Wesley Clarkson
07-31-2007, 05:31 AM
Are you a man or a woman intensely interested in making the UK a safer place for living? Then this article of mine is for you. It’s no captivating reading but rather an attempt to explore reasons which have lead to that recent political debacle in relationship between Moscow and London over that notorious “Litvinenko case”. I am not a freelancer or something of the sort. Say, I am a senior official working with the UK government treating the present London’s political course as unhealthy and undermining democratic values in the UK in the first run. I believe that the impact of that course both in political and economical spheres could be really destructive. So the article is due to my fears. Naturally, I don’t hail London in it and I suspect that was the real motive behind the cool welcome I got in rather big publishing houses I turned to meaning to publish the stuff. When shelved it has no sense. So I posted it here. Hope it’ll help to change things for better.
Yours sincerely Wesley Clarkson (let it be my pseudonym).
Here’s the article itself for you to read.
Please, read my opinion about problems between Britain and Russia politics.
In accordance with the official version, the "cold war" between the West and Russia, which was carried out with the active participation of Great Britain, remains in the past. But is this really so? The number of situations of conflict, occurring between London and Moscow during the last few years is so great and so uncharacteristic for the relationship between the Kremlin and other former NATO opponents, except maybe the United States, that one begins to doubt the words of officials who characterize the British-Russian relationship as friendly. The deep differences in respect to the most important questions of international politics, mutual pretensions of law enforcement agencies of Russia and Great Britain, and also the scandals literally following one another with the participation of politicians, members of special services, businessmen, human rights activists, employees of "humanitarian organizations" and "ordinary" citizens of the two countries do not provide the possibility to regard such facts as accidental misunderstandings, occurring as a result of the doings of private individuals. What is evident is a clear pattern of behavior reflecting the deliberate policy of London in respect to Moscow, which will cause responsive measures from the latter. We will attempt to figure out who is behind this policy, which methods are used when it is being carried out and what aims are to be achieved.
We will begin with a situation absolutely impossible for friendly countries, a situation dealing with the concealment of persons suspected of committing serious crimes. On the Russian side, this is businessman Andrei Lugovoy, which is accused by Scotland Yard of poisoning a former employee of Russian special services - Alexander Litvenenko. On the English side, in addition to the dead Litvinenko - there are sixteen more people, among them the well-known financial swindler Boris Berezovsky and one of the leaders of the Chechen terrorists - Akhmed Zakaev. It is characteristic that consideration in both cases is given to Russian citizens and that the greater part of the crimes committed by them were carried out on Russian territory in respect to Russian citizens or the Russian government itself. The Attorney General of Russia based his refusal to give Lugovoy up to London on provisions of the Russian Constitution forbidding the extradition of Russian citizens to a foreign government, which does not in any manner exclude carrying out corresponding investigations in respect to a suspect in his native country. The British judicial system, providing the status of political refugee to persons who have committed crimes in their native country, is thus taking on the role of uninvited arbiter in respect to relations between law enforcement agencies and citizens of Russia, which cannot be evaluated to be other than the most overbearing interference in the internal affairs of the Russian Federation.
Talking about this fact, British politicians refer to corresponding court decisions, where there is a refusal to extradite a number of persons to their native judicial system, and underline the fact of independence of the English judicial system from the executive branch of the government. However, the majority of specialists in British and international rights admit that the rulings of senior regional judge of the magistrate's court on Bow Street Timothy Workman to refuse the extradition of Boris Berezovsky, his aid Julia Dubova and Akhmed Zakaev were adopted with a number of irregularities, without consideration of materials presented by the Attorney General of Russia, without waiting for the interrogation of witnesses, and much earlier than the time limit for termination of the process, which was set by the judge himself. Furthermore, the status of political refugees was not presented to these persons by the court at all, rather by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Great Britain, headed at that time by David Blanket. Wherein, in respect to Berezovsky, a corresponding decision was taken after the judge forbid extradition of the petitioner - in this manner Blanket avoided the refusal of predecessors to grant the requested status to the "Russian businessman with a questionable reputation" and the protest of Scotland Yard. And in the case with Zakaev, whose involvement in the organization of multiple terrorist acts cannot be denied, the preliminary grant of the status of political refugee to the accused provided grounds for not extraditing him to Russia.
As we see, a political order in such a kind of affairs is sure to be present and characterized by a clearly expressed anti-Russian tendency. So, it is the same Berezovsky who openly states that he is preparing a coup of the political establishment in Russia. It is not amazing that independent observers in both countries ask the same question: what is the reason for such an approach? Some hold the opinion that the "unexplainable love" of the British ruling elite for the so-called "political refugees" from Russia is explained by its interest in people who have significant financial savings and who are capable of transferring them to Great Britain. Remembering the "aid" that Berezovsky gave to the paymaster general of the labor party Lord Levy and also the virtual buying of British citizenship by the refugee Russian oligarch, it should be recognized that this presumption is at least partially justified. But at the same time, one should not forget people like Litvinenko, former employees of the Russian special services, who bring not money, but rather completely different goods, to Great Britain. Not to mention that it should be assumed that the financial possibilities of Berezovsky have been significantly reduced as a result of the necessary large expenditures that were made to develop his living conditions in England and the unsuccessful political swindles through the whole world. Most probably, the British rulers through MI-6 will present him with means for realization of his ambitious political projects in Russia and in Ukraine.
Here, like it or not, it is necessary to give consideration to the loudest scandals concerning the former and present employees of Russian special services, who are quite justifiably called "spies" in the mass media. The poisoning of openly working with MI-6 Alexander Litvinenko, naming businessman Andrei Lugovoy as the person guilty of this murder, the statement of the latter concerning the attempt to recruit him by the British secret service, the revelations of the former employee of the tax police of Russia Vyacheslav Zharko, brought to work in MI-6 by Litvinenko and Berezovsky, the censure of another officer of the Russian special services Sergei Skripal, giving the English information about their colleagues, are unquestionable proof of the active work carried out by the British Foreign Intelligence Service and dedicated to expansion of the network of their agents in Russia. These cases supplement each other and, in accordance with their large number and also in view of the presence of different specificities correcting each other, eliminate the possibility of falsification of the main mass of the information presented therein, creating a comprehensive picture of the measures carried out by MI-6 in respect to Russia. Skripal may be given consideration as an excellent example of the successful recruitment of an agent. Lugovoy and Zharko - as the consequence of insufficient professionalism of the employees working with them.
But of course the greatest interest is provided by the obvious agents - Berezovsky, passing secret documents of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, the assistant secretary of which he once was, to MI-6, and Litvinenko, playing the role of chief consultant to his employers in respect to personnel problems. A short time before his death, the latter began to play some game of his own, meeting with persons of interest to MI-6 without informing the British authorities of this, selling secret information under the counter, in general became, as the English curators of Zharko - John Kalagan and Ken Philips, expressed it "completely irresponsible." However, the attempt to "bring Litvinenko to his senses" with the aid of polonium turned out to be too radical a measure, predetermining the failure of the recruitment of Lugovoy and making Zharko, afraid for his life, give himself up. So, a part of the network of agents created by MI-6 in Russia was broken. But it is unlikely that anybody doubts that the British intelligence service will not continue to recruit agents, especially among employees of Russian secret services. However, as a result of this failure we may make conclusions concerning the plans and methods of operation of the MI-6 in the Russian Federation and also concerning those general aims which the authorities of Great Britain have in this respect.
First of all, there is no doubt that the many years of secret support given by the British intelligence service to Chechen terrorists should be noted. This explains the grant of political refugee status to Zakaev by London. It is significant that Shamil Basaev maintained communication with the group of Movsara Baraev, who captured the Dubrovka theatrical center, through Zakaev. The instructions of Asian Mashadov to the terrorists during the Beslan events were also passed through London. One of those killed during the operation to resolve this last event was found to have just exactly the same kind of mobile telephone with a London number as the one which Vycheslav Zharko received from his English curators. The Chechens were the main buyers of radioactive substances, the sale of which was carried out by Berezovsky and Litvinenko under the protection of MI-6. Wherein, the administration of the British special services attempted to strictly limit the group of possible buyers of the goods so that they would not get into the hands of such potential military opponents of Great Britain as Iran. But the presented information that Litvinenko paid with his life for just one more attempt to sell a container with a "dangerous load" to some buyers unknown to his British chiefs makes one doubt that MI-6 was able in all cases to track down where the radioactive substances were directed.
