Just as we saw after the killing of Anna Politkovskaya, a determined attempt to deflect blame from the Kremlin has issued from the Russophile cabal following the killing of Alexander Litvinenko. It????????s necessary to debunk their ???????arguments,??????? which might mislead the unwary.

As a preface, let????????s ask the Russophiles a question: OK, so you don????????t believe the Kremlin had anything to do with the killing of Anna Politkovskaya, or Alexander Litvinenko (or either of the other two murdered members of the Kovalev Committee investigating the role of the Kremlin in the 1999 Moscow apartment bombings). In that case, please answer this simple question: How many enemies of the Kremlin would have to die before you would admit the Kremlin????????s complicity? One hundred? One thousand? Ten thousand? The lack of any answer to this question is the best proof of how fundamentally baseless the Russophile position really is.

Let????????s also observe this truism: If we err on the side of anti-Kremlin suspicion, we risk alienating Russia????????s affections and perhaps inhibit its development somewhat (if it????????s a good and decent country, we risk nothing more). If we err on the side of pro-Kremlin suspicion, we risk bequeathing a consolidated neo-Soviet Union upon our children. Which is the more rational risk?

Now for their three main arguments:

1. It????????s irrational for the Kremlin to kill Politkovskaya or Litvinenko.

This argument contains two serious flaws.

First, it assumes the Kremlin is given to rational action. Was it rational for Nikita Khrushchev to visit the U.S., take off his shoe, pound it on a podium and declare: ???????WE WILL BURY YOU!??????? In so doing, he galvanized American factions and sealed the fate of the USSR. Was it rational for Tsar Peter I or Dictator Josef Stalin to murder more of their countrymen than Russian enemies did in war under their rule? Is it rational for President Putin to joke in front of a diplomatic mission about the heinous crime of rape (as previously documented on Publius Pundit)? Hardly. Russian history is replete with examples of irrational (even demented)l behavior, and the pent-up frustration of people like Putin over the USSR????????s sensational failure in the Cold War, combined with the intoxicating effects of Russia????????s oil revenue windfall, is more than enough justification for a spate of irrational killings.

Second, the decision isn????????t irrational. To its credit, the world has almost universally recognized the Kremlin????????s obvious complicity in these events, rejecting the Russophile propaganda in an encouraging manner. But what action has the world taken against the Putin regime? Absolutely none. If Putin calculated he could commit these crimes and get away with it, wasn????????t he absolutely right? Let????????s say, just for the sake of argument, that tomorrow morning Putin gave a speech and admitted he gave the order to kill both Litvinenko and Politkovskaya. What would the world do about it? Break off diplomatic relations? Invade? Boycott Russian oil? What indications has the world given Putin that it would take any serious retaliatory action if he admitted these crimes? If none, why should Putin fear such retaliation? And who says Putin wishes not to alienate the West? Such retaliation could seriously strengthen his position at home, making him seem to be besieged by foreign enemies of Russia. If Putin wanted to stay on friendly terms, would he be providing nuclear technology, and missiles to defend it, to Iran? Would he be providing huge quantities of assault weapons to the crazed anti-American leader in Venezuela? Would he be providing assistance of various kinds to Hamas and Hezbollah, infamous terrorist organizations? Putin is presiding over a very precarious economy and social system in Russia; he simply doesn????????t have the resources to create a full-scale totalitarian dictatorship like the one Stalin presided over. In a sense, his position is analogous to that of Osama bin Laden; Putin must rely on terror to some extent in order to maintain his grip on power. And nobody can deny that the Litvinenko and Politkovskaya killings are terrifying, particularly the excruciatingly slow and painful denouement. A mafia done would be proud.

And there????????s another angle: It????????s turned out that the Litvinenko killing has given the Kremlin an interesting opportunity. Britain, seeing a terrifying trail of radioactive material that has contaminated several innocent bystanders, is desperate to get to the bottom of the killing. Coincidentally, Britain is also harboring exiled oligarch Boris Berezovsky, reputed kingpin of Russian organized crime and the Kremlin????????s Public Enemy Number One after he produced a film and book accusing the Kremlin of complicity in the 1999 apartment bombings in Moscow (as previously documented on Publius Pundit), safe from extradition. Russia has now announced that it won????????t fully cooperate with the Litvinenko investigation unless Britain extradites Berezovsky, which Russia is desperate to do. So in hindsight, the Litvinenko killing turns out to be an interesting possible means of getting at Public Enemy #1 where previously none short of assassination were apparent (Berezovsky is a hard target).

2. Litvinenko was a criminal, and worked for a bigger criminal.

Russophiles claim that since Litvinenko is a former KGB spy who got up to dirty tricks on behalf of Russia in the past, and since more recently he was associated with Berezovsky, the Kremlin had a perfect right to kill him.

Again, there are very serious and obvious problems with this line of ???????reasoning.???????

