Litvinenko Inquiry Publishes Report
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
"Finally, there was undoubtedly a personal dimension to the antagonism between Mr Litvinenko on the one hand and President Putin on the other. The history between the two men dated back to their (only) meeting in 1998, at a time when Mr Putin was the newly appointed head of the FSB and Mr Berezovsky and Mr Litvinenko still hoped that he might implement a programme of reform. In the years that followed,Mr Litvinenko made repeated highly personal attacks on President Putin, culminating in the allegation of paedophilia in July 2006"
That is from the report. Call me a Putin-apologist, an agent from Olgino, but these motives look like garbage. There is an entire industry of "making highly personal attacks" on Putin and blaming all kinds of things on him. The name of these "Putin's critics" is legion, they have been doing it for more than a decade, and they've had zero success... that is, of course, if by "success" you mean making Russians believe what they say, and not just selling shocking stories about the darkest secrets of the KayGeeBee to British tabloids...
"Traces of the isotope were later found in many of the same places where the two alleged killers had visited: The hotel's bathroom, their hotel room, a board room where they conducted an earlier meeting and the plane they traveled aboard."
We're not talking about traces of carbon or lead, here.
Perhaps but that's not evidence.
>There is no doubt about Lugovoy or Kovtun's involvement, but directly or indirectly Putin is responsible for his agents running around poisoning people with plutonium.
That's not evidence either. Besides, they were ex-KGB / FSB agents.
>The fact they are refusing to extradite them is telling as well.
Let's reverse this. Would Obama agree to extradite a Republican ex-CIA agent with powerful friends who flew to Moscow and killed Edward Snowden without his knowledge?
Can you imagine what the political fallout would be if he did? He'd be characterized as a mixture of powerless, hypocritical, traitorous and anti-American all at once by both friends and enemies. Political suicide at worst; own goal at best.
The motivations described are certainly insufficient to withstand scrutiny.
front: https://twitter.com/gordonrayner/status/690131788946096128/p...
back: https://twitter.com/gordonrayner/status/690132000980729857/p...
In other words, there is no evidence, just "cui prodest".
Recently, I found myself not believing anything coming out of the media (Western and rest of the world alike) if it at all supports the prior interests of the owners/regulators. For example, did North Korea really hack Sony, or were they just the most convenient actor to blame?
> An independent investigation of the event was undertaken by Russian politicians Sergei Yushenkov, Sergei Kovalev, journalist Anna Politkovskaya, Hoover Institute scholar John B. Dunlop, and former FSB officers Aleksander Litvinenko and Mikhail Trepashkin. According to their version, FSB knew about the terrorist group's arrival in Moscow and directed them to the theater through their agent provocateur Khanpasha Terkibayev ("Abu Bakar"), whose name was in the list of hostage takers and who left the theater alive.[58][88][89][90] In April 2003 Litvinenko gave information about Terkibayev ("the Terkibayev file") to Sergei Yushenkov when he visited London. Yushenkov passed this file to Politkovskaya and she was able to interview Terkibayev in person.[91] A few days later, Yushenkov was assassinated by gunfire in Moscow. Terkibayev was later killed in an apparent car crash in Chechnya.
> In June 2003, Litvinenko stated in an interview with the Australian television programme Dateline, that two of the Chechen militants involved in the siege—whom he named "Abdul the Bloody" and "Abu Bakar"—were working for the FSB, and that the agency manipulated the terrorists into staging the attack.[92] Litvinenko said: "[w]hen they tried to find [Abdul the Bloody and Abu Bakar] among the rotting corpses of dead terrorists, they weren't there. The FSB got its agents out. So the FSB agents among Chechens organized the whole thing on FSB orders, and those agents were released"
Litvinienko was killed in London, obviously.
Politkovskaya was murdered in her home in Moscow in 7th October 2006. Ironicaly - 7th October is Putin's birthday.
If Litvinienko and Politkovskaya were right not only Putin has ordered assasinations of several former spies and journalists criticizing him, but he's also responsible for hundreds of victims of terrorism in Russia, mostly regular civilian Russians.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_theater_hostage_crisis#...
There's never been much doubt in the western media, but then again the western media maintains the pretence that Russia isn't factionalized and Putin has absolute power over all ex-FSB/KGB members (Putin isn't unhappy with this characterization; he'd rather be seen as a monster than powerless).
The western media isn't coy about bringing up that Lugovoy is a member of the Duma but they usually leave out the fact that he belongs to the far right Liberal Democratic Party and is not a member of Putin's United Russia.
If the situations were reversed - let's say an ex-CIA agent killed Edward Snowden (noted critic of Obama) and was subsequently elected as Republican senator would you automatically assume that Obama ordered the attack?
