BBC article puts it, Miliband was simply “snubbed” when he repeated his demands concerning the extradition and the future of Russo-British relations. Lavrov’s curt actions surely have something to do with the fact that Miliband met with numerous anti-Kremlin figures and liberal officials, include Mikhail Gorbachev, who has been so outspoken against the Kremlin of late, criticizing United Russia for their running a “managed democracy” akin to that of the former Soviet Union. It seems Britain are starting to pin hopes on a change in power at the next general election in Russia. Could this not be a rather rash move so early in the game?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/02/miliband-russia-visit-litvinenko

Fedotov and McFaul.

Indeed...

“To limit the press is to insult a nation; to prohibit reading of certain books is to declare the inhabitants to be either fools or slaves.”  Helvétius

Despite being well aware that British authorities have in the past imposed injunctions blocking the publication of books deemed to be a threat to national security,* I wasn’t aware it had happened this year:

Surprise surprise, censorship is alive and kicking in our green and pleasant land. There’s a book out there — or not, as the case may be — that the government has forbidden you from reading. A mere two months ago!

Does that give you a little frisson of excitement along with the de rigueur moral indignation? It does me. I wants one, gollum gollum! And it’s not as easy as you’d think to get a banned copy… Read on.

Hayman

In July of this year, Scotland Yard’s former anti-terrorism chief Andy Hayman had his book The Terrorist Hunters killed after the Attorney-General obtained a last minute injunction banning its sale. Two thousand five hundred copies had already been pre-sold and rapidly  became hot property. According to The Times:

The book concentrates on Mr Hayman’s years as Assistant Commissioner for Specialist Operations at Scotland Yard. During that time, he dealt with the London bomb attacks of July 2005 and called for a public inquiry into the events leading up to Britain’s first suicide bombings.

Mr Hayman was also highly critical of the workings of Cobra, the Government’s emergency committee, claiming that it spent too much time discussing politics and not enough time on urgent operational matters.

His book also examines the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, the Russian dissident, and gives a glimpse of the interaction between politicians and senior security personnel.

Sounds bloody interesting all in all! Anybody out there got a copy?

The British Government: injunction wielding, biblioclastic bastards to the last man!

It would appear not. This being the age of the internet, someone who got one of those rare pre-ordered hardbacks should have scanned it and got it up online by now; I’m amazed this doesn’t seem to have been the case. There’s no place for book-banning in this day and age and definitely not if said book exposes the politicisation and corruption of the intelligence services.

(Hayman, despite being a lying scumbag with no small degree of complicity in the murder of Jean Charles de Menezes, has openly called for a public inquiry into the attacks of July the 7th in London.

Given the endless scuzzy discrepancies [see here and here]**  in official accounts of the attacks  – which I narrowly avoided being caught up in, given that I was at Uni at the time and my two campuses were at Kings Cross and Russell Square, both of which were bombed — a public inquiry absolutely ought to happen. But it seems Hayman pissed off the Met by saying so…)

Meanwhile, owners of the Terrorist Hunters, please: it’s the 21st century. Let Wikileaks be your friend! Send them a copy and I’m sure they’ll do the hard work of scanning it and getting it up online for you…

********

*Spycatcher by Peter Wright, a former Assistant Director of MI5, was banned between 1985 and 1988 for revealing state secrets and unpleasant truths about the British security services. (It was later cleared for legitimate sale after the Law Lords acknowledged that overseas publication meant it no longer could be said to contain state secrets).

A decade later, another disgruntled ex-spook, Richard Tomlinson, was arrested on suspicion of breaking the Official Secrets Act for giving a four-page synopsis of a proposed book on his time at MI6 to an Australian publisher. His book, The Big Breach (an entertaining read and available online for free here) ended up being published in Moscow in 2001 and is likewise now available from Amazon.

** I don’t condone either of these accounts. They do raise questions though. And it is precisely the lack of a public inquiry and opacity of official accounts that allows conspiracy theories to flourish. As someone once said “It’s better to light a candle public inquiry than to curse the darkness nutters.”

Calculated Chronocide is a blog, focusing on Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin’s Russia and its drive to restore the old Soviet empire. The name itself actually has several meanings.

chronocide n (Greek khronos, time + Latin cidum, from caedere, to slay; cf. genocide, homicide, parricide) – the murder of time, the violent interruption of historical succession and continuity.

Any revolution is a form of chronocide: the past and present are sacrificed to the future. Any counterrevolution is also a chronocide: the present and the future are sacrificed to the past.
Communism is a chronocide: it destroys the tradition in its leap to the ungrounded future.
Fascism is a chronocide: it brings the society under the spell of the archaic past.

Now, this very regime is glorified, and the Russian people embrace it. Twenty one years it took after the fall of the German Empire in WWI for it to once more unleash a World War under the leadership of a radical dictator. Twenty one years after the fall of the Soviet empire – the year 2012, Vladimir Putin will once again officially become the president of the Russian empire, and anyone who doubts he is not a radical dictator should listen to Putin’s “hang Saakashvili by the balls” speech and read about his progressive destruction of civil liberties, democracy, and peace in what he, quiet ridiculously, terms the “Russian sphere of influence”.  Or, you can just put this blog in your favorites and I’ll tell you all about it. Putin has already shown he is willing to wage economic warfare, use cyber warfare to attack other nations and companies as well as individuals. He has shown that he is willing to kill anyone – anywhere, if he wants. Litvinenko’s poisoning by Lugovoi on Putin’s orders in the middle of London with Polonium-210 amounts to nuclear terrorism. The invasion of Chechnya in 1999 and Georgia in 2008 and the subsequent ethnic cleansing and genocide have shown that Putin has no restraints and is looking to restore the old Soviet empire – just as Hitler was looking for precious Lebensraum. Dissenters in Russia are shipped off to the new gulags of Siberia – and not even a billionaire like Khodorkhovsky is safe from being dragged off by FSB agents in the middle of the night and taken to what has been described as “hell on earth”. Others, such as Anna Politkovskaya, a prominent human rights activist in Russia, are simply liquidated (she was shot at her apartment on Putin’s birthday in 2006 – this being the second attempt at her life as her tea was poisoned earlier but she survived).

