« "Syria opposition rules out talks before end to Russian air raids" Reuters | Main | "Ron Paul Rips Neocons: Their ‘Greatest Fear Is For Peace to Break Out’" Reisman »

23 January 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


It's been all downhill since Widgery.


The mindless, parrot-like regurgitation of this obvious made-up tosh by the MSM - the BBC especially - points to the complete loss of intellectual and moral integrity by the London elite and their willingness to do anything, anything to advance their careers.

But people, especially the young, are fighting back against this obvious attempt to moronise our nation.


It is absurd to suppose that Putin would have had anything to do with the death of Litvinenko.

That man was a junior associate of much more serious and politically connected Russian/Israeli criminals, a 'bagman' one might say.Fort Russ has a better story about it.

This is their conclusion:
'The most troubling thing here is not that mob did something illegal or that the Western press jumped the gun to do a anti-Russian witch hunt. All of that is pretty run of the mill. It’s not even that Israel secretly has nukes and is involved with organized crime. Again, image my lack of shock. It’s not even the multiple murders that are most troubling. The most troubling part of this story is what the ultimate purpose of that much Polonium was for and why it was in the UK. The potential for a dirty bomb is enormous. With the current climate of ISIS and disgruntled youth in Europe joining the mercenary forces to fight Israel’s enemies in Syria and Lebanon, a dirty bomb in the UK is not an unimaginable scenario. Just having such a thing could also hold leverage over politicians there too. The source of the Polonium should have been traced and potential sources should also be subject to inspection.'


The likely involvement of murky intelligence agencies Mossad/CIA/MI6 protecting their criminal associates is emphasized in this account by R.T.West.
' Litvenenko’s fatal mistake likely had been to concurrently cooperate with Spanish intelligence on Russian mafia, bringing him too close to his expertise on the Afghan heroin pipeline. That MI6 may have been the actual perpetrator of Litvenenko’s murder is almost a certainty, with MI6 having been identified as piling ‘off the record’ cash to the government of Karzai and its known close connections to heroin trafficking....Litvinenko easily could have been killed by his MI6 employer with Putin blamed as a matter of frosting on the intelligence agency hit. May as well get some gain when embarrassing circumstance requires the killing of your own agent. In the close alternative scenario, MI6 had debriefed Litvinenko with an eye to murdering him in the initial plan; when they’d hired the former FSB anti-corruption expert with entirely too much knowledge of the Russian end of the so-called ‘St Petersburg pipeline.’

At the end of the day, it come down to western intelligence complicity in the Afghan heroin trade is old news.'



David, before having read your contribution. No time now, that's why.

I may have commented on it elsewhere, and alerted to you as expert on matters, if I did not hesitate to post whatever ...

Personally; I found it interesting, when I got the news over here, that they concentrated on the many "probably's". Never mind the short 3 minutes time-frame.

If I did: Someone around here sent a link to an article on The Atlantic, with a link to the NYR surfacing on the upper layers were "Probably" still surfaced in the headline but seemed to be substituted by something more definitive.

No time now, but pleased to see you cover the topic "upstairs".


And the evidence that convinced Sir Robert? Well that was heard in secret, of course.



Why are we fastened on the FSB rather than the SVR in this matter? "That MI6 may have been the actual perpetrator of Litvenenko’s murder is almost a certainty," (Cynic) Really? pl


As a layperson, I wonder why it is thought beyond the realm of speculation that the Russian intelligence agencies would have wanted to punish someone who is, for all intents and purposes, a traitor. I suppose, if it were the case, it wouldn't really be something that "Putin" would be personally responsible for, but at the same time, it does not appear to be something especially heinous morally. This would not necessarily mean that Litvienko was somehow blowing the whistle on the Putin government: if he was really selling a lot of sensationalistic nonsense to discredit the Russian government, for example, he would still have been being a traitor who was using his position to undermine the interests of the country he formerly swore allegiance to as an intelligence officer and, as such, still worthy of punishment, I imagine.


The question in these cases is "cui bono?"


khc, since the "percentage of war" thread is getting stale, I decided to thank you and Babak (and David H) here for your many thoughtful comments regarding "knowledge" and "language".

