Skip to main content

Russian apologies

It is now clear that officials in the Russian security services were a part of the plot to kill Alexander Litvinenko.

Even if the order did not come from the top, agents within the State apparat connived in the assassination of a British citizen.

Therefore it is all the more distasteful that the Russians should have criticized the publication of Mr. Litvinenko's deathbed accusations against President Vladimir Putin.

As Dame Pauline Neville-Jones said "bloody cheek!".

Whatever the plots and machinations behind this sinister murder, the fact is that Russian agents were complict in the crime. The Russian government should understand that in previous times, this would have been considered and act of war against the Queen's peace. Instead of criticism, the British government has a right to demand full co-operation from the Russian government.

If we don't get it, then that would be tantamount to an admission of guilt.

Russia doesn't do apologies- while Blair busies himself apologizing for the slave trade of three centuries ago, there are Russians alive now who took part in one of the greatest single acts of mass murder in history: the Great Soviet Terror.

We would do well not to forget the psychological damage that has been inflicted on Russia by the Terror, we would, however, be even more foolish to accept uncivilized behaviour as the norm from the Kremlin.

"Never apologise, never explain" was Stalins's policy- we must not accept it from Putin.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Finlandisation arrives on Downing Street...
Anonymous said…
I think you (along with most of the media) are jumping the gun a little here.

Yes there is certainly evidence linking the assassination with Russia but that evidence is still only circumstantial. It is still very easy to create scenarios that do not involve the Kremlin, FSB or even FSB renegades.

The radiation on the planes strikes me as strange and could equally be seen as a deliberate seeding to create a Russian link. Certainly if I was smuggling in some radioactive material to the UK I would consider taking a more circuitous route to avoid security screening (perhaps fly into Dublin then take a train to Belfast and fly into Heathrow from there) and store my poison in a sufficiently secure way as to (a) not harm me and (b) not leave a trail of glowing breadcrumbs behind me for investigators to follow.
Cicero said…
rk- as I have said all along, the problem is the polonium.

It is only made at a very limited number of sites under strict security. The composition of the polonium identifies it as having been made at a specific reactor in Russia- one that is under the direct control of the Russian security services.

The cost of the poison in the open market would have been tens of millions.

So- little doubt that we are looking at an operation launched from Russia and by units of the security services with access to polonium.

The only question is was this for or against Putin- and that is not jumping the gun. However, even the obstructionism of the chief prosecutor is not proof that it was Putin directly- but the British are entitled to take it up with and out on the supreme authority of the Russian Federation. VVP has the ultimate moral responsibility, whether he ordered the crime or not.
Anonymous said…
Could you please point me to the press report or whatever that identifies (not speculates) that the material came from a Russian reactor.

Russian Mafia killings in Russia have used methods developed by the KGB. It is entirely feasible that this assassination was carried out without any state involvement at all. I'll admit that I find the knee-jerk defensive attitude of the Russians a little suspicious but then that seems to be their default position when dealing with the world.

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...