They say it’s ten but no names were given in the interest of the investigation of Anna Politkovskaya’s murder. The ten comprise of a Chechen native who’s a specialist in contract killings, two security officers, one from the MVD and the other FSB, and three former police officers. The other four have yet to be identified in any way, but according to the Prosecutor General Iurii Chaika, the ten are “the direct organizers, accomplices, and implementors of the crime.”
The investigation, about which information has been scant for months, revealed that the conspiracy to assassinate Politkovskaya was composed of enemies from without determined to discredit the Kremlin. “As to the motives for the murder, the results of the investigation have led us to the conclusion that only people outside the territory of the Russian Federation could have an interest in eliminating Politkovskaya.” Chaika told the media. “It first and foremost benefits people and structures which aim to destabilize the situation in the country, change its constitutional order, create a crisis in Russia, return to the former system of governance where money and oligarchs decided everything, discredit the leaders of the Russian state and a desire to provoke internal pressure on the leadership of our country.” That’s quite a mouthful. All roads, it seems, lead to Berezovsky.
One can’t describe how neatly this fits into the Kremlin’s own narrative of not only the motives for Politkovskaya’s murder, but also the high profile murders of Alexandr Litvinenko, Paul Klebnikov, and Central Bank head Andrei Kozlov.
The convergence of the Kremlin’s line with the investigation’s own findings will undoubtedly raise suspicions as to whether those arrested are really the perpetrators. And though Politkovskaya’s colleagues at Novaya gazeta, which the Prosecutor’s office informed beforehand, feel that the arrests are based in real evidence, they can’t help be concerned that they will be used for political purposes. Sergei Sokolov, the deputy chief editor of Novaya gazeta says that the staff fears that the Kremlin would attempt “to steer the case in the direction of London.” By Chaika’s statements, that already appears to be the case. In addition, Solokov told the Associated Press, “Of course we are concerned that in an election year, this crime may be used by different groups for their own aims.” In the game of politics, they would be stupid not to. Such opportunism is no more a “Russian illness,” in Sokolov’s words, than the meat and potatoes of politics itself. No matter who, where, or how they are practiced.
But while I think suspicions of who Russian authorities connect to the crime are certainly valid, one should hesitate to fall lock step with the march of conspiracy theories that are surely on the horizon. There is no doubt that the Kremlin’s will strive to rationalize Politkovskaya’s murder within it its own paradigm of paranoia. That’s a given. But to use that as impetus to search for the real conspiracy behind the conspiracy doesn’t guarantee the revelation of any deeper truths. Such a search, I’m afraid, will only fuel a paranoia opposite of the Kremlin’s. That all roads lead to an omnipresent Putin.
One things is clear, Politkovskaya as “political football” has been dusted off and re-inflated just in time for a new season.
I thought Kozlov was killed over a dispute with an Estonian (I think) bank and isn’t thought to be part of a wider plot.
PS if the murders are part of an anti-Kremlin plot, which I think is far from impossible, I expect an attempt on some other prominent-in-the-West “liberal” sometime soon.
Chaika sort of caught and corrected himself on implying Kozlov was also killed by this group of ten.
The name of the FSB office was also apparently given. Lt. Colonel Pavel Ryaguzov.
The English language news articles keep coming out with new details of the plot from Chaika. Not sure this is all from the same meeting/press conference or if he has been talking about details on and off all day.
Could you really say that Berezovsky is incapable of initiating a plot to kill Politkovskaya on Putin’s birthday? The Kremlin actions these last 10 months seem as though they knew these details all along and were just waiting for the right time to expose it all.
I’m undecided as to which version of events makes the most sense – the Kremlin killing off Politkovskaya (along with all the troubles it caused internationally) or Berezovsky having her murdered to create said international problems for Putin and the Kremlin.
To be honest, I’d find it most plausible if this group was simply acting on their own accord to murder a reporter that they wanted to shut up, and the Kremlin wants to point the blame at Berezovsky. Reportedly the man who actually shot Anna Politkovskaya was someone she had interviewed in the past; he was known to her (this is from an ITAR-TASS report).
I can’t think of a single rational motive for the Kremlin to kill AP. That would be like Howard whacking John Pilger. It’s mad. Moreover if they had wanted to do so for some lunatic reason, they could have easily arranged for her to disappear in Chechnya.
PS. doesn’t anybody remember an occasion in the 1990s when somebody close to BAB was killed and he blamed it on Luzhkov, his then-political enemy?
I can’t think of a single rational motive for the Kremlin to kill AP.