First, it contradicts the first argument in two different ways. It separates the killing of Litvinenko from that of Politkovskaya; nobody can accuse the latter of any type of criminal conduct, so it has no application to her killing. Then, it seems to admit that the Kremlin killed Litvinenko, and the whole point of the first argument was to prove such an action would have been irrational.

To avoid the second contradiction, the Russophiles generate a third: They argue that Berezovsky is so dirty that he probably killed Litvinenko himself, just to make the Kremlin look bad. But not only does this argument embrace exactly the same kind of conspiracy theory analysis that the Russophiles purport to condemn when it is directed towards the Kremlin, it ignores the fact that, if it is true, it means Russia????????s Public Enemy #1 was able to get his hands on a lethal dose of radioactive material from a Russian reactor. It means that the Kremlin covered up the fact that this dose had gone missing. And it means that even though the Kremlin is innocent in the killing, it is nonetheless still obstructing the British investigation of the crime, denying access to key witnesses, and unable to come up with information clearing itself on its own. This picture of the Kremlin may be even more justification for condemning it than if it were actually proved to have ordered the killings.

And there is an even more serious problem: These Russophile critics ignore the fact that Vladmir Putin himself is a former member of the KGB. If Litvinenko must be condemned for his membership, then so must Putin. In fact, one can at least credit Litvinenko with defecting from his organization and then doing what he could to undermine it in the West. Putin, by contrast, has never expressed the slightest tinge of regret for his KGB activities. In that sense, Putin is even dirtier than Litvinenko.

All this, of course, is to say nothing of the questionable morality involved in justifying Kremlin hits around the world against those it (or even we) might identify as ???????criminals.??????? The potential side effects of such policy would be devastating, as the trail of radiation being found around London continues to emphasize. It????????s also to say nothing of the fact that only months ago the Kremlin forced a bill through the Russian parliament authorizing it to make attacks on those who threaten Russia????????s security from outside its borders.

3. Claims that the Kremlin poisoned Yegor Gaidar confirm hysteria and paranoia

The most recent victim of assassination attempt was former Yeltsin economics guru Yegor Gaidar, who was poisoned just days after Litvinenko and hours after his daughter hung a giant sign off a Moscow bridge referring to the Kremlin overlords as scum. Following his recovery, Gaidar himself has stated that he believes ???????enemies of Russia??????? attacked him. The Russophiles claim this is proof that the West has whipped itself up into an anti-Russian hysteria, allowing a paranoid fear of Russian resurgence to blind it to reality. In other words, we????????re back to argument number 1 again.

Now, to be sure, it????????s possible that someone might try to poison the Kremlin????????s enemies just in order to make the Kremlin look bad But in so doing that person would be depleting the very thin ranks of those who are willing to stand up against the Kremlin, so in order to do so they would have to believe a very serious Western reaction, or Russian internal reaction, would follow such attacks, and they????????d have to believe they could conceal their own tracks from both the Russian and Western intelligence forces. Where????????s the rationality in such a view? How can the Russophiles boldly declare the Kremlin incapable of irrationality, yet indict the Kremlin????????s enemies by assuming they would act irrationally?

Why would Gaidar himself blame the Kremlin????????s enemies if he did not actually believe they were responsible? Well, suppose that right after his recovery he got a telephone call from the Kremlin, and was told that if he didn????????t stop trashing them in the West then next time it would be his daughter or wife lying in that hospital bed, or maybe they????????d be lying in the morgue with him right beside them. Suppose the attack on Gaidar was a calibrated warning designed to intimidate not only him but those in his circle (maybe Gaidar is even smart enough to figure it out on his own, without any warning). Yegor Gaidar has no track record, like Politkovskaya, of being willing to risk his life for his principles. He????????s an economics professor, not a hero. Such a tactic might work. Gaidar might start to toe the Kremlin line, starting with blaming the Kremlin????????s enemies for his attack. Time will tell whether Gaidar continues his criticism of the Kremlin. It????????s noteworthy, and very disappointing, that avowed presidential contender Gary Kasparov has been utterly silent in the face of these killings, seeming to drop off the face of the earth.

Then again, there????????s the simple psychological process of rationalization. It????????s a bit more comforting to think that your enemy is just a mafia don, as opposed to a proud KGB spy presiding over a nuclear arsenal. Maybe the Kremlin botched the Gaidar hit and Gaidar simply doesn????????t want to accept that he has such a powerful enemy.

When Gaidar first fell ill, and when the initial diagnosis that Litvinenko had been struck down with rat poison proved false, the Russophiles also claimed the West was guilty of ???????hysteria??????? and ???????paranoia.??????? They claimed that in both cases it was just ordinary food poisoning or other illness. Now, after it is has been conclusively established that both were poisoned, they simply shift their attack to the claim that the Kremlin????????s enemies were responsible. To expose them, just ask them a simple question: Suppose that tomorrow morning President Putin admitted he was responsible for all three attacks, and even bragged about it, threatening Russia????????s other enemies with similar action if they didn????????t shape up. What would you be prepared to do about that?

Then listen to the sounds of silence.

Kim Zigfeld publishes the Russia blog La Russophobe.