Putin the Magnificent

Putin the Magnificent

It seems to be the case for many leading politicians that after a period of about 7 years in power, they begin to get grandiose ideas about their own importance and fallibility. In the UK we have had fairly recently Thatcher and then Blair; The US is enjoying Bush II. The French have had a few. Russia has Putin.

Putin is being a bit aggressive. As examples, he has presided over threatening postures to the Ukraine over Oil, and there are echos of that with the European Union. He has shown indifference to the murder of a British Subject by, quite clearly, Russian persons unknown. And now he has apparently decided to reignite the Cold War by suspending the Arms Control Pact

One clumsy and brutish move after another. But is he a simple-minded as he appears?

Putin is not allowed under the Russian Constitution to serve a further period as President. He claims to be against the idea of serving a third term. But it's a hot topic in Russia.

But now, if there was an international crisis then would it not make Russian sense for that rule to be waived in the interests of Russian Security.

The whole thing stinks.

Originally posted by string:

Putin is not allowed under the Russian Constitution to serve a further period as President. He claims to be against the idea of serving a third term.

Originally posted by string:

Putin the Magnificent

First term: Putin: "Now you see me..." Second term:"Now you see me..." Third and subsequent terms:"Now you see me..."

We Putin here, we Putin there, we Putin everywharer.

I found the following in the Washington Post columns just this morning.

Putin's Power Vacuum

By Masha Lipman
Saturday, July 14, 2007; Page A17
There's a sea of rumors and theories raging about the Russian presidential succession and what Vladimir Putin would do after -- and if -- he stepped down. The diversity of theories is impressive, illustrating how unpredictable and potentially unstable the situation may become. The range of guesses made by pundits, Kremlin insiders, political analysts and experts at home and abroad is getting broader, not narrower, as the election draws nearer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/13/AR2007071301459.html?nav=rss_opinions
I wouldn't get too exorcised about the treaty business. It probably flows out of the Bush proposal to put a missile defense installation in Europe.

An unspecified number of young men belonging to the nationalist youth movement Nasha Strana (Our Country) staged a rally near the U.S. Consulate in Vladivostok on July 12, Interfax reported. The men chanted anti-American slogans to protest U.S. plans to set up an missile-defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Take a look at the short list of treaties that the US has either condemned or walked away from, and the Russian move looks less troublesome. At least I won't lose any sleep over it.

There is a long tradition in Russia of chafing at the West for not appreciating the contributions it's made to the betterment of Europe, particularly absorbing waves of attacks from the eastern hordes. For the near future at least, Russia is in the petroleum catbird seat.

I agree with much of what Jaybro says. The talks over Kosovo may too be contributory. Nato has not ratified the updated pact which was designed to take int consideration the Nato members not covered by the pact and the fact that the Soviet Union (it was not Russia who signed) and Warsaw Pact no longer exist. The US cavalier attitude to previous treaties, Nato's expansion and perceived belligerence (breaking it's own charter and then later changing it) and the West's general sidelining of Russia have all contributed. I don't know if another Cold War is ahead of us, probably a wary distrust. Kosovo could change that. To blame Russia is, in my opinion, ridiculous.

Originally posted by Jaybro:

There is a long tradition in Russia of chafing at the West for not appreciating the contributions it's made to the betterment of Europe, particularly absorbing waves of attacks from the eastern hordes. For the near future at least, Russia is in the petroleum catbird seat.

They've got lots of other perfectly genuine complaints - Ukraine was receiving fuels too cheaply. But Putin's methodology (taken as a whole) leaves a lot to be desired. From a Western perspective. But I suspect the closer you get to the Urals, the more reasonable he looks.

Can't go along with the "can't blame Putin" approach.

I'm puzzled by the strong Russian reaction to the anti-missile system, but leaving that aside, cannot put aside Putin's remark that they would target European Cities. Think about it target European Cities with nuclear weapons. That is not wrist slapping it is Armageddon. This, coupled with the latest remarks, are highly provocative.

To react - what should we do - target Russian Cities?

Madness - but there is little choice but to take at least a protective stance (whatever that means), and for what? To counter a Russian PR stunt?