Frequently I may make posts regarding other world events, particularly in Iran and Venezuela, as Ahmadinejad (who we just found out had ANOTHER secret nuclear facility to “develop peaceful nuclear energy”) and Hugo Chavez are Putin’s partners-in-crime in the New Cold War. Occasionally, I may make posts about other things, largely unrelated to Russia. However, this will be rare, as I’ll be trying to keep this blog fairly focused.

Now, I’d like to leave you off with a couple cartoons I found fitting for the first post, all credit goes to their respective authors:

Commenting on the recent GQ controversy, and the question of “Radio Liberty’s failure for a number of days to post on its Russian-language website any in-depth reports about the banning in Russia of Scott Anderson’s “GQ” magazine article, which was highly critical of Mr. Putin and accused the FSB of instigating terrorist attacks to help his rise to power”, ex-VOA reporter and executive Ted Lepien writes that

Thirty-one years ago this week, on 7 September 1978, Georgi Markov, a Bulgarian émigré journalist who wrote for Radio Free Europe, BBC and Deutsche Welle, was assaulted in broad daylight on London’s Waterloo Bridge. Markov’s murder happened during the Cold War, but in more recent years the murder of Anna Politkovskaya and of numerous other journalists in Russia, as well as the assassination in London of former KGB and FSB officer Alexander Litvinenko, who became a vocal critic of Mr. Putin, have brought into focus the question of how safe it is in the post-Cold War world to criticize Russian leaders, especially for journalists living in Russia, but also for anybody living in the West who has ties to Russia.

Hat tip: Mari-Ann Kelam

Louis Vuitton shares a quick preview of its new Journeys campaign, featuring astronauts Buzz Aldrin, Sally Ride, and Jim Lovell. Interestingly enough, Neil “Man on the Moon” Armstrong is missing.

LOUIS VUITTON / ANNIE LEIBOVITZ

The ad is gorgeous, as usual, though I have to say the bag is rather oddly-named. The Icare, which sits quietly on the hood of the truck, is named after Icarus (ok, duh) — and as much as I love LV, I have to wonder why.

Here lies Icarus, the little kid who flew too close to the Sun. As science would have it, the wax that secured his feathers melted, he fell into the water with a splash quite unnoticed, and drowned. Oh, and no one noticed. If you’ve ever seen the painting, that’s his leg sticking out of the water on the bottom right… with everyone else minding their own business.

Landscape with the Fall of Icarus, Bruegel

Fingers crossed; I hope the bag doesn’t suffer the same fate! Am really a little superstitious when it comes to names.

Anyway, for those who are still unfamiliar with the Journeys campaign, it’s a series of ads featuring people like Mikhail Gorbachev and Sean Connery. It’s more, dare I say, dignified — and targeted at The Rich and Mature, or as WSJ puts it, aging boomers… or at least people who know what glasnost and perestroika did to/for the Soviet Union (no political comment here).

LOUIS VUITTON / ANNIE LEIBOVITZ

I spent a rather long time staring at the Gorbachev ad when it first came out — because suddenly LVMH became all about history, politics, economics, and not just about models and bags. The Litvinenko reference, which I didn’t notice then, was oddly amusing though. Am guessing it was put there to add another dimension to it — polonium sushi, anyone?

I have to admit I do like these ads though, mainly because they mean something, intellectually, socially, and they’re not just about another pretty face and a new bag.

Time caught up with me in the end. The second semi-final came and went, and as someone else was using the TV, I decided it was as good a chance as any to sleep off a late night and an early start and missed it. Consequently and, it has to be said, uncharacteristically, I’m going to withhold judgment .

With apologies to Cyprus, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary and the Netherlands, I’m going to skip straight to the end. Something of a relief, really. I was pretty much out of Balkan jokes. Now, to the five songs that made it straight through to the final. Starting with…

FRANCE

First appearance: 1956
Wins: 5 (1958, 1960, 1962, 1969, 1977)
Artist: Patricia Kaas
Song: Et S’Il Fallait Le Faire

If anything, France have even more of a right to be aggrieved about Eurovision than we do. Like the UK, they haven’t had a top ten in seven years, and haven’t won the thing since Thierry Henry was crawling around in nappies exclaiming the only three words he knew (‘va’, ‘va’ and ‘voom’). The difference, though, is that while the UK have been whinging and faffing about with rap not once but twice, France have churned out a succcession of irresistibly quirky songs – not all of them extraordinary, but most of them good and original, which is all you really ask for amid a sea of identikit crooning and uniformly bad accents. Last year’s entry, ‘Divine’ by Sebastian Tellier, was refreshingly bonkers, while ‘A Chaque Pas’ by Jonatan Cerrada in 2004 would have been a perfectly normal, functional ballad, had it not been for an alarming ten-foot woman on stilts dancing next to him.

Furthermore, France don’t moan about losing like we do. The country affects a collective Gallic shrug and gets on with being France, which is an understandable and worthy pursuit. They don’t expect to win, you see: there’s no PR gubbins about this year being “the year we finally take it seriously”, no exhaustive promotional jetset, no private meeting with Putin. In fact, the very point of Eurovision seems to jar with French sensibilities – not just the competiveness and point scoring, but the winning.

Ironically, it’s for this reason that you’d love France to win, and here is the song that might well do it. ‘Et S’Il Fallait Le Faire’ (And He Fellated Himself At The Fair) perfectly evokes the 1950s cocktail bar, with an out-of-tune piano in the corner and the view of the stage obscured by a thick fug of cigarillo smoke. It oozes class and glamour, and is in many ways far too good for Eurovision. Patricia Kaas, already a successful singer in France, has that splendid 40-Gauloises-par-jour voice that you suspect can only just about manage to belt out three minutes of faultless singing before needing to cough up a blood clot.

Love it. Win, please.

RUSSIA

First appearance: 1994
Wins: 1 (2008)
Artist: Anastasia Prikhodko
Song: Mamo

How on earth do you follow Dima Bilan? In fact, how do you follow three consecutive top three finishes? Thing is, that’s not 22-year-old Anastasis Prikhodko’s biggest problem.

Her biggest problem, it would seem, is that the performer representing Russia, in Moscow, was born in the Ukraine. As a act of national self-emasculation, it would rank somewhere alongside… ooh, I don’t know, having host the Eurovision Song Contest and then getting an Irishman and a Swede to present it.