Inspired by those comments, and my inability to craft a short response to any of them in a timely manner... I found this article with some great cartoons. I think it also tangentially relates to this post.

Epistemology, You Crazy Bastard! http://www.newyorker.com/cartoons/bob-mankoff/epistemology-you-crazy-bastard

Hood Canal Gardner

DH, fair enough. This too (it has a bit of age on it) fits in as well:


Chris Chuba

This story is a brick in the 'why Putin in Hitler' narrative that the MSM is pushing. The thing that I notice is that the really heinous acts attributed to Putin are always these sketchy, hard to prove stories that involve innuendo. The areas where I see Putin operating out in the open where there is a transparency of information, he is a giant in the international stage. It's as if the rest of the world leaders have been drinking water out of lead pipes for a few decades. Kerry seems to have a few flashes of near brilliance.

This is my excuse to bring up a related topic that is a passion of a site I like to read, 'the Russian Insider' and it is MH-17.
I always figured, Donbas rebels getting attacked by air force on a daily basis mistakes airline for bomber and accidentally shoots it down. A tragic mistake but not a war crime. I didn't understand the hysterical reaction at the time. In any case, RI is convinced that the U.S. is witholding satellite data that would show that the Buk missile was launched from Govt. held territory. There are other theories but this seems to be the favorite. Any thoughts on this subject? To me, it would be insanely risky for the Ukranian govt to do this and risk being exposed. The tie into Putin? Many call him a murderer because of this, I certainly do not.


Especially loving the "Philosophers on strike" cartoon!!! :)




An Englishman who's had a rather illustrious personal history frets about the future of the Isles...


"Why are we fastened on the FSB rather than the SVR in this matter?"

Probably because many don't know that exists. Or because it sounds good.

Many are under the delusion that FSB is the ONLY successor to the KGB. And Considering the fact that Putin was appointed as the FSB director, you can guess how good it sounds like.

I always wondered why people were mad about FSB and Putin because, he only spent little over a year in the FSB. He spent more than 15 years in the 1st directorate which became the SVR.


here is a article which was originally published by the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom about the case. I believe it would shed better light on the inaccuracies reported.


Babak Makkinejad

I am pleased that you found my comments useful & thank you for the above link.

Mark Logan

Chris Chuba,

My own guess is it's a repeat of the accidental airline4 shoot-down of 4 Oct, 2001.


The rebels probably had someone watching the government's airport phoning back the departures of ground attack aircraft. The Uke's had dispatched a couple Frogfoots just prior and they were the target, but like the target drown in 2001, the missile found something larger far down range.

The reported words of the rebels first to the wreck indicate they were expecting to find a downed Frogfoot there, IMO.

ex-PFC Chuck

John Helmer, an Aussie free lance journalist now working out of Moscow, has also been deep into the MH-17 case. He appears to have good connections in a lot of places besides his home country and current place of residence. He's hesitant to make assertions beyond what can be justified by available facts, but I'm pretty sure that over a drink at the bar he'd agree with inference that Ukraine has not been forthcoming with what they know. But I think he's also skeptical, based on autopsies of t he Australian victims, about whether a BUK missile was involved at all. Personally I think there are also big questions remaining about whether, if MH-17 was downed by the actions of Ukrainians, were they acting with that country's government's instigation and/or consent. Finally what did people at the top levels of the US government know about the downing and when did they know it.

If you're unfamiliar with him I suggest perusing his archive on the topic. The links to his two most recent posts on it are below. One is about a month old and the other was posted three days ago.



I know that the reputable investigative journalist Edward Jay Epstein has done a lot of research into this case and his conclusion is accidental poisoning as a result of a smuggling operation gone wrong.
From what I have read it does seem, applying Occam's Razor, that that is the most likely scenario.

What disturbs me more is that London has become some sort of safe haven for every unsavoury character in Russia who falls foul of the authorities there. Even more so that the likes of Boris Berezovsky (http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardbehar/2013/03/24/did-boris-berezovsky-kill-himself-more-compelling-did-he-kill-forbes-editor-paul-klebnikov/), William Browder (https://newrepublic.com/article/126760/fighting-putin-doesnt-make-saint) and now Mikhail Khordokovsky are not just influencing British foreign policy, but also being portrayed as champions of justice and 'human rights'. Their efforts have seriously damaged relations with a country that is important from both an economic, and national security perspective.

