It’s War: Berezovsky Throws Down the Gauntlet

The Guardian reports:


Boris Berezovsky pictured in his London office. Photograph: Chris Young/PA

The Russian tycoon Boris Berezovsky has told the Guardian he is plotting the violent overthrow of President Putin from his base in Britain after forging close contacts with members of Russia’s ruling elite.

In comments which appear calculated to enrage the Kremlin, and which will further inflame relations between London and Moscow, the multimillionaire claimed he was already bankrolling people close to the president who are conspiring to mount a palace coup.

“We need to use force to change this regime,” he said. “It isn’t possible to change this regime through democratic means. There can be no change without force, pressure.” Asked if he was effectively fomenting a revolution, he said: “You are absolutely correct.”

Although Mr Berezovsky, with an estimated fortune of £850m, may have the means to finance such a plot, and although he enjoyed enormous political influence in Russia before being forced into exile, he said he could not provide details to back up his claims because the information was too sensitive.

Last night the Kremlin denounced Mr Berezovsky’s comments as a criminal offence which it believed should undermine his refugee status in the UK.

Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin’s chief spokesman, said: “In accordance with our legislation [his remarks are] being treated as a crime. It will cause some questions from the British authorities to Mr Berezovsky. We want to believe that official London will never grant asylum to someone who wants to use force to change the regime in Russia.”

It will not be the first time the British government has faced accusations from the Kremlin that it is providing a safe haven for Mr Berezovsky. When he told a Moscow radio station last year that he wanted to see Mr Putin overthrown by force, Jack Straw, then foreign secretary, told the Commons that “advocating the violent overthrow of a sovereign state is unacceptable” and warned the tycoon he could be stripped of his refugee status.

Russian authorities subsequently sent an extradition request to London. That failed, however, when a district judge ruled Mr Berezovsky could not be extradited as long as he has asylum status.

In an interview with the Guardian, however, Mr Berezovsky goes much further than before, claiming to be in close contact with members of Russia’s political elite who, he says, share his view that Mr Putin is damaging Russia by rolling back democratic reforms, smothering opposition, centralising power and flouting the country’s constitution.

“There is no chance of regime change through democratic elections,” he says. “If one part of the political elite disagrees with another part of the political elite – that is the only way in Russia to change the regime. I try to move that.”

While declining to describe these contacts – and alleging that they would be murdered if they were identified – he maintained that he was offering his “experience and ideology” to members of the country’s political elite, as well as “my understanding of how it could be done”. He added: “There are also practical steps which I am doing now, and mostly it is financial.”

Mr Berezovsky said he was unconcerned by any threat to strip him of his refugee status. “Straw wasn’t in a position to take that decision. A judge in court said it wasn’t in the jurisdiction of Straw.”

He added that there was even less chance of such a decision being taken following the polonium-210 poisoning last November of his former employee, Alexander Litvinenko. “Today the reality is different because of the Litvinenko case.”

Mr Berezovsky, 61, a former mathematician, turned to business during the Yeltsin years and made his fortune by capturing state assets at knockdown prices during Russia’s rush towards privatisation.

Although he played a key role in ensuring Mr Putin’s victory in the 2000 presidential elections, the two men fell out as the newly elected leader successfully wrested control of Russia back from the so-called oligarchy, the small group of tycoons who had come to dominate the country’s economy.

A few months after the election Mr Berezovsky fled Russia, and applied successfully for asylum in the UK after Mr Litvinenko, an officer with the KGB’s successor, the FSB, came forward to say he had been ordered to murder the tycoon.

Mr Berezovsky changed his name to Platon Elenin, Platon being the name of a character in a Russian film based loosely upon his life. He was subsequently given a British passport in this name.

As well as claiming to be financing and encouraging coup plotters in Moscow, Mr Berezovsky said he had dedicated much of the last six years to “trying to destroy the positive image of Putin” that many in the west held, portraying him whenever possible as a dangerously anti-democratic figure. He said he had also opposed the Russian president through Kommersant, the influential Russian newspaper which he controlled until last year.

Last month Mr Berezovsky was questioned by two detectives from the Russian prosecutor general’s office who were in London to investigate the death of Mr Litvinenko. He has denied claims that he refused to answer many of their questions.

Last night the Kremlin said Russian authorities might want to question him again in the light of his interview with the Guardian. “I now believe our prosecutor general’s office has got lots of questions for Mr Berezovsky,” said Mr Peskov. He added: “His words are very interesting. This is a very sensitive issue.”

The Foreign Office said it had nothing to add to Mr Straw’s comments of last year.

Click through the link to listen to Berezovsky speak in audio format. Will his next devious step in furtherance of this plot be to kill himself and have it blamed on the Kremlin, as the Kremlin says Litvinenko did? We shall see.