No, you know what, perhaps her biggest problem is that she actually tried to enter the song in the Ukrainian national selection contest first, but was disqualified for performing the wrong song. Prikhodko launched a legal challenge, but before a decision was made had already nipped over the border to enter the Russian competition. On winning the Russian vote, she faced allegations that the vote was rigged and was criticised for singing part of the song in its original Ukrainian.

No, actually, I reckon her biggest problem that tape of her on a TV show saying she “doesn’t like Chinese people or blacks”. Or the accusations of being a Nazi sympathiser. Or her brother going on Neo-Nazi marches.

I’m fucking with you, because none of these are actually her biggest problem. Her biggest problem – and what a boring, time-honoured biggest problem this is – is that she can’t hold a tune. ‘Mamo’ is actually a sodding good song. You could imagine it on state television, soundtracking a grainy advert for borsch in a can. It’s spoiled, though, by her grating warble, which disintegrates completely at the end into a primeval roar that brings to mind a grizzly bear who’s just had his dinner nicked by a cheeky eagle. So, not good. But that’s not to say it won’t win. It is Russia, after all. Not only do they have an extensive diaspora beyond its borders, but the case of Alexander Litvinenko, the ex-KGB officer who was given a fatal dose of radioactive poisoning after he voted for Malta, shows that diaspora to be both pliant and obedient.

GERMANY

First appearance: 1956
Wins: 1 (1982)
Artist: Alex Swings Oscar Sings!
Song: Miss Kiss Kiss Bang

Germany’s never been afraid to go against the grain in Eurovision. 1998’s ‘Guildo Hat Euch Lieb’ was one of the first comedy, as opposed to novelty, songs to take to the Eurovision stage, since when we’ve had a dash of country and some Rat Pack swing, which was actually really good.

This year, it’s swing again, although with something of a maverick bent. Thee ‘Alex’ is Alex Christensen, a techno-DJ-cum-pop-producer, while the ‘Oscar’ is Oscar Loya, is a Mexican-American theatre singer. Together they’ve come with something I’m tentatively going to call ‘Euroswing’. Christensen’s techno heritage (if that’s not an oxymoron) is faintly audible, while Loya is clearly a man in love not only with the sound of his own voice, but the look of his own face and very probably the taste of his own burps. His bullish charisma is what’s required of him here.

Of course, it’ll sink without trace like all German entries do. Not just entries, of course. U-boats, as well.

SPAIN

First appearance: 1961
Wins: 2 (1968, 1969)
Artist: Soraya
Song: La Noche Es Para Mí

Being the last act to perform is probably quite a nervewracking undertaking. You’re aware that most of the viewers at home have already made up their minds over who they’re going to vote for, and that only the most extraordinary, outstanding performance will sway them. You’ve had to nervously lay off the booze all day while the eejits who went out first have long since hit the bar and turned the green room blue with their drunken patois. The sound engineers and lighting operators are checking their watches and looking forward to the buffet, and make no secret of their contempt at you for keeping them from their lamb koftas. You notice members of the audience making an early dash for the toilets. Backstage, you can hear the head of the support staff barking directions to an army of cleaners with brooms. It’s all most disorienting.

Unfortunately, neither Soraya nor her song quite have enough about them to deter the people of Europe from their early toilet breaks. It’s just another pop song, with a verse, and a chorus, and trite lyrics about dancing and setting yourself free. It comes as no surprise to find out that it was originally a Greek song, adopted and adapted by Spain after nobody else wanted it. It’s nothing more than Eurovision fluff that will pass unnoticed and unmourned into the ether. Which isn’t entirely Spain’s fault – after all, they didn’t know they were going on last.

Doha, Qatar. Men pouring out of the mosque, shake hands, give hugs to each other. They all seem to be pacified and relieved – they attended friday prayer service. Among them stands a man clad in traditional for locale clothes. After exchanging a few lines with fellow muslims, he starts walking towards parking lot. Everything is quite usual, an ordinary day, no hint for trouble.

A few minutes later, having driven some 200 meters off the mosque, an SUV explodes and puts on a halt. People raced to rescue. By the time they get to the truck they discover a horrible scene – four bleeding bodies with multiple shrapnel wounds. One of the men they pulled out of the shredded car was Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev, former leader of chechen separatists and president of self-proclaimed republic, who at the time had been living exile in Doha, Qatar. The two other men were his bodyguards and the last victim was his 12-year-old son. Teen was only one who survived the attack.

I summon the story to my mind – story that comes back in days as far as almost five years now – because of two reasons. The first one is the article “Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh describes ‘executive assassination ring’” by Eric Black published on Mar 11, 2009 on www.minnpost.com. The second one is the assassination of Sulim Yamadayev on March 29, 2009 in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

But first things first. Assassination as way to get rid of somebody has a very long history to follow. Every country with a seat at the United Nations’ has a clandestine book of executions the country’s leadership committed for legitimate reasons of protection of public interest. Though public interest too often was at odds with the true reason for death sentences being passed upon and executed. Throughout the history the best thinkers and humanists strive to stop that medieval practice and establish new rules that will guide us through the difficult decisions of moral choices by means of applying the law to every particular case without exceptions. The law, not ancient ‘an eye for an eye’ rule, should prevent. This was how they thought by the cradle of human civilization then as well as today.

The World War II with its horrible record of humanitarian casualties and genocide once again reaffirmed the notion and proved beyond any doubt that no state should have any moral ground or legal standing to take on individual life except by order of court of law preceded in due process.

Up until September 11, 2001, the prevalence of individual human rights had been written in stone and upheld by multiple decisions on the highest levels by authorities of developed nations. In 9/11 aftermath the old testament was rejected and replaced with the new one concocted with single idea in mind – fighting terrorism worldwide by all means available with the word ‘collateral damage’ written off the military vocabulary. The crusaders simply forgot the human rights proviso on the bottom of some obscure staffer’s drawer in Langley or Pentagon. It still waits to be discovered.

Russia, as a true successor of Soviet Union, inherited the essence of its intelligence bodies and methods therefrom. For decades, in 50s and 60s, KGB developed and executed covert operations throughout the world aimed at targeting dissidents and others the Soviet Union leadership deemed too dangerous to leave on the loose.

By the 90s, the assassination practices were no longer in place, or at least, there was no clear evidence that they were utilized. The situation changed dramatically since Russia has adopted new military doctrine which allows to attack ‘terrorists’ in any place with any weapon. The hawks at intelligence and special military units (GRU) got their hands on what their fathers could only dream of having – the license to kill and they did not procrastinate to use that discretionary powers.

