Slashdot Mirror

The detailled article from http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2007/06/russian_journal.html :

June 1, 2007
Russian Journalist Murders, and Gazprom

I believe I may have found the way to post the original text of my Recent Mail Russian articles, without taking over the whole weblog:

Two months ago, 51 year old Ivan Safronov, defence correspondent of the authoritative Kommersant newspaper in Moscow, came home from work. He had bought a few groceries on the way, apparently for the evening meal. On the street where he lived, as he passed the chemist's shop in front of the cluster of grim Soviet era apartment blocks, he met his neighbour, Olga Petrovna. She tells me that he smiled from under his hat and nodded to her. After a mild winter, Moscow had turned cold in March and Safronov held his carrier bag of groceries in one hand while the other clutched the lapels of his coat closed against the snow. Fifty yards further on he arrived at the entrance to his block, and punched in the code - 6 and 7 together, then 2 - which opened the mechanical lock of the rough, grey metal door at the entrance to the concrete hallway. He passed on into the gloomy dank corridor.

The identification this week of a "former" KGB officer, Andre Luguvoi, as the chief suspect in the murder in London of dissident Alexander Litvinenko, and Russia's curt refusal to extradite him, reflects once again just how ruthless and audacious Putin's Russian has become - and how little we can do about it. But in fact there is a less obvious, but more sinister, danger from the Kremlin that threatens the future security of every British citizen.

MOSCOW

Two months ago, 51 year old Ivan Safronov, defence correspondent of the authoritative Kommersant newspaper in Moscow, came home from work. He had bought a few groceries on the way, apparently for the evening meal. On the street where he lived, as he passed the chemist's shop in front of the cluster of grim Soviet era apartment blocks, he met his neighbour, Olga Petrovna. She tells me that he smiled from under his hat and nodded to her. After a mild winter, Moscow had turned cold in March and Safronov held his carrier bag of groceries in one hand while the other clutched the lapels of his coat closed against the snow. Fifty yards further on he arrived at the entrance to his block, and punched in the code - 6 and 7 together, then 2 - which opened the mechanical lock of the rough, grey metal door at the entrance to the concrete hallway. He passed on into the gloomy dank corridor.

So far this is a perfectly normal Moscow scene. But then - and this is the official version of events - Ivan Safronov did something extraordinary. He walked up the communal concrete stairs with their stark iron rail, until he reached his apartment. It is, in British terms, on the second floor. Instead of going in, he carried on walking, past his own door. He continued up another flight and a half of steps, to the top landing, between the third and fourth floors. Then, placing his groceries on the floor, he opened the landing window, climbed on to the sill, and stepped out to his death, still wearing his hat and coat.

Ivan Safronov thus became about the one hundred and sixtieth - nobody can be certain of precise numbers - journalist to meet a violent end in post-communist Russia. In the West, the cases of Anna Politkovskaya and Alexander Litivinenko hit the headlines. But in Russia, there was nothing exceptional about those killings. It has long been understood that if you publish material which embarrasses or annoys those in power, you are likely to come to a very sticky end.

This Mail on Sunday investigation seeks to lift the lid on the limits of freedom in Putin's Russia.

Safronov had a reputation as a highly professional journalist, meticulous about checking his facts. He was by no means a sensationalist, but had over the years published articles which embarrassed the Kremlin, about bullying,

September 2, 2007

Alisher Usmanov, potential Arsenal chairman, is a Vicious Thug, Criminal, Racketeer, Heroin Trafficker and Accused Rapist

I thought I should make my views on Alisher Usmanov quite plain to you. You are unlikely to see much plain talking on Usmanov elsewhere in the media becuase he has already used his billions and his lawyers in a pre-emptive strike. They have written to all major UK newspapers, including the latter:

"Mr Usmanov was imprisoned for various offences under the old Soviet regime. We wish to make it clear our client did not commit any of the offences with which he was charged. He was fully pardoned after President Mikhail Gorbachev took office. All references to these matters have now been expunged from police records . . . Mr Usmanov does not have any criminal record."

