The KGB Redux

The KGB Redux

Monday, November 27, 2006

Since Alexander Litvinenko’s death last Thursday, the media has been ramping up their attacks upon President Vladimir Putin and the government of Russia. Fox News for example, normally a moderate news organization, moved noticeably left when one of its guests was interviewed and claimed that: “Russia must have killed Alexander Litvinenko because this is the same Russia that killed Leon Trotsky!”

Media is using the argument that since Russia in history has conducted assassinations against dissidents and other counter-revolutionaries then the adding of Alexander Litvinenko to that list is the only logical thing to do. To the media, President Putin is just “acting” out his KGB days, and this proves that the KGB is back in action, even if it was given a new name. No one else but Russia could have pulled off such an assassination.

For national security intellectuals, the relationship between media and the security of the nation-state is entwined. Like a bad marriage, one cannot exist without the other. Individuals that the media props up during its interviews are all “experts” that they have already checked out and have on speed dial to answer every possible question posed by media, and if media is convinced about a certain outcome, media will bring in other experts to help them convince the public absent any evidence. The Rolodex that media deploys to achieve these ends is very extensive by the sheer number of so-called “experts” that media has available to it.

Media then is convinced President Putin is to blame, and nothing will change their minds about it. The media has already made its position clear internationally and now they are all in lock-step march with the same story.

To intellectuals and other critical thinkers, I have a proposal. What if the media is wrong about the Putin government? Before I explain how Putin’s government was not involved in the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko, let’s clear up some science since the media gets it all wrong. It is important to understand the ideological nature of the system that we are dealing with in Russia. Let’s look at the recent logic problem that media is pushing on the global public.

The media claims: “Since Stalin killed Trotsky, Putin must have killed Litvinenko.”

Before we can tackle this new media fallacy and anti-Russian psyop, it is important for the reader to understand just how the media is making its mistake with all of its so-called “experts”. We need to scientifically define the ideology briefly.

Leninism: This is a form of communism where adherents believe that the foundation of the state’s drive to Utopia can only be achieved through the controlling of cities.

Maoism: This form of communism is different from Leninism in that the Maoist believes that Utopia can only be achieved through the control of the countryside and the control of cities is secondary to that end.

Stalinism: The Stalinist form of authoritarian communism seeks to internalize its stated objective of achieving Utopia.

Trotskyism: The Trotskyite form of authoritarian communism seeks to export communism to all states in the global community because Utopia can only be achieved if all nation-states are communist.

These are the four critical scientific ingredients that the media and its “expert” guests are using to blame the Putin government for the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko. Now let’s peer into why Joseph Stalin killed Leon Trotsky through assassination when Trotsky was hiding in Mexico.

Leon Trotsky was a military genius, the military architect of the Russian Revolution that was in command of all the Bolshevik military forces when Lenin and other Marxists moved upon the Czarist regime. Once communism was in play in Russia and Vladimir Lenin died, Joseph Stalin took command of the Communist Party apparatus and eventually became the party chairman through assassinations and other methods.

Now, since Communism prevailed in Russia in those days, why would one of the architects of the Russian Revolution flee Russia to Mexico, and why would Joseph Stalin kill him for it?

Joseph Stalin had Leon Trotsky assassinated because Stalin did not want Trotsky to inflame the west. Stalin feared that if Trotsky attempted to internationalize communism, especially against western countries such as the United States, that the US would move against Russia and possibly invade the country.

Stalin wanted to internalize communism inside Russia, while Leon Trotsky wanted to export communism to all nation-states through revolutionary means. Trotsky and Stalin were at odds about how best to disseminate their ideology and Stalin did not want international conflict against the Soviet people, while Trotsky wanted global conflict to force communism upon the world.

That is why Stalin sent agents to kill Leon Trotsky in Mexico with an ice pick. Stalin was the Chairman of the Communist Party and Trotsky was disobeying him. Stalin didn’t want a war with the west that would jeopardize his dictatorship over the Russian Empire.