If it wasn’t for such a splashy flap of two operatives in Qatar in 2004, we would probably have never known about the first case of assassination conducted by Russia under the doctrine of preemptive strikes. The first target was blasted by dynamite as he drove his SUV with his teenage son and two other males on board. For several years Russian law enforcement agencies accused Mr Yandarbiyev of having connections with al Qaeda and being a mastermind behind many terrorist attacks within Russian hinterlands. They put his name on Interpol list of most wanted and sough his extradition from Qatar.

But the Russians weren’t the only player on this fascinating field of licensed killings: Americans jumped in immediately to join the manhunt. Thanks to Hollywood, now every kid is mindful of how special combat units secretly operate in Afghanistan and Iraq delivering the message from commander-in-chief.

During Bush-Cheney days in the White House MQ-1 Predators lethal raids on suspected terrorists became as routine as flights from N.Y. to L.A on monday afternoons. Special military units operate independently of any possible oversight or scrutiny from public. “Under President Bush’s authority, they’ve been going into countries, not talking to the ambassador or the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and executing them and leaving. That’s been going on, in the name of all of us.” This how Seymour Hersh,one of the best investigative reporters, described it according to the article I mentioned previously.

Some may argue that it is us under attack: after 9/11 we’ve left no choice but go to war against illusive enemy and fight it on its own ground. Some may go even that far as to believe that a human being looked at through the thermal weapons sight has nothing to do with the one walking on the streets of our beloved cities. What is the price of human life today? We always tend to apply different set of morals while dealing with domestic issues such as death penalty for some crook or right of a police officer to return fire if under attack. Why should we invoke a blanket rule of engagement, which let us kill everyone happened to get within the range of fire when it is about some dusty and remote country?

In the war zone decisions are quick and the deaths even quicker to follow – there is no time to reverse the sentence, to hold hearing before the panel of impartial judges. If there is a ‘mistake’, there is no way to remedy it.

As New York Times reports on March 9, 2009, ‘during December raid, American troops killed six Afghan police officers and one civilian. An American military spokesman called the killings “a tragic case of mistaken identity.”’ What lies behind a dry language of a Pentagon bureaucrat is that these men lost their lives for some no-name CEO made a decision to engage based on the false premises. If such a thing happens on the street of the city there will be a lot of social backlash; someone will definitely be fired, some will be put on a trial. But this would never happen if somebody ‘mistakenly’ was killed in the war zone. We don’t even know how often such accidents happen, how many civilian and other ‘mistaken’ casualties left unaccounted for.

But what if the lines between hostile area and city limits get blurred? What if some shadow master of the universe get an authority to sanction assassination of any man or woman in any place of the world? What if the one has total impunity and is not accountable to anyone? What if somebody gives orders to kill not enemy combatant in covert operation but instead a fellow citizen to settle score?

Former KGB-FSB officer with more than 18 years of service, Alexander Litvinenko, 44, moved to London only to meet his demise. He was poisoned with radioactive polonium 210, a by-product of uranium. Scotland Yard led the investigation into the death and after a while accused another Russian, Andrei Lugovoi, of committing the murder.

UK prosecutors sent formal inquiry for extradition of Mr Lugovoi to their Russian counterparts. It came as no surprise that their request was denied. There is a lot of speculation about possible leads in that murder, although there are few people who still don’t believe that it was another example of state-backed assassination.

The latest murder of Sulim Yamadayev in UAE, former chechen warlord turned into decorated colonel of Russian Army, will doubtingly be solved in any time soon. The pessimistic assessment stems from the fact that his brother, Ruslan, was gunned down in Moscow less than six months ago. The murder were conducted in daylight in central part of the city (five minute-walk distance from Russian White House). And yet there were no witnesses, no forensic evidence, except rounds on the road and bullets in the body.

Reading an opinion piece in today’s Independent by columnist Johann Hari has prompted me to write on the dominant discourse regarding the threat posed to Russian dissidents living abroad/in exile.

To be clear, I share Hari’s concern for the plight of these dissidents. The way in which Alexander Litvinenko and others have been brutally murdered is horrifying. However, I am a little concerned about the ease with which he directs blame towards the Russian government and falls into the dominant discourse of equating contemporary Russia with the Soviet Union.

The Russian government is certainly guilty of failing to bring the murderers of Politkovskaya to justice but that is merely one area in which the Russian legal system is inadequate. It is one thing for the Russian government to be uncomfortable receving criticism and quite another for them to pursue an official policy of assasinating dissidents. Hari doesn’t quite seem to see this distinction.

Hari’s perceptions fall line with most of those who lack in-depth knowledge of contemporary Russia – the belief that is a rigid power vertical in Russia and that the state is a rational, unitary actor. Furthermore, Vladimir Putin is identified as the sole source of power, authority and decision-making. This is reflected in two poignant sentences used by Hari:

“To prepare, Putin has restored the Soviet-era criminalisation of dissent. Now, if you “advise” a human rights organisation – merely by speaking to them – you are guilty of “high treason”. More people are going to flee to Europe – and we are going to have to choose between protecting them or letting them be picked off on our streets.”

“If we anger Putin, he can turn off the gas taps, as he has shown with his bullying of Ukraine.”

The danger with this discourse is that it creates a misinformed understanding of the type of world we live in, focusing on historical representations of Russia and ignoring the globalisation of crime and power structures in the Russian elite.

Anyone living in this country must be protected by British police and security services but the world of organised crime is alot murkier and complicated than Johann Hari, me or you could ever imagine.