The Kremlin has already announced that it will use Berezovsky’s statements as the basis for a sedition charge that could justify extradition from Britain. Did Berezovsky see that coming? If so, what does he think he has to gain by making these statements? Can he actually take any kind of action? Could these statements possibly have been green-lighted by Britain after Russia’s outrageous conduct during the Litvinenko affair? Or has he lost his mind? As always, Russia remains a gangster wrapped in a mystery surrounded by an enigma.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

It’s War: Berezovsky Throws Down the Gauntlet

The Guardian reports:


Boris Berezovsky pictured in his London office. Photograph: Chris Young/PA

The Russian tycoon Boris Berezovsky has told the Guardian he is plotting the violent overthrow of President Putin from his base in Britain after forging close contacts with members of Russia’s ruling elite.

In comments which appear calculated to enrage the Kremlin, and which will further inflame relations between London and Moscow, the multimillionaire claimed he was already bankrolling people close to the president who are conspiring to mount a palace coup.

“We need to use force to change this regime,” he said. “It isn’t possible to change this regime through democratic means. There can be no change without force, pressure.” Asked if he was effectively fomenting a revolution, he said: “You are absolutely correct.”

Although Mr Berezovsky, with an estimated fortune of £850m, may have the means to finance such a plot, and although he enjoyed enormous political influence in Russia before being forced into exile, he said he could not provide details to back up his claims because the information was too sensitive.

Last night the Kremlin denounced Mr Berezovsky’s comments as a criminal offence which it believed should undermine his refugee status in the UK.

Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin’s chief spokesman, said: “In accordance with our legislation [his remarks are] being treated as a crime. It will cause some questions from the British authorities to Mr Berezovsky. We want to believe that official London will never grant asylum to someone who wants to use force to change the regime in Russia.”

It will not be the first time the British government has faced accusations from the Kremlin that it is providing a safe haven for Mr Berezovsky. When he told a Moscow radio station last year that he wanted to see Mr Putin overthrown by force, Jack Straw, then foreign secretary, told the Commons that “advocating the violent overthrow of a sovereign state is unacceptable” and warned the tycoon he could be stripped of his refugee status.

Russian authorities subsequently sent an extradition request to London. That failed, however, when a district judge ruled Mr Berezovsky could not be extradited as long as he has asylum status.

In an interview with the Guardian, however, Mr Berezovsky goes much further than before, claiming to be in close contact with members of Russia’s political elite who, he says, share his view that Mr Putin is damaging Russia by rolling back democratic reforms, smothering opposition, centralising power and flouting the country’s constitution.

“There is no chance of regime change through democratic elections,” he says. “If one part of the political elite disagrees with another part of the political elite – that is the only way in Russia to change the regime. I try to move that.”

While declining to describe these contacts – and alleging that they would be murdered if they were identified – he maintained that he was offering his “experience and ideology” to members of the country’s political elite, as well as “my understanding of how it could be done”. He added: “There are also practical steps which I am doing now, and mostly it is financial.”

Mr Berezovsky said he was unconcerned by any threat to strip him of his refugee status. “Straw wasn’t in a position to take that decision. A judge in court said it wasn’t in the jurisdiction of Straw.”

He added that there was even less chance of such a decision being taken following the polonium-210 poisoning last November of his former employee, Alexander Litvinenko. “Today the reality is different because of the Litvinenko case.”

Mr Berezovsky, 61, a former mathematician, turned to business during the Yeltsin years and made his fortune by capturing state assets at knockdown prices during Russia’s rush towards privatisation.

Although he played a key role in ensuring Mr Putin’s victory in the 2000 presidential elections, the two men fell out as the newly elected leader successfully wrested control of Russia back from the so-called oligarchy, the small group of tycoons who had come to dominate the country’s economy.

A few months after the election Mr Berezovsky fled Russia, and applied successfully for asylum in the UK after Mr Litvinenko, an officer with the KGB’s successor, the FSB, came forward to say he had been ordered to murder the tycoon.

Mr Berezovsky changed his name to Platon Elenin, Platon being the name of a character in a Russian film based loosely upon his life. He was subsequently given a British passport in this name.

As well as claiming to be financing and encouraging coup plotters in Moscow, Mr Berezovsky said he had dedicated much of the last six years to “trying to destroy the positive image of Putin” that many in the west held, portraying him whenever possible as a dangerously anti-democratic figure. He said he had also opposed the Russian president through Kommersant, the influential Russian newspaper which he controlled until last year.

Last month Mr Berezovsky was questioned by two detectives from the Russian prosecutor general’s office who were in London to investigate the death of Mr Litvinenko. He has denied claims that he refused to answer many of their questions.