Alexander Litvinenko was no Leon Trotsky. Litvinenko was a low-level employee of the FSB that conducted investigations into white-collar crime and organized crime. Litvinenko did not have access to the types of national secrets that foreign intelligence services would be interested in receiving from him. Alexander Litvinenko was a law enforcement investigator that defected to Britain because it was in his personal and financial interests to do so.

We know that Litvinenko’s position in the FSB exposed him to Russian organized criminal elements and crooked businessmen with a lot of money at their disposal. Litvinenko would become intimately familiar with those types of entities as he performed his mission for the FSB from a law enforcement perspective.

Then one day Litvinenko is arrested by the FSB itself and investigated for facts that are not exactly clear. He was detained and interrogated and then released. That tells us that someone inside the system was taking a look at Litvinenko and was worried about him. Since Litvinenko was an investigator that was supposed to be helping the Russian government dismantle corrupt organized criminal elements and corrupt businessmen, the fact that the FSB would investigate one of their own is interesting in light of current events. Litvinenko said that the charges weighed against him were trumped up charges by the Russian government and when he was released he fled Russia with the help of an anti-Putin Russian oligarch known as Boris Berezovsky.

Boris Berezovsky is currently wanted by the Russian authorities for a variety of crimes and there has been a longstanding rift between the British government and the Russian government over the status of this individual. The British government has so far refused to extradite Berezovsky back to Russia to face the charges that he is accused, and this brings the Berezovsky-Litvinenko connection into play. Berezovsky financed Litvinenko’s flight from Russia and the Russian businessman also financed Litvinenko’s residence and other means once Litvinenko arrived in Britain with his family. Why would Berezovsky do that, unless Litvinenko provided the billionaire Russian businessman some utility against Putin?

Litvinenko was no Leon Trotsky and he certainly was no military strategist, had no intellectual grounding in the revolution, had no status in the Communist Party other than that of a bureaucratic functionary of the FSB—he was a low-level employee.

However, he was an important individual for Berezovsky because the Russian billionaire was anti-Putin and wanted to damage the Russian government using any means available. Litvinenko became very useful to these ends, because Berezovsky could then claim to the media that was already hostile to Putin over the war in Chechnya that he had a former agent of the FSB that was also hostile to Putin. Berezovsky needed Litvinenko for that purpose and Litvinenko was in over his head. It is possible then that Litvinenko never understood how deeply in over his head he actually was. Since Berezovsky was paying the bills, Litvinenko wasn’t going anywhere either.

Over time, the leftist media, Berezovsky and other special interest groups were able to elevate the importance of Litvinenko to the world. Litvinenko, using the funding and contacts provided by Berezovsky and his British citizenship, became a well-known public role model for the anti-war movement and human rights organizations. As Litvinenko vocally expressed his opposition to Putin and the Chechen War, he was compromised insofar as he would be forced to adapt to the anti-war movement’s ideas and radicalized human rights agenda that commanded the movement.

For example, Litvinenko’s displeasure with the Russian government’s military operations in Chechnya before long included claims that the Russian government was torturing captured Chechen militants using the FSB. Since Litvinenko was a former FSB agent, just mentioning such a claim would bring credibility to the human rights organizations that operate as non-government organizations, the anti-war movement, radical Marxist elements that attack democracy and support fundamentalist Islam from an outcome-based perspective, and the hosts of others that would tag along for the ride. Of course Berezovsky would pay Litvinenko’s bills. Litvinenko was a valuable psyop against Putin and the special interests working against Russia were transforming Litvinenko into more than he really was to help them achieve their ends. Litvinenko was becoming the symbol of anti-Russian democratic reform, a figure that the anti-Putin crowd could rally behind.