Keyword: rational
But yes, you’re generally correct. If anybody with a brain inside the Kremlin thought this through, they would have nixed any plan to kill Anna Politkovskaya.
I just wouldn’t rule out the irrational.
oops … forgot to close my italics tag
I’ve been following Kremlin’s heroic struggle from faux pas to faux pas. It often seems as if ‘irrational’ is the new norm over there.
What would the motive be? The woman was irrelevant. Let’s be honest — she worked for a glorified tabloid, part of the zheltyi press, with a highly restricted readership. There are many likely threats that would be more worthy of offing. Like people in the KPRF, Kara-Murza or somebody. Or Limonov, if they just wanted to scare people (it’s not like the West would have raised a huge fuss over that). Somebody Russians read, somebody who has influence.
I agree with all of that, regarding motive. No doubt all your points regarding her work, readership within Russia, etc. are valid. I’ve said that somewhere along the line she went from being a reporter to becoming an activist (almost fanatical at that) with all the questions of bias that brings.
I just also think there is an element of Russian culture that is rather prideful, that would cut off its nose to spite its face. I wouldn’t put it past someone in government to take something that she wrote personally and seek to rub her out for it.
That being said, I do consider that the least likely scenario of those under consideration.
I certainly think that the Kremlin will try and milk it for all it’s worth, but it seems to me that they are being very careful about tying the ‘foreign’ hand behind the whole plot and the case itself. This makes sense.
The Kremlin knows that the british press will run with it and even if it is rubbished by the tabloids etc. just by repeating it it takes even more sheen off BAB, who’s image (I have the impression) has taken quite a battering in the British media (I’m thinking more here of several columnists asking exactly why someone as shady as BAB was given residency, especially when it could have a role in affecting relations between the two states etc. etc.).
As alway, what aren’t we being told? What is missing? It’s too early to tell as information is still coming out, but I guess in a few days there should be some quite evident holes/weaknesses in the information/logic/spin…
As a final point, and I suppose the most obvious thing, ‘timing’. The Kremlin certainly knew this was coming, so is there any benefit to be gained by playing this card, and why now? They could have played it earlier as a ‘spoiler/googlie’ when the earlier ‘democratic’ (brain dead sheep) media vitriol was being sent Russia’s way. Are the Kremlin’s spin doctors that sophisticated (hard to believe they are not)???
Some of the better commentary regarding Politkovskaya:
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/2006-236-28.cfm
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/8220-15.cfm
The two above linked articles reflect a minority of Eng. lang. mass media published/posted commentary about her.
They contrast from Mark Ames’ “Where is America’s Politkovskaya?” which is uncritical of her work.
“(I’m thinking more here of several columnists asking exactly why someone as shady as BAB was given residency, especially when it could have a role in affecting relations between the two states etc. etc.).”
Hint: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1598490.htm
“I’m thinking more here of several columnists asking exactly why someone as shady as BAB was given residency”
Might this be a clue?: http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/loansforpeerage-scandal-threatens-blair/2006/03/19/1142703216797.html
Cheers M. I’m glad to see Ames is in there.
BTW, I heard you on the Beeb a couple of weeks ago with some super-critical States-based russian exile who hasn’t been back for years (and someone else whom I can’t recall at the mo.). You came across very measured and reasonable, much more so than the ex-russki. Kudos to you.
CM,
I’ve always found it interesting why big cities such as London and Geneva (in particular) historically have ‘accepted’ revolutionaries, dross and terrorists (sorry, I mean the political/non violent wings(!) of terrorist groupings) from other states. I’d love to read the police files (if there were any) on the usual suspects who made it big when they went home…
Just remembered Pankratov writes for the eXile. In their (most?) recent edition, there was an article by a Chechen on how to spot a Chechen and all the associated stereotypes: http://www.exile.ru/2007-August-10/feature_story.html
I’m not so sure about Ames being ‘uncritical’ of AP, maybe he just chose the other angle, after all, it wouldn’t do him much good to slam here (why do something again that others do quite happily and well)?
“I’ve always found it interesting why big cities such as London and Geneva (in particular) historically have ‘accepted’ revolutionaries, dross and terrorists (sorry, I mean the political/non violent wings(!) of terrorist groupings) from other states. ”
I imagine the powers-that-be imagine such people to be useful. I mean, OF COURSE BAB has connections to British intelligence. MI6 would have to be utterly incompetent not to have had approached him.
