The British equivalent of what the Russians have done here is if Cameron ordered MI6 to bump off an expat journalist simply because he seemed likely to release a story that Cameron had benefiited by millions from, say, the sell off of a major British state utility. This would not be in the UK's interest but in Cameron's. I'm no fan of Cameron but the idea is ludicrous. But it is exactly what has happened in this case.
I love Luke Harding's writing. He has written extensively about this regime, his time living in Russia (he was kicked out in the wake of WikiLeaks after living there for a decade I believe), and about some of Russia's most wealthy are investing in London/the UK in what may be an attempt to legitimize their money.
.
Really? You'll be telling us that they've bought sports teams and have been throwing cash around in a remake of Brewsters Millions next!
What I don't get about all this is that if you want to get rid of someone then surely there are better ways of doing it than sticking some heavy duty shit in his tea that takes a week or two to do the job. Strange.
Same as the fella that was found dead in a sports bag. Strange that too. As much as I admire the work the secret services do for us there will always be a chance that they will meet a death from a likeminded service that makes everyone sit up and take notice. He could have been shot or stabbed could have been easier but then again it could be a case of the other "side" saying we go radioactive material in to your country,
Found dead in a sports bag that he got into and done up himself, these things happen in this line of work all over the world
You're not talking about Fraeye escaping from Colchester, are you?
What I don't get about all this is that if you want to get rid of someone then surely there are better ways of doing it than sticking some heavy duty shit in his tea that takes a week or two to do the job. Strange.
Same as the fella that was found dead in a sports bag. Strange that too. As much as I admire the work the secret services do for us there will always be a chance that they will meet a death from a likeminded service that makes everyone sit up and take notice. He could have been shot or stabbed could have been easier but then again it could be a case of the other "side" saying we go radioactive material in to your country,
Found dead in a sports bag that he got into and done up himself, these things happen in this line of work all over the world
You're not talking about Fraeye escaping from Colchester, are you?
I'm not sure what the point of an enquiry that concludes it was 'probably' on Putin's order when everybody else could conclude that without bothering and paying for one.
Because it replaced the inquest and allowed our secret services to give evidence in camera. When people die in suspicious circumstances we have inquests/inquiries - In Putin's Russia that don't really bother about such things and in the case of Sergei Magnitsky who was beaten to death in prison after whistleblowing on corruption they even tried and found Magnitsky's body guilty. Scores of Russian journalists have died in mysterious circumstances and they have never had a judicial inquiry.
Very interesting alternate view on LBC’s Ken and David Show yesterday with Dr. Julia Svetlichnaya who worked with Alexander Litvinenko in the years leading up to his death. She also gave evidence at the inquiry.
Her view is countered by Gerard Batten, but either way very interesting and really worth a listen. Even Ken Livingstone was wobbling with his views at the end of the program.
It is an interesting and compelling piece of radio, and thanks for posting it Raith. However there is a hole the size of Lake Baikal in her argument. She maintains that all four people involved were poisoned by the stuff. As I understand it she suggests that they were working together on some kind of plot for personal gain.
So why then did only Litvinenko receive a dose that led to him dying a horrible death? And how? Mellor asked her that and she did not answer. A great shame that Mellor clearly had not got the details on what has happened to Lugovoi since. Not only is he apparently healthy, but he has taken on very public celebrity status in Russia with his own TV show, a place in Parliament and he choreographed perception that he represents the brave Russian who sticks up for the mother country abroad. That is why I said I hope he dies the same horrible death that Litvinenko did, but that does not seem to be on the cards.
Another of her points is that Putin does not need to do non-legitimate ways to silence his critics because he can use the Russian legal system. Well yes, he can use that, and does, but he still fucks up. Anyone who still isn't convinced about him should read Bill Browder's "Red Notice". It is this book that is behind the "Magnitsky Act" that the US and other countries have implemented, but we do not (prsumably because we are in thrall to all the dirty Russian money in London now). Magnitsky was just the accountant. Why go after him and why effectively torture him to death? Look at the result. Browder has done and continues to do enormous damage to Putin's reputation as a result of the complete fuckup with Magnitsky. So she is wrong there too.