Let me make it quite clear that Alisher Usmanov is a criminal. He was in no sense a political prisoner, but a gangster and racketeer who rightly did six years in jail. The lawyers cunningly evoke "Gorbachev", a name respected in the West, to make us think that justice prevailed. That is completely untrue.

Usmanov's pardon was nothing to do with Gorbachev. It was achieved through the growing autonomy of another thug, President Karimov, at first President of the Uzbek Soviet Socilist Republic and from 1991 President of Uzbekistan. Karimov ordered the "Pardon" because of his alliance with Usmanov's mentor, Uzbek mafia boss and major international heroin overlord Gafur Rakimov. Far from being on Gorbachev's side, Karimov was one of the Politburo hardliners who had Gorbachev arrested in the attempted coup that was thwarted by Yeltsin standing on the tanks outside the White House.

Usmanov is just a criminal whose gangster connections with one of the World's most corrupt regimes got him out of jail. He then plunged into the "privatisation" process at a time when gangster muscle was used to secure physical control of assets, and the alliance between the Russian Mafia and Russian security services was being formed.

Usmanov has two key alliances. he is very close indeed to President Karimov, and especially to his daughter Gulnara. It was Usmanov who engineered the 2005 diplomatic reversal in which the United States was kicked out of its airbase in Uzbekistan and Gazprom took over the country's natural gas assets. Usmanov, as chairman of Gazprom Investholdings paid a bribe of $88 million to Gulnara Karimova to secure this. This is set out on page 366 of Murder in Samarkand.

Alisher Usmanov had risen to chair of Gazprom Investholdings because of his close personal friendship with Putin, He had accessed Putin through Putin's long time secretary and now chef de cabinet, Piotr Jastrzebski. Usmanov and Jastrzebski were roommates at college. Gazprominvestholdings is the group that handles Gazproms interests outside Russia, Usmanov's role is, in effect, to handle Gazprom's bribery and sleaze on the international arena, and the use of gas supply cuts as a threat to uncooperative satellite states.

Gazprom has also been the tool which Putin has used to attack internal democracy and close down the independent media in Russia. Gazprom has bought out - with the owners having no choice - the only independent national TV station and numerous rgional TV stations, several radio stations and two formerly independent national newspapers. These have been changed into slavish adulation of Putin. Usmanov helped accomplish this through Gazprom. The major financial newspaper, Kommersant, he bought personally. He immediately replaced the editor-in-chief with a pro-Putin hack, and three months later the long-serving campaigning defence correspondent, Ivan Safronov, mysteriously fell to his death from a window.

All this, both on Gazprom and the journalist's death, is set out in great detail here:
http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2007/06/russian_journal.html

Usmanov is also dogged by the wides

Quote (Craig Murray, British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004):

"In fact there was no evidence of the existence of this organisation other than that given by the Uzbek Security Services. There are, for example, no communications intercepts between senior terrorists referring to themselves as the Islamic Jihad Union. ... There are some peculiar points about it: why are the German authorities connecting a Turk and two ethnic Germans, who allegedly trained in Pakistan, to an obscure and possibly non-existent Uzbek group?"

If you look further into the matter, it seems the whole thing is staged.

CC.

You would have thought that after the whole threat was rubbished by just about anybody with any basic knowledge of classroom chemistry, the home office and BAA would have downgraded the threat.

I thought it was now common knowledge that the whole thing was a sham. It was to get another embarrassing item off the news at the time; our ongoing support for the bombardment of Lebanon when every other country in the world was crying out for a ceasefire. It was getting pretty embarrassing for them just as this story "broke".

UK intelligence agencies have said (off-the-record of course) that they wanted to continue observing the group and taking notes, getting contacts and so on. There was never any danger; not only did they not have any chemicals or plane tickets, most of those involved did not even have passports!! It was amateur hour and I believe that the intelligence agencies were waiting to see if they actually knew anyone relevant that they could further investigate.

It was said at the time that the push to make arrests came from the US intelligence service and that this was in spite of vocal opposition from those watching "the group". Now, from what I understand, the only reference to actually attacking planes comes from the torture of someone in Pakistan. The person in question had fled the UK on suspision of murder charges. So, what do you get when you combine an untrustworthy person with torture? Fairytales.