Inestricabile risulta l’intreccio tra la biografia di Litvinenko e l’involuzione autoritaria della Russia.La sua carriera, all’interno della intelligence russa, inizia come semplice tenente del Kgb e proseguira’ rapidamente all’interno della divisione anticrimine denominata CAT in qualita’ di oper con lo scopo di individuare le informative utili per far implondere dall’interno le principali organizzazioni criminali russe che, all’indomani della caduta dell’Urss, si contenderanno il mercato delle informazioni e della protezione con la polizia e con le stesse organizzazioni di intelligence.Il cambio al vertice del potere con Eltsin, lo condurra’ all’interno della FSK -divisione del FSB-le cui funzioni saranno analoghe a quelle del CAT.Ma sara’ soltanto nel 1996 che la vita di Litvinenko avra’ una svolta drammatica:entrato nell’URPO divisione operativa dotata di 40 oper e e di unita’ di intervento speciale e sorta per contrastare con ogni mezzo il dilagare della criminalita’ organizzata all’interno dei gangli vitali dello stato,scoprira’ sua malgrado che i mezzi usati dalla intelligence contemplavano l’uso ampio e discrezionale della tortura e dei sequestri non solo nei confronti della criminalita’ organizzata ma soprattutto contro il dissenso politico.Scoprira’ sua malgadro che l’FSB unitamente agli altri settori della intelligence-il GRU e l’SVR in particolare-erano piu’ occupati a spiarsi tra loro,a contrastarsi reciprocamente , a collaborare con le organizzazioni criminali e soprattutto a porsi al servizio delle trame oscure delle oligarchie politiche che a contrastare efficacemente il terrorismo.Di fronte al tentativo coraggioso dell’imprenditore Boris Berezovskij di rinnovare profondamente la politica russa-traghettandola verso l’Occidente-in collaborazione con Soros per porre in essere una economia autenticamente liberale ,per creare con la rete televisiva ORT una informazione pluralista,l’intelligence russa non ebbe esitazione alcuna ad ordinare a Litvinenko di eliminarlo.Il suo rifiuto gli costera’ prima il carcere e poi l’odissea dell’esilio-tappa obbligata per evitare una sicura condanna a morte- che lo condurra’ a Londra dove,proprio con Berezovskij, collaborera’ alla realizzazione di Ong volte a creare una rete civile dal basso- che avra’ il suo culmine con il partito Russia liberale sorto per contrastare il nuovo autocrate Putin nei confronti del quale il giudizio di Litvinenko sara’ di radicale condanna-e dove avra’ modo di conoscere due celebri dissidenti russi quali Bukovskij e Gordieskij.Proprio con Putin infatti la violazione dei diritti umani diverra’ la norma,proprio con Putin la filosofia della ragion di stato prendera’ il sopravvento su qualsiasi tentativo di democratizzare la Russia.L’omicidio della giornalista Politkovskaj-che stava per aprire quel vaso di Pandora che fu il coinvolgimento dell’FSB sia nella guerra in Cecenia che nell’assalto al teatro di Mosca nel 2002-costituira’ una sorta di drammatico antefatto dell’omicidio di Litvinenko avvenuto con il polonio 210.
GAGLIANO GIUSEPPE

Molecules of Murder: Criminal Molecules and Classic Cases
By John Emsley
Royal Society of Chemistry, 2008

In this highly engaging, detailed and morbidly fascinating slim volume, chemist John Emsley narrates the stories of those who made use of science for killing their fellow beings through deadly means. Emsley recounts the use of famous chemicals used as poisons in famous and some not-so-famous murder cases.He tells us ten stories in ten chapters, each devoted to a specific poison and specific murder case in which it was used. The cases are fascinating for science buffs because of the scientific background about the poisons, and for others for the ingenious thinking that went both into the murders and the detective work involved in solving them.

The stories span a range of countries, periods and motives for murder. They feature famous victims such as former FSB agent Alexander Litvinenko as well as lesser-known victims whose killing was also equally deadly and well-planned. Each story has comprehensive details on the personal or political background of the victims and murderers and their times, as well as detailed background on the poisons themselves, including their history, chemical and biological characteristics, use and availability and actual administration to the victims. During this process, Emsley uncovers a range of diabolical and murderous characters who each had their own motives, personal or political, for causing the death of one or several persons.

While the famous murders like Litvinenko’s from polonium and Bulgarian dissident Georgi Markov’s from ricin are told in fascinating detail, so are the murders involving relatively low-profile and yet deadly poisons like adrenaline, diamorphine and atropine. Emsley also covers murders that used the standard and deadly poisons carbon monoxide and cyanide. Many of these chemicals are relatively easily accessible and that makes their use more difficult to control. Particular chilling is the case of Kristen Gilbert, a nurse who used adrenaline to kill her patients essentially by giving them fatal heart attacks. The story is made more grim by the fact that Gilbert was a nurse who was supposed to be a giver of life, and that adrenaline which is a substance produced naturally by the body is a very clever choice for a poison since its levels rapidly fade and it’s hard to detect it as a foreign poison.

The first and last chapters dealing with the Litvinenko and Markov murders from polonium and ricin merit special attention because of their high-profile political nature and the rather exotic identity of the poisons used. Markov was murdered by an agent aided by the KGB while standing on a bridge on the Thames River in London. The murder weapon used was most unlikely; an umbrella with a tip containing a pellet with an extremely tiny amount of ricin which was injected into Markov’s thigh by an ‘accidental’ jab which he hardly felt. Ricin is one of the most toxic substances known to man, and within three days Markov had died a painful and inexplicable death. The murder was well-planned and ingenious. Emsley who himself was involved in this case as a scientific expert gives a fascinating description of the rather simple but ingenious forensic work that went into ascertaining the amount of poison used, which made it possible to eliminate many well-known poisons.

The Litvinenko case is still fresh in everyone’s mind. Litvinenko was a former agent of the FSB (the successor of the KGB) who accused prominent Russian politicians and businessmen of nefariously bringing Vladimir Putin to power. His murder also took place in London in a cafe with another unlikely poison- tea laced with radioactive polonium 210. The fact that he could not be saved in spite of 50 years of knowledge about radioactive substances and their effects on biological systems indicates how we can still miss the ‘obvious’. It took a long time before polonium 210 emerged as a suspected poison, and this apparently is the first case when this rather well-known substance was used for assassinating a political target. The source was almost certainly a nuclear reactor or some other facility in Russia. While the attempt was successful, the choice of poison was less than perfect since the polonium left a trail of radioactive hot spots literally leading from one location to another. While this combined with Litvinenko’s extensive testimony before his death made it possible to finally uncover the suspect, as of now the man is enjoying political immunity in Russia, a fact that may give some credence to the suspicion that Putin may somehow have known about Litvinenko’s murder.