Eastern Europe is not part of the Soviet Union any more. Trying to control it is a bit like US Administrations' obsession with Cuba.

There is real danger here of escalation and destruction of a good relationship with Russia that developed in recent years.

What Putin is doing is classical politics - create a "situation" where Russian honour/security/respect seems t be at risk. Absorb the support which flows from a patriotic population, make strong statements, showing yourself to be a strong leader, solve the problem which you created in the first place and reap the benefits at the polls.

Originally posted by string:

I'm puzzled by the strong Russian reaction to the anti-missile system, but leaving that aside, cannot put aside Putin's remark that they would target European Cities. Think about it target European Cities with nuclear weapons. That is not wrist slapping it is Armageddon. This, coupled with the latest remarks, are highly provocative.

As I said in the other thread that touches on the topic, I think Russia simply doesn't want to be looked at as some poor pathetic shell (and it really isn't). I think the main motivation behind the Russian response may be pride.

Originally posted by string:

To react - what should we do - target Russian Cities?

Again, as I said before, I think the US (for one) should either drop the plans for Eastern Europe altogether, or play along with Russia in cooperative mode. I don't see how the US could lose out by doing that. It's called "delicacy", maybe.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

As I said in the other thread that touches on the topic, I think Russia simply doesn't want to be looked at as some poor pathetic shell (and it really isn't). I think the main motivation behind the Russian response may be pride.

Yes I agree Russian Pride is involved. But so is clumsy diplomacy, matched only by .... read below

Again, as I said before, I think the US (for one) should either drop the plans for Eastern Europe altogether, or play along with Russia in cooperative mode. I don't see how the US could lose out by doing that. It's called "delicacy", maybe.

I could be wrong, but I suspect that the Russians were not consulted first before that anti-missile business was announced. If my assumption is correct that would have been a clumsy move on the part of NATO/US. Still doesn't excuse the over-reaction, IMHO

Originally posted by string:

What Putin is doing is classical politics - create a "situation" where Russian honour/security/respect seems t be at risk. Absorb the support which flows from a patriotic population, make strong statements, showing yourself to be a strong leader, solve the problem which you created in the first place and reap the benefits at the polls.

You've gone a long way to answering your complaint. Russia came out of the Soviet Union in a genuinely sorry condition...not our fault but sorry nonetheless. The economy is now stronger for the short term, and Bush made another goofy and clumsy move with the missile plans. Who was consulted?

Originally posted by string:

Still doesn't excuse the over-reaction, IMHO

While I agree, I don't think that these changes signal anything sinister. Stupid defensive policy would only injure the Russian economy, and I don't think that would satisfy anybody.

So why didn't Bush accept Putin's offer to have the missiles in his sphere of influence then? If as Bush says it was defence against Iran, etc that would have made more practical and political sense. It is an arrogance that says "we are the sole super-power and stuff you". To site them in countries that used to be Warsaw Pact and less than a hundrfed miles from St Petersburg is a real damn arrogance and slap in the face for Russia. Putin is right to take a stand and build up the new Russia as a counter balance to the mislead supremacy of the USA. All this Western media thing about a new Cold War being started by Russia is trying to lay the blame on the Kremlin. They would be better looking at 1000 Pennsylvania Avenueas the real cause.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

All this Western media thing about a new Cold War being started by Russia is trying to lay the blame on the Kremlin. They would be better looking at 1000 Pennsylvania Avenueas the real cause.

Well, they'd be misled in more ways than one. They'd have to go up the street a little to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Anyway, why doesn't the UK set itself up as this so-much-desired "counterweight"?

String, Where and when did Putin say that he was targetting European cities?
I and others on this thread were ready to fight the Sovs if they attacked "The West" and were glad to see the back of it. I reckon most of us would have preferred to have seen a grown-up reaction to the outcome. The Sovs and their communistic form of the world order crumbled, thankfully, and yet some US politicians and military leaders continued to treat Russia as pariahs. Yes, the former Russian Empire was the base on which the USSR was built but communist leaders were not all Russian. Where did Stalin come from? Not Russia. Even at the demise of the USSR one of the top honchos was Sheverdnaze, not Russian. Compare this treatment to Japan in 1945 for instance.