Finally if her version was true, would Marina Litvineko really put up the fight she is doing now? Really? Ten years of publicly taking on Putin? If her husband was just a crook, and the others were his associates, would you not complain for a while, to save face, and then go quietly away and secure your own life?
I agree that we probably don't know the full facts. But I am convinced that she hasn't presented them either. I'll take the finding of the enquiry over hers, thank you. Not least because her version would have allowed the British government to fudge the conclusions more and continue our ambivalent relationship with Putin's Russia. The findings puts the government in a far more difficult place. The exact opposite of the result of the David Kelly enquiry.
The other point that is not addressed is why if Lugovoi and Kovtun were working for someone other than the FSB they end up being given protection and awards by Putin - if they were working for Berezovsky or MI6 as suggested that all sounds a tad irrational on the part of Putin.
"I am curious to hear what you think of Ronald Reagan being lauded as the man who "ended the Cold War." It's a common American trope, one that you'll find in most textbooks here, and frankly it's ridiculous"
I think it's ridiculous too. The most influential figure in the fall of the Wall was obviously Gorbachev, although he never expected it to fall so spectacularly. It was a system that anyway would have collapsed as a result of the arrival of the internet.
The only aspect of the American narrative that rings true for me is that unfortunately it is true that when faced with threatening Russians you cannot show weakness. Russia, (unlike the Czech Republic) has no history of advanced democratic structures and people rely on a strong leader. I always used to feel in the 80s that the extent of the Russian direct threat was exaggerated, and their legitimate fears deliberately ignored, but I think it was necessary to have a nuclear deterrent against them - and I am not sure that we don't still need it now.
The other point that is not addressed is why if Lugovoi and Kovtun were working for someone other than the FSB they end up being given protection and awards by Putin - if they were working for Berezovsky or MI6 as suggested that all sounds a tad irrational on the part of Putin.
Even if the British version is inaccurate, Putin is wiley enough to use it as an opportunity to 'wind up the west' by treating the alleged assassins as heroes - just to get up our noses - something he appears to enjoy at every opportunity.
The Russians response this week was one of complete disinterest and 'they have better and much more pressing matters to address than this resurrected accusation'.
I agree with Prague Addick in that we must keep our nuclear deterrent as Putin is his own man, highly volatile and always probing the west and any potential enemies for weaknesses.
Corbyn's idea that we keep Trident but remove the nuclear warheads to keep jobs is one of the most hilarious political naiveties I have ever heard in my life - probably number 1, tbh.
The other point that is not addressed is why if Lugovoi and Kovtun were working for someone other than the FSB they end up being given protection and awards by Putin - if they were working for Berezovsky or MI6 as suggested that all sounds a tad irrational on the part of Putin.
Even if the British version is inaccurate, Putin is wiley enough to use it as an opportunity to 'wind up the west' by treating the alleged assassins as heroes - just to get up our noses - something he appears to enjoy at every opportunity.
The Russians response this week was one of complete disinterest and 'they have better and much more pressing matters to address than this resurrected accusation'.
I agree with Prague Addick in that we must keep our nuclear deterrent as Putin is his own man, highly volatile and always probing the west and any potential enemies for weaknesses.
Corbyn's idea that we keep Trident but remove the nuclear warheads to keep jobs is one of the most hilarious political naiveties I have ever heard in my life - probably number 1, tbh.
So Putin can order the assagination of a (naturalised) British citizen on our soil, endangering countless Brits and we do nothing? Did we even call the White House to discuss nuking Russia? How many countries does Putin need to invade before we push the button? (having asked Obama first). Corbyn is talking reality, Cameron soundbites.
The other point that is not addressed is why if Lugovoi and Kovtun were working for someone other than the FSB they end up being given protection and awards by Putin - if they were working for Berezovsky or MI6 as suggested that all sounds a tad irrational on the part of Putin.
Even if the British version is inaccurate, Putin is wiley enough to use it as an opportunity to 'wind up the west' by treating the alleged assassins as heroes - just to get up our noses - something he appears to enjoy at every opportunity.
The Russians response this week was one of complete disinterest and 'they have better and much more pressing matters to address than this resurrected accusation'.
I agree with Prague Addick in that we must keep our nuclear deterrent as Putin is his own man, highly volatile and always probing the west and any potential enemies for weaknesses.