I’ve always found it interesting why big cities such as London and Geneva (in particular) historically have ‘accepted’ revolutionaries, dross and terrorists (sorry, I mean the political/non violent wings(!) of terrorist groupings) from other states. I’d love to read the police files (if there were any) on the usual suspects who made it big when they went home…
If you have not already read Joseph Conrad’s prescient Secret Agent, first published in 1907, it is worth the trouble of finding a copy. It’s all there, black flags, dodgy police reports, the terrorist milieu of Londonistan, the lot. And its a great read.
Two things strike me at this moment. Despite the appalling record of the CIA worldwide in the Black flag industry, it is a hardy commentator indeed who is brave enough to state the obvious that the Cheney gang in the US are very obvious candidates (amongst others of course) as originators of the series of incidents that plague Russia’s relations with the West.
Second – there is huge western media coverage of the murder of one Russian journalist. There is huge coverage of the rocket farce in Georgia but no, and I mean none, coverage of the sentencing of 12 members of the Georgian opposition, a few days ago for between three and eight years for treason and an attempted coup d’état. Their (American) lawyers say the charges are completely false and politically motivated. It would be interesting to see what the reaction of the western media would be if the Kremlin locked up Kasparov and eleven of his mates.
“it is a hardy commentator indeed who is brave enough to state the obvious that the Cheney gang in the US are very obvious candidates (amongst others of course) as originators of the series of incidents that plague Russia’s relations with the West.”
The thing is, if that were true, I don’t see how Putin would have gone fishing at Bush’s ranch.
Agreed but what did they really talk about? The US Russian relationship is highly complex. Did they just agree to disagree?
Stalin and Churchill alone agreed the fate of Europe in teh notorious percentages agreement more or less on the back of a cigarette packet or at any rate a sheet of writing paper in 1944 in Moscow but noone would have believed that at the time.
I mean, they are supposedly friends. I do not go on freidngly fishing trips with people I believe are trying to, in effect, kill me.
Thanks for the heads up RH. I found said book (audio too) here: http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/c
I suppose one obvious advantage of giving shelter to undesirables is that they are quite unlikely to bite the hand that provides. I guess the thinking is that as long as they do nothing hostile against the host government/country and are sufficiently opaque in their relations with the hands-on terrorists, then it seems to be ok.
The London bombings have brutally shown that this equation has been fundamentally (pun intended) changed.
It’s only quite recently (the last year or so) that the political wing of the (LTTTE) ‘Tamil Tigers’ was labelled a ‘terrorist group’ whereas before they flew under the radar. The MSM, following this cue then reported on how LTTTE members came over from Tamil Nadu tried to shake down Tamil businesses in London for funds.
OTOH, former terrorists suddenly become acceptable (I’m not particularly thinking of the IRA here) such as the KLA from Kosovo who were officially an terrorist organization but no longer, now considered a strategic ‘necessary evil’ (they also shook down Albanian businesses abroad to fund their activities throughout the 1990s), even to the point that high EU officials publically and often associate with those awaiting trial for war crimes!
As for the ignored story of the jailed opposition in Georgia, thank god for the internet/blogs. This lack of reporting highlights really where the people who manage the media (editors etc.) have their priorities. Big, simplified emotive headlines sell. Truth/fact is not a business…
“The thing is, if that were true, I don’t see how Putin would have gone fishing at Bush’s ranch.”
Thinking about this reasonable question. Put it the other way round if Bush really believed everything that is printed about Putin and his merry men, would he invite him?
I don’t actually think Bush believes a word of that crap.
(For that matter, if a single professional person working in the intelligence agencies of any country believes Putin ordered Litvinenko to be killed, I will be amazed.)
Come to think of it, I think one reason for all the media focus on Putin is because Bush likes him. Therefore, Condy tries to keep up contacts and meetings and so forth with Russia. Therefore, it’s the focus of attention.
Bashing Putin has thus also been a way to bash Bush (or Blair or Schroeder or whoever). The Republicans or their counterparts in other countries also have bash Putin in response to this, because otherwise they will be seen as being “soft on Russia.” It’s domestic politics.
(For that matter, if a single professional person working in the intelligence agencies of any country believes Putin ordered Litvinenko to be killed, I will be amazed.)
However, isn’t that what the U.K. has been publicizing? That their police and intelligence officials believe this to be the case, and that Putin also tried to have Berezovsky wacked? Or are you suggesting they are deliberately escalating matters with Russia, for some unknown, non-sensical reason?
By the way, that whole loans for peerage scandal doesn’t really sound like much of a scandal to my American ears. I had rather thought most appointed positions in U.K. (and U.S. for that matter) were the result of “political favors” which often translate as M-O-N-E-Y in these days of escalating campaign costs.
Aleks:
I’m glad you heard the show and liked it. I was a bit rusty, but did comparativley well to the other panelists because their views often don’t get challenged unlike their political opposites. I’ve since received a couple of tentative invites at high profile venues.
