British double shot proves blank

Recently, the British press released two publications targeted against the Russian secret services. One of the October 2nd articles in The Sunday Times was titled Russia murdered Litvinenko, says top prosecutor. Referring to Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, who served as director of public prosecutions (DPP) when former FSB officer Alexander Litvinenko was poisoned with radioactive polonium in November 2006, the newspaper says this murder was “a state directed execution”.

Apart from that, October 3rd saw The Daily Telegraph publish a piece of information with its title reading Russia ‘gave agents license to kill’ enemies of the state. It claims that back in 2003, the Russian FSB counter-intelligence issued a special directive authorizing the “elimination of individuals living overseas who were judged to be enemies of the state.” One would think these are nothing but two indirectly linked subjects published in two different newspapers. But something makes you assume that it was a timely and well-coordinated double shot.

Let’s try to sort things out in their proper order and first get to the bottom of the Sunday Times article. With all the circumstances surrounding the murder of Alexander Litvinenko still buried in secrecy, the mess caused by his name is well known to everyone, as well as the specific person mostly interested in this. And that’s not Litvinenko’s widow Marina but the one who had always treated him as an obedient puppet before he left Russia - the runaway Russian tycoon Boris Berezovsky who is now hiding from justice in London.

As for charges brought against another ex-spy Andrei Lugovoi for his alleged involvement in killing Litvinenko, details of this case were most accurately outlined by press secretary at the Russian Embassy in London Konstantin Shlykov in his letter to the newspaper’s editorial office. First of all, he strongly denied Lord Macdonald’s allegations that Litvinenko assassination was “a state directed execution”, referring to them as “not being supported by evidence.” “We are sure that such evidence has never existed. Otherwise, it would have been presented to us,” he said.

In response to demands of the British side to extradite Andrei Lugovoi, Mr. Shlykov recalled that the Russian Constitution does not allow the extradition of its nationals for trial in another country. Moscow is naturally not going to change the law in order to please a foreign government and thus sacrifice its sovereignty. Both the Russian authorities and Andrei Lugovoi himself have repeatedly voiced readiness to assist the investigation on the Russian territory, which does not suit the British side for some reason.

We could also mention a couple of other points showing that the authors of the publication have troubles comprehending the fundamental principles of a legal state. At least they proceed from the presumption of innocence as regards both Andrei Lugovoi and the Russian state as a whole not just before the trial but even before the investigation ends.

Now let’s get back to the second article. The document that the Daily Telegraph referred to has straight away stirred reasonable suspicion. Experts say it might be fake, in view of spelling errors both in the headline and the text. Moreover, the document is said to have been signed by the counterintelligence service deputy head on March 19th, 2003, whereas FSB departments were only renamed services in July 2004. The document is riddled with an array of other blatant errors and irregularities.

According to former FSB chief Nikolay Kovalev (whom Alexander Litvinenko was by the way seeking to malign for allegedly plotting an attempt on Boris Berezovsky), orders to that effect were technically impossible. “I am sure no one could have signed this nonsense because it runs counter to the law,” he said.

Furthermore, when accusing the Russian secret services of aiming to eliminate terror suspects, authors of the publication forget that practice of this kind is also characteristic of the world’s most democratic countries. Suffice it to recollect the recent murder of Osama bin Laden by the US task force or regular Israeli missile strikes against Palestine to destroy Hamas militants.

So, none of the two publications can stand up to common sense verifications but have offered an opportunity to remind the world about the largely forgotten figures, such as “official spokesman” of Chechen terrorists Akhmed Zakayev and their key sponsor Boris Berezovsky. Both of them are hiding in London, with the British justice still refusing to extradite them despite all requests from Russian law enforcement agencies. Both told The Daily Telegraph that Russia was plotting an attempt on them as well.

A reasonable question arises here as to why the two articles in two different London-based newspapers emerged right now simultaneously and who will benefit from this after all? This will obviously play into the hands of those unsatisfied with the reciprocal desire of Russia and the UK to develop fruitful, pragmatic and mutually beneficial relations, regardless of all the serious controversies between them.

There is one more association as regards the two articles - both of them appeared exactly on the eve of hearings into the lawsuit brought by Boris Berezovsky against his former business partner Roman Abramovich. Does Mr. Berezovsky mean to somehow influence the judges, given the $6 billion at stake?

As for the so-called Litvinenko case, it very much resembles an old story about Joe the Uncatchable who earned such a nickname not for his marksmanship or frisky horse but because no one ever tried to catch him.