Corbyn's idea that we keep Trident but remove the nuclear warheads to keep jobs is one of the most hilarious political naiveties I have ever heard in my life - probably number 1, tbh.
So Putin can order the assagination of a (naturalised) British citizen on our soil, endangering countless Brits and we do nothing? Did we even call the White House to discuss nuking Russia? How many countries does Putin need to invade before we push the button? (having asked Obama first). Corbyn is talking reality, Cameron soundbites.
Erhh.. If we're talking about Litvinenko again then why on earth would Cameron ring Obama and discuss nuking Russia in retaliation?
They killed one man, no matter how barbaric and unlawful it was, are you seriously implying that Trident is pointless because it wasn't utilised, potentially killing thousands, over the assassination of one man? Talk about attacking a straw man.
The other point that is not addressed is why if Lugovoi and Kovtun were working for someone other than the FSB they end up being given protection and awards by Putin - if they were working for Berezovsky or MI6 as suggested that all sounds a tad irrational on the part of Putin.
Even if the British version is inaccurate, Putin is wiley enough to use it as an opportunity to 'wind up the west' by treating the alleged assassins as heroes - just to get up our noses - something he appears to enjoy at every opportunity.
The Russians response this week was one of complete disinterest and 'they have better and much more pressing matters to address than this resurrected accusation'.
I agree with Prague Addick in that we must keep our nuclear deterrent as Putin is his own man, highly volatile and always probing the west and any potential enemies for weaknesses.
Corbyn's idea that we keep Trident but remove the nuclear warheads to keep jobs is one of the most hilarious political naiveties I have ever heard in my life - probably number 1, tbh.
So Putin can order the assagination of a (naturalised) British citizen on our soil, endangering countless Brits and we do nothing? Did we even call the White House to discuss nuking Russia? How many countries does Putin need to invade before we push the button? (having asked Obama first). Corbyn is talking reality, Cameron soundbites.
That is why Trident is a deterrent, to make aggressors think twice before crushing us mercilessly which is what could and would happen without it.
Lucky Red sums it up nicely, as above.
Also consider the other nations who either have or are developing nuclear weapons (North Korea, for one - with a leader much more volatile than Putin).
The UK needs an effective deterrent, it's a no brainer - especially with our embarrassingly weak armed forces in terms of armaments/weaponry, troops, fighter planes and aircraft carriers.
My response was about Litivenko - let's leave the much-discussed Trident defence system for another debate. It is an effective deterrent which is what it is there for - we all hope to high heaven that we never have to use it and if we did, it would not be down to the assassination of one individual on British soil.
Luke Harding tends to lay it on a bit thick, but since he and his family were personally harassed by Putin's goons while working in Moscow, you might forgive him for seeing this as payback time.
Also in the comments (if you can wade pass the waves and waves of troll comments from the St Petersburg troll factory) there are authoritative explanations to the question bothering me. If this stuff is so lethal and the trail was everywhere, how come the two goons aren't dying themselves? Apparently you have to ingest the stuff.
Terrifying and outrageous that this happened on the streets of London, but also darkly comical. "Goons" is the right word.
I will be in your esteemed establishment next Thurs (Jo's birthday) . Then you can explain....
It's believed that Cook was divulging sensitive/confidential information to various sources.
There's also question marks over some MI5 employees being employed in governmental positions (diary secretaries) for senior party politicians.
I am not sure that @Riviera was suggesting that sort of thing re Cook. Rather, that he was bumped off. That's how I read it. But let's see what he says.
I will be in your esteemed establishment next Thurs (Jo's birthday) . Then you can explain....
It's believed that Cook was divulging sensitive/confidential information to various sources.
There's also question marks over some MI5 employees being employed in governmental positions (diary secretaries) for senior party politicians.
I am not sure that @Riviera was suggesting that sort of thing re Cook. Rather, that he was bumped off. That's how I read it. But let's see what he says.
Yes, by Gaynor Regan (and the mysterious, unidentified and never interviewed man that just happened to be on the scene in that extremely remote spot) who was his diary secretary.
There are conflicting reports about how he died with the ambulance service specifically stating that he had head and neck injuries. The 'official' line was that he suffered from 'hypertensive heart disease' after falling from a ridge, as a dead weight. No mention of any head or neck injuries in the post mortem that took 2 days to conclude their rather questionable findings.
I think it's ridiculous too. The most influential figure in the fall of the Wall was obviously Gorbachev, although he never expected it to fall so spectacularly. It was a system that anyway would have collapsed as a result of the arrival of the internet.
The only aspect of the American narrative that rings true for me is that unfortunately it is true that when faced with threatening Russians you cannot show weakness. Russia, (unlike the Czech Republic) has no history of advanced democratic structures and people rely on a strong leader. I always used to feel in the 80s that the extent of the Russian direct threat was exaggerated, and their legitimate fears deliberately ignored, but I think it was necessary to have a nuclear deterrent against them - and I am not sure that we don't still need it now.
I must have missed this when you first posted it. All interesting points. I would add that in addition to Gorbachev, you also have the various uprisings down the years. I agree that it would have fallen anyway, I've always felt that Gorbachev was the right man at the right time--not to undermine him, but circumstances favored him. And Reagan, to his credit, was really good at smiling for the cameras.
Your point about Russia always having had a strong leader is fascinating and as far as I know historically true. As far as needing to show strength, historically I think it's an interesting conversation. I would argue that Kennedy handled the Russians best, and he showed both strength and a willingness to negotiate.
As far as how to handle them in current times, I've got nothing. It's nice of them to take time out of oppressing Chechnyans in Chechnya to bomb Checknyans in Syria. But they sure do seem intent on niggling everyone along the way. They're like the Joey Barton of foreign relations.
I certainly was suggesting that he may have been bumped off. He was a pain in the arse to the government but someone they had to suffer to appease the left, for as long as they could at least. I'm sure some of our former PM's could have a pretty good game of Top Trumps with Putin.
I certainly was suggesting that he may have been bumped off. He was a pain in the arse to the government but someone they had to suffer to appease the left, for as long as they could at least. I'm sure some of our former PM's could have a pretty good game of Top Trumps with Putin.
Well I never knew about any of these rumours about Robin Cook. But surely most of our best investigative reporters are left-leaning and therefore likely to be all over a story like that? Pilger, for instance. And I am sure he was a pain in the arse to a government, but he was hardly the first or even the biggest. Sorry, but the more I think about it the more outlandish it becomes.
David Kelly on the other hand, that really stinks. Much easier to get away with. Apart from his grieving family, who knew anything of him until he suddenly emerged before that Select Committee. At the very least he was bullied into suicide, and I wrote angry emails to two of those bullies.
I can't help but think that even if those examples were murdered by the state, it's nowhere near as horrific as the way in which Litvinenko was murdered. His killing was a barbaric act of theatre aimed at projecting a message across borders.
I think this can best be demonstrated by looking at the means; let's assume all those names mentioned above were murdered. Robin Cook looked like heart attack, Lady Diana looked like an accident, David Kelly looked like suicide.. Litvinenko? Murder is the only plausible explanation, and done so in such a way to ensure media exposure and humiliation through a painful death.
That's not to say that any murder by any state is acceptable though, more so that the methods used in the Litvinenko killing were absolutely abhorrent - and those methods were clearly chosen for the message they conveyed: you're not safe wherever you are, we will find you, it will be messy and we don't care who knows - we're untouchable.
Whereas perhaps people have been murdered by our own government on our own land, none of them have been killed in a way that was supposed to convey such terror, threat and powerlessness.
"The New Tsar: The Rise and Reign of Vladimir Putin" (Link)
The New Tsar casts a very interesting light on Putin's upbringing, and his views whilst in the Dresden field office during his time at the KGB. He was hardly the macho-insipiration that he portrays himself as, in fact he sounded like a rather cowardly and peculiar little boy who grew up obsessed with a spy film. Not rated at all within the KGB; his employment actually seems to have been symptomatic of a recruitment push simply to swell the ranks.
Meanwhile, the book about Litvinenko's murder is quite enlightening - I never honestly understood the full extent of how much he'd proved to be a thorn in Putin's side. Despite taking a salary from MI5/MI6 after arriving in the UK, he actually strikes me as quite an honourable chap who was - largely - trying to live quite a principled life. Albeit he may have been a bit too much of a conspiracy theorist at the end, alleging Putin was a pedophile amongst other things.