These and other morbid cases Emsley narrates with details about the science, chemical history and detective work as well as the politics, personal and social history of the victims and murderers that should keep anyone engaged. For science fans, it is important reading about how science can be used to do harm, and for others, at the very least it is a fascinating set of detective stories that should keep them glued to their chairs. The one problem I had with the book was its format; the font could have been more attractive and the illustrations should have been interspersed within the text instead of curiously being stitched together at the end. But these are minor shortcomings of an otherwise fascinating and lucid book.

I can only end by saying that in this period of paranoia about terrorist acts, it may not be a good idea to read this book in the airport security line.

Alex Goldfarb, quoted in the Times:

“These two people [Andrei Lugovoy and Dmitri Kovtun] are playing games because they know that their bluff will not be called. They want to create a positive PR effect and make it appear as if they are ready to cooperate with the investigation.”

If you were want to blame someone for unleashing me onto the world of journalism, you can blame Anna Politkovskaya. This was a woman of fierce courage in the face of the oppressing political machine that is Russia, a true hero to the voiceless many of Chechnya who could not tell the world of the horrors of the wars under President Vladimir Putin. A noble mentor who showed what real journalism was about.

And then she was shot. Two years ago this brave anti-Kremlin woman was shot outside her Moscow flat. It is undeniable that this was a hired killing, come on, all the evidence points the way to Putin’s front door. The men that stand in the dock today are there to silent the people, escape goats, who for all her vocal condemnations was loved.

And yet even as the chechnyen brothers Dzhabrail and Ibragim Makmudov and the former police officer Sergei Khadzhikurbanov stand trial we know this is a farce. A closed court? Who are they trying to kid? These men will get off. They won’t hoodwink the justice system, because the justice system is in the Kremlin’s pockets.

Even at the start of the trial things were a bit off – the family lawyer Karinna Moskalenko had a narrow escape after being poisoned (does anyone hear Alexander Litvinenko stirring in his grave?) and could not be present at the start of the trial. Then to have the trial moved to a military court, where the family will have even less of a chance to be vindicated.

And now to adjourn the trial early because the jurors might feel unsettled about having journalists in the court room, not according to one juror who gave an interview afterwards, shame on you Judge Yevgeny Zubov.

Here lies a trial born out of farce and spitting on the ashes of what was once one of the truly honourable journalists left int he world.

Please read her books, Putin’s Russia will explain how much of a charade this trial will be, and A Dirty War: A Russian Reporter in Chechnya will really show you her journalistic prowess.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23579423-details/Veteran+KGB+spy+revealed+as+Deripaska%27s+right-hand+man/article.do

Originally broadcast on the 21st February 2008

To watch the interview again : click here

In a HARDtalk interview first broadcast on 21 February 2008, Stephen Sackur talks to the Russian Duma MP and prime suspect in the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, Andrei Lugovoi. For cross reference the interview with Mrs Litvinenko follows. Interview interesting and makes me wonder what Mr Lugovoi had to gain in coming on this programme. Thoughts as always welcomed.

Uhuh!! La “mandria” si è rivoltata contro il mandriano oggi.

Botta…

Ma il problema dei problemi è che oggi tu sei all’apogeo del consenso, hai una maggioranza di ferro, il tuo governo non corre alcun rischio e dunque è ora di spalancare le porte della discussione e delle libertà cui è intitolato questo partito perché nessuno può essere accusato di «remare contro».
Colgo oggi l’occasione per dire poi che non voglio essere più trattato, come oggi accade a quasi tutti i membri del parlamento, come una pecora, o una scimmia addestrata a spingere tasti, tacere e ritirare lo stipendio alla fine del mese essudando per di più gratitudine per l’alto livello sociale raggiunto e il guiderdone rispettabile. Questi sono criteri inaccettabili e purtroppo te li ho sentiti illustrare. Io ho da dare qualcosa al mio Paese e sento il dovere di darlo essendo, casualmente, un patriota. Ho scelto di servire il mio Paese, non di diventare un vassallo di qualche satrapo straniero. [...] Ma poi abbiamo la caterva di morti in Russia: i giornalisti uccisi sono circa 40 soltanto dal 2000. Anna Politkovskaya in un suo libro tradotto solo in inglese dice: «Viviamo in uno stato di polizia, siamo arrestati e uccisi, le nostre radio e i nostri giornali vengono chiusi, poi arriva Berlusconi a Mosca, va in televisione e ci spiega che siamo in una splendida democrazia e che Putin è un sincero democratico». Anna Politkovskaya è stata assassinata due anni fa, nello stesso giorno in cui tu sei venuto a parlare. Anna era amica di Sasha Litvinenko. E io ho pianto per i miei morti, moralmente insepolti: sentire il tuo tono da intrattenitore indulgente, ridente, astuto, ammiccante mentre parlavi della mia gente morta ammazzata mi ha fatto realmente sentire male. Tornato a casa ho vuotato il mio stomaco con un senso di disperazione e liberazione. Cartesio pensava che nella ghiandola pineale in mezzo al cervello fosse la connessione fra anima e corpo. Io ho pensato, reagendo fisicamente all’orrore, che fra il piloro e il diaframma risieda la coscienza. E quella è il mio solo giudice e metro.

Paolo Guzzanti

…e risposta

Caro Paolo,
ieri abbiamo dato notizia delle tue infelici uscite su «vomito», Putin e Berlusconi. [qui, Ndr]

[...] Noi dovevamo loro questo colonnino di spiegazioni perché risulterà piuttosto strano il tuo tono nei confronti del premier. E, se permetti, risulta un po’ strano anche a noi. Tanto che mi chiedo che senso abbia che tu continui a stare in un partito di cui pensi il peggio, insieme a parlamentari che giudichi «pecore» e «scimmie», guidati da un leader che non ti va a genio. Abbi coraggio, trai le conseguenze e dimettiti. Per quanto ci riguarda, qui al Giornale troverai la libertà che hai sempre avuto, anche di esprimere le tue idee sulla Russia, come hai fatto più volte nelle settimane scorse. Ma nessuno può pretendere di farsi pagare da un editore per esprimere idee in contrasto con la linea editoriale e ritenute offensive dalla maggior parte dei lettori. Ti consiglio solo, nel caso decidessi di lasciarci, di trovare una redazione dove i tuoi articoli siano letti e corretti con la stessa passione che ci abbiamo sempre messo qui.

Ieri, per esempio, alla quattordicesima riga della seconda cartella hai scritto: «te li ho sentiti illustrare». Ma quell’«ho» era senz’acca.