Last night the Kremlin said Russian authorities might want to question him again in the light of his interview with the Guardian. “I now believe our prosecutor general’s office has got lots of questions for Mr Berezovsky,” said Mr Peskov. He added: “His words are very interesting. This is a very sensitive issue.”

The Foreign Office said it had nothing to add to Mr Straw’s comments of last year.

Click through the link to listen to Berezovsky speak in audio format. Will his next devious step in furtherance of this plot be to kill himself and have it blamed on the Kremlin, as the Kremlin says Litvinenko did? We shall see.

The Kremlin has already announced that it will use Berezovsky’s statements as the basis for a sedition charge that could justify extradition from Britain. Did Berezovsky see that coming? If so, what does he think he has to gain by making these statements? Can he actually take any kind of action? Could these statements possibly have been green-lighted by Britain after Russia’s outrageous conduct during the Litvinenko affair? Or has he lost his mind? As always, Russia remains a gangster wrapped in a mystery surrounded by an enigma.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

It’s War: Berezovsky Throws Down the Gauntlet

The Guardian reports:


Boris Berezovsky pictured in his London office. Photograph: Chris Young/PA

The Russian tycoon Boris Berezovsky has told the Guardian he is plotting the violent overthrow of President Putin from his base in Britain after forging close contacts with members of Russia’s ruling elite.

In comments which appear calculated to enrage the Kremlin, and which will further inflame relations between London and Moscow, the multimillionaire claimed he was already bankrolling people close to the president who are conspiring to mount a palace coup.

“We need to use force to change this regime,” he said. “It isn’t possible to change this regime through democratic means. There can be no change without force, pressure.” Asked if he was effectively fomenting a revolution, he said: “You are absolutely correct.”

Although Mr Berezovsky, with an estimated fortune of £850m, may have the means to finance such a plot, and although he enjoyed enormous political influence in Russia before being forced into exile, he said he could not provide details to back up his claims because the information was too sensitive.

Last night the Kremlin denounced Mr Berezovsky’s comments as a criminal offence which it believed should undermine his refugee status in the UK.

Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin’s chief spokesman, said: “In accordance with our legislation [his remarks are] being treated as a crime. It will cause some questions from the British authorities to Mr Berezovsky. We want to believe that official London will never grant asylum to someone who wants to use force to change the regime in Russia.”

It will not be the first time the British government has faced accusations from the Kremlin that it is providing a safe haven for Mr Berezovsky. When he told a Moscow radio station last year that he wanted to see Mr Putin overthrown by force, Jack Straw, then foreign secretary, told the Commons that “advocating the violent overthrow of a sovereign state is unacceptable” and warned the tycoon he could be stripped of his refugee status.

Russian authorities subsequently sent an extradition request to London. That failed, however, when a district judge ruled Mr Berezovsky could not be extradited as long as he has asylum status.

In an interview with the Guardian, however, Mr Berezovsky goes much further than before, claiming to be in close contact with members of Russia’s political elite who, he says, share his view that Mr Putin is damaging Russia by rolling back democratic reforms, smothering opposition, centralising power and flouting the country’s constitution.

“There is no chance of regime change through democratic elections,” he says. “If one part of the political elite disagrees with another part of the political elite – that is the only way in Russia to change the regime. I try to move that.”

While declining to describe these contacts – and alleging that they would be murdered if they were identified – he maintained that he was offering his “experience and ideology” to members of the country’s political elite, as well as “my understanding of how it could be done”. He added: “There are also practical steps which I am doing now, and mostly it is financial.”

Mr Berezovsky said he was unconcerned by any threat to strip him of his refugee status. “Straw wasn’t in a position to take that decision. A judge in court said it wasn’t in the jurisdiction of Straw.”

He added that there was even less chance of such a decision being taken following the polonium-210 poisoning last November of his former employee, Alexander Litvinenko. “Today the reality is different because of the Litvinenko case.”

Mr Berezovsky, 61, a former mathematician, turned to business during the Yeltsin years and made his fortune by capturing state assets at knockdown prices during Russia’s rush towards privatisation.

Although he played a key role in ensuring Mr Putin’s victory in the 2000 presidential elections, the two men fell out as the newly elected leader successfully wrested control of Russia back from the so-called oligarchy, the small group of tycoons who had come to dominate the country’s economy.

A few months after the election Mr Berezovsky fled Russia, and applied successfully for asylum in the UK after Mr Litvinenko, an officer with the KGB’s successor, the FSB, came forward to say he had been ordered to murder the tycoon.

Mr Berezovsky changed his name to Platon Elenin, Platon being the name of a character in a Russian film based loosely upon his life. He was subsequently given a British passport in this name.

As well as claiming to be financing and encouraging coup plotters in Moscow, Mr Berezovsky said he had dedicated much of the last six years to “trying to destroy the positive image of Putin” that many in the west held, portraying him whenever possible as a dangerously anti-democratic figure. He said he had also opposed the Russian president through Kommersant, the influential Russian newspaper which he controlled until last year.

Last month Mr Berezovsky was questioned by two detectives from the Russian prosecutor general’s office who were in London to investigate the death of Mr Litvinenko. He has denied claims that he refused to answer many of their questions.

Last night the Kremlin said Russian authorities might want to question him again in the light of his interview with the Guardian. “I now believe our prosecutor general’s office has got lots of questions for Mr Berezovsky,” said Mr Peskov. He added: “His words are very interesting. This is a very sensitive issue.”

The Foreign Office said it had nothing to add to Mr Straw’s comments of last year.

Click through the link to listen to Berezovsky speak in audio format. Will his next devious step in furtherance of this plot be to kill himself and have it blamed on the Kremlin, as the Kremlin says Litvinenko did? We shall see.

The Kremlin has already announced that it will use Berezovsky’s statements as the basis for a sedition charge that could justify extradition from Britain. Did Berezovsky see that coming? If so, what does he think he has to gain by making these statements? Can he actually take any kind of action? Could these statements possibly have been green-lighted by Britain after Russia’s outrageous conduct during the Litvinenko affair? Or has he lost his mind? As always, Russia remains a gangster wrapped in a mystery surrounded by an enigma.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

It’s War: Berezovsky Throws Down the Gauntlet

The Guardian reports:


Boris Berezovsky pictured in his London office. Photograph: Chris Young/PA

The Russian tycoon Boris Berezovsky has told the Guardian he is plotting the violent overthrow of President Putin from his base in Britain after forging close contacts with members of Russia’s ruling elite.

In comments which appear calculated to enrage the Kremlin, and which will further inflame relations between London and Moscow, the multimillionaire claimed he was already bankrolling people close to the president who are conspiring to mount a palace coup.

“We need to use force to change this regime,” he said. “It isn’t possible to change this regime through democratic means. There can be no change without force, pressure.” Asked if he was effectively fomenting a revolution, he said: “You are absolutely correct.”

Although Mr Berezovsky, with an estimated fortune of £850m, may have the means to finance such a plot, and although he enjoyed enormous political influence in Russia before being forced into exile, he said he could not provide details to back up his claims because the information was too sensitive.

Last night the Kremlin denounced Mr Berezovsky’s comments as a criminal offence which it believed should undermine his refugee status in the UK.

Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin’s chief spokesman, said: “In accordance with our legislation [his remarks are] being treated as a crime. It will cause some questions from the British authorities to Mr Berezovsky. We want to believe that official London will never grant asylum to someone who wants to use force to change the regime in Russia.”

It will not be the first time the British government has faced accusations from the Kremlin that it is providing a safe haven for Mr Berezovsky. When he told a Moscow radio station last year that he wanted to see Mr Putin overthrown by force, Jack Straw, then foreign secretary, told the Commons that “advocating the violent overthrow of a sovereign state is unacceptable” and warned the tycoon he could be stripped of his refugee status.

Russian authorities subsequently sent an extradition request to London. That failed, however, when a district judge ruled Mr Berezovsky could not be extradited as long as he has asylum status.

In an interview with the Guardian, however, Mr Berezovsky goes much further than before, claiming to be in close contact with members of Russia’s political elite who, he says, share his view that Mr Putin is damaging Russia by rolling back democratic reforms, smothering opposition, centralising power and flouting the country’s constitution.

“There is no chance of regime change through democratic elections,” he says. “If one part of the political elite disagrees with another part of the political elite – that is the only way in Russia to change the regime. I try to move that.”

While declining to describe these contacts – and alleging that they would be murdered if they were identified – he maintained that he was offering his “experience and ideology” to members of the country’s political elite, as well as “my understanding of how it could be done”. He added: “There are also practical steps which I am doing now, and mostly it is financial.”

Mr Berezovsky said he was unconcerned by any threat to strip him of his refugee status. “Straw wasn’t in a position to take that decision. A judge in court said it wasn’t in the jurisdiction of Straw.”

He added that there was even less chance of such a decision being taken following the polonium-210 poisoning last November of his former employee, Alexander Litvinenko. “Today the reality is different because of the Litvinenko case.”

Mr Berezovsky, 61, a former mathematician, turned to business during the Yeltsin years and made his fortune by capturing state assets at knockdown prices during Russia’s rush towards privatisation.

Although he played a key role in ensuring Mr Putin’s victory in the 2000 presidential elections, the two men fell out as the newly elected leader successfully wrested control of Russia back from the so-called oligarchy, the small group of tycoons who had come to dominate the country’s economy.

A few months after the election Mr Berezovsky fled Russia, and applied successfully for asylum in the UK after Mr Litvinenko, an officer with the KGB’s successor, the FSB, came forward to say he had been ordered to murder the tycoon.

Mr Berezovsky changed his name to Platon Elenin, Platon being the name of a character in a Russian film based loosely upon his life. He was subsequently given a British passport in this name.

As well as claiming to be financing and encouraging coup plotters in Moscow, Mr Berezovsky said he had dedicated much of the last six years to “trying to destroy the positive image of Putin” that many in the west held, portraying him whenever possible as a dangerously anti-democratic figure. He said he had also opposed the Russian president through Kommersant, the influential Russian newspaper which he controlled until last year.

Last month Mr Berezovsky was questioned by two detectives from the Russian prosecutor general’s office who were in London to investigate the death of Mr Litvinenko. He has denied claims that he refused to answer many of their questions.

Last night the Kremlin said Russian authorities might want to question him again in the light of his interview with the Guardian. “I now believe our prosecutor general’s office has got lots of questions for Mr Berezovsky,” said Mr Peskov. He added: “His words are very interesting. This is a very sensitive issue.”

The Foreign Office said it had nothing to add to Mr Straw’s comments of last year.

Click through the link to listen to Berezovsky speak in audio format. Will his next devious step in furtherance of this plot be to kill himself and have it blamed on the Kremlin, as the Kremlin says Litvinenko did? We shall see.

The Kremlin has already announced that it will use Berezovsky’s statements as the basis for a sedition charge that could justify extradition from Britain. Did Berezovsky see that coming? If so, what does he think he has to gain by making these statements? Can he actually take any kind of action? Could these statements possibly have been green-lighted by Britain after Russia’s outrageous conduct during the Litvinenko affair? Or has he lost his mind? As always, Russia remains a gangster wrapped in a mystery surrounded by an enigma.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

It’s War: Berezovsky Throws Down the Gauntlet

The Guardian reports:


Boris Berezovsky pictured in his London office. Photograph: Chris Young/PA

The Russian tycoon Boris Berezovsky has told the Guardian he is plotting the violent overthrow of President Putin from his base in Britain after forging close contacts with members of Russia’s ruling elite.

In comments which appear calculated to enrage the Kremlin, and which will further inflame relations between London and Moscow, the multimillionaire claimed he was already bankrolling people close to the president who are conspiring to mount a palace coup.

“We need to use force to change this regime,” he said. “It isn’t possible to change this regime through democratic means. There can be no change without force, pressure.” Asked if he was effectively fomenting a revolution, he said: “You are absolutely correct.”

Although Mr Berezovsky, with an estimated fortune of £850m, may have the means to finance such a plot, and although he enjoyed enormous political influence in Russia before being forced into exile, he said he could not provide details to back up his claims because the information was too sensitive.

Last night the Kremlin denounced Mr Berezovsky’s comments as a criminal offence which it believed should undermine his refugee status in the UK.

Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin’s chief spokesman, said: “In accordance with our legislation [his remarks are] being treated as a crime. It will cause some questions from the British authorities to Mr Berezovsky. We want to believe that official London will never grant asylum to someone who wants to use force to change the regime in Russia.”

It will not be the first time the British government has faced accusations from the Kremlin that it is providing a safe haven for Mr Berezovsky. When he told a Moscow radio station last year that he wanted to see Mr Putin overthrown by force, Jack Straw, then foreign secretary, told the Commons that “advocating the violent overthrow of a sovereign state is unacceptable” and warned the tycoon he could be stripped of his refugee status.

Russian authorities subsequently sent an extradition request to London. That failed, however, when a district judge ruled Mr Berezovsky could not be extradited as long as he has asylum status.

In an interview with the Guardian, however, Mr Berezovsky goes much further than before, claiming to be in close contact with members of Russia’s political elite who, he says, share his view that Mr Putin is damaging Russia by rolling back democratic reforms, smothering opposition, centralising power and flouting the country’s constitution.

“There is no chance of regime change through democratic elections,” he says. “If one part of the political elite disagrees with another part of the political elite – that is the only way in Russia to change the regime. I try to move that.”

While declining to describe these contacts – and alleging that they would be murdered if they were identified – he maintained that he was offering his “experience and ideology” to members of the country’s political elite, as well as “my understanding of how it could be done”. He added: “There are also practical steps which I am doing now, and mostly it is financial.”

Mr Berezovsky said he was unconcerned by any threat to strip him of his refugee status. “Straw wasn’t in a position to take that decision. A judge in court said it wasn’t in the jurisdiction of Straw.”

He added that there was even less chance of such a decision being taken following the polonium-210 poisoning last November of his former employee, Alexander Litvinenko. “Today the reality is different because of the Litvinenko case.”

Mr Berezovsky, 61, a former mathematician, turned to business during the Yeltsin years and made his fortune by capturing state assets at knockdown prices during Russia’s rush towards privatisation.

Although he played a key role in ensuring Mr Putin’s victory in the 2000 presidential elections, the two men fell out as the newly elected leader successfully wrested control of Russia back from the so-called oligarchy, the small group of tycoons who had come to dominate the country’s economy.

A few months after the election Mr Berezovsky fled Russia, and applied successfully for asylum in the UK after Mr Litvinenko, an officer with the KGB’s successor, the FSB, came forward to say he had been ordered to murder the tycoon.

Mr Berezovsky changed his name to Platon Elenin, Platon being the name of a character in a Russian film based loosely upon his life. He was subsequently given a British passport in this name.

As well as claiming to be financing and encouraging coup plotters in Moscow, Mr Berezovsky said he had dedicated much of the last six years to “trying to destroy the positive image of Putin” that many in the west held, portraying him whenever possible as a dangerously anti-democratic figure. He said he had also opposed the Russian president through Kommersant, the influential Russian newspaper which he controlled until last year.

Last month Mr Berezovsky was questioned by two detectives from the Russian prosecutor general’s office who were in London to investigate the death of Mr Litvinenko. He has denied claims that he refused to answer many of their questions.

Last night the Kremlin said Russian authorities might want to question him again in the light of his interview with the Guardian. “I now believe our prosecutor general’s office has got lots of questions for Mr Berezovsky,” said Mr Peskov. He added: “His words are very interesting. This is a very sensitive issue.”

The Foreign Office said it had nothing to add to Mr Straw’s comments of last year.

Click through the link to listen to Berezovsky speak in audio format. Will his next devious step in furtherance of this plot be to kill himself and have it blamed on the Kremlin, as the Kremlin says Litvinenko did? We shall see.

The Kremlin has already announced that it will use Berezovsky’s statements as the basis for a sedition charge that could justify extradition from Britain. Did Berezovsky see that coming? If so, what does he think he has to gain by making these statements? Can he actually take any kind of action? Could these statements possibly have been green-lighted by Britain after Russia’s outrageous conduct during the Litvinenko affair? Or has he lost his mind? As always, Russia remains a gangster wrapped in a mystery surrounded by an enigma.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

The "Russian Solution" to Putin: Alcoholic Stupor

Australia’s Herald Sun reports:

RUSSIA’S average annual alcohol consumption has reached 15 litres per person, nearly tripling the 1990 average of 5.4 litres, the country’s consumer protection agency said today.

“The ever higher consumption of alcohol by adolescents and women is especially worrying and significantly increases the risk of the appearance of alcohol-related illnesses,” said the agency, called Rospotrebnadzor. The new average was also far higher than the 9.7 litres of alcohol Russians put away in 2005, when some 2.3 million of the country’s 142 million people were considered alcoholics, according to Rospotrebnadzor. While Russians still drink a lot of vodka, they are consuming ever more beer and other drinks with low alcohol levels. The production of such drinks increased six-fold between 1998 and 2006, and sales were multiplied by three over the same period. Last year, 12 billion litres of alcohol were sold in Russia, of which 75 per cent was beer, 16 per cent vodka and other hard liquor, eight per cent wine and one per cent cognac. The number of alcohol-linked deaths meanwhile dropped to 28,386 in 2006 from 40,877 a year earlier {LR: that’s only if you believe the Kremlin’s data}, but they still represented 12 per cent of all deaths in Russia {LR: because Russia’s population keeps getting smaller and smaller}. The sale of home-brewed alcohol also continued to kill. 1074 people died after drinking bad moonshine last year alone, according to Rospotrebnadzor. The agency said five per cent of alcohol sold in 2006 did not conform to sanitary criteria, up from 2.6 per cent a year earlier. Australian Bureau of Statistics figures for alcohol consumption in Australia in 2004-05 by those aged 15 years and over was 9.8 litres per person.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

LR on PP

Check out La Russophobe‘s latest post on Publius Pundit, where she reports the latest news on the efforts of senior Russian legislator Sergei Mironov to change the Russian Constitution and allow Vladimir Putin to remain in power indefinitely. Moscow strongman Yuri Luzhkov has jumped on the bandwagon, attacking America in an ignorant and typically crude manner.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

Past as Prologue: Annals of the KGB

Writing in the Sacramento Bee, syndicated columnist David Ignatius issues an ominous warning about the dangers of Russian intelligence:

Roll back the tape to January 1964: America is still reeling from the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and investigators don’t know what to make of the fact that the apparent assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, lived for three years in the Soviet Union. Did the Russians have any role in JFK’s death? At that very moment, a KGB defector named Yuri Nosenko surfaces in Geneva and tells his CIA handlers that he knows the Soviets had nothing to do with Oswald. How is Nosenko so sure? Because he personally handled Oswald’s KGB file, and he knows the spy service had never considered dealing with him.