Margaret Thatcher condemned the Allies (The West) for short-sightedness in our treatment of Russia, preferring to welcome them to the fold. Instead as I have said before, Nato broke it's own charter and attacked when not attacked itself, something unthinkable when there was a perceived balance. Nato expanded to and into the former sphere of both USSR and Russian influence, despite tacit agreements not to. Russia has not created this situation.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Anyway, why doesn't the UK set itself up as this so-much-desired "counterweight"?

We can't afford it. Maybe if we had received the same financial terms as Japan and Germany ... oh they were the enemy! Sorry!

Originally posted by Acorn15:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Anyway, why doesn't the UK set itself up as this so-much-desired "counterweight"?

We can't afford it. Maybe if we had received the same financial terms as Japan and Germany ... oh they were the enemy! Sorry!

The Russians probably can't afford it either. But the UK, France and Germany...wow, that would be a good counterbalance. The latter two would probably be overjoyed. And bring Russia into the fold and you have a powerhouse. There's the dream realized. I think NATO is sort of a "living fossil" anyway.

Originally posted by Acorn15:

String, Where and when did Putin say that he was targetting European cities?

The new cold war: Russia's missiles to target Europe

Originally posted by rjhowie:

So why didn't Bush accept Putin's offer to have the missiles in his sphere of influence then? If as Bush says it was defence against Iran, etc that would have made more practical and political sense. It is an arrogance that says "we are the sole super-power and stuff you". To site them in countries that used to be Warsaw Pact and less than a hundrfed miles from St Petersburg is a real damn arrogance and slap in the face for Russia. Putin is right to take a stand and build up the new Russia as a counter balance to the mislead supremacy of the USA. All this Western media thing about a new Cold War being started by Russia is trying to lay the blame on the Kremlin.

Not an altogether bad way of looking at it, but both the US proposal and the Russian reaction are goofy. And we are the sole super-power. And Russia isn't and won't be a counter to the position of the US. I was hoping that the EU would step up to the plate selectively, but that was a pipe dream.

Much of Putin's blather is for local consumption. There is no new cold war. There won't be a new cold war. Let's put that to rest.

Originally posted by string:

Originally posted by Acorn15:

String, Where and when did Putin say that he was targetting European cities?

The new cold war: Russia's missiles to target Europe

From the Guardian article:

What will those steps be? Naturally, we will have to have new targets in Europe.

Obviously. There can hardly be a doubt that if the two sites get built their coordinates will be entered as priority targets, every country's military would do the same. For the proximity to Russia's borders it wouldn't even be necessary to use nuclear warheads, let alone ICBMs, conventional ones would suffice. That's a far stretch "pointing its missiles at European cities". A good proper editor would know that the devil is in the details; backup the claim or don't make it in the first place.

edit:
From Putin Threatens Europe:

It is up to our military to define these targets, in addition to defining the choice between ballistic and cruise missiles.

Originally posted by Niddhogg:

◁ What we learn from history is that we don't learn from history. ▷

Geez, do I like this!

Originally posted by string:

Originally posted by Acorn15:
String, Where and when did Putin say that he was targetting European cities?


The new cold war: Russia's missiles to target Europe

String, thanks for the link. I suspec that the journalist has misquoted. This is the only report that I have seen which mentions cities as targets (although both East and West did and would target such). putin has in the past referred to miltary targets.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

I think NATO is sort of a "living fossil" anyway.

I have gone to find myself. If I return before I get back,

Maybe they need another cold war to validate their existence?

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Originally posted by Niddhogg:
◁ What we learn from history is that we don't learn from history. ▷
Geez, do I like this!

Me too!

Originally posted by Acorn15:

Originally posted by Jaybro:Originally posted by Niddhogg:◁ What we learn from history is that we don't learn from history. ▷Geez, do I like this!

Me too!

Nonsense! It took the French almost a millenia to work it out, but in the 20th Century they opted to not try a military crossing of the channel

Originally posted by Acorn15:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

I think NATO is sort of a "living fossil" anyway.

Maybe they need another cold war to validate their existence?

It might be better to pull the plug. It seems that a lot of the time Western Europe has about as much in common with Russia as they do with us, and anyway Russia's closer geographically.

