Russia: The Enemy

Global View/By Bret Stephens
November 28, 2006; Page A15

It's time we start thinking of Vladimir Putin's Russia as an enemy of the United States.

This isn't simply because a former KGB agent turned Putin critic died last week in London after ingesting a dose of polonium 210, an element that usually functions as a neutron trigger in atomic bombs. Nor is it that Alexander Litvinenko's death is the latest in a series of killings, attempted murders, imprisonments and forced exiles whose victims just happened to be prominent opponents of Mr. Putin. It is because the foreign policy of Russia has become openly, and often gratuitously, hostile to the U.S.

Some examples: Last summer, Russia signed a billion-dollar arms deal with Venezuela; Hugo Chávez wasted no time fantasizing aloud about using the weapons to sink an American aircraft carrier. Last week, Russia began deliveries to Iran of highly sophisticated SA-15 anti-aircraft missiles, at a value of $700 million. Russian Defense Minister Igor Ivanov claims the missiles will "have no influence on the balance of power in the region." But the purpose of the missiles is to defend Iran's nuclear sites, which do threaten the balance of power. Mr. Ivanov also says he is "absolutely sure" the billion-dollar Bushehr reactor that Russia is building for Iran could not be used to build nuclear weapons. This is false, and Mr. Ivanov must know it: The spent plutonium from the reactor can easily be diverted and reprocessed to produce as many as 60 bombs.

At the United Nations, Russia has consistently opposed U.S. efforts to sanction Iran and North Korea for their nuclear programs and diluted the effects of the resolutions that were passed. The Russians say they oppose the use of sanctions because they "don't work." It's an odd claim coming from a government that in October brusquely imposed trade, travel and postal sanctions on neighboring Georgia.

It is said often that Russia's motives are essentially mercenary and thus amoral. That's only partly true. Paul Volcker's investigation into the Oil for Food scandal revealed that Russian companies did $19.3 billion in oil deals with Saddam Hussein (by contrast, the French did a mere $4.4 billion) and that Russian individuals were the great beneficiaries of Saddam's illicit largesse -- one reason, perhaps, that Russia vigorously opposed the U.S. invasion. As recently as July Russia had plans to supply North Korea with advanced encryption and nuclear-storage systems. The total value of Russian arms sales to Tehran has risen nearly sixfold in recent years.

Yet Russia hardly depends on Iran as a weapons-export market, to say nothing of North Korea; most of its arms sales are to China and India. So why would Moscow, which has its own grave problems with Islamic radicals, abet the nuclear ambitions of a revolutionary Islamic regime that sponsors terrorism from Buenos Aires to Beirut?

Part of the answer, surely, has to do with the psychology of clientism and Russia's desire to assert and expand its sphere of influence. Part of the answer, too, is that a Russia that can obstruct American purposes -- whether in Latin America, Northeast Asia or the Persian Gulf -- must also be one that is relevant and powerful.

But there is also a fair bit of rank anti-Americanism at play. Take the September contretemps with Georgia, which involved Tbilisi's arrest of four Russian officers it had charged with espionage: Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned darkly at a press conference that "this latest escapade . . . happened straight after NATO's decision to grant Georgia an intensive cooperation plan and [Georgian President] Mikhail Saakashvili's visit to the United States." Was Mr. Lavrov playing to traditional Russian paranoia about the designs of outsiders on the motherland? Or did he really believe that Washington, Brussels and Tbilisi were conspiring trilaterally in this two-bit "plot"?

How does the Litvinenko murder fit into this? Natan Sharansky, the former Soviet dissident now at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem, has often made the point that the best predictor of how nations behave toward their neighbors is how they treat their own people. "I think there's a very high probability [the Litvinenko killing] was done by the security services," he says in a telephone interview. The Kremlin's denials notwithstanding, the use of exotic poisons has been a KGB (now FSB) signature for decades, and killing Litvinenko in London would certainly be one way of letting the Kremlin's critics know that nobody is immune anywhere. As for negative public reaction, Mr. Sharansky observes that "experience shows them that it's short-lived."