Further reading:

A chemists view

Opinion on those involved

More on the chemical side

This was a non-story and I am amazed that the sham has held so long. I'd make a point of arguing the banality of it when passing through an airport, but it's just not worth the cavity search. I guess I should just be a nice, compliant citizen and be afraid and keep my mouth shut.

When the British left, there was a unified Indian identity. dude are you totally out of your mind?
read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India. Brits f@#$@#$ers left India in a really miserable state. They didnt leave India coz they were generous but they were running out of the resources needed to keep control after WWWII.
They left on CONDITION that there would be 2 different states - India and Pakistan - that would be seperated based on RELIGON !

Pakistan - a small teeny-weeny country (masterminded by Britan to play the divide-and-conquer game) but see how things are coming back in circle
  - Most of the recent bombers in the UK plot have been identified having links to Pakistan (whether through training or nationality)
http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2006/08/the_ uk_terror_p.html

  - The sucker Pak nuke scientist who gave away the nuclear technology to Iran and N. Korea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_weapons_ of_mass_destruction

  - ISI (the CIA equivalent of Pakistan) responsible for bombing subway trains in Mumbai
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5394686.stm

  - Pakistan hiding Laden
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3532841.stm ....

All I m trying to say is that you cannot just bash into a country - and fix everything and hope things would return to normal... remember the BUTTERFLY EFFECT.. there are always CONSEQUENCES. I just hope US leaves sooner than later still when things are intact..

Some interesting counterpoint reading at http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2006/08/the_ uk_terror_p.html from Craig Murray, Britain's Ambassador to the Central Asian Republic of Uzbekistan...

Financial details from these banks, it turns out, was part of the trail of evidence used to apprehend terrorism suspects in a plot to bomb airplanes last month.

If you actually read TFA you'll see the low-powered bomb was as intended as a test, and he planned to use bombs 10x as powerful as that for a major terrorist attack on 11 airliners over the Pacific ocean. Sound familiar?

Yes, it sounds like another failed plot, broken up in 1995 by ordinary police work without the aid of warrentless wiretapping, extreme rendition, torture, or invasion of sovereign nations.

The odd thing is that in 1995 ordinary good police work broke up a serious plot to bomb planes and no one ran hysterically in circles screaming the world was going to end if we didn't all go thirsty on our next international flight. Whereas in 2006, acting on "information" that was tortured out of a suspect in Pakistan a purported plot that violates empirically known facts of chemical synthesis was broken up, and much hysteria ensued.

So while the plot looks vaguely familiar--there is a family resemblence, Witgenstein might say--the reaction looks totally unfamiliar. It's almost as if the organs of the state want us to be afraid, even though there is so much less to be afrid of.

The UK Terror plot: what's really going on? http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2006/08/the_ uk_terror_p.html [craigmurray.co.uk]

I have been reading very carefully through all the Sunday newspapers to try and analyse the truth from all the scores of pages claiming to detail the so-called bomb plot. Unlike the great herd of so-called security experts doing the media analysis, I have the advantage of having had the very highest security clearances myself, having done a huge amount of professional intelligence analysis, and having been inside the spin machine.

It wasn't like he was trying to pass this off as his own work. Not you, you just troll for mod points.

The UK Terror plot: what's really going on?
http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2006/08/the_ uk_terror_p.html

I have been reading very carefully through all the Sunday newspapers to try and analyse the truth from all the scores of pages claiming to detail the so-called bomb plot. Unlike the great herd of so-called security experts doing the media analysis, I have the advantage of having had the very highest security clearances myself, having done a huge amount of professional intelligence analysis, and having been inside the spin machine.

So this, I believe, is the true story.

None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn't be a plane bomber for quite some time.

In the absence of bombs and airline tickets, and in many cases passports, it could be pretty difficult to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that individuals intended to go through with suicide bombings, whatever rash stuff they may have bragged in internet chat rooms.

What is more, many of those arrested had been under surveillance for over a year - like thousands of other British Muslims. And not just Muslims. Like me. Nothing from that surveillance had indicated the need for early arrests.