It appears that the phrase "mafia state" is incredibly apt with Russia, right up until the current day. Pretty scary stuff by all accounts. I probably owe @PragueAddick a thank-you for posting this thread initially, as it's what really piqued my interest again.
Haven't read back through the thread, but definitely recommend the book Mafia State: How One Reporter Became an Enemy of the Brutal New Russia
It's about the experiences of a Guardian correspondent stationed in Russia, the information he uncovers and his brushes with the FSB - pretty frightening.
Comments
So why then did only Litvinenko receive a dose that led to him dying a horrible death? And how? Mellor asked her that and she did not answer. A great shame that Mellor clearly had not got the details on what has happened to Lugovoi since. Not only is he apparently healthy, but he has taken on very public celebrity status in Russia with his own TV show, a place in Parliament and he choreographed perception that he represents the brave Russian who sticks up for the mother country abroad. That is why I said I hope he dies the same horrible death that Litvinenko did, but that does not seem to be on the cards.
Another of her points is that Putin does not need to do non-legitimate ways to silence his critics because he can use the Russian legal system. Well yes, he can use that, and does, but he still fucks up. Anyone who still isn't convinced about him should read Bill Browder's "Red Notice". It is this book that is behind the "Magnitsky Act" that the US and other countries have implemented, but we do not (prsumably because we are in thrall to all the dirty Russian money in London now). Magnitsky was just the accountant. Why go after him and why effectively torture him to death? Look at the result. Browder has done and continues to do enormous damage to Putin's reputation as a result of the complete fuckup with Magnitsky. So she is wrong there too.
Finally if her version was true, would Marina Litvineko really put up the fight she is doing now? Really? Ten years of publicly taking on Putin? If her husband was just a crook, and the others were his associates, would you not complain for a while, to save face, and then go quietly away and secure your own life?
I agree that we probably don't know the full facts. But I am convinced that she hasn't presented them either. I'll take the finding of the enquiry over hers, thank you. Not least because her version would have allowed the British government to fudge the conclusions more and continue our ambivalent relationship with Putin's Russia. The findings puts the government in a far more difficult place. The exact opposite of the result of the David Kelly enquiry.
"I am curious to hear what you think of Ronald Reagan being lauded as the man who "ended the Cold War." It's a common American trope, one that you'll find in most textbooks here, and frankly it's ridiculous"
I think it's ridiculous too. The most influential figure in the fall of the Wall was obviously Gorbachev, although he never expected it to fall so spectacularly. It was a system that anyway would have collapsed as a result of the arrival of the internet.
The only aspect of the American narrative that rings true for me is that unfortunately it is true that when faced with threatening Russians you cannot show weakness. Russia, (unlike the Czech Republic) has no history of advanced democratic structures and people rely on a strong leader. I always used to feel in the 80s that the extent of the Russian direct threat was exaggerated, and their legitimate fears deliberately ignored, but I think it was necessary to have a nuclear deterrent against them - and I am not sure that we don't still need it now.
The Russians response this week was one of complete disinterest and 'they have better and much more pressing matters to address than this resurrected accusation'.
I agree with Prague Addick in that we must keep our nuclear deterrent as Putin is his own man, highly volatile and always probing the west and any potential enemies for weaknesses.
Corbyn's idea that we keep Trident but remove the nuclear warheads to keep jobs is one of the most hilarious political naiveties I have ever heard in my life - probably number 1, tbh.
They killed one man, no matter how barbaric and unlawful it was, are you seriously implying that Trident is pointless because it wasn't utilised, potentially killing thousands, over the assassination of one man? Talk about attacking a straw man.
Lucky Red sums it up nicely, as above.
Also consider the other nations who either have or are developing nuclear weapons (North Korea, for one - with a leader much more volatile than Putin).
The UK needs an effective deterrent, it's a no brainer - especially with our embarrassingly weak armed forces in terms of armaments/weaponry, troops, fighter planes and aircraft carriers.
My response was about Litivenko - let's leave the much-discussed Trident defence system for another debate. It is an effective deterrent which is what it is there for - we all hope to high heaven that we never have to use it and if we did, it would not be down to the assassination of one individual on British soil.