That's certainly been Mr. Putin's experience with this White House. It was George W. Bush who first saw gold in Mr. Putin's soul, sometime after the Russian had decimated the city of Grozny. It was Condoleezza Rice who came up with the formulation after the Iraq war that the U.S. should "punish France, ignore Germany and forgive Russia." And it was this administration that agreed last week to Russian membership in the World Trade Organization, with Mr. Bush thanking Mr. Putin for "your time and friendship."

A case can be made for bringing Russia into the WTO, but caveat emptor: A government that trashes the rule of law domestically isn't likely to long sit still in any rules-based organization. There is no case for Russia's continued participation as the eighth member of the Group of Seven, once a club for mature democracies only. Putting Mr. Putin on notice that only gentlemen belong in gentlemen's clubs would be the right first step. Treating him for what he is -- "unworthy of the trust of civilized men and women," as Litvinenko wrote from his deathbed -- would be the next.

Russia's Interest in Litvinenko
By George Friedman

The recent death of a former Russian intelligence agent, Alexander Litvinenko, apparently after being poisoned with polonium-210, raises three interesting questions.

First: Was he poisoned by the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB), the successor to the KGB?

Second: If so, what were they trying to achieve?

Third: Why were they using polonium-210, instead of other poisons the KGB used in the past?

In short, the question is, what in the world is going on?

Litvinenko would seem to have cut a traditional figure in Russian and Soviet history, at least on the surface. The first part of his life was spent as a functionary of the state. Then, for reasons that are not altogether clear, he became an exile and a strident critic of the state he had served. He published two books that made explosive allegations about the FSB and President Vladimir Putin, and he recently had been investigating the shooting death of a Russian journalist, Anna Politkovskaya, who also was a critic of the Putin government. Clearly, he was intent on stirring up trouble for Moscow.

Russian and Soviet tradition on this is clear: Turncoats like Litvinenko must be dealt with, for two reasons. First, they represent an ongoing embarrassment to the state. And second, if they are permitted to continue with their criticisms, they will encourage other dissidents -- making it appear that, having once worked for the FSB, you can settle safely in a city like London and hurl thunderbolts at the motherland with impunity. The state must demonstrate that this will not be permitted -- that turncoats will be dealt with no matter what the circumstances.

The death of Litvinenko, then, certainly makes sense from a political perspective. But it is the perspective of the old Soviet Union -- not of the new Russia that many believed was being born, slowly and painfully, with economic opening some 15 years ago. This does not mean, however, that the killing would not serve a purpose for the Russian administration, in the current geopolitical context.

For years, we have been forecasting and following the transformation of Russia under Vladimir Putin. Putin became president of Russia to reverse the catastrophe of the Yeltsin years. Under communism, Russia led an empire that was relatively poor but enormously powerful in the international system. After the fall of communism, Russia lost its empire, stopped being enormously powerful, and became even poorer than before. Though Westerners celebrated the fall of communism and the Soviet Union, these turned out to be, for most Russians, a catastrophe with few mitigating tradeoffs.

Obviously, the new Russia was of enormous benefit to a small class of entrepreneurs, led by what became known as the oligarchs. These men appeared to be the cutting edge of capitalism in Russia. They were nothing of the sort. They were simply people who knew how to game the chaos of the fall of communism, figuring out how to reverse Soviet expropriation with private expropriation. The ability to turn state property into their own property represented free enterprise only to the most superficial or cynical viewers.

The West was filled with both in the 1990s. Many academics and journalists saw the process going on in Russia as the painful birth of a new liberal democracy. Western financial interests saw it as a tremendous opportunity to tap into the enormous value of a collapsing empire. The critical thing is that the creation of value, the justification of capitalism, was not what was going on. Rather, the expropriation of existing value was the name of the game. Bankers loved it, analysts misunderstood it and the Russians were crushed by it.

It was this kind of chaos into which Putin stepped when he became president, and which he has slowly, inexorably, been bringing to heel for several years. This is the context in which Litvinenko's death -- which, admittedly, raises many questions -- must be understood.

The Andropov Doctrine

Let's go back to Yuri Andropov, who was the legendary head of the KGB in the 1970s and early 1980s, and the man who first realized that the Soviet Union was in massive trouble. Of all the institutions in the world, the KGB alone had the clearest idea of the condition of the Soviet Union. Andropov realized in the early 1980s that the Soviet economy was failing and that, with economic failure, it would collapse. Andropov knew that the exploitation of Western innovation had always been vital to the Soviet economy. The KGB had been tasked with economic and technical espionage in the West. Rather than developing their own technology, in many instances, the Soviets innovated by stealing Western technology via the KGB, essentially using the KGB as an research and development system. Andropov understood just how badly the Soviet Union needed this innovation and how inefficient the Soviet kleptocracy was.

Andropov engineered a new concept. If the Soviet Union was to survive, it had to forge a new relationship with the West. The regime needed not only Western technology, but also Western-style management systems and, above all, Western capital. Andropov realized that so long as the Soviet Union was perceived as a geopolitical threat to the West and, particularly, to the United States, this transfer was not going to take place. Therefore, the Soviet Union had to shift its global strategy and stop threatening Western geopolitical interests.

The Andropov doctrine argued that the Soviet Union could not survive if it did not end, or at least mitigate, the Cold War. Furthermore, if it was to entice Western investment and utilize that investment efficiently, it needed to do two things. First, there had to be a restructuring of the Soviet economy (perestroika). Second, the Soviet system had to be opened to accept innovation (glasnost). Andropov's dream for the Soviet Union never really took hold during his lifetime, as he died several months after becoming the Soviet leader. He was replaced by a nonentity, Konstantin Chernenko, who also died after a short time in office. And then there was Mikhail Gorbachev, who came to embody the KGB's strategy.

Gorbachev was clearly perceived by the West as a reformer, which he certainly was. But less clear to the West were his motives for reform. He was in favor of glasnost and perestroika, but not because he rejected the Soviet system. Rather, Gorbachev embraced these because, like the KGB, he was desperately trying to save the system. Gorbachev pursued the core vision of Yuri Andropov -- and by the time he took over, he was the last hope for that vision. His task was to end the Cold War and trade geopolitical concessions for economic relations with the West.

It was a well-thought-out policy, but it was ultimately a desperate one -- and it failed. In conceding Central Europe, allowing it to break away without Soviet resistance, Gorbachev lost control of the entire empire, and it collapsed. At that point, the economic restructuring went out of control, and openness became the cover for chaos -- with the rising oligarchs and others looting the state for personal gain. But one thing remained: The KGB, both as an institution and as a group of individuals, continued to operate.

Saving the System: A Motive for Murder?

As a young KGB operative, Vladimir Putin was a follower of Andropov. Like Andropov, Putin was committed to the restructuring of the Soviet Union in order to save it. He was a foot soldier in that process.

Putin and his FSB faction realized in the late 1990s that, however lucrative the economic opening process might have been for some, the net effect on Russia was catastrophic. Unlike the oligarchs, many of whom were indifferent to the fate of Russia, Putin understood that the path they were on would only lead to another revolution -- one even more catastrophic than the first. Outside of Moscow and St. Petersburg, there was hunger and desperation. The conditions for disaster were all there.

Putin also realized that Russia had not reaped the sought-after payoff with its loss of prestige and power in the world. Russia had traded geopolitics but had not gotten sufficient benefits in return. This was driven home during the Kosovo crisis, when the United States treated fundamental Russian interests in the Balkans with indifference and contempt. It was clear to Putin by then that Boris Yeltsin had to go. And go he did, with Putin taking over.

Putin is a creation of Andropov. In his bones, he believes in the need for a close economic relationship with the West. But his motives are not those of the oligarchs, and certainly not those of the West. His goal, like that of the KGB, is the preservation and reconstruction of the Russian state. For Putin, perestroika and glasnost were tactical necessities that caused a strategic disaster. He came into office with the intention of reversing that disaster. He continued to believe in the need for openness and restructuring, but only as a means toward the end of Russian power, not as an end in itself.

For Putin, the only solution to Russian chaos was the reassertion of Russian value. The state was the center of Russian society, and the intelligence apparatus was the center of the Russian state. Thus, Putin embarked on a new, slowly implemented policy.