The objects of such kind of activity may be understood on the example of Ukraine, in respect to which London, either directly or through the hands of Berezovsky, carried out prior to the so-called "orange revolution" a very similar policy, including providing financial aid to the opposition, recruitment of employees of the special forces, support for the Crimean Tatars, providing different extremist organizations, beginning with the UNA-UNSO and the popular among Crimean Muslims Hizb ut-Takhrir, with action in the preparation and conduction of "diversive acts" right down to selling them the same polonium, etc. The result of the efforts of British intelligence was an infringement of the constitution of Ukraine by the opposition, a forceful replacement of government power, economical depression and unceasing political crisis in the country. It is obvious that London is satisfied with such results.
It is logical to presume that in Russia too, MI-6 is attempting to achieve the same, in particular maximum weakening of the country after the 2007-2008 elections. Berezovsky publically promised to achieve a forceful replacement of government power in the Crimea, and therefore, the probability that events may be directed along the "Ukrainian scenario" is very high. And if this is so, then it should be remembered that one of the reasons for stimulating dissatisfaction of the population with the Kuchma regimen was the murder of the journalist Gongadze. In view of the usual conservatism of British special services, which do not have the habit of refusing to continue the use of methods successfully used in the past, Russia should also expect new political murders in the near future. So, in the opinion of British political technologists, ostentatious reprisal against one of the leaders of the opposition - Kasyaov, Limonov, Kasparov - or any known journalist at the level of Listev and Politkovskaya, could discredit the government in the eyes of the voters.
It is clear that MI-6 and the ruling authority of Great Britain also have other, not so radical, methods of affecting Russian public opinion. So, there exist all kinds of humanitarian foundations, organizations which are non-governmental and are involved in protection of human rights. An example of the first may be considered to be the British council, which puts itself forward as a humanitarian organization acting in the educational sphere, while actually in infringement of Russian legislation providing financial support to different opposition structures over the territory of Russia, and also promoting the propagation in the mass media of information, in the majority of cases false, discrediting the government of the country. The most typical human rights protection organization is the Moscow-Helsinki group headed by Ludmila Alekseevna in which, as in all other establishments of this kind, the majority of the population of the Russian Federation quite justifiably see the self-styled, paid for from abroad by "intermediaries" between themselves and the government, who are protecting the interests of not the citizens themselves, but rather the employers. Furthermore, some of the human rights activists, as the scandal about the so-called "spy rock" showed, work directly with representatives of MI-6 in the British embassy in Moscow, giving them information which is a state secret.
It would be strange if such a successive anti-Russian policy of the British government, carried out through MI-6, would not be noted by the Kremlin, would not result in the adoption of responsive measures and would not promote a further "cooling" of relations between Russia and Great Britain.
At the same time it should be noted that the actions of MI-6 are fraught with destabilization of the situation in Great Britain itself, especially taking into account the loyalty of London to extreme Muslim organizations, like Hizb ut-Takhrir. Bringing British special services into cooperation with Arabs and Pakistanis, Chechens and Crimean tatars, and also the grant of refugee status to Russian "defectors" actively in contact with terrorists resulted in an unprecedented increase of terrorist threats on the British islands, resulting in particular in terrorist acts in the London underground and the recent attempts to repeat such diversions.
