Moreover, the timing is really impressive. The British media make public the news
We always use the conditional, because despite talk to terminate the investigation, British courts have failed to prove with certainty the responsibilities of the Russian leadership, raising the suspicion of a relationship built to make more noise in the media than in the classrooms of some court. Moreover, the timing is really impressive. The British media make public the news, bouncing across all major networks in the world. A few minutes after Mr Litvinenko's widow talking: ' of course I am very satisfied that the words spoken in my husband's deathbed have been tested in a real English Court with the highest standards of independence, ' he said. "Now it's time to David Cameron. Targeted economic sanctions to be imposed immediately and ask travel bans to several people related to Russia ".
Then it fell to the British Government, which decided to convene immediately the Russian Ambassador in London. "We will summon the Russian Ambassador in London to the Foreign Office, where we will express our deep disappointment at the failure of Russia to cooperate and provide satisfying answers, ' he announced, British Interior Minister Theresa May. According to a spokeswoman for David Cameron, quoted by EFE, the findings of the investigation are "extremely troubling. It is not the way to behave to any State, let alone for one permanent member of the UN Security Council. "
The Russia spoke of political survey. During a briefing with the press, Maria Zakharova, Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman, described the work of the investigators ' quasi-judicial process British». The Department led by Serghei Lavrov, a few hours earlier, in a statement released to the press, and cited by Interfax, had announced that "closing the case Litvinenko is illegitimate and uncivilized and will have consequences on relations between Russia and the United Kingdom." So in the next few days Moscow will spread a counter-report to prove to be totally alien to each other. But beyond that, beyond the sympathies and antipathies, as well as of political affiliations, there are many accounts that don't add up in the British report:
1. After ten years, you get to close an investigation without certainties and with many doubts. We speak of "probabilities" rather than "certainty". The media talking about putting together the words "likely" and "instigator of the assassination", the first will sound less strong than the second, especially if referred to a head of State.
2. Already several years ago there had been a judicial inquiry into English, but had not emerged evidence against Putin.
3. art. 6 paragraph 2 of the European Convention on human rights States: "every person accused of a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law ensured." By its judgment in the media, the English Court has effectively disrupted international law, because Putin's guilt has not been established, but is simply deemed "likely".
4. relations between Moscow and London are strained for years. Over the past 12 months, the tug of war between Putin and Cameron has focused on the war in Syria. The British Prime Minister has accused of supporting the "butcher" Assad, inviting Russian President repeatedly to remove its support to the Government in Damascus. It's a ploy to discredit the image of Putin (returned in vogue for his role on the Syrian issue) in the eyes of the world?
5. In short, today, remember in detail the Litvinenko case. The
former FSB agent fled from Russia in 2000, helped oligarch Boris
Berezovksij (former political godfather of Putin) because it had
information that would "shake the Russian leadership." The
premise of all this is that Litvinenko and Berezovsky had already
previously accused Putin of having organized a series of attacks that
shook Russia in 1999 and that, according to the two, allowed the former
KGB agent he came to power through a kind coup, blaming the bloody massacres Chechen rebels. Very serious allegations. What other kind of information could be dangerous, they are having
blamed for having massacred their own people to come to power?6. The murder of Litvinenko (23 November 2006) was consumed a few weeks after that of Anna Politkovskaya (7 October 2006). What
interest would have had in those days the Kremlin to compromise its
diplomatic relations with London and with the West, a few weeks away
from the barbaric murder of the journalist? What was the need to perform two gestures so blatant and exposed to so little distance from each other?7.
In December 2010, soon after the scandal Wikileaks, by cabli of various
US embassies in the world, he popped out one prepared by a staff member
of the US Embassy in Paris, where it was stated that 007 of Moscow knew
that there were People
in possession of deadly poison and were on the trail of the killers of
Litvinenko before it was poisoned, but were stopped by the British
authorities that "reassured" the Russians that the situation was "under
control". The
revelation, dated December 26, 2006, was made by Anatoly Safonov, the
representative of the Russian presidency, Henry Crumpton, the US
ambassador for counter-terrorism, during a dinner in the French capital.
Cablo sent to Washington in the American diplomat commented the
conversation, pointing out that the statements made by fellow Russian
left implied that "Moscow was not involved in the murder."8.
Back in May 2007, Boris Berezovsky, who told the British authorities
the name of one of the killers of Litvinenko, the business man Andrei
Lugovoi, said that it was "life threatening." According
to the oligarch, who died a few years ago under mysterious
circumstances and never found, in the general silence of the Western
media, the Russian secret services could kill Lugovoi because now
cumbersome. "And 'the way services operate Russians - said the BBC - you kill the witness of the crime. In London he is accused but in Russia it is a witness to the crime of Putin. " Today,
nine years later, Lugovoi is not only still alive, but is also a member
of Parliament, decorated by Putin for his "contribution to the
development of Russian parliamentarian and his active role in
legislative life." So one of two things: either Berezovksij was right, and in that case
we would have witnessed the murder of "uncomfortable" Lugovoi, or simply
mistaken about the role of the Russian leadership in the deal
Litvinenko.9. The same Lugovoi, also in 2007, launched accusations against Berezovksi and MI-6, the secret service of Her Majesty. "Litvinenko
had asked me to collect compromising information about Putin," said
Lugovoi, also a former KGB agent, adding that Litvinenko had been put to
work for British intelligence. But
at some point the reports would be deteriorated, when the leaders MI-6
would have understood that they can not operate at will a hothead like
Litvinenko, who had already given a big headache to his superiors in
Russia. Two
other valid hypotheses, could identify the instigators or the Russian
mafia or just in Boris Berezovsky, who is also suspected of being an
agent of British intelligence for the amount of information held on
Putin. The
Mafia may have avenged for the help given by Litvinenko to the police
Iberian for inquiry into an alleged boss named Zakhar Kalashov,
extradited from Dubai to Spain, while Berezovsky could have eliminated
his friend to prevent the spread of potentially damaging documents for maintaining its status as a political refugee in Britain or lean then to Putin responsibility for the crime.P.S. The writer has certainly wanted to turn in the lawyer defender of Vladimir Putin, the latter because it will definitely better. He simply pointed out the many inconsistencies and oddities of the case. Who
does not know in depth the Russian reality, it can not understand how a
society move in any direction means step on toes to some oligarch. Litvinenko
was definitely a hothead, a person who wanted to go all the way to what
he did and his actions did not disturb only Vladimir Putin, but also
many other members of the Russian political and economic power, all with
different interests and objectives and very often at odds. Perhaps it is among these that hides the true instigator of his murder. The truth, the real one, it is always difficult to obtain in cases like these.
Author:Eugenio Cipolla
Translated by Google Translator