First, bring the oligarchs under control; don't necessarily destroy them, but compel them to work in parallel with the state.

Second, increase Moscow's control over the outlying regions.

Third, recreate a Russian sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union.

Fourth, use the intelligence services internally to achieve these ends and externally to reassert Russian global authority.

None of these goals could be accomplished if a former intelligence officer could betray the organs of the state and sit in London hurling insults at Putin, the FSB and Russia. For a KGB man trained by Andropov, this would show how far Russia had fallen. Something would have to be done about it. Litvinenko's death, seen from this standpoint, was a necessary and inevitable step if Putin's new strategy to save the Russian state is to have meaning.

Anomaly

That, at least, is the logic. It makes sense that Litvinenko would have been killed by the FSB. But there is an oddity: The KGB/FSB have tended to use poison mostly in cases where they wanted someone dead, but wanted to leave it unclear how he died and who killed him. Poison traditionally has been used when someone wants to leave a corpse in a way that would not incur an autopsy or, if a normal autopsy is conducted, the real cause of death would not be discovered (as the poisons used would rapidly degrade or leave the body). When the KGB/FSB wanted someone dead, and wanted the world to know why he had been killed -- or by whom -- they would use two bullets to the brain. A professional hit leaves no ambiguity.

The use of polonium-210 in this case, then, is very odd.

First, it took a long time to kill Litvinenko -- giving him plenty of time to give interviews to the press and level charges against the Kremlin.

Second, there was no way to rationalize his death as a heart attack or brain aneurysm. Radiation poisoning doesn't look like anything but what it is.

Third, polonium-210 is not widely available. It is not something you pick up at your local pharmacy. The average homicidal maniac would not be able to get hold of it or use it.

So, we have a poisoning that was unmistakably deliberate. Litvinenko was killed slowly, leaving him plenty of time to confirm that he thought Putin did it. And the poison would be very difficult to obtain by anyone other than a state agency. Whether it was delivered from Russia -- something the Russians have denied -- or stolen and deployed in the United Kingdom, this is not something to be tried at home, kids. So, there was a killing, designed to look like what it was -- a sophisticated hit.

This certainly raises questions among conspiracy theorists and others. The linkage back to the Russian state appears so direct that some might argue it points to other actors or factions out to stir up trouble for Putin, rather than to Putin himself. Others might say that Litvinenko was killed slowly, yet with an obvious poisoning signature, so that he in effect could help broadcast the Kremlin's message -- and cause other dissidents to think seriously about their actions.

We know only what everyone else knows about this case, and we are working deductively. For all we know, Litvinenko had a very angry former girlfriend who worked in a nuclear lab. But while that's possible, one cannot dismiss the fact that his death -- in so public a manner -- fits in directly with the logic of today's Russia and the interests of Vladimir Putin and his group. It is not that we know or necessarily believe Putin personally ordered a killing, but we do know that, in the vast apparatus of the FSB, giving such an order would not have been contrary to the current inclinations of the leadership.

And whatever the public's impression of the case might be, the KGB/FSB has not suddenly returned to the scene. In fact, it never left. Putin has been getting the system back under control for years. The free-for-all over economic matters has ended, and Putin has been restructuring the Russian economy for several years to increase state control, without totally reversing openness. This process, however, requires the existence of a highly disciplined FSB -- and that is not compatible with someone like a Litvinenko publicly criticizing the Kremlin from London. Litvinenko's death would certainly make that point very clear.

Academic in UK positive for polonium

Associated Press, THE JERUSALEM POST Dec. 1, 2006
An Italian security expert tested positive for the same radioactive substance that killed former Russian spy and Kremlin critic Alexander Litvinenko, British media reported Friday, while pathologists started an autopsy on the ex-KGB agent.

Mario Scaramella, an academic and security expert who met with Litvinenko at a London sushi bar on November 1 - the same day that Litvinenko became ill - tested positive for polonium-210, a rare radioactive substance which also poisoned Litvinenko, media reported. Litvinenko died on November 23.

Britain's Health Protection Agency confirmed that a person had tested positive for polonium-210, but did not identify Scaramella.