So, is it possible to find any justification for London unwinding a new "cold war" against Moscow? Probably, if not justification, then at least an explanation for this may be provided by the personal career and financial interests of a portion of the former heads of MI-6 and political elite of Great Britain, lobbying for a "hard line" in respect to Russia since their present personal well-being is based to a large degree on this. An abrupt change of course would leave many projects of the British special services, which were developed as a method of counteracting the "old enemy" without financial support, would put an end to the career of a number of employees of special services and some well-known politicians, and would also result in the investigation of the motives for taking such decisions as granting citizenship or a special status to obvious criminals, deliberate infringement of British legislation and the perpetration of multiple service errors, resulting in an increase of terrorist threats in the country and the appearance of threats of carrying out terrorist acts with the use of radioactive substances.
Yours sincerely Wesley Clarkson (let it be my pseudonym).
Here’s the article itself for you to read.
Please, read my opinion about problems between Britain and Russia politics.
In accordance with the official version, the "cold war" between the West and Russia, which was carried out with the active participation of Great Britain, remains in the past. But is this really so? The number of situations of conflict, occurring between London and Moscow during the last few years is so great and so uncharacteristic for the relationship between the Kremlin and other former NATO opponents, except maybe the United States, that one begins to doubt the words of officials who characterize the British-Russian relationship as friendly. The deep differences in respect to the most important questions of international politics, mutual pretensions of law enforcement agencies of Russia and Great Britain, and also the scandals literally following one another with the participation of politicians, members of special services, businessmen, human rights activists, employees of "humanitarian organizations" and "ordinary" citizens of the two countries do not provide the possibility to regard such facts as accidental misunderstandings, occurring as a result of the doings of private individuals. What is evident is a clear pattern of behavior reflecting the deliberate policy of London in respect to Moscow, which will cause responsive measures from the latter. We will attempt to figure out who is behind this policy, which methods are used when it is being carried out and what aims are to be achieved.
We will begin with a situation absolutely impossible for friendly countries, a situation dealing with the concealment of persons suspected of committing serious crimes. On the Russian side, this is businessman Andrei Lugovoy, which is accused by Scotland Yard of poisoning a former employee of Russian special services - Alexander Litvenenko. On the English side, in addition to the dead Litvinenko - there are sixteen more people, among them the well-known financial swindler Boris Berezovsky and one of the leaders of the Chechen terrorists - Akhmed Zakaev. It is characteristic that consideration in both cases is given to Russian citizens and that the greater part of the crimes committed by them were carried out on Russian territory in respect to Russian citizens or the Russian government itself. The Attorney General of Russia based his refusal to give Lugovoy up to London on provisions of the Russian Constitution forbidding the extradition of Russian citizens to a foreign government, which does not in any manner exclude carrying out corresponding investigations in respect to a suspect in his native country. The British judicial system, providing the status of political refugee to persons who have committed crimes in their native country, is thus taking on the role of uninvited arbiter in respect to relations between law enforcement agencies and citizens of Russia, which cannot be evaluated to be other than the most overbearing interference in the internal affairs of the Russian Federation.
Talking about this fact, British politicians refer to corresponding court decisions, where there is a refusal to extradite a number of persons to their native judicial system, and underline the fact of independence of the English judicial system from the executive branch of the government. However, the majority of specialists in British and international rights admit that the rulings of senior regional judge of the magistrate's court on Bow Street Timothy Workman to refuse the extradition of Boris Berezovsky, his aid Julia Dubova and Akhmed Zakaev were adopted with a number of irregularities, without consideration of materials presented by the Attorney General of Russia, without waiting for the interrogation of witnesses, and much earlier than the time limit for termination of the process, which was set by the judge himself. Furthermore, the status of political refugees was not presented to these persons by the court at all, rather by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Great Britain, headed at that time by David Blanket. Wherein, in respect to Berezovsky, a corresponding decision was taken after the judge forbid extradition of the petitioner - in this manner Blanket avoided the refusal of predecessors to grant the requested status to the "Russian businessman with a questionable reputation" and the protest of Scotland Yard. And in the case with Zakaev, whose involvement in the organization of multiple terrorist acts cannot be denied, the preliminary grant of the status of political refugee to the accused provided grounds for not extraditing him to Russia.