William R. Cumming

Lurking in the post and comments above is the unasked questions of role of MI-5 and MI-6 and their links to OC [organized crime] and their policies and ops. Exactly how has OC been studied and analyzed by the IC as part of the GWOT etc.?

Bryn P

David Habakkuk, did a post-mortem not establish whether the polonium was ingested or inhaled? Surely the former would show that it was 'poisoning' whilst the latter would be indicative of 'accidental'?

David Habakkuk


The point is not simply that if Putin wanted someone assassinated, he would not have had it done this way; it is that not only has nobody supplied a credible motive for Lugovoi to have deliberately murdered Litvinenko, and – even more important – for him to have done so in this manner.

By background, Lugovoi is an up-market bodyguard. As a result of his involvement in protecting figures like Gaidar and Kozyrev, he was hired by Berezovsky and his partner Arkadi 'Badri' Patarkatsishvili to protect the ORT television station, after they got hold of it – and also themselves.

At that time, there were plenty of people who would happily have assassinated both of them. So it is reasonable to infer that the figure they chose to protect them, even if he was not necessarily a model of refinement, would have been good at his job.

A good bodyguard, obviously, has to know a hell of a lot about how assassinations are committed, just as a good gamekeeper has to know a hell of a lot about how poachers operate – or indeed a good counter-terrorism expert about how acts of terrorism are committed.

Indeed, an absurd analogy may help bring out how sheerly preposterous Sir Robert's conclusions are;

We have, here on SST, a substantial number of people – foremost perhaps our host, and Patrick Bahzad, who do quite patently know a hell of a lot about counter-terrorism. Obviously, the last thing I would suggest would be that any of them would be, as it were, gamekeepers turned poachers.

Let us however suppose that there is a mysterious death in some foreign capital. And suppose that, let us say, TTG and Tyler were in the vicinity, and involved in the events leading up to it in some way – and their comments made clear they were being less than totally candid.

Let us suppose further that officials of a foreign government lay the blame on TTG and Tyler, arguing further that they were sent by Colonel Lang, probably at the instigation of Lieutenant-General Michael Flynn.

Involved in the scenarios these officials disseminate is the suggestion that Tyler and TTG had to make successive efforts to 'get their man' – the first of which was in the offices of a company with which a former head of Special Forces for the country in question was strongly involved.

When they finally succeed, they do so in a manner that leave the victim almost three weeks to 'help the police with their enquiries.'

Moreover, it is suggested that TTG left the clearest trail of fingerprints tying him to the assassination. And, last but hardly least, that Tyler brought his wife and young child with him on the assassination mission – and had them with him in the car when he was ferrying notably unstable explosives.

To see the point of my analogy, have a look at a picture of a group including a palpably somewhat blotto Lugovoy, his teenage daughter, and his nine-year-old son, shortly after he supposedly committed a pioneering act of nuclear terrorism – endangering both children, as well as himself.

(See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-459474/Photo-poison-suspect-says-prove-innocence.html .)

Imagine then that one is arguing about the credibility of the version put out by the foreign government with someone absolutely determined to believe that Tyler, TTG, Colonel Lang, and Lt.-Gen. Flynn are appalling people.

It would not be necessary to argue with them. All one would need to point out is the credibility of this version presupposes that all four are drivelling dolts.

Such a scenario might belong in a comedy film – TTG as a 'Green Berets' version of Inspector Clouseau, perhaps. If one looks carefully at the facts, however, it is only possible to believe the conventional wisdom if one is determined to participate in a collusive fiction.


thanks, aka

The Twisted Genius

David Habakkuk,

I always enjoy your writings, even though they often require hard work to grasp the nuances of your deep thought and scholarship. I relish the challenge. This comment, however, is every bit as enjoyable as the best of Monty Python. Smart, funny, insightful and silly... just plain silly. You should develop a screenplay with a Green Beret version of Inspector Clouseau. I'd see it on the big screen and buy the DVD. I'd even be willing to be a technical advisor for the film.



Unfortunately if you made such a satire many would think it reality. pl

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad