As I write this the Russian Ambassador is on Radio 5 Live denouncing Boris Bereshovsky for calling for the overthrow of the Russian Govt. Apparently doing this contravenes "Russian law, international law, and I think British law" - crumbs! That must mean most Guardian writers and SWP members could be had up for contravening international law too.
Who'd a thunk it, eh? The Russian govt trying to stop a Russian exile fomenting revolution from abroad.
Alas Mr Bereshovsky has recanted, saying that he only wanted a coup, rather than a violent revolution. Hey ho.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Of course the Kremlin has no problem murdering people in London, so why should people in the UK object if some Russian in London want to kill some of the people who were responsible in Russia. Works for me.
The Kremlin did not murder people in London. this is the type of garbage, Perry, that half informed people are trotting out and I'm surprised Samizdata are at it.
Every country has the right to or at least goes ahead with dealing with treason which Litvinenko was clearly involved with. It's rank hypocrisy to single Russia out here.
Berezovsky, as I wrote to the BBC, was clearly fomenting rebellion and was just trying to protect his hide with this latest ridiculousness.
I hope they get him wherever he's hiding. He held the country to ransom in the 90s and the country has a long memory, not just Putin and the boys.
A lady has just left here now who said precisely the above. Maybe UK pundits should check with the Russian people first before making glib rash generalizations.
"The Kremlin did not murder people in London."
If Litvinenko had been stabbed, pushed under a train, shot, strangled, run over with a steamroller, drowned, set on fire, hit with a hammer, chopped in half with a chainsaw, kicked to death or chucked out a window, you might have a case for saying it was "not proven" he was assassinated by the Russian state. That he was poisoned with an obscure radioactive substance that is tghtly controlled and only available to people with access to a nation's nuclear infrastructure suggests to me it is *preposterous* to think he was not murdered by the Russian state.
"Every country has the right to or at least goes ahead with dealing with treason which Litvinenko was clearly involved with. It's rank hypocrisy to single Russia out here."
So let me get this straight...
Point One: You say "The Kremlin did not murder people in London". And then you say "Every country has the right to or at least goes ahead with dealing with treason which Litvinenko was clearly involved with." ... so on one hand you say they did not 'deal' with Litvinenko and on the other hand you say they have every right to 'deal' with Litvinenko. You cannot have it both ways.
Point Two: Murdering their political opponents overseas and at home is just the normal functioning of a state as far as you are concerned eh? And if any British person objects to a foreign state murdering people in the UK, that is hypocrisy? Interesting. I am trying to figure out what your political agenda is here.
That he was poisoned with an obscure radioactive substance that is tightly controlled and only available to people with access to a nation's nuclear infrastructure
Which, in Russia, isn't always synonymous with the people who're supposed to have access to it. That's a country, remember, where money and influence go a long way.
Post a Comment