The effectively presented Eng. lang. mainstream Russian stance is scorned by many in Eng. lang. mass media, academia and body politic. It doesn’t serve the Russian government/mainstream Russian position’s best interests to have only Russian government officials and a very choice few Russian government funded/supported folks giving the involved perspective at high profile venues.
Gleb Pavlovsky’s clumsy remarks about David Miliband is a realted talking point. Sergey Markov has had his less than swift moments as well. It’s also foolish to have one lone in house political commentator at a 24/7 worldwide Eng. lang. Russian government funded TV station. No pundit on Russia can be well versed on every topic.
After JRL ended its ban on eXile, it was awhile before Kirill Pankratov appeared at that venue which prefers Oliver Bronsen/http://russophobe.blogspot.com over http;//tiraspoltimes.com and http://www.rusjournal.com. There’re a number of court appointed Russia friendlys out there who don’t speak out about the JRL biases unlike other types. When compared to Pankratov, JRL has shown a preference for Jake Rudnitsky, who took a decisively pro-Orange/anti-Blue stand during the so called “Orange Revolution”. In addition, Rudnitsky supported Pavel Felgenhauer’s spat with Lyn Berry over a dubious claim made about supposed Russian army atrocities in Nalchik. Mark Ames has written some brilliant pieces matched with some limited and rather flawed critiques. What he wrote about Paul Klebnikov after his death was low. Ames’ critiquing Anna Politkovskaya’s work and suggesting her as a model journalist doesn’t catch my fancy. I know others who agree.
As per your KLA reference, let’s compare the current Serb leadership to the repackaged KLA side. The Serb side doesn’t have anyone that can be legitimately accused of war crimes unlike their Albanian counterparts. Serbia minus Kosovo is a multi-ethnic territory at peace. KLA/NATO occupied Kosovo is the exact opposite. The same comparison is evident between Pridnestrovie and Kosovo.
What would the motive be?
I agree that the ratrional motive for anyone connected to the Kremlin to do this is questionable. But there have been a lot of important issues/situations mismanaged over the past few years, and I don’t think it’s out of the question that someone within Putin’s team decided this would be a good idea and went ahead with it without vetting the idea at the highest levels. But that doesn’t seem like the most likely possibility to me. I’m surprised no one here has mentioned Ramzan, who I think had threatened AP in the past, doesn’t seem like the most rational actor and certainly would have had the resources to do this.
The woman was irrelevant. Let’s be honest — she worked for a glorified tabloid, part of the zheltyi press, with a highly restricted readership.
She was one of the only people still writing regularly (incessantly) about Chechnya and attempting to do independent reporting on the region. And your suggestion that she was “irrelevant” may hold true for the Russian electorate, but think she still had influential readers in Moscow and (something you might miss, being in Russia) two (or three?) books translated into English and widely distributed before her death. I don’t think many other Russian journalists have had this kind of book-length exposure in the West. Thus, I don’t think it’s possible to just dismiss her as “irrelevant” (but still someone the Kremlin is happy to be rid of, whoever did it) with a wave of the hand.
And do you really put Novaya Gazeta in the same category as Moskovsky Komsomolets? To me that’s like putting the Village Voice in with the National Enquirer.
There are many likely threats that would be more worthy of offing. Like people in the KPRF, Kara-Murza or somebody.
How is anyone in the KPRF a “threat”? Are they out there doing investigative journalism or presenting a realistic challenge to the Kremlin’s power?
Or Limonov, if they just wanted to scare people (it’s not like the West would have raised a huge fuss over that). Somebody Russians read, somebody who has influence.
Again, Politkovskaya’s books were more widely read in the West than those of any Russian journalist I can think of off the top of my head. Even if they weren’t flying off the shelves in Russia (probably because they had a hard time making it to shelves outside of Moscow in recent years), I don’t think you can say her work didn’t have “influence.”
And if they whacked Limonov, you can bet that he would immediately become lionized by many as a fallen fighter in the struggle against Russian authoritarianism. He may be a bit less palatable of a hero, but he could easily be painted as “eclectic” if he was killed in a way that made Kremlin involvement plausible, and there would mosdef be a fuss. Plus he (unlike AP) has the kind of supporters who take to the streets – I don’t think anyone, no matter how irrational, would be foolish enough to kill Edik, especially when he’s already sort of marginalized and there are probably other (legal, or creatively “legal”) ways to sideline him by putting him in jail. I do agree with your general premise that Politkovskaya wasn’t killed just “to scare people.”