Coming from an Atlanticist country, it is still less than clear to me whether or not NATO has found itself after the cold war, does it have a role, or is it just another bureacracy striving to survive after the original reason for its existence has become obsolete, success is a terrible thing, while the rationale for an Euroforce is even more tenous. Are we becoming more American or more French, or both?

Putin's statements seem more for domestic consumption, then again, so are much of the NATO debate, as well as the anti-missile posturing.

Well fanfaron us being a counterweight with a population of around 62 million isn't really on. Might have been different in the days of Empire. The practical situation was that the USA and the USSR were the 2 superpwers. The demise of the USSR left the US with a new situation which it did not handle with aplomb and common sesne instead it took the arogant "we are the champs" stance.

Bush prbably was godsmacked by Putin's offer to set the missiles in his yard and should have taken up the offr. When the US gets round to putting thes sites up in former Warsaw Pact countires he will as the US does only allow American troops to be there as a proper US base. Don't you and Jaybro see how this goes in Russia? It is a slap in the face and smacks of arrogance. Refusing Russia's offer to have the sites nearer to the alleged enemy would have made practical sense rather than have them where planned. A new strengthening by Russia is needed to counter the US policy attitudes which are way of the mark. Of course Putin is courting things back home and why not he is the leader of the country and is being ridiculed by a US/President that is being over-bearing here. Russia needs to use its new found growing wealth to re-build itself and it's military matters. Why should this sole be left to the US as some divine right?

It is just a pity that President Putin cannot have a third term as he is needed to give Russia it's self esteem back, it's pride and to counter a Western policy that is out of kilter.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Russia needs to use its new found growing wealth to re-build itself and it's military matters. Why should this sole be left to the US as some divine right?
...
It is just a pity that President Putin cannot have a third term as he is needed to give Russia it's self esteem back, it's pride and to counter a Western policy that is out of kilter.

In other words, a new Cold War is needed, since it's so obvious that the wrong side "won" the last one.

Heh, you quoted the 'right' word ^^ . . . though you've still missed the other . . . and the third, come to think of it .

(actually, it's (or, makes sense) to use "'"'s instead of """'s for cynicisms and ironies, that leaves the """'s to distinguish for actual “quotes”.)

Originally posted by Niddhogg:

(actually, it's (or, makes sense) to use "'"'s instead of """'s for cynicisms and ironies, that leaves the """'s to distinguish for actual “quotes”.)

<digression>That would be confusing to some, at least me, who use single quotes to denote discussion about the word itself. I would then look for what was special about the word or the sequence of three characters w-o-n in the context of the message. Quotes, single or double, play multiple roles, as does other punctuaction, and we're usually capable of discerning what is meant. HTML has a little-used 'q' element for shorter inline quotes, with some interoperability and internationalistation issues, as well as the more common 'blockquote' element used among other places in the (Quick) Quote function. At regular intervals proposals appear to make human language more regular, or socially/emotionally unambiguous, by adding elements like 'sarcasm' or 'flame', but part of the charm and character of irony is that it sometimes get lost.</digression>

Originally posted by rjhowie:

It is just a pity that President Putin cannot have a third term as he is needed to give Russia it's self esteem back, it's pride and to counter a Western policy that is out of kilter.

Well, isn't there is a restriction only on no more than 2 consequitive terms? He can return to the office after one term by someone else, right? (I'm not sure as I'm a Ukrainian, Russian laws may differ). And that "someone else" can continue what Putin started.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Russia needs to use its new found growing wealth to re-build itself and it's military matters. Why should this sole be left to the US as some divine right?

(this old fart harbors commie tendencies)
The simple answer, Sir, is that the mantle of power has been handed from the Vatican to the US. Get used to it. The only reason that we haven't taken Scotland as a trust territory is that we're waiting for it to come up to standard...something akin to Mississippi or Alabama or Puerto Rico. Once you folks have mastered English, we'll consider it.

Originally posted by jax:

...but part of the charm and character of irony is that it sometimes get lost.

(is he being ironic?)

Isn't asking them to catch up to mighty rich port a little to much?

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Isn't asking them to catch up to mighty rich port a little to much?

I didn't want to go there. The truth, Well, it sometimes smarts.