Scaramella told The Associated Press on Wednesday that doctors had cleared him after a series of tests. It was unclear what prompted the new diagnosis, and Scaramella could not be reached immediately.

Doctors said he had "significant" amounts of the toxin in his body, British media reported, although Scaramella told reporters previously that he neither ate nor drank at the sushi restaurant when he met Litvinenko.

Three pathologists were working on Litvinenko's autopsy at the Royal London Hospital's forensic science facility, coroner Dr. Andrew Reid said.

Wearing protective suits, one pathologist was representing the government, a second was acting on behalf of Litvinenko's wife, Marina, and the third was an independent specialist attending in case the autopsy led to criminal prosecution.

The 43-year-old former KGB agent's funeral will be held soon after the autopsy, his friend Alex Goldfarb said.

Also on Friday, Britain's Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett met her Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov in Amman, Jordan, and repeated the British government's request for co-operation from the Russian authorities in the investigation of Litvinenko's death.

In a deathbed accusation, Litvinenko blamed Russian President Vladimir Putin for his poisoning, a charge Putin strongly denied.

Lavrov restated earlier assurances that Moscow would cooperate fully, Prime Minister Tony Blair's official spokesman said on condition of anonymity in line with government policy.

"We will proceed in this case, as we would in any other case, on the basis of evidence. That means letting the police establish the facts first," the spokesman said. "But equally, the prime minister has said there will be no diplomatic or political bar to that police investigation."

Russian news agencies reported later that Lavrov said Moscow was ready to answer any questions from Britain about the death.

"When the questions are formulated and sent through the existing channels, we will consider them thoroughly," the ITAR-Tass news agency quoted Lavrov as saying in Jordan. "Now the ball is on the English side, and everything depends on the British investigators."

The police investigation into Litvinenko's death has so far found traces of radiation at 12 locations, Britain's Home Secretary John Reid said Thursday.

Among the sites were two British Airways airliners that had traveled between London and Moscow. A third BA plane that was grounded in Moscow was to be flown back to London to undergo examination on Friday.

The Health Protection Agency said it has seen 139 people as a precaution, and 24 of those were referred to a specialist clinic.

Times Online December 04, 2006 Andrei Lugovoi, one of the people who met Litvinenko the day he was supposedly poisoned, and who will be questioned by British detectives (Mikhail Antonov/Reuters)

British police arrive in Moscow to hunt for spy death clues Philippe Naughton

British police investigating the poisoning of the former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko have arrived in Moscow today to speak to witnesses and collect any evidence relating to his death from their Russian counterparts.

Earlier today, the Russian Foreign Ministry confirmed that visas had been issued to the nine Scotland Yard investigators.

The prosecutor-general's office also offered "to provide all necessary help to British colleagues within the framework of international agreements and the law of the Russian Federation".

British authorities said earlier that the team of detectives would interview several people while in Moscow, including Andrei Lugovoi, another former intelligence agent who met Litvinenko on November 1 - the day he is believed to have fallen ill.

Lawyers acting on behalf of Mikhail Trepashkin, who worked for the FSB, the KGB’s successor, until 1997, said he has key evidence in the case and appealed to the British officers to collect his testimony as soon as possible, saying his life is in danger.

It was reported last week that Trepashkin, who is currently serving a four-year sentence for revealing state secrets, wrote a letter to Litvinenko warning him about a secret squad set up to kill him and other Kremlin opponents.

"Trepashkin said he had information that could shed light on the killing [of Litvinenko]", his lawyer Yelena Liptser told The Associated Press. "If the authorities don’t allow him to do that, that would mean they are trying to hide something."

In a statement dictated on his deathbed, Litvinenko, a former agent for the KGB and the FSB, accused President Putin of involvement in his death. "You may succeed in silencing one man but the howl of protest from around the world will reverberate, Mr Putin, in your ears for the rest of your life," he said.

The spy's father told Kommersant, an independent business daily, that he was also sure that Mr Putin was involved in the death, dismissing suggestions that rogue former agents may have been responsible.