Then an interrogation in Pakistan revealed the details of this amazing plot to blow up multiple planes - which, rather extraordinarily, had not turned up in a year of surveillance. Of course, the interrogators of the Pakistani dictator have their ways of making people sing like canaries. As I witnessed in Uzbekistan, you can get the most extraordinary information this way. Trouble is it always tends to give the interrogators all they might want, and more, in a desperate effort to stop or avert torture. What it doesn't give is the truth.

The gentleman being "interrogated" had fled the UK after being wanted for questioning over the murder of his uncle some years ago. That might be felt to cast some doubt on his reliability. It might also be felt that factors other than political ones might be at play within these relationships. Much is also being made of large transfers of money outside the formal economy. Not in fact too unusual in the British Muslim community, but if this activity is criminal, there are many possibilities that have nothing to do with terrorism.

We then have the extraordinary question of Bush and Blair discussing the possible arrests over the weekend. Why? I think the answer to that is plain. Both in desperate domestic political trouble, they longed for "Another 9/11". The intelligence from Pakistan, however dodgy, gave them a new 9/11 they could sell to the media. The media has bought, wholesale, all the rubbish they have been shovelled.

We then have the appalling political propaganda of John Reid, Home Secretary, making a speech warning us all of the dreadful evil threatening us and complaining that "Some people don't get" the need to abandon all our traditional liberties. He then went on, according to his own propaganda machine, to stay up all night and minutely direct the arrests. There could be no clearer evidence that our Police are now just a political tool. Like all the best nasty regimes, the knock on the door came in the middle of the night, at 2.30am. Those arrested included a mother with a six week old baby.

For those who don't know, it is worth introducing Reid. A hardened Stalinist with a long term reputation for personal violence, at Stirling Univeristy he was the Communist Party's "Enforcer", (in days when the Communist Party ran Stirling University Students' Union, which it should not be forgotten was a business with a very substantial cash turnover). Reid was sent to beat up those who deviated from the Party line.

We will now never know if any of those arrested would have gone on to make a bomb or buy a plane t

What's the point of replying to an AC? Who knows? Anyway...

Liquid explosives don't make the idea of a bomb attack fishy. It does, however, make the government response fishy. OMFG! Liquid bombs! We never thought of that before! Everybody dump their vaseline! Just as we learned that the Bush administration response to 9/11 was a lie (They claimed to have never had any idea terrorist would crash planes into things), their response that this is new is also a lie. The 1995 Bojinka plot was financed by bin Laden...remember him?

As far as "not blabbing" goes, it's a bit past time for keeping secrets when you shut down one of the world's busiest airports and release the names of all the alleged terrorist and freeze their bank accounts.

Believe me, it's not just me doing the speculating.

It's not that one organization is better or worse than the other, it is that the US administration appears to be manipulating a supposedly independent organization into a vehicle for US policy. This after using the "Internet must remain free from coercive governments" argument a few months ago to reassert it's own control of the DNS system.

This whole story oozes UK politics. El Reg is a UK paper and the UK 'net is up in arms about one of their Sr. ministers claiming that they have no knowledge of use of torture/ use of torture testimony / extreme rendition / support of vile Uzbek regime and being subsequently proven wrong. The proof came through the UK's former Uzbekistan ambassador. He published memos (defying a publication ban) how they did know and did approve. Doing the ethical thing is taken much more seriously in the UK than the US. Uzbekistan is a dictatorial state that likes to boil people alive, imprison or kill political prisoners, and also an ally in the "War on Terra."

So that is the underlying story: The UK is experiencing Syriana-ish angst because it is sucked into doing loathsome things due to allies, agreements and policy.

Git your banned documents here!
http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2005/12/damn ing_documen.html

-b

over the last 20 years, it has become increasingly clear that it is incompatible with US claims of advancing democracy and freedom around the world.

See also:

• Uzbekistan
• Nicaragua
• East Timor
• Etc etc etc

Advancing democracy and freedom is great rhetoric. Shame it's more a less a lie from this administration as with previous ones.