Originally posted by yuritch:

Well, isn't there is a restriction only on no more than 2 consequitive terms? He can return to the office after one term by someone else, right? (I'm not sure as I'm a Ukrainian, Russian laws may differ). And that "someone else" can continue what Putin started.

Yuritch, you are correct.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

In other words, a new Cold War is needed, since it's so obvious that the wrong side "won" the last one.

The correct side won and then didn't know what to do with the victory so they marhinalised the Russian bear and now complain that it is growling. There were those in the USA who continued to look at Russia as "Commie b*****ds" long after the Cold War. It was as if they missed the confrontation (missed as in yearned for and not as in failing to hit the target - like the first few years of a world war). Perhaps they will get their wish as the West continues to create a climate conducible to a new one.

Originally posted by Acorn15:

Perhaps they will get their wish as the West continues to create a climate conducible to a new one.

Nawww! Never happen. This is a puppet show.

Originally posted by string:

He has shown indifference to the murder of a British Subject by, quite clearly, Russian persons unknown.

This story is getting simply ridiculous. What I can't grasp is what the UK expects Russia to do if it has any honest goals here whatsoever. Extradition isn't allowed by the Constitution here. Period. Case closed. There's nothing to demand from Russia. International treaties may be above national laws, which means that with political will from Russia this article could be revised, but hey - it's the UK we're talking about. Home for Berezovsky & Co., as well as some Chechen terrorists. One has to be completely out of his mind to seriously expect cooperation in the extradition case.

By 2001 the United States had treaties containing extradition agreements with 107 of the 190 nations in the world.

No country has such treaties with every other nation.

Originally posted by van_grieg:

This story is getting simply ridiculous. What I can't grasp is what the UK expects Russia to do if it has any honest goals here whatsoever. Extradition isn't allowed by the Constitution here. Period. Case closed. There's nothing to demand from Russia. International treaties may be above national laws, which means that with political will from Russia this article could be revised, but hey - it's the UK we're talking about. Home for Berezovsky & Co., as well as some Chechen terrorists. One has to be completely out of his mind to seriously expect cooperation in the extradition case.

Has Russia attempted to have Berezovsky extradited back to Russia? If so, and I don't know (but believe they have) then Russia could be said to be using their constitution selectively. As for the chap himself - like most of Boris' chums, he robbed Russia blind. But with permission, yes? Putin's crackdown is against most international human rights laws, so he is applicable for asylum. Chechen terrorists - I don't know about. Refusing to extradite a possible murdered - smells of state sanctioned assassination to me.

It's a tangled mess with no fair resolution. But....most, if not all, of it originated in Russia.

Originally posted by garydenness:

If so, and I don't know (but believe they have) then Russia could be said to be using their constitution selectively.

Russian constitution doesn't say anything about not allowing other countries to extradite their or deport Russian citizens.

Originally posted by garydenness:

But with permission, yes?

I'm not sure everything he did was done with permission. Nevertheless, I didn't mention him to make a case for Putin. Rather to illustrate that expecting Russia to cooperate is ultimately unrealistic, and it doesn't require a state sanctioned assassination.

Originally posted by garydenness:

Refusing to extradite a possible murdered - smells of state sanctioned assassination to me.

Once again, according to Article 61.1 of the Constitution, "A citizen of the Russian Federation may not be deported from Russia or extradited to another State." Written well before Putin was close to Presidency and could possibly state sanction anybody's death, even if you believe in such nonsense.

Edit: By the way, if somebody grants me permission to go rob somebody, it's still a criminal offense on my part.

Originally posted by van_grieg:

I'm not sure everything he did was done with permission.

I have no doubt there were 'grey' areas legally. But that wasn't my gist.

Originally posted by van_grieg:

Rather to illustrate that expecting Russia to cooperate is ultimately unrealistic

I don't disagree with you there. It's a shame isn't it. And I accept, vice versa.

Originally posted by van_grieg:

Once again, according to Article 61.1 of the Constitution, "A citizen of the Russian Federation may not be deported from Russia or extradited to another State." Written well before Putin was close to Presidency

There is a perception in the West that Putin is a bit of a control freak, and that he wants, he gets. What he says is done. What he thinks, is printed. Regardless of the constitution - and all constitutions are there for interpretation anyway. Doesn't matter how specific any section is, there's always another bit to fall back on.