As we see, a political order in such a kind of affairs is sure to be present and characterized by a clearly expressed anti-Russian tendency. So, it is the same Berezovsky who openly states that he is preparing a coup of the political establishment in Russia. It is not amazing that independent observers in both countries ask the same question: what is the reason for such an approach? Some hold the opinion that the "unexplainable love" of the British ruling elite for the so-called "political refugees" from Russia is explained by its interest in people who have significant financial savings and who are capable of transferring them to Great Britain. Remembering the "aid" that Berezovsky gave to the paymaster general of the labor party Lord Levy and also the virtual buying of British citizenship by the refugee Russian oligarch, it should be recognized that this presumption is at least partially justified. But at the same time, one should not forget people like Litvinenko, former employees of the Russian special services, who bring not money, but rather completely different goods, to Great Britain. Not to mention that it should be assumed that the financial possibilities of Berezovsky have been significantly reduced as a result of the necessary large expenditures that were made to develop his living conditions in England and the unsuccessful political swindles through the whole world. Most probably, the British rulers through MI-6 will present him with means for realization of his ambitious political projects in Russia and in Ukraine.
Here, like it or not, it is necessary to give consideration to the loudest scandals concerning the former and present employees of Russian special services, who are quite justifiably called "spies" in the mass media. The poisoning of openly working with MI-6 Alexander Litvinenko, naming businessman Andrei Lugovoy as the person guilty of this murder, the statement of the latter concerning the attempt to recruit him by the British secret service, the revelations of the former employee of the tax police of Russia Vyacheslav Zharko, brought to work in MI-6 by Litvinenko and Berezovsky, the censure of another officer of the Russian special services Sergei Skripal, giving the English information about their colleagues, are unquestionable proof of the active work carried out by the British Foreign Intelligence Service and dedicated to expansion of the network of their agents in Russia. These cases supplement each other and, in accordance with their large number and also in view of the presence of different specificities correcting each other, eliminate the possibility of falsification of the main mass of the information presented therein, creating a comprehensive picture of the measures carried out by MI-6 in respect to Russia. Skripal may be given consideration as an excellent example of the successful recruitment of an agent. Lugovoy and Zharko - as the consequence of insufficient professionalism of the employees working with them.
But of course the greatest interest is provided by the obvious agents - Berezovsky, passing secret documents of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, the assistant secretary of which he once was, to MI-6, and Litvinenko, playing the role of chief consultant to his employers in respect to personnel problems. A short time before his death, the latter began to play some game of his own, meeting with persons of interest to MI-6 without informing the British authorities of this, selling secret information under the counter, in general became, as the English curators of Zharko - John Kalagan and Ken Philips, expressed it "completely irresponsible." However, the attempt to "bring Litvinenko to his senses" with the aid of polonium turned out to be too radical a measure, predetermining the failure of the recruitment of Lugovoy and making Zharko, afraid for his life, give himself up. So, a part of the network of agents created by MI-6 in Russia was broken. But it is unlikely that anybody doubts that the British intelligence service will not continue to recruit agents, especially among employees of Russian secret services. However, as a result of this failure we may make conclusions concerning the plans and methods of operation of the MI-6 in the Russian Federation and also concerning those general aims which the authorities of Great Britain have in this respect.
First of all, there is no doubt that the many years of secret support given by the British intelligence service to Chechen terrorists should be noted. This explains the grant of political refugee status to Zakaev by London. It is significant that Shamil Basaev maintained communication with the group of Movsara Baraev, who captured the Dubrovka theatrical center, through Zakaev. The instructions of Asian Mashadov to the terrorists during the Beslan events were also passed through London. One of those killed during the operation to resolve this last event was found to have just exactly the same kind of mobile telephone with a London number as the one which Vycheslav Zharko received from his English curators. The Chechens were the main buyers of radioactive substances, the sale of which was carried out by Berezovsky and Litvinenko under the protection of MI-6. Wherein, the administration of the British special services attempted to strictly limit the group of possible buyers of the goods so that they would not get into the hands of such potential military opponents of Great Britain as Iran. But the presented information that Litvinenko paid with his life for just one more attempt to sell a container with a "dangerous load" to some buyers unknown to his British chiefs makes one doubt that MI-6 was able in all cases to track down where the radioactive substances were directed.