Anna Politkovskaya was another cog in this new anti-Russian machine. As a well-integrated journalist who was directly tied into the mood of the international media and the international media’s global agenda, Politkovskaya soon found herself with an important mission: tie in the Putin government with the torture of prisoners in Chechnya by the FSB. Politkovskaya made her intentions known that she was investigating such matters, and a mirrored effort was taking place against the United States and the Bush Administration. In fact, the leaking of classified information about National Security Agency surveillance programs used abroad won an American reporter the Pulitzer Prize. While that was going on, international human rights organizations were claiming that they had tracked CIA movements involving CIA secret prisons used by America in the War on Terrorism.

Politkovskaya’s efforts then were directly connected into the cult of personality that emerged to engulf the international media, Berezovsky and Alexander Litvinenko. If American reporters could “get the goods”, she could too. These personalities were not working across different purposes. There was an ongoing attack upon the United States and Russia over efforts to manage the War on Terrorism transnationally. These attacks were well-financed and the international media played an important role in making sure it was as public as possible.

Then things began to move against the radical human rights and peace movement crowd. Russia was moving closer to becoming accepted into the World Trade Organization, it had nationalized its energy reserves to end the pillaging of those reserves by criminal elements within the Russian underground, it was achieving great successes in dealing with the Chechen War, and Putin was becoming more popular amongst the Russian people. Time was running out to discredit Putin and his government ahead of the 2008 Russian elections.

In order to hurt the Putin government enough before the Russian elections in 2008, several factors would have to be put into play. The most critical factor would be to get the international media on the team. Something would have to be done to make sure the media was on board. The second factor would be to make sure the peace movement and human rights groups were also actively engaged. Then lastly, a psyop would be put into play to blame the Putin government and to make the Russian government seem as if it was functioning negligently as it had during the Cold War years, to soften the Russian government up for hostile takeover in the 2008 Russian elections.

The first step of the plan went flawlessly. Anna Politkovskaya, a female reporter no less whom as a victim would reverberate well with the feminist west, is killed outside her apartment inside an elevator. The instant the trigger on the pistol that took Anna Politkovskaya’s life is squeezed, the international media would be on board relentlessly. Not only was Anna Politkovskaya a female, but she was a journalist who was very vocally investigating claims of Russian torture in Chechnya. The media would not sit back and watch one of their own, especially a female, get assassinated without getting some political payback. Anna Politkovskaya then was the perfect hit to start the anti-Putin ball rolling.

Soon afterwards, human rights groups, the peace movement and other non-government organizations in combination with foreign government organizations sympathetic to those groups were able to incense a variety of factions watching these events unfold. Alexander Litvinenko, himself an individual that was already sympathetic to the plight of the Chechens and a possible Muslim convert, covered the death of Anna Politkovskaya furiously. Litvinenko immediately expressed his concern that the Russian government was behind Politkovskaya’s assassination because Putin wanted to cover up the fact that Russian security cells were torturing Chechen extremists captured by Russian forces in Chechnya.

As part of the plan against Putin however, Litvinenko’s utility to the anti-Putin agenda had played itself out. Litvinenko was then poisoned with an extremely rare radioactive element, so rare that only a government with the resources to make nuclear triggers and nuclear weapons and a government that had an interest in seeing Litvinenko dead would assassinate him. A fall from a high building or bridge, or an assassination using a bullet or knife or car accident—any method used by intelligence services around the world—was of no value. The assassination would have to be ordered and carried out by Putin’s FSB using a radioactive substance so rare it would immediately lead investigators right to Russia.

As soon as doctors in London determined that Litvinenko suffered from Polonium 210 poisoning, the media and non-government organizations went into riot mode. Putin was immediately named as the man behind the crime, the one who ordered it, and then the media tied in all the other suspicious deaths of individuals like Anna Politkovskaya. It was a plot so refined and well-planned that even the international media could not contemplate alternative theories about it. The media wanted some payback from Putin over Anna Politkovskaya, and now they had it. In fact, Litvinenko was supposedly meeting with FSB agents who were going to provide him with information about the assassination of Anna Politkovskaya, information that the media desperately wanted. The stage was set.