For many spy buffs, the Nosenko story has always seemed too good to be true. How convenient that he defected at the very moment that the KGB’s chiefs were eager to reassure the Warren Commission about Oswald’s sojourn in Russia. What’s more, Nosenko brought other goodies that on close examination were also suspicious — information that seemed intended to divert the CIA’s attention from the possibility that its codes had been broken and its inner sanctum had been penetrated.

The Nosenko case is one of the gnarly puzzles of Cold War history.

It vexed the CIA’s fabled counterintelligence chief, James Jesus Angleton, to the end of his days.

And it has titillated a generation of novelists and screenwriters — most recently providing the background for Robert De Niro’s sinuous spy film, “The Good Shepherd.”

Now the CIA case officer who initially handled Nosenko, Tennent H. Bagley, has written his own account. And it is a stunner. It’s impossible to read this book without developing doubts about Nosenko’s bona fides. Many readers will conclude that Angleton was right all along — that Nosenko was a phony, sent by the KGB to deceive a gullible CIA.

That’s not the official CIA judgment, of course. The agency gave Nosenko its stamp of approval in 1968, and again in 1976. Indeed, as often happens, the agency itself became the villain, with critics denouncing Angleton, Bagley and other skeptics for their harsh interrogation of Nosenko. In its eagerness to tidy up the mess, the agency even invited Nosenko to lecture to its young officers about counterintelligence.

It happens that I met Angleton in the late 1970s, in the twilight of his life in the shadows. I was a young reporter in my late 20s, and it occurred to me to call the fabled counterintelligence chief and invite him to lunch. (Back then, even retired superspooks listed their numbers in the phone book. I can still hear in my mind his creepily precise voice on the answering machine: “We are not in, at present. …”)

Angleton arrived for lunch at his favorite haunt, the Army and Navy Club on Farragut Square, cadaverously thin and dressed in black. He might have been playing himself in a movie.

He displayed all the weird traits that were part of the Angleton legend, clasping his Virginia Slims cigarette daintily between thumb and forefinger and sipping his potent cocktail through a long, thin straw.

And he was still obsessed about the Nosenko case. He urged me, in a series of interviews, to pursue another Russian defector code-named “Sasha,” who he was convinced was part of the skein of KGB lies. The man ran a little picture-framing shop in Alexandria and seemed an unlikely master spy. I gradually concluded that Angleton had lost it, and after I wrote that he himself had once been accused of being the secret mole, he stopped returning my phone calls.

Bagley’s book, “Spy Wars,” should reopen the Nosenko case. He has gathered strong evidence that the Russian defector could not have been who he initially said he was; that he could not have reviewed the Oswald file; that his claims about how the KGB discovered the identities of two CIA moles in Moscow could not have been right.

According to Bagley, even Nosenko eventually admitted that some of what he had told the CIA was a lie.

What larger purpose did the deception serve? Bagley argues that the KGB’s real game was to steer the CIA away from realizing that the Russians had recruited one American code clerk in Moscow in 1949, and perhaps two others later on. The KGB may also have hoped to protect an early (and to this day undiscovered) mole inside the CIA.

Take a stroll with Bagley down paranoia lane and you are reminded just how good the Russians are at the three-dimensional chess game of intelligence. For a century, their spies have created entire networks of illusion — phony dissident movements, fake spy services — to condition the desired response.

Reading Bagley’s book, I could not help thinking: What mind games are the Russians playing with us today?

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

More on Russia and Iran

Writing in the Canadian Globe & Mail Andrei Piontkovsky, executive director of the Strategic Studies Centre in Moscow, offers the following analysis of the Russia-Iran nexus:

Recent reports of controversy over Russian funding of the construction of Iran’s atomic power station at Bushehr has lead many people to the wrong conclusion. The New York Times, for example, reported that Russian officials had told Iran no fuel would be delivered to the station if enrichment continued, leading many to assume there was a change in Moscow’s stand on Iran’s nuclear aspirations, bringing it closer to the U.S. and European positions.

Before the printer’s ink was dry on this assertion, however, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov had branded it blatant disinformation intended to cast a shadow over the traditionally friendly relations between Russia and Iran.

