Noone in the highest Russian summit in the Security Council, the President, the Prime Minister, the FSB or the SVR takes any responsibility for the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, Russian defector and former officer of the Russian FSB secret service. Non of them takes the responsibility for the death of the Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya. I’m going to sort this out here and now. I previously thought that Putin was directly involved in the murder of Anna Politkovskaya on October 7, 2006, but then I read that she was murdered on Putin’s birthday. 364 versus 1 that this was no coincidence. Putin would not kill Anna herself on his own birthday. It’s kind of an unofficial holiday when many Russians celebrate Putin. I can only assume this event is celebrated by many disturbed war veterans in the streets. I think it was one of those who in the spur of the moment wanted to give Putin a birthday present. Or it may have been planned, but it was not planned by Putin in that case. It is therefore quite possible that Putin does not lie when he says that he had nothing to do with Anna’s murder.
Presumably, Putin believes in what he himself says when he sort of establishes [at the time when George W Bush was president. Author’s note] that he is; ”The only democrat among the leaders of the world”. But he is not. Putin cannot be blamed for every evil deed that happens in the world, but he owns the war in Ukraine. The problem is that Russia is free for some, but like a prison for others. It can be associated with life-threatening danger to express yourself in the ”wrong” manner in Russia, as the situation is in so many other countries. The quote: ”I disagree with what you say, but I am prepared to die for your right to say so” cannot be translated to the political life of Russia. Consequently, Russia is not a democracy. Perhaps Russia is quarter-democratic, but Thomas Jefferson once said; ”Freedom of expression cannot be limited, only lost.”
That one or some of the highest-ranking members of the Russian Security Council have been involved in the death of the former KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko on November 23, 2006 in London must be considered as evident. Why? Because polonium 210 is only produced on an industrial basis in one state in the whole world, namely in Russia. Russia produce only 100 grams of polonium 210 in the world on an annual basis. Polonium 210 costs 2,000,000 American dollars per gram (0.03527396 oz). Most murderers couldn’t afford it, however, a state can. Polonium 210 is an industrial product, which is used in microscopic quantities, among other things when manufacturing plastic cups for water containers and the like. Apart from states with nuclear power plants, no one can come across polonium 210 in the quantities used for the murder of Litvinenko, if he doesn’t have control over the Russian enrichment of Uranium. I assume that the Russians have control over these 100 extremely valuable grams produced per year.
And in addition, that person must have prior knowledge of the properties of the alpha-radiating polonium, such as that it is difficult to trace in a human body, that it is toxic only when swallowed or absorbed via wounds, and that it has a very short half-life in these contexts. It suggests that someone has asked scientists, or has been informed by a scientist, someone who has ambitions within Russia’s borders. It has been claimed from the Russians that one of the Russian oligarchs (read Boris Berezovsky, now living in London) has bought polonium 210 from Russia with the obscure purpose of killing Litvinenko. Interestingly, Litvinenko himself on his deathbed, pointed out Putin as his killer, and not Berezovsky who knew Litvinenko personally.
Boris Berezovsky can be acquitted by English authorities. The English know what business and productions Boris has got in England. Is polonium 210 included in any of Berezovsky’s company’s products, and if so, how many decigrams, centigrams or even milligrams does he buy per year? I am sure that no radioactive material is allowed to be brought into the United Kingdom without permission, and Berezovsky has got far too much to lose by jeopardizing his citizenship in England by letting some obscure person smuggle it in on his behalf. But it’s just a sidetrack in the form of a conspiracy theory that Berezovsky is guilty. The only thing that distinguishes that ”theory” from an ordinary conspiracy theory is that ”the theory” comes from the top of the Russian Security Council (I have put the word theory within quotation marks here, because the Russians know that they are the ones who are guilty).
Putin may not be behind the death of Litvinenko personally, but he knows who murdered him, so high up in the hierarchy must the killer be. This makes Putin a Machiavellian liar. It is noteworthy that both the murder of Anna Politkovskaya and the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko took place within less than 2 months, shortly after SVR and FSB received extended authorities, i.e. the right to kill in the service of the state.
The conclusion is that Putin must abolish the law about the right for SVR and FSB to liquidate people, who are considered a threat to Russia’s internal security within or outside the borders of the Russian Federation, if Putin wants to be a democrat as he says he is. Because if Putin knew nothing of the murder plans during the time of Litvinenko’s death, he has no control over the security organs. He has their loyalty, but he has no control over what they do. And that is entirely due to the new law from 2006, which really came into existence primarily for counteracting against the Chechen rebels first of all.
If you do not have control over the security organs, you do not control the country. Russia is a ship that sails wind for wave on the stormy waters of patriotism, and they are about to crash against the rocks. Not because they are patriotic, but because they are undemocratic and violent. I remember when Putin said, ”The weak gets beaten”. It was after the failed hostage rescue in a school in Beslan in September 2004. I have pinpointed that day as the day when Putin changed his attitude from democratic thinking, to nomenclature, machiavellism and elite thinking, probably. One must not forget that it was the relatively good Boris Yeltsin who appointed Putin as Prime Minister in 1999. [This chapter was written by me in 2007, the year before the war in Georgia. Author’s Note.]
If Putin does not revise the Russian law about SVR and FSB having the right to liquidate what they call terrorists and other people, then some cold-hammered future statesman in Sweden may introduce a similar law. It is not difficult to imagine, on the above grounds, that weaker Swedish politicians who are less of statesmen, sit as in a fox trap and lets themselves be extorted, but without descending from their power positions because of a trivial thing like that. They constitute about 85 percent of the entire government, with the exception of Carl Bildt, who on the other hand lacks domestic as well as foreign support. He is the self-important Swede who is married to that Italian woman. Or as a high up ranking American said about C.B.; ”He is a medium sized dog with a big dog attitude”. I am convinced that he is perceived like so because he represents a small state with a weak military defense that cannot back up his big mouth. I think that Carl Bildt has plenty of statesman characteristics, just a little bit less than Göran Persson’s. Jan Björklund certainly has a certain pondus, but lacks important statesman characteristics just like all other pseudo-statesmen in the bourgeoise Alliance. The Alliance as a whole was and is a veritable disaster for Sweden.
Is there even a faint possibility that the murder of Alexander Litvinenko was not Russian state organized? If yes, please motivate your standpoint.
Roger M. Klang, defense political spokesman for the Christian Values Party (Kristna Värdepartiet) in Sweden