But what about Ramzan? Is he really a more outlandish suspect than BAB? BAB is a much more plausible suspect for Klebnikov’s murder (though I don’t think anything’s been proven, and there were Chechens who had a reason to want him gone also, along with some of those other billionaires), but did AP ever write anything about BAB? Actually, she probably did at some point, given his involvement in the Chechen hostage-taking incidents many years ago, but I doubt it was anything on the level of “Godfather of the Kremlin.” So, BAB’s only motive would have been discrediting the Kremlin. I just don’t buy it (when there’s at least one more plausible suspect out there in Ramzan Akhmadovich), though of course nothing’s impossible.
“(For that matter, if a single professional person working in the intelligence agencies of any country believes Putin ordered Litvinenko to be killed, I will be amazed.)
However, isn’t that what the U.K. has been publicizing? That their police and intelligence officials believe this to be the case, and that Putin also tried to have Berezovsky wacked? Or are you suggesting they are deliberately escalating matters with Russia, for some unknown, non-sensical reason?”
Quite sensical really both the new Prime Minister and the boy wonder Foreign Secretary had good internal reasons to talk tough. It also plays well in Washington who run London these days.
In addition if you start from the position that there are elements in the West and in particular in the US that have a very strong financial and political interest in preventing the coming together of Russia and the European Union then it is perfectly feasible that Berezovsky or MI6 or the CIA or some element in the vaste US secret services triggered but did not perform this murder. There are plenty of other candidates along Russia’s border.
There was something very fishy about the way the Western media instantly as one man hurled themselves at Russia and Putin the very weekend that Putin was meeting Merkel in Berlin. It wrecked the meeting. Equally the Western media reaction to the death of Litvinenko was oddly unbalanced to the point of absurdity.
There is an interesting comparison with the death of General Hariri that we were informed just had to be the Syrians and yet who suffered most from it? The Syrians.
We are all of course emotionally tuned to find it difficult to accept that out guys could behave like this and yet we know that they have done all these things and far far worse in the past.
I can’t do the italics thing, it being beyond my vast technical prowess, so I respond to Lyndon after the quoted buts of text.
” I don’t think it’s out of the question that someone within Putin’s team decided this would be a good idea and went ahead with it without vetting the idea at the highest levels. But that doesn’t seem like the most likely possibility to me. I’m surprised no one here has mentioned Ramzan, who I think had threatened AP in the past, doesn’t seem like the most rational actor and certainly would have had the resources to do this.”
I agree that Ramzan is possible. Boy would that offer a can of worms.
“And your suggestion that she was “irrelevant” may hold true for the Russian electorate,”
The people who matter.
” but think she still had influential readers in Moscow”
Who?
“and (something you might miss, being in Russia) two (or three?) books translated into English and widely distributed before her death.”
I know. Westerners were her audience.
“I don’t think many other Russian journalists have had this kind of book-length exposure in the West.”
That’s because she said what they wanted her to. See above.
“And do you really put Novaya Gazeta in the same category as Moskovsky Komsomolets?”
NG uses bigger words, but basically yes.
“How is anyone in the KPRF a “threat”? Are they out there doing investigative journalism or presenting a realistic challenge to the Kremlin’s power?”
A greater challenge that the people who read Politkovskaya. The KPRF has the backing of 15% or so of the population, as opposed to the 1-2% of the NG loony fringe.
“Again, Politkovskaya’s books were more widely read in the West than those of any Russian journalist I can think of off the top of my head. Even if they weren’t flying off the shelves in Russia (probably because they had a hard time making it to shelves outside of Moscow in recent years), I don’t think you can say her work didn’t have “influence.””
Influence inside Russia.
“And if they whacked Limonov, you can bet that he would immediately become lionized by many as a fallen fighter in the struggle against Russian authoritarianism.”
He didn’t when they jailed him for a year and a half. Things might be different now since his brief fling with OR.
“But what about Ramzan? Is he really a more outlandish suspect than BAB?”
Again, Ramzan is possible.
“BAB is a much more plausible suspect for Klebnikov’s murder (though I don’t think anything’s been proven, and there were Chechens who had a reason to want him gone also,”
Nukhaev in particular.
“So, BAB’s only motive would have been discrediting the Kremlin.”
That’s not reason enough?
I have not argued that it was BAB. It is plausible however. It is also plausible that she was killed by some third party, BAB saw the Western reaction to it, and that gave him ideas for a follow-up.
“However, isn’t that what the U.K. has been publicizing? That their police and intelligence officials believe this to be the case, and that Putin also tried to have Berezovsky wacked? Or are you suggesting they are deliberately escalating matters with Russia, for some unknown, non-sensical reason?”