There was a conflict over payment, it seems, but it resulted more from problems over the kickbacks that accompany practically every major Russo-Iranian deal. Evidently, some top Russian official had not received his cut.

Mr. Lavrov’s indignation over the Times’s commentary was entirely sincere, if rather naive. It is further confirmation that Moscow is happy to watch Iran continue toward possession of nuclear weapons. But with a different goal in mind.

For Moscow, the best-case scenario for an end to the Iranian nuclear crisis would be an Israeli and/or U.S. preventive strike against Iran’s nuclear sites.

Why? In the first place, because an Iranian nuclear bomb is something the Russian leaders really do not need. Iran is, after all, the only state in the world with official territorial claims against Russia (part of the Caspian seabed is disputed).

In the second place, all the indignation of the Islamic world would be directed against Israel and the United States, which would also suit Moscow well.

Last, but not least, Iran would doubtless retaliate by destroying the Saudi oil platforms and blocking the Strait of Hormuz, interrupting the export of oil from the Middle East for a while.

The chekist oil barons who make up Vladimir Putin’s retinue are already rubbing their hands in anticipation of this course of events. The 10 or 15 individuals who rule Russia nowadays, her current Politburo, also own Russia through their direct or indirect control of most of her oil and gas companies. How high might the price of oil go? To $200, $300 a barrel?

Too much in their lives depends on that number — the regime’s stability, their role on the world stage, their personal wealth. They will not repeat the mistake of past Soviet leaders who passively watched the oil price fall. They have, after all, plenty of scope for influencing the situation in the Middle East.

Every step of Moscow’s Iranian policy in recent years has been aimed at moving events in this direction. By blocking or completely watering down Security Council resolutions on Iran, Moscow has facilitated Iran’s nuclear program. By supplying Iran with TOR missile installations and negotiating over possible delivery of the more cutting-edge S-300 air-defence system, Russia is effectively hurrying Israel toward having to undertake a military solution of the problem. After the Russian anti-aircraft installations to protect Iran’s nuclear sites are fully commissioned, a military strike by Israel will no longer be feasible; but the alternative to a preventive strike is to see nuclear weapons and their means of delivery placed in the hands of someone who, Israel believes, wants to see a “Final Solution” of the “Jewish Problem.” This is totally unacceptable to the Jewish state and, if Iran does not halt its nuclear program, a preventive strike is highly probable.

There are moderates in the Iranian leadership prepared to negotiate the discontinuing of industrial enrichment of uranium in return for a guarantee of international deliveries of nuclear fuel, but the recent kerfuffle with Russia over payment for the construction of Bushehr has greatly undermined their position. Moscow, in any case, made no demand that enrichment of uranium should be halted before deliveries of fuel were resumed. That would have been constructive and would have strengthened the hand of the moderates.

Mr. Lavrov indignantly rejected any such approach and insisted that the problem was purely a misunderstanding about payment. Iran paid up, deliveries are being restarted, and the conclusion drawn from the incident by the Iranian establishment is wholly in favour of continuing with its nuclear project. The influential Iranian newspaper Resalat commented, “Russia’s behaviour is the best reason why Iran must insist on enriching uranium and producing nuclear fuel itself . . . You can’t spend billions of dollars [on building a power plant] and then have to beg others for fuel.”

As regards the motivation behind Russia’s behaviour in this recent financial dispute, the Iranian side understand that well and commented derisively.

When the head of the Russian Federal Atomic Agency, Sergey Kirienko, complained that “since the middle of January we have not receive a single kopek,” his Iranian counterpart replied sarcastically, “It is true. We have never paid Mr. Kirienko a single kopek. Or a ruble either. For the past 15 years, we have been paying the Russians in dollars.”

The nuances of how the Russian capitalist ministers behave may change, but their strategic aim remains unchanged. Moscow has consistently been the political, and now also the military, umbrella for the mullahs who are rushing to get their hands on nuclear weapons. The Kremlin fully understands that this will inevitably lead to military conflict. The war in Iraq has brought the Putin regime handsome political and economic dividends. Moscow is hoping that the feast will continue.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !

April 12, 2007 — Contents

THURSDAY APRIL 12 CONTENTS

(1) Editorial: Putting our Money where our Mouth is

(2) Hey, hey, ho, ho — U.S. says “whoa!” to Russia’s WTO

(3) Now, the Kremlin moves on the Blogosphere

(4) Cuban Missle Crisis Redux

(5) Annals of Russophile Gibberish

NOTE OF INTEREST: Many months ago, LR said a new cold war with Russia was coming. Some scoffed. If you search “Russia cold war” on Google News today, you get 1,675 hits. Nuff said? You don’t really understand Russia unless you read La Russophobe.

Thanks for reading La Russophobe !