These events are clearly attacks upon the Russian government ahead of the 2008 Russian elections and possibly even a coup attempt in the making. The list of suspects who might be behind this nefarious plot is very long but for the sake of completeness we can take a look at some of them:

Non-Government Organizations: In recent years, the Putin government has increased regulation over foreign non-governmental organizations. The Russians have always been suspicious about non-government, unelected and non-appointed political influences inside their country. To these non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Putin’s regulatory actions against them are “attacks” against “freedom” and “democracy”. These non-governmental organizations believe that they should have the right to go into Chechnya to investigate Russian “war crimes” that must exist, and since Putin won’t let them, that means Putin is hiding something that could get the Russian president impeached or worse. To these non-governmental organizations, Putin must be taught a lesson, as these same NGOs taught the Bush Administration a lesson when they exposed all the classified information that they could get their hands on to embarrass America.

Russian Oligarchs: On an anger scale, this group resides at the top of the anti-Putin list. The Russian Oligarchs have created a traditional form of “capitalism” in Russia that mirrors that used by American organized criminal elements during the 1920s and 1930s America. These individuals and groups are angry with Putin over the Russian president’s attempts to clean them out and put them on trial and in jail, and they want Putin dealt with.

Opportunistic Groups and Individuals: With Russian elections fast approaching, the privileged classes in Russia that run Putin’s government such as in the FSB and other institutions want to keep their jobs after the 2008 Russian elections. With privileged positions comes power, and with power comes prestige. If an anti-Putin sentiment does exist internationally, especially in Europe, aligning with that sentiment or even helping to fuel it will increase the longevity of these individual’s positions of power and may even provide new opportunities for them.

Western Involvement: Direct western involvement by a western government cannot be dismissed. Europe is reliant upon Russian energy products which for many years it has received at reduced rates contrary to private market fluctuations, especially in the area of natural gas and other deliveries. Since the Putin government has ratcheted up the price of Russian energy products to fall into line with global markets, this has created market pressures in many socialist European countries in the European Union. It is not unfeasible that one or more of the countries in the European Union would become very agitated with Putin for increasing the price of energy products and they may think that Putin’s successor might be more reasonable, but it would require removing large segments of Putin’s government and replacing it with other individuals that could be pressured to make such changes.

Separatists: Putin has shown remarkable resilience in keeping Russia together in the face of an increasingly separatist geopolitical environment. Chechnya, Ossetia, Georgia, the Caucuses, the Ukraine and the Baltic States are just some examples of the pressures that the Russian government is experiencing in the post Cold War world. Any number of these circumstances could cause a movement against Putin and his government and these folks would have an interest in doing so.

The international media is also misconstruing Russian activities in regards to Russian security. The Russians have always been overtly concerned about border security. With NATO expansion pressuring Russia from the east, a fundamentalist Islamic movement in Russia that has population percentages close to 50% in some places, the War in Chechnya, Russia’s interdiction of Russian organized crime and other corruption, Russia’s attempted containment of a hostile media apparatus and non-government organizations that are trying to trip up Russia’s transition to democracy and democratic institutions and all the other problems associated to these ends, it is clear that President Putin has had his hands full in dealing with these problems. An international media that does not understand what is really going on inside Russia is actually damaging desired western reforms for Russia itself.

We may never know who assassinated Alexander Litvinenko and Anna Politkovskaya, but it is clear that their deaths are intricately connected as part of a wider plot to harm the Russian government as the American government itself was also harmed in regards to accusations of torture and conduct in the War on Terrorism.

However, you can expect that President Putin will not sit idly back and allow these activities to continue without a response from the Russian government. How that response will play itself out will probably involve the Russian Security Services becoming directly involved in the investigation of these events on a transnational scale to try and figure out who is behind them.

One thing we do know, and it is an important start, is that Alexander Litvinenko was no Leon Trotsky.

Christopher Farmer

MS, National Security

To comment about this article, please use our forum!