"No kind of veteran’s organisation would dare to kill a former secret service member. There was an order right from the top to kill my son," Mr Litvinenko said. "I am in no doubt that this was done by members of the Russian secret services, with the permission of Vladimir Putin."

Russian authorities have denied any involvement in Litvinenko’s death. Sergey Lavrov, Russia’s Foreign Minister, warned today that continued suggestions of Russian official involvement in Litvinenko’s death could damage relations with Britain.

Mr Lavrov said he had spoken with Margaret Beckett, the Foreign Secretary, "about the necessity to avoid any kind of politicization of this matter, this tragedy," the RIA-Novosti news agency reported.

"If the British have questions, then they should be sent via the law enforcement agencies between which there are contacts," he said.

Meanwhile, one of Litvinenko's former KGB colleagues, Yuri Shvets, said that he had given Scotland Yard information on the death, including the name of the man responsible for the murder.

"The truth is, we have an act of international terrorism on our hands. I happen to believe I know who is behind the death of my friend Sasha and the reason for his murder," Mr Shvets told the Associated Press.

Mr Shvets, who had known Litvinenko since 2002 and last spoke to him on the day that he died, was questioned by British detectives and an FBI agent in Washington last week. He declined to confirm the name of the person he had told police was behind Litvinenko’s death in case it disrupted the investigation.

"I want this inquiry to get to the bottom of it. Otherwise they will be killing people all over the world - in London, in Washington and in other places," Mr Shvets said. "I want to give the police the time and space to crack this case, to allow them to find those behind this assassination, the last thing I want to do is give a warning to those who are responsible."

Litvinenko, 43, died three weeks after ingesting a toxic radioactive isotope, polonium-210, which made his hair fall out and ravaged his organs. Results of the post-mortem examination on his body are expected later this week and might help pinpoint the origin of the radioactive substance.

He is believed to have received the poison at a sushi restaurant in Piccadilly, London. An Italian contact who had lunch with Litvinenko at the restaurant, Mario Scaramella, was also contaminated with polonium, although he has shown no symptoms of radiation poisoning.

In an interview with Italy’s RAI television, Mr Scaramella said that doctors had told him that his body contained five times the dose of polonium-210 that would normally be considered lethal. "So my mood isn’t the best," he told the channel.

Litvinenko's father, Walter, said in an interview published today that his son - who was born an Orthodox Christian but had close links to Islamist rebels in Chechnya - had requested to be buried according to Muslim tradition after converting to Islam on his deathbed.

"He said ’I want to be buried according to Muslim tradition’," Mr Litvinenko told Moscow's Kommersant daily.

"I said, ’Well son, as you wish. We already have one Muslim in our family - my daughter is married to a Muslim. The important thing is to believe in the Almighty. God is one.’"

 

Litvinenko contact 'is in coma'

 

A Russian businessman who met the former KGB spy Alexander Litvinenko on the day he fell ill is now in a coma, Russia's Interfax agency reports.

Dmitry Kovtun, a security expert, met Mr Litvinenko at a bar in London's Millennium Hotel on 1 November.

Mr Litvinenko was admitted to hospital on the same day and died from radiation poisoning three weeks later.

Another Russian who was at the same meeting, ex-spy Andrei Lugovoy, is also in hospital.

Earlier on Thursday, workers at the Millennium Hotel tested positive for low levels of polonium-210, the radioactive substance blamed for Mr Litvinenko's death.

Seven workers at the hotel's Pine Bar appeared to have been exposed, the UK's Health Protection Agency said.

The agency said the risk to the general public was likely to be "very low".

Russian investigation

A funeral service for Mr Litvinenko was held at a central London mosque on Thursday.

The former spy, a vocal critic of the Kremlin, issued a statement on his deathbed accusing Russian President Vladimir Putin of ordering his poisoning.

The Kremlin has described the allegation as "nonsense".

Russian prosecutors on Thursday announced they would launch a criminal investigation into Mr Litvinenko's death and what they described as the attempted murder of Mr Kovtun.

Speaking before the announcement that Mr Kovtun was in a coma, prosecutors said he had shown some signs of radiation poisoning.

The Russian investigation will run in parallel to a murder inquiry UK police are conducting into the Litvinenko case.