That’s been the media spin, right, not official statements?
I think the UK is trying hard to get people not to wonder about what happened to the rest of the polonium, and what the next bomb in London is going to be made of. (I know, p has a half-life of only three months, but you get my point.)
Consider:
Litvinenko had close connections to the Chechens (not the ethnic group — you know what I mean).
The Chechens have close connections/are radical Islamists.
Litvinenko converted to Islam shortly before his death.
Litvinenko was declared a martyr by the Chechens after his death.
Litvinenko’s associate Scaramelli is on trial for weapons smuggling in Italy.
In 1995 the Chechens planted nuclear material in a park in Moscow.
Connect. The. Dots.
As with the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, I think that there will always be suspicion of a cover up, regardless of how vanilla the plot to whack AP might well turn out. Expect to hear rumours of behind the back deals.
As for Ramzan, it might of been something as bland as sitting on his throne one day when one of his minders comes over and says ‘read this boss’ and passes him an article written by AP. Whilst reading it very slowly, his other hand petting his pet tiger, he sweares and says ‘who will rid me of this woman?’ – a Thomas Beckett moment (have I really just likened Ramzan to Henry VIII?!).
Sometimes the truth just turns out to be far less spectacular than we expect it to be.
I’d love to see the official list of suspects.
Mike, you were the voice of reason itself and completely unlike you when you loose your temper on the blog threads. I switch off and come back later hoping that some sort of sanity has returned…
Mike, you were the voice of reason itself and completely unlike you when you loose your temper on the blog threads. I switch off and come back later hoping that some sort of sanity has returned
I hadn’t mentioned my two cents regarding Mike’s BBC appearance. I listened to it live here at work – was quite interesting. Mike definitely started very well, he seemed prepared for the discussion. I think you were a little bit ambushed, between the host and other speakers, you were definitely the token opposition. I was surprised at the discussion on whether Russia was resurgent – that the other speakers called it an “illusion” or dismissed the idea completely.
The other speakers were rather smug.
“And your suggestion that she was “irrelevant” may hold true for the Russian electorate,”
The people who matter.
Chris, I wasn’t trying to suggest that the Russian electorate doesn’t matter. What I was implying without saying (my bad) is that the Russian government – and many Russians – pay attention to Russia’s image abroad. So, “irrelevant for Russian domestic politics” does not necessarily equal “irrelevant to the Russian government.” Anyway, don’t you think the Russian electorate wants or deserves to know what was/is going on in Chechnya?
“Again, Politkovskaya’s books were more widely read in the West than those of any Russian journalist I can think of off the top of my head. Even if they weren’t flying off the shelves in Russia (probably because they had a hard time making it to shelves outside of Moscow in recent years), I don’t think you can say her work didn’t have “influence.””
Influence inside Russia.
Resurgent or not, some Russian policy decisions are still influenced by the gov’t's take on foreign perceptions – to the extent that AP influenced foreign views of what was happening in Chechnya, she had at least some influence inside Russia.
”but [I] think she still had influential readers in Moscow”
Who?
Good question, now that I think about it. I guess I was thinking of old-school Russian intelligentsia and “liberals” – both journalists and the right opposition (“right” in the sense of SPS), but I guess it’s incorrect to call these people “influential” nowadays. Maybe I should have said “people with waning moral authority and no political authority.”
“and (something you might miss, being in Russia) two (or three?) books translated into English and widely distributed before her death.”
I know. Westerners were her audience.
I’ll have to check the tirazh figure on the one of her books that I have in Russian, but I don’t think it was exactly tiny. It’s not as if her books were published/sold/read only in the West. And obviously her Russian readers are also part of the Russian electorate, though not a majority (that’s the MK readers).
“I don’t think many other Russian journalists have had this kind of book-length exposure in the West.”
That’s because she said what they wanted her to. See above.
I think it’s actually because of the compelling nature of her reporting missions into Chechnya. She let her own high-risk reporting become too much of the story, without a doubt, but she was one of the only people doing this kind of reporting in recent years. So I think her books (at least the ones about Chechnya) may have been published for the unique nature of what she had to say, rather than because of some conspiracy.
Perhaps they were also published because of the element of scandal and exposure of bad gov’t acts – publishers know that such books sell well, based on the repeat performances of authors chronicling American bad behavior (e.g., Seymour Hersh, Bob Woodward, etc.).