Maybe the perception is wrong.

Originally posted by van_grieg:

could possibly state sanction anybody's death, even if you believe in such nonsense.

I wholly believe in the nonsense that is state sanctioned assassination. It's not something Russia has exclusive rights on though. But I suspect in Putin's Russia, again from a Western perspective, it's a more viable option.

Originally posted by Acorn15:

There were those in the USA who continued to look at Russia as "Commie b*****ds" long after the Cold War.

And there are those who didn't. Anyway, how did the Clinton administration fall short? Failing to produce huge wads of cash? Stepping out of line when it came to Serbia?

Originally posted by Acorn15:

It was as if they missed the confrontation (missed as in yearned for and not as in failing to hit the target - like the first few years of a world war).

Apparently some in Scotland yearn for it as well.

Originally posted by garydenness:

I wholly believe in the nonsense that is state sanctioned assassination. It's not something Russia has exclusive rights on though. But I suspect in Putin's Russia, again from a Western perspective, it's a more viable option.

We'll get a bellyfull of such assassinations before the Islamist killers are a footnote. It's a blunt instrument and subject to all sorts of perversions, but we'll do it more than once.

Originally posted by van_grieg:

Originally posted by string:
He has shown indifference to the murder of a British Subject by, quite clearly, Russian persons unknown.

By person or persons as yet unknown.

If only the UK had been so active when faced by intransigence from the Rep. of Ireland over extradition.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Stepping out of line when it came to Serbia?

Yes as did the UK and others.

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Apparently some in Scotland yearn for it as well.

If there are I do not know them. Where do you get such a silly notion?

Meanwhile I see that Brazil is to apply for Berezovsky's extradition on money laundering and the UK is still harbouring a Chechen terrorist.

The yearning is more widespread than Scotland. Take in much of the UK and much else across the globe. Any why all the hoo-ha about the Russians refusing to extradite the alleged culprit of the killing in London. Apart from being aginst their Consitution which is a legality America cannot talk. The US would utterly refuse to extradite any US serviceman for any war crimes thing so no holier-than-thou is hope for inthat direction. Reminds me of the Biblical motes in eyes.

Originally posted by Acorn15:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Stepping out of line when it came to Serbia?

Yes as did the UK and others.

Uhhh...right. Strange though that you would be so fiercely sympathetic with the Palestinians but not with the Albanians of Kosovo? Or am I misunderstanding?

Originally posted by Acorn15:

Originally posted by fanfaron:

Apparently some in Scotland yearn for it as well.

If there are I do not know them. Where do you get such a silly notion?

I'm just going on what rjhowie has said. See above.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

The yearning is more widespread than Scotland. Take in much of the UK and much else across the globe. Any why all the hoo-ha about the Russians refusing to extradite the alleged culprit of the killing in London. Apart from being aginst their Consitution which is a legality America cannot talk. The US would utterly refuse to extradite any US serviceman for any war crimes thing so no holier-than-thou is hope for inthat direction. Reminds me of the Biblical motes in eyes.

I've had more dealings with Russian Officialdom that I want (or could) remember. One of their favourite gambits was to refuse to do something "because it was against regulations". Whether this was truly some important matter or an invented regulation one could never tell. I remember one case where we wanted to get some paper copied in a government building in Moscow. it was, they said impossible. Later we found out that to copy some document required permission from 2 or 3 different officials, a person to copy and someone to watch him copy. One of these individuals had b***erd off for the evening, so no copy.

I agree there is a lot of hypocrisy about though.

in any event, the row rumbles on: Russia warns UK over expulsions.

I have to say I think the British Government has been stupid very stupid on this matter, using the blunt instrument of expulsion as a sort of "punishment". If such expulsions were warranted (for example with known complicity in the murder) then I would have done it later, but not at this time. I would have thought there were more clever ways to deal with this, for example being slow on agreements which mattered to the Russians but not us. I would not be surprised if that was what the Russians do in retaliation.