Luke Harding tends to lay it on a bit thick, but since he and his family were personally harassed by Putin's goons while working in Moscow, you might forgive him for seeing this as payback time.
Also in the comments (if you can wade pass the waves and waves of troll comments from the St Petersburg troll factory) there are authoritative explanations to the question bothering me. If this stuff is so lethal and the trail was everywhere, how come the two goons aren't dying themselves? Apparently you have to ingest the stuff.
Terrifying and outrageous that this happened on the streets of London, but also darkly comical. "Goons" is the right word.
Not you Prague but us as a nation.
Dr David Kelly
Robin Cook
I will be in your esteemed establishment next Thurs (Jo's birthday) . Then you can explain....
There's also question marks over some MI5 employees being employed in governmental positions (diary secretaries) for senior party politicians.
There are conflicting reports about how he died with the ambulance service specifically stating that he had head and neck injuries. The 'official' line was that he suffered from 'hypertensive heart disease' after falling from a ridge, as a dead weight. No mention of any head or neck injuries in the post mortem that took 2 days to conclude their rather questionable findings.
Your point about Russia always having had a strong leader is fascinating and as far as I know historically true. As far as needing to show strength, historically I think it's an interesting conversation. I would argue that Kennedy handled the Russians best, and he showed both strength and a willingness to negotiate.
As far as how to handle them in current times, I've got nothing. It's nice of them to take time out of oppressing Chechnyans in Chechnya to bomb Checknyans in Syria. But they sure do seem intent on niggling everyone along the way. They're like the Joey Barton of foreign relations.
David Kelly on the other hand, that really stinks. Much easier to get away with. Apart from his grieving family, who knew anything of him until he suddenly emerged before that Select Committee. At the very least he was bullied into suicide, and I wrote angry emails to two of those bullies.
But comparison with Putin? Come on.
David Kelly
Rod Hull
The list goes on......
I think this can best be demonstrated by looking at the means; let's assume all those names mentioned above were murdered. Robin Cook looked like heart attack, Lady Diana looked like an accident, David Kelly looked like suicide.. Litvinenko? Murder is the only plausible explanation, and done so in such a way to ensure media exposure and humiliation through a painful death.
That's not to say that any murder by any state is acceptable though, more so that the methods used in the Litvinenko killing were absolutely abhorrent - and those methods were clearly chosen for the message they conveyed: you're not safe wherever you are, we will find you, it will be messy and we don't care who knows - we're untouchable.
Whereas perhaps people have been murdered by our own government on our own land, none of them have been killed in a way that was supposed to convey such terror, threat and powerlessness.
He ain't dead; he contacted Brian Brown off FX Murdr By Illusion to do his shit and he lives on as his wife. look
- "A Very Expensive Poison" (Link)
- "The New Tsar: The Rise and Reign of Vladimir Putin" (Link)
The New Tsar casts a very interesting light on Putin's upbringing, and his views whilst in the Dresden field office during his time at the KGB. He was hardly the macho-insipiration that he portrays himself as, in fact he sounded like a rather cowardly and peculiar little boy who grew up obsessed with a spy film. Not rated at all within the KGB; his employment actually seems to have been symptomatic of a recruitment push simply to swell the ranks.Meanwhile, the book about Litvinenko's murder is quite enlightening - I never honestly understood the full extent of how much he'd proved to be a thorn in Putin's side. Despite taking a salary from MI5/MI6 after arriving in the UK, he actually strikes me as quite an honourable chap who was - largely - trying to live quite a principled life. Albeit he may have been a bit too much of a conspiracy theorist at the end, alleging Putin was a pedophile amongst other things.
It appears that the phrase "mafia state" is incredibly apt with Russia, right up until the current day. Pretty scary stuff by all accounts. I probably owe @PragueAddick a thank-you for posting this thread initially, as it's what really piqued my interest again.
Mafia State: How One Reporter Became an Enemy of the Brutal New Russia
It's about the experiences of a Guardian correspondent stationed in Russia, the information he uncovers and his brushes with the FSB - pretty frightening.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Mafia-State-Reporter-Became-Brutal/dp/0852652496