Mario Giordano

Poi ci sono i casi più unici che rari

Lo so che il Giornale sul caso Englaro ha la sua linea: ma chiedo di poter dire ugualmente quanto abbia trovato sconcertanti un paio di uscite purtroppo governative. Eugenia Roccella, dopo la pronuncia della Consulta, ha detto che il problema «è l’espansione dei giudici e la loro invadenza di campo» perché «in Italia le leggi le fa il Parlamento e i giudici dovrebbero applicarle». Gaetano Quagliariello nondimeno ha definito «pilatesca» la decisione della Consulta e ha detto che «legiferare diventa ancora più urgente». Cioè: ma di che state parlando? Siete voi che la legge non l’avete mai fatta, siete voi che non volevate assolutamente farla, siete voi che sino a mezz’ora fa non volevate neppure sentir parlare di testamento biologico e urlavate «eutanasia» a ogni tentativo di farlo. È l’ipocrisia della politica italiana, unica in Europa, che ha lasciato dolosamente scoperti gli spazi di cui la magistratura non ha potuto non occuparsi: e ora venite a dirci che ci vuole una legge? Dopo che per anni ve l’hanno chiesta la società civile, i medici, tutti i livelli della magistratura, il Consiglio superiore di sanità, persino qualche politico? Dopo che la società e i medici, aspettando voi, per anni, se la sono cavata segretamente da soli con tutte le Englaro e i Welby lontani dai riflettori? E sarebbe la Consulta a essere pilatesca? Non dite che ci vuole una legge: fatela.

Filippo Facci

E adesso come la mettiamo?

Mario però non si dà per vinto e nel ‘97 crea insieme al fido Marino l’Ecpp, Environmental Crime Prevention Program: un sedicente organismo intergovernativo contro i crimini ambientali, che in realtà è una scatola vuota mai registrata da nessuna parte, ma gabellata per un ente di diritto internazionale protagonista di un’affollata «conferenza plenaria» a Napoli (mai tenuta). L’Ecpp, secondo un comunicato dello stesso Scaramella, si avvale di tre «special assistants»: «John Graham Taylor (Uk), Christian Trentolà (France) and Philip Marino (Germany)». Il primo è un suo inesperto collaboratore, il secondo un giovane napoletano di madre francese al cui cognome è stato aggiunto un accento sulla lettera finale, il terzo il solito socio Filippo Martino. Anche stavolta abboccano in tanti. L’Ecpp, nel ‘98, ottiene lo status di osservatore presso la London Convention dell’International Maritime Organization, che regolarmente invita Scaramella alle sue riunioni annuali. Mario strappa anche una sponsorizzazione, con tanto di fondi, dallo Science Program della Nato per conferenze sulla sicurezza ambientale da tenersi in Lituania. E arraffa addirittura un accordo di collaborazione con il Segretariato della Convenzione di Basilea per la difesa dell’ambiente: gli basta un’autocertificazione dell’Ecpp che sostiene di aver partecipato alla IV Conferenza plenaria di New York negli uffici dell’Epa, l’agenzia Usa per l’ambiente. Nessuno va a controllare, altrimenti scoprirebbe che Scaramella era semplicemente riuscito a farsi prestare gli uffici dell’Epa per un’oretta. Come? Presentandosi come «magistrato antimafia» e «professore universitario».
Quanto alla toga, Scaramella riuscirà nel 2001 a diventare giudice onorario (non certo antimafia, dunque, ma addetto ai reati bagatellari) al Tribunale di Ischia. Del resto suo fratello ha sposato la figlia del pm napoletano Arcibaldo Miller, divenuto poi capo dell’ispettorato del ministero della Giustizia col ministro Castelli. Quanto alla cattedra, Mario non ha mai insegnato in vita sua. Ma, tra il 1996 e il 2000, sostiene di aver avuto un incarico di professore di diritto ambientale presso la Externado University e l’Università del Rosario a Bogotá. Intanto è riuscito a ottenere una convenzione-quadro col dipartimento di Scienze internazionalistiche dell’Università Federico II di Napoli perché questo fornisse agli enti scaramelliani personale per corsi di formazione (ovviamente mai realizzati). Poi s’è presentato al dipartimento di Scienza e ingegneria dello spazio spacciandosi per «professore a Stanford» e millantando un mandato conferito all’Ecpp dai ministri dell’Ambiente dell’Unione Europea e ha convinto il direttore a creare un «Centro di politica spaziale». Iniziativa che, manco a dirlo, resterà sulla carta. Ma gli serve, come la precedente, a spacciarsi in giro per l’Italia come «ricercatore e formatore in politica spaziale» e «direttore del Centro di politica spaziale» presso il prestigioso ateneo napoletano, e come tale a distribuire diplomi e attestati in pergamena (si sospetta, a pagamento).
I responsabili dell’Università indagano e scoprono che il fantomatico Centro di politica spaziale ha sede nel sottoscala del Cinema delle Palme, in via Vetreria a Chiaia 12, sul cui portone Mario ha appiccicato lo stemma dell’Università Federico II e le targhe delle altre sue sigle. L’ateneo, a questo punto, lo diffida ufficialmente dal millantare quei titoli e dal coinvolgere l’istituzione nelle sue fantomatiche attività. Lui, per lettera, si scusa per «aver causato disturbo», ma intanto continua come e più di prima. Allestisce un pomposo convegno al Centro italiano di ricerche aerospaziali. Promuove una conferenza nella Scuola nautica della Guardia di finanza di Gaeta, dove le Fiamme gialle gli organizzano addirittura un’esercitazione con propri motoscafi e unità navali recanti lo stemma dell’Ecpp. Intanto riesce a incassare finanziamenti pubblici da alcuni parchi nazionali. Nel 2002 quello del Gargano affida la demolizione di alcune case abusive all’Ecpp («organizzazione intergovernativa di diritto pubblico con sede in Washington DC e rappresentanza in via Vetreria a Chiaie n. 12, Napoli», rappresentante legale la «special assistant secretary general» Giorgia Dionisio: la fidanzata di Scaramella). E versa su un conto di Mario la bellezza di 365 mila euro. Lo stesso fa nel 2003 il Parco nazionale del Vesuvio, per la modica spesa di 860mila euro.
Poi, dal 2003, il millantatore che il pm Cisterna aveva denunciato al Parlamento comincia a lavorare per il Parlamento medesimo, come braccio destro del presidente Guzzanti, dotato degli stessi poteri della magistratura. Oltre ai titoli inventati negli ultimi anni, s’è presentato alla commissione come «responsabile delle operazioni di reimpiego spaziale delle infrastrutture missilistiche russe per la distruzione di massa». Da quel momento diventa una sorta di agenzia d’intelligence ambulante della commissione Mitrokhin. E prende a girare il mondo, a stringere rapporti con uomini dell’ex Kgb, a costruire una rete d’informatori. È la grande occasione della sua vita. Per non deludere i suoi mandanti, ossessionati da Prodi  l’unico uomo che ha battuto Berlusconi alle elezioni e minaccia di farlo di nuovo entra in un gioco più grande di lui. Un gioco in cui danzano i vecchi fantasmi dell’Urss e i nuovi oligarchi della Russia di Vladimir Putin, già capo del Kgb.
Il 1° novembre 2006 Scaramella è seduto a un tavolo del sushi bar Itsu di Londra insieme a Litvinenko. Quel giorno l’ex agente sovietico viene avvelenato dal polonio 210, una sostanza radioattiva letale che in pochi giorni lo porterà alla morte. Così il piccolo millantatore napoletano fa il suo ingresso trionfale in una spy story internazionale degna di John Le Carré. Di lui s’interessa Scotland Yard, sospettando un suo legame col delitto. Scaramella, e con lui Guzzanti, sostiene invece che gli uomini di Putin, dopo aver assassinato la giornalista dissidente Anna Politkovskaja e Litvinenko, hanno in animo di completare l’opera eliminando altri due personaggi altrettanto scomodi per Mosca: Scaramella e Guzzanti. Mario giura che la lista con i quattro nomi «scomodi» gliela fece l’ex spione Evgeni Limarev (che naturalmente assicura di non saperne nulla).
Intanto viene ricoverato in ospedale a Londra: si teme che anche lui sia contaminato dal polonio. Lui, anzi, ne è certissimo: «Sono stato avvelenato con una dose di polonio 210 cinque volte superiore a quella mortale», rivela in una drammatica intervista rilasciata per il «Giornale» all’amico Guzzanti, che l’ha chiamato al telefono da Roma per non contaminarsi. Lo stesso ripete in decine di altre interviste-testamento a giornali e tv di mezzo mondo. Guzzanti lo descrive ormai come un morto che cammina. Dopodiché assicura  «toccherà a me». Ma, per fortuna, i sanitari smentiscono sia l’avvelenamento, sia la dose, sia il pericolo di vita, tant’è che l’indomani il buon Mario lascia giulivo l’ospedale. Ora dice di sentirsi «benissimo». Ma non è nuovo a queste giravolte. Tre giorni prima giurava di possedere «un dossier su politici e giornalisti italiani legati al Kgb» che intendeva pubblicare «prima di morire». Due giorni prima diceva di non avere alcun dossier. Poche ore dopo confermava di avere un dossier in dvd, ma «non attinente al mio mandato per la commissione». Quando, l’antivigilia di Natale, viene dimesso dall’ospedale, sano come un pesce, decide di tornare in Italia per le feste. Ma, appena atterra sul suolo patrio, il 24 dicembre 2006, viene arrestato dai giudici di Roma e trasferito a Regina Coeli. È sospettato di aver calunniato un cittadino ucraino, accusato con altri connazionali di aver portato in Italia un arsenale di armi da guerra per attentare alle vite di Scaramella e di Guzzanti. In realtà gli ordigni erano ben poca cosa e, secondo l’ipotesi degli investigatori, potrebbe essere stato proprio Scaramella a farli arrivare in Italia. Le imputazioni a suo carico vanno dalla calunnia al traffico d’armi, mentre un’altra indagine sulla sua attività per la Mitrokhin ipotizza la violazione del segreto d’ufficio e la calunnia ai danni di vari esponenti del centrosinistra (Prodi, Pecoraro Scanio, Bassolino, Diliberto e altri). Di lui intanto si occupano anche altre Procure. Quella di Napoli lo accusa di reati ambientali legati allo smaltimento irregolare di rifiuti (il 5 dicembre 2006 sono stati apposti sigilli alla Ecpp ed effettuate perquisizioni nella sua casa e nel suo ufficio). Quella di Bologna lo sospetta di un traffico di materiale radioattivo e false dichiarazioni al pm: pare che abbia montato un caso per accreditarsi come supertestimone a proposito di traffici d’armi tra ambienti terroristici italiani e l’ex Unione Sovietica.