With all seriousness, there is no real difference between those. The parties are not opposing each other (except for minor agendas) and differences are primarily cosmetic. Opposing parties (if they manage to get built - opposition is full of issues, too) are practically barred from registering and entering the elections.
Not to say LDPR isn't holding any liberal or democratic values (but that's irrelevant).
> [...] would you automatically assume that Obama ordered the attack
Given that Snowden isn't some small fry, it's reasonable to assume that such things would be at least acknowledged by the higher-ups the chain of command. So, it would be reasonable to assume that there is a good chance of this. Not ordering - the initiative could be someone else's, but acknowledging.
With all seriousness did Putin ever suggest forcibly retaking Alaska?
>Given that Snowden isn't some small fry, it's reasonable to assume that such things are at least acknowledged by the higher-ups the chain of command.
Because Snowden isn't small fry you'd presume that his killing wasn't the work of a fringe right wing extremist group working independently?
I would look for where the evidence points, personally.
Don't remember him saying so. But what's about Alaska? Do we have some contest of random analogies here?
> wasn't the work of a fringe right wing extremist group
What's more likely - that a State Duma deputy and a KGB and Federal Protective Service member is a part of some fringe extremist group (that has access to radioactive materials), or that Kremlin's siloviki (whom Putin is a part of, himself) have pulled some strings? Obviously, that's not a definite evidence - the article doesn't tell that Putin did this. But a well-probable, so Putin's accused of acknowledging or even ordering the killing.
Well, everything is possible. We can't deny a possibility of a fringe extremist group. We can't either deny the possibility that the killing was done by a extraterrestrial alien shapeshifting as Lugovoy, by the order of alien reptilians from Nibiru. Accusation goes to most probable ones first.
+++++
Edit: oh, sorry! I see, talking about fringe group you meant hyphothetical situation with Snowden. Well, depends on the imaginable case. If we have some ex-CIA agent's fingerprints all over assault UAV's control terminal ;), then it would be reasonable to suspect US Government had something to do with this. Hope you see the idea.
The leader of the LDR said he wants to take back Alaska by force.
"With all seriousness, there is no real difference between those [parties]." <-- not so much.
That's just one example of the kind of crackpot ideas they come out with, but it's one you might be able to relate to. Needless to say, it's not an idea Putin would entertain.
>What's more likely - that a State Duma deputy and a KGB and Federal Protective Service member is a part of some fringe extremist group (that has access to radioactive materials), or that Kremlin's siloviki (whom Putin is a part of, himself) have pulled some strings?
I see both as roughly equally likely (wanting to invade Alaska is a fringe extremist position, no?). I certainly don't think Putin is implicated with cast iron evidence here, which seems to be your position.
Also if you don't see anything suspicious about this:
>The conclusions of this inquiry are stronger than many expected in pointing the finger at Vladimir Putin personally. The evidence behind that seems to have come from secret intelligence heard in closed session.
Or this:
>The report stresses that its conclusions are based on many witness opinions that “would not be admissible as evidence”
You're an idiot.
Zhirinovsky told a lot of nonsense. He's frequently compared to a clown for a very good reason. That's media stuff, saying all sorts of bullshit to grab attention. Deputies almost never get accounted for anything they say.
LDPR's absolutely loyal to current powers. Believe it or not, if Zhirinovsky's a part of a fringe extremist group, that's an extremist group blessed by Putin.
> That's just one example of the kind of crackpot ideas they come out with
They all do play clowns and tell all sort of crackpot ideas. It's not like Zhirinovsky's has secured a position of court jester. Just consider Fedorov from United Russia as a nice example.
> it's not an idea Putin would entertain
Why? Putin's perfectly fine with all this bullshit, as long as it's not against his own agenda. Sure thing, he doesn't want to be associated with this, and won't explicitly approve of anything, but had he ever reacted harshly? Nah, imperial wet dreams of Great Russia, with Soviet war bears retaking Alaska and "Fascington" doesn't seem bother him any tiniest bit.
> I certainly don't think Putin is implicated with cast iron evidence here, which seems to be your position.
I guess we agree on this, not iron-clad for sure. An iron-clad one would be a recordings or multiple testaments. And those are unlikely to be ever obtained, even if they exist.
Yet, I think, it's well-probable, with high degree of possibility - to the extent we can say "too many factors point to this, so it's well likely Patrushev and Putin knew of this".
LDPR is not absolutely loyal to current powers. It's just another group Putin has to negotiate with (and has to give way on as often as not).
It's something of a conspiracy theory that Putin is their puppet.
>Why? Putin's perfectly fine with all this bullshit
Mainly because he was actually asked "should we invade Alaska?" and he replied "no, it's too cold" (see how seriously he takes them?).
>Nah, imperial wet dreams of Great Russia, with Soviet war bears retaking Alaska and "Fascington" doesn't seem bother him any tiniest bit.
What did you expect? Putin's really not the kind of guy who whines and stamps his feet even when he's genuinely angry.
It's clear that you intended this as a conditional statement, not a personal attack, but it would be better to steer clearer of that cliff.
He was the only one supporting Assad and warning about the "Islamist rebels" in Syria, long before the current crisis happened. Sure, he annexed Crimea, but what do you think would happen if Russia/China orchestrated a coup/revolution in e.g. Japan, where US has military bases with significant strategic importance? Do you think US would peacefully stand away?
I thought it was already gone sour, but apparently some people still believe in that fairy tale.
...
'A subsequent Metropolitan Police re-investigation concluded that Williams's death was "probably an accident."'
... what?
However, surely if he was killed to order, the people responsible would make it far less obvious, and if it was attempted to be covered up - surely it wouldn't be as poorly done as this?
https://theintercept.com/drone-papers/
US politics are a major annoyance with their blanket surveillance and pushing TTP and they affect me over here in Europe while I can't vote them out of power because I'm not a US citizen and also have no rights to complain ... so yes I don't care much what Putin is doing and I seriously don't mind as long as Russia provides a bit of a counter balance to the Bull in a China shop that is the US.
If I remember correctly, there was a chair in the embassy that had this stuff on it. Nobody could sit on the chair for fear of death. I might be mistaken, though.
Also historically, I am reminded of Putin meeting one of the superbowl champs. During the meeting, he takes the guy's superbowl ring!
"I took out the ring and showed it to [Putin], and he put it on and he goes, 'I can kill someone with this ring,'" Kraft said, the New York Post reported last week.
"I put my hand out and he put it in his pocket, and three KGB guys got around him and walked out."
The point is this: the new Russia lacks a lot of the subtlety of the old one. Aside from anything else, I think that might be a good thing, but I'm not sure. They're definitely more interesting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvine...
In fact the whole world is going to become way more dangerous with the wealthy losing their oil income.
Somehow I think the Saudis want it that way, distracts the world from their crimes.
Frankly over the last few years he has made both Europe and America look like fools.
The rest of it is a shit storm indeed, but i don't know how much control Putin has over that situation.
With what is happening to the Russian economy, it would seem he has also made himself and his citizens fools as well.
Nah, not himself. The Inner Party is still good, just having some inconveniences. It's mostly the Proles who're getting fucked over.
And it's not just Putin who has this problem: pretty much every country that is not Saudi Arabia and depends on oil prices > 40$ a barrel (Russia e.g. needs 100$ a barrel to maintain financial stability!) will have or already has problems.
The only upside of this situation is that the low oil prices are actively fucking up ISIS. No pay, no fighters.
But they also tax their populace, so if they increase taxes unreasonably, perhaps people will revolt against them. The consequences for the innocent are horrible though.
https://www.academia.edu/8776021/The_Snipers_Massacre_on_the...
EDIT: There are other stories where Putin / evil Russia / the former Ukrainian government were accused of something horrible that now turn out to be quite different, such as this one.
Strangely, I never find these in the big newspapers.
EDIT. here some more on this "paper": http://euromaidanpress.com/2014/10/23/the-snipers-massacre-i...
0. http://www.stopfake.org/en/tag/russian-propaganda/, http://www.russialies.com/ just to name few.
The other links look much more like propaganda themselves.
How do you arrive at the claim that my link is state-sponsored propaganda and yours are not?
Sure, there's no such things as objective mass media, all of them shine a light from slightly different angles to support their agenda and please investors, but I'm not aware of such straightforward, blatant lies that Russian TV (e.g. RT) shows daily on western counterparts. Publicly crucified boy, pictures from Syria, beyond funny photoshop of Ukrainian fighter jet downing MH17 etc. All these" stories" were really shown on official Russian TV. Now please provide such obvious propaganda statements from reputable western sources. "We lie, because they lie" is the exact statement Russia propaganda wants you to believe.
This should account for all civilians killed by Russia in the Ukraine in the last 3 years plus a security margin of factor 10
Of course, there are others such as Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and more contested theories such as Syria, but the above should already go to show that lying is not a unique feature of the Russian government.
An article on so hopelessly politicized a topic can't be good for HN, and was deservedly flagged, but if the title is inaccurate we can still change it.
"Implicated" is misleading; the article said that he "likely approved" the assassination, which without spin translates to the very mundane fact that he was the Russia's president and Supreme Commander-in-Chief at that time.