Originally posted by garydenness:

There is a perception in the West that Putin is a bit of a control freak, and that he wants, he gets. What he says is done. What he thinks, is printed. Regardless of the constitution - and all constitutions are there for interpretation anyway. Doesn't matter how specific any section is, there's always another bit to fall back on.Maybe the perception is wrong.

I've said more than once that this is an exaggeration. His popularity and power are based on the fact that he gives people (and the politicians) what they want and they give him freedom to do what he wants in things that don't matter to them. Like taking control over the press from the oligarchs. Yet he's not a dictator. Naturally, if he insisted on changing the constitution in order to extradite Lugovoi he may have succeeded, but it's a more difficult matter than it seems. Not only because it's a long and difficult process to complete, but also because there are other considerations. Remember, Lugovoi is an ex-spy, and I doubt the UK would be willing to extradite ex-MI6 agents to a country against which a lot of MI6 activities are aimed. And in any case, why would he even want to go through all this hassle? I see no single reason. Especially now, after the UK pressure has turned into such rough diplomatic moves which seem like an ultimatum. If he yields to this pressure now, he'll lose the very image of a strong leader he's been working so hard to create.

Originally posted by garydenness:

I wholly believe in the nonsense that is state sanctioned assassination. It's not something Russia has exclusive rights on though. But I suspect in Putin's Russia, again from a Western perspective, it's a more viable option.

By nonsense I call not the state sanctioned assassinations per se but the idea that a state would order an assassination of somebody as inconsequential as Litvinenko. If it were Berezovsky I'd probably believe. This is not to say that Lugovoi is innocent. But the fact that he is a former KGB employee doesn't make either the FSB or Putin liable for the murder. Those guys had a lot of things between them including some dirty business, which, in my opinion, is a much more likely source for motives than politics.

Can anybody here imagine the conversations involved in our neo-con infrastructure on the subject of political murders? These guys fabricated an entire war based on Buddha knows what, forget a couple of murders.

Four Russian diplomats having been expelled from the UK. Staff at the British Embassy in Moscow are eagerly waiting to see which four British Diplomats can now go home.

I understand that in the trade this would be known as a "Four all draw".

ORAL MINISTERIAL STATEMENT: LITVINENKO (16/07/07)


With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on developments in the Litvinenko case. This is a situation the Government has not sought, and does not welcome. However we have no choice but to address it.

The Government believes that Russia is a key international partner for the UK. We want to work with the Government of Russia and its people in tackling priority international issues such as Climate Change, Kosovo, Iran, the Middle East Peace Process and Sudan. Russia plays a global role in the battles against terrorism, the proliferation of WMD, illegal migration, drugs and international crime. The cultural exchange between our two countries is extensive. Our bilateral trade relationship is large and growing, including considerable benefits for the City of London. British companies are making a major contribution to the Russian economy. For all these reasons we need a relationship based on trust and mutual respect.

On 28 May the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) presented the Russian authorities with a formal request for the extradition to the UK of Andrey Lugovoy, so that he might stand trial for the murder of Alexander Litvinenko in a British court. Let me remind the House of the relevant procedures. The Crown Prosecution Service is an independent prosecuting authority. Once the Metropolitan Police has referred a case to the Crown Prosecution Service, it is then for the CPS to consider whether there is sufficient evidence to bring charges, and that it is in the public interest to do so. The CPS concluded that Mr Lugovoy did indeed have a case to answer, and sought the assistance of the Home Office in requesting his extradition from Russia. On 6 July the Russian Deputy Prosecutor General sent an official letter to the Home Secretary refusing to extradite Mr Lugovoy. The Director of Public Prosecutions announced on 10 July that, despite the Russian response, he continues to press for a trial of Mr Lugovoy in England.

Mr Speaker, given the seriousness of the crime and our ambitions for our bilateral relationship with Russia, Russia’s reply to the CPS’ extradition is extremely disappointing. It suggests that the Russian government has failed to register either how seriously we treat this case or the seriousness of the issues involved, despite lobbying at the highest level and clear explanations of our need for a satisfactory response. I think, Mr Speaker, that it is worth reiterating why this matters.