Da Mani Sporche, di Barbacetto, Gomez, Travaglio  – Chiare Lettere Editrice Pagina 185

In these days of heavy anti-Russia statements from most of the EU, and from the USA, how strange to read that the case of poisoned ex-KGB officer Alexander Litvinenko, who died in London on 23 Nov 2006, is still pretty much a mystery…

[...] Today, despite the popular misconception that the case has been solved, little, if any, forensic evidence has emerged that explains how, or even when, Litvinenko was exposed to Polonium 210. [...]

In the Litvinenko case, the coroner’s report has never been completed. The crucial autopsy data has been denied not only to journalists and Litvinenko’s family on the grounds that it is part of an ongoing investigation, but also to Britain’s erstwhile partner in the investigation, Russia. While there may be good reason to keep an autopsy report secret from the public, keeping it secret from its investigative partner is mystifying. [...]

This medical stone-walling left unanswered why British doctors repeatedly misdiagnosed Litvinenko, and, despite his symptoms of radiation exposure, did not test his urine specimens for alpha as well as gamma radiation, and never gave him the antidote Dimercaprol, which might have saved his life. When I examined the British police report sent to Moscow in June 2006 in support of its extradition request, I was stunned to see that without the medical reports, there was an almost total evidentiary vacuum, at least in terms of conventional evidence. The report cited no eye-witnesses, surveillance videotapes, fingerprints, Polonium container, or smoking teapot. Instead, the police report made it clear that the case was based on radiation traces. What made this kind of unconventional evidence vulnerable to misinterpretation, if it could be introduced in court at all, is that almost all the crime scenes at which the radiation was found were compromised. [...]

I won’t be surprised if the Litvinenko case will be turned on its head in a few years’ time…

ps Is this blog turning into a pro-Russia platform, I wonder…