Anyway, do you really think Politkovskaya consulted with the evil, unnamed Western “they” before writing her articles? How else would she be able to write what “they” wanted her to? Was she one of those “Western hirelings” one hears so much about in Nashi brochures? Or perhaps by “what they wanted her to” you mean “the truth,” though somehow I doubt that’s what you mean… I’m surprised you don’t bring up her American passport.
About Limonov, you got it – now that he’s associated with OR (OR = Other Russia and OR = Orange Revolution! Coincidence? I think not
) and foreigners who don’t like the way things are going in Russia have become more desperate to find public figures in Russia opposed to the regime, I think that if he were killed it would become a cause celebre abroad. If he were jailed, less so (though my guess is that it would still be a bigger scandal than back in the day).
“Chris, I wasn’t trying to suggest that the Russian electorate doesn’t matter. What I was implying without saying (my bad) is that the Russian government – and many Russians – pay attention to Russia’s image abroad. So, “irrelevant for Russian domestic politics” does not necessarily equal “irrelevant to the Russian government.””
True. The same could be said about Noam Chomsky with respect to the US government. Still, if Noam Chomsky were to be murdered in a hit, I would not think it was the CIA or FBI. (I would probably guess some crazed right-winger.) However, in point of fact, and here I have nothing to back me up except my gut feeling, I can’t imagine they would care about some woman writing sensationalist articles in the Guardian.
“Anyway, don’t you think the Russian electorate wants or deserves to know what was/is going on in Chechnya?”
They do, but I don’t think AP was giving it to them. Her articles always struck me as being high on emotion and low on actual facts. Actually, I think she made a lot of stuff up. She used a lot of such statements as “so-and-so is a high-placed FSB official. I’m not going to tell you his name, but he said this…” Maybe he wanted anonymity. Or maybe he just doesn’t exist.
“Resurgent or not, some Russian policy decisions are still influenced by the gov’t’s take on foreign perceptions – to the extent that AP influenced foreign views of what was happening in Chechnya, she had at least some influence inside Russia.”
And making a martyr of her would help how? I mean, she’d just stopped covering Chechnya when she was killed.
“I’ll have to check the tirazh figure on the one of her books that I have in Russian, but I don’t think it was exactly tiny.”
I suspect you’d find that the number corresponds closely with the number of committed Yabloko voters.
So I think her books (at least the ones about Chechnya) may have been published for the unique nature of what she had to say, rather than because of some conspiracy.”
Not a conspiracy — but because she said the kind of things that resonated with a Western readership. Why are her books translated and published abroad and Roy Medvedev’s are not? The guy was a famous dissident. (Hint: Medvedev is pro-Putin. Very pro-Putin.) Freakin’ Solzhenitsyn can’t get translated nowadays. Zinoviev wasn’t either. And AP is????
“Anyway, do you really think Politkovskaya consulted with the evil, unnamed Western “they” before writing her articles?”
No. I do however think she was part of a swathe of the Russian intelligentsia that holds the Russian population in contempt and writes largely for a Western audience, i.e., an extreme zapadnik.
“How else would she be able to write what “they” wanted her to? Was she one of those “Western hirelings” one hears so much about in Nashi brochures?”
Nope, I think what I said above.
“Or perhaps by “what they wanted her to” you mean “the truth,” though somehow I doubt that’s what you mean… I’m surprised you don’t bring up her American passport.”
I didn’t even know she had one…
“About Limonov, you got it – now that he’s associated with OR (OR = Other Russia and OR = Orange Revolution! Coincidence? I think not ) and foreigners who don’t like the way things are going in Russia have become more desperate to find public figures in Russia opposed to the regime,”
It is funny how he’s gone from being a Nazi to a plucky democrat in some Western reporting in the last decade or so.
Well, I wrote a relatively long response to Lyndon that doesn’t seem to have gone through. It’s late now, so I’ll do it again tomorrow.
No need Chris. For some reason it got snagged by the spam blocker. For some reason Akismet has deemed you an enemy of the people. But thanks to my good graces I have liberated your comment from spam eating hell. Akismet tells me that it learns from its mistakes, but this is the second comment of yours that got spaminated. My apologies.
I don’t think you have to be a Western hireling to share a common frame of thought.
I do however think she was part of a swathe of the Russian intelligentsia that holds the Russian population in contempt and writes largely for a Western audience, i.e., an extreme zapadnik.
Hard to argue with that, and thanks for your thoughtful response (even with me being a smartass and putting words in your mouth!) – although I’d note that lots of the American journalistic outlets I enjoy most (the New Yorker, for one) often seem to hold the American population in contempt. Ridicule of and contempt for the “provincials” is not exactly an uncommon position for the big-city intelligentsia to take in any country.