The Metropolitan Police has assembled a significant body of evidence against Andrey Lugovoy. I can confirm the following. It is alleged that this grave crime took place in London in November 2006 when Mr Lugovoy poisoned Mr Litvinenko by administering a lethal dose of Polonium-210, a highly radioactive substance. It is part of the prosecution case that on the afternoon of 1 November 2006, Mr Litvinenko drank tea which he had poured, after an invitation from Mr Lugovoy, from a teapot which was later found to be heavily contaminated with Polonium-210. There is also evidence that shows a trail of Polonium-210 on aircraft in which Mr Lugovoy travelled to and from London. On 23 November, Mr Litvinenko died in a London hospital of acute radiation injury.

The facts Mr Speaker are therefore that a UK citizen has suffered a horrifying and lingering death. His murder put hundreds of others, residents and visitors, at risk of radiation contamination. And the UK Government has a wider duty to ensure the safety of the large Russian community living in the UK.

The Deputy Prosecutor General’s letter says that the Russian constitution currently bars extradition. The Russian authorities have given no indication of any willingness to work with us to address this. This situation is not unique, and other countries have amended their constitutions, for example to give effect to the European Arrest Warrant. Indeed, Russia wants the EU and UK to open their borders to free movement of people, goods and services, as part of an intensification of relations. This needs to be matched by an equal Russian commitment to cross-border judicial co-operation.

Since Mr Litvinenko’s death, the Government’s key priority has been to ensure the integrity of the legal process in order to secure justice for Mr Litvinenko. The Director of Public Prosecutions made clear that the allegations against Mr Lugovoy refer to a crime against a British citizen in London. The appropriate venue for the trial is therefore London. Moreover, both the UN and the EU have reported their concern that the law in Russia is applied selectively. There would, therefore, be grounds for a legal challenge over any attempt to accept a trial in Russia.

Given the importance of this issue, and Russia’s failure to co-operate to find a solution, we need an appropriate response. Our aims are clear: first to advance our judicial process, second to bring home to the Russian government the consequences of their failure to co-operate and third to emphasise our commitment to promoting the safety of British citizens and visitors.

I have therefore agreed with colleagues across Government the following steps. First, we will expel four diplomats from the Russian Embassy in London. Second, we shall review the extent of our co-operation with Russia on a range of issues and as an initial step we have suspended visa facilitation negotiations with Russia and made other changes to visa practice. Third, international agreements mean Mr Lugovoy could be extradited to the UK if he travelled abroad. Fourth, we are grateful for the strong support we have received from EU partners and close allies, including through the EU Presidency statement on 1 June. We will discuss with partners the need for future EU-Russia engagement to take our concerns on this case into account.

Mr Speaker, the foundation of an effective international partnership is a set of shared values. The measures I am announcing are intended to uphold key individual rights and vital principles of independent judicial process. On that basis we will continue to work with the Government of Russia for mutual benefit.

I will keep Parliament informed of developments

Originally posted by Jaybro:

These guys fabricated an entire war based on Buddha knows what, forget a couple of murders.

More than one war, I guess. There's a big difference, however. Those wars or murders happen in the third world, which doesn't count. Litvinenko was killed in London, which counts. Those Russian bastards refuse to change their constitution (such a minor obstacle) to satisfy British holy desire for vengeance. Unspeakable impudence.

The Crown Prosecution Service is an independent prosecuting authority.

I don't suppose, being Russian, you can really understand, or believe that can you?

Originally posted by jimwager:

Mr Speaker, the foundation of an effective international partnership is a set of shared values. The measures I am announcing are intended to uphold key individual rights and vital principles of independent judicial process.

Very civil, very laudable, very wooly-headed. I wish the world worked that way; it simply doesn't. If you want your agent back, cut off the fingers of kidnapper's brother and send him one every other day. Somewhere in between the two is the way the world works.

Originally posted by jimwager:

I don't suppose, being Russian, you can really understand, or believe that can you?

Why, I can. Its independence is irrelevant to the extradition issue though. Russia is even more independent, being a sovereign state and all that. UK is acting like its law somehow has a higher priority and all others simply have to rush to adapt their laws accordingly. Somebody is going to be given a finger, no matter how guilty Lugovoi is. Not to mention that the prosecution's opinion, no matter how justified, doesn't prove guilt, strictly speaking.