The objects of such kind of activity may be understood on the example of Ukraine, in respect to which London, either directly or through the hands of Berezovsky, carried out prior to the so-called "orange revolution" a very similar policy, including providing financial aid to the opposition, recruitment of employees of the special forces, support for the Crimean Tatars, providing different extremist organizations, beginning with the UNA-UNSO and the popular among Crimean Muslims Hizb ut-Takhrir, with action in the preparation and conduction of "diversive acts" right down to selling them the same polonium, etc. The result of the efforts of British intelligence was an infringement of the constitution of Ukraine by the opposition, a forceful replacement of government power, economical depression and unceasing political crisis in the country. It is obvious that London is satisfied with such results.
It is logical to presume that in Russia too, MI-6 is attempting to achieve the same, in particular maximum weakening of the country after the 2007-2008 elections. Berezovsky publically promised to achieve a forceful replacement of government power in the Crimea, and therefore, the probability that events may be directed along the "Ukrainian scenario" is very high. And if this is so, then it should be remembered that one of the reasons for stimulating dissatisfaction of the population with the Kuchma regimen was the murder of the journalist Gongadze. In view of the usual conservatism of British special services, which do not have the habit of refusing to continue the use of methods successfully used in the past, Russia should also expect new political murders in the near future. So, in the opinion of British political technologists, ostentatious reprisal against one of the leaders of the opposition - Kasyaov, Limonov, Kasparov - or any known journalist at the level of Listev and Politkovskaya, could discredit the government in the eyes of the voters.
It is clear that MI-6 and the ruling authority of Great Britain also have other, not so radical, methods of affecting Russian public opinion. So, there exist all kinds of humanitarian foundations, organizations which are non-governmental and are involved in protection of human rights. An example of the first may be considered to be the British council, which puts itself forward as a humanitarian organization acting in the educational sphere, while actually in infringement of Russian legislation providing financial support to different opposition structures over the territory of Russia, and also promoting the propagation in the mass media of information, in the majority of cases false, discrediting the government of the country. The most typical human rights protection organization is the Moscow-Helsinki group headed by Ludmila Alekseevna in which, as in all other establishments of this kind, the majority of the population of the Russian Federation quite justifiably see the self-styled, paid for from abroad by "intermediaries" between themselves and the government, who are protecting the interests of not the citizens themselves, but rather the employers. Furthermore, some of the human rights activists, as the scandal about the so-called "spy rock" showed, work directly with representatives of MI-6 in the British embassy in Moscow, giving them information which is a state secret.
It would be strange if such a successive anti-Russian policy of the British government, carried out through MI-6, would not be noted by the Kremlin, would not result in the adoption of responsive measures and would not promote a further "cooling" of relations between Russia and Great Britain.
At the same time it should be noted that the actions of MI-6 are fraught with destabilization of the situation in Great Britain itself, especially taking into account the loyalty of London to extreme Muslim organizations, like Hizb ut-Takhrir. Bringing British special services into cooperation with Arabs and Pakistanis, Chechens and Crimean tatars, and also the grant of refugee status to Russian "defectors" actively in contact with terrorists resulted in an unprecedented increase of terrorist threats on the British islands, resulting in particular in terrorist acts in the London underground and the recent attempts to repeat such diversions.
So, is it possible to find any justification for London unwinding a new "cold war" against Moscow? Probably, if not justification, then at least an explanation for this may be provided by the personal career and financial interests of a portion of the former heads of MI-6 and political elite of Great Britain, lobbying for a "hard line" in respect to Russia since their present personal well-being is based to a large degree on this. An abrupt change of course would leave many projects of the British special services, which were developed as a method of counteracting the "old enemy" without financial support, would put an end to the career of a number of employees of special services and some well-known politicians, and would also result in the investigation of the motives for taking such decisions as granting citizenship or a special status to obvious criminals, deliberate infringement of British legislation and the perpetration of multiple service errors, resulting in an increase of terrorist threats in the country and the appearance of threats of carrying out terrorist acts with the use of radioactive substances.