As for whose books get translated, maybe it’s just a simple commercial decision, although maybe there’s more to it. I always found it to be interesting to see which US commentators got translated into Russian (and which others – including that French guy’s book – translated as “Chudovishchnaia Makhinatsiia” – about how no plane actually crashed into the Pentagon).
As for Limonov’s reinvention, I think he’s made some statements backing away from his earlier extreme-ness, so his conversion isn’t entirely invented, but it is definitely amazing how quickly people who want to see some sort of opposition have been willing to embrace – or at least tolerate – him.
I don’t think you have to be a Western hireling to share a common frame of thought.
I don’t think so, either – but I do think the idea is an essential part of the “external/internal enemy” narrative being woven in the runup to the elections.
Aleks
I’ve a habit of staying on at threads which get out of hand. I’m not the initiator of nonsense. I appreciate your “voice of reason” tag, which IMHO is somewhat inappropriately applied to someone else.
Wally
In retrospect, I could’ve been more brief in addressing the CFE issue. Note how Andrei Zagorski egged on the Ukrainian journalist Aleksa. It seemed like Andrei Zagorski might’ve tipped him off in advance of his under 90 MPH fast ball. Either that, or he sensed that this was someone to be given a favor.
Nina Khrushcheva was hysterical with her out of the blue two headed eagle reference. I got her good on that point.
Vladimir Bukovsky is living in a 19 seventies time warp.
At least they let me speak the most. I’ve a bit of a New York talk radio background.
I hope I get more gigs like that and soon. Practice makes perfect and I’m up to the task.
“As for whose books get translated, maybe it’s just a simple commercial decision, although maybe there’s more to it.”
I actually got into a scuffle with this on JRL with Ed Lucas a couple of years ago you may have vague memories of.
AP is published because she fits into what the Western audience expects to hear, editors will agree with her and the audience is there. Medvedev is not going to be published in English (even assuming he’s interested in it, which he may not be), because there is no market in the West for books talking about how great Putin is. Solzhenitsyn isn’t translated because there is no market for a former dissident who thinks the Soviet collapse was a catastrophe and loathes US foreign policy and American culture in general — it does not fit into the Western narrative of the Cold War, for one thing. Zinoviev became an advisor to Zyuganov and publically regretted his former anti-Soviet activities. That doesn’t fit into the narrative either. Thus, his books will not be published. I think the last one that was was Katastroika, over a dozen years ago. (Very funny book by the way.)
It’s not a conspiracy — it’s how people process information.
Medvedev is not going to be published in English (even assuming he’s interested in it, which he may not be), because there is no market in the West for books talking about how great Putin is.
Actually, this reminds me – there was actually a time when the former Soviet Union translated and printed such books for sale in book stores, without concern for the economics involved (Victor Kamkin bookstore comes to mind). The Russian government seems to be re-discovering spending money, which makes me wonder if they would sponsor or encourage translation of certain Kremlin friendly authors in the future.
Depends. There’s a cronyism factor sacrificing quality on such matter.
To add: Eng. lang. mass media and academia/think tank outlets have done a great job finding/paying folks like Latynina, Albats, Gessen… People who live in Russia, making a good living spinning a certain line.
On the other hand, in Eng. lang. countries, one doesn’t see a reciprocal factor of views complimenting mainstream Russian ones with the support of Russian mass media/think tank organs. Having only Russian government officials and a very choice few Russian government paid (directly or indirectly) journalists has its limits from a PR point.
“The Russian government seems to be re-discovering spending money, which makes me wonder if they would sponsor or encourage translation of certain Kremlin friendly authors in the future.”
Ah, they would just be dismissed as Putin apologists. Maybe not Medvedev and Solzhenitsyn — they have too much clout to easily dismiss.
Under the heading “Russian Nationalism Under Putin”, the below linked has a McCarthyite like suggestive delivery:
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/2007-144.cfm
And just who are the supposed anti-Semites?
Some influential folks either not sympathetic of and-or seeking to defame certain Russian views.
I’ve a bit of a New York talk radio background.
What, WFAN? I can’t imagine what they would say to a BoSox fan with a native New York accent.
I am joking, of course. I doubt if people outside of the northeast corridor even have a clue what WFAN (or WEEI here in Boston) are.
WABC and WEVD – The Jay Diamond Show, when it aired at those stations.
I’m often taken aback by how my accent seems to stand out elsewhere.
Wally:
I might’ve blown it. As an undergrad, I was offered two free Ranger tickets for each game, in exchange for doing some BS stat work for long time NY area hockey analyst Stan Fishler. This was back just before sports journalism exploded. The Cold War was still on.