deniability—plausible?

pesky deaths

The headline asking whether the Kremlin, a.k.a. Vlad the Impaler, is eliminating his critics, such as Maksim Kusinov this time, abroad strikes me as naïve or pussyfooting in the world yet I fully respect why the editors at the New York Times must pose the question as such.

The extremely public death, caused by polonium 210, of former GRU spy Alexander Litvinenko in 2006 actually led to a British court convicting Russian agents in the death. Hospitalised after his exposure to the radioactive substance, Litvinenko divulged that Russian intelligence officials persisted with toxic research projects begun during the Cold War.

The massive attention linked to the Kremlin did nothing to deter Putin.

He certainly never took blame for Litvinenko’s poisoning or for the nerve gas used to attack and nearly kill former intelligence officer Sergei Skripal and sicken his daughter in Salisbury, United Kingdom a decade later. The nerve agent found at Skripal’s home somehow kill a British woman unrelated to the Russians in any known manner though the two Russians survived.

Vlad certainly has not advertised that he killed Alexei Navalny a little over a month ago or that he poisoned that same opponent when travelling four years ago. Navalny served prision time for the majority of the the last several years so his power was as a martyr rather than genuinely an opponent to the Kremlin’s leader. Putin’s response, though official channels, is that Navalny died of natural causes though the opaque political system precludes anyone pursuing or providing evidence of anything.

A long list of journalists and critics of the Russian leader died over the past two decades as Putin appears determined to continue overt efforts to run a seemingly democratic government. The election he held earlier this month only perpetuated this sham. But the Russian autocrat obviously does not brook dissent. He prevents the appearance of any possible alternate power center, or anything that the Russian public could develop as an alternative to the man who is now in his twenty-fifth year in charge. Putin and his minions do not care about a person’s gender (Anna Politkovskaya was a well known investigative journalist {died 2006} while Boris Nemtsov [died 2015} had served in Boris Yeltsin’s government as Putin did in the 1990s), recent loyalty to the Kremlin leader (Yvegeny Prighozin ran the Wagner Group in advancing Russia’s cause in both Africa and Ukraine yet he died in a mysterious 2023 plane crash after a relatively recent putsch against the Kremlin), or a person’s erstwhile oligarch status (Mikhail Khorodokovsky survived his years in prison but lives in Britain where I suspect he looks over his shoulder minute by minute for Kremlin agents): Putin eliminates threats ruthlessless to assure the appearance strength and power to assure the Russian people fear and respect him.

Yet we have no proof it is Putin. We live in an era where we have the irony of repeated, obvious instances of murder but an unwillingness to say with confidence that Vlad is the Impaler. I understand that the burden of proof requires a journalist to have multiple sources to assure information—or that is what I think they learn in journalism school but I may be wrong.

We live in a world where we appropriately look for multiple explanations for events but sometimes that strains credulity. How much evidence is the right amount to call the Russian a murderer? What proof would the International Court of Justice need to convict him as they did Slobodan Milosevic for crimes during the late 1990s? Is half a dozen instances of almost precisely the same action and consequence sufficient to assess responsibility for a crime?

Most Americans know that the standard of proof for a jury trial in our justice system is to provide evidence to the members of a jury of peers with evidence of the defendant’s behaviour. Our system gives that defendant the benefit of a doubt as she or he is not guilty until that jury is convinced via a trial where prosecutors and defense attorneys engage in the presentation of evidence.. Assertions and coincidences are insufficient as the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. We often hear of people acquitted but many juries deliver convictions as the justice system operates.

Yet we are hesistant to say Putin killed his opponents and we are fearful to say he used disinformation in prior election campaigns (and will do again this year) because we cannot meet that jury standard. Is that too high?

I welcome thought from the jurists among usas I most definitely am not one.

How far is it appropriate or sensible to explore alternate explanations in an inexaustible manner becaues he is a chief of state? Should look the other way when other regimes similarly manage to kill their opponents at home or abroad because Putin is only one ruler in a world full of undemocratic men desperately clinging to power? Putin, Xi Jinping, the mullahs in Teheran, or any other ruler is highly likely to argue these are domestic discussions rather than something appropriate for foreigners to consider. That is what sovereignty is about.

Most Americans jump automatically to the worst conclusions about some rulers (Kim Jung-un comes to mind) because we think we see their intentions and have some evidence of actions. Yet Putin invaded another state, killed those who contradict him whether they are at home or overseas, and some of us see insufficient evidence to worry about it.

I welcome your thoughts on this topic. I am not so interested in criticising major newspapers as I am trying to understand how much evidence we need consider in our global relations with this man. Putin only travels to places he thinks are ‘safe’ but he would not even do that if he felt the world were beginning to hold him accountable for murders. I also wonder if the way he treats his opponents tells us how we should prepare to protect ourselves againt him. I welcome your thoughts on this as well. We do know he controls and frequently reminds us of Russian nuclear weapons.

Such an insecure man pretending to be so powerful. Powerful men and women do not kill their critics.

I know it’s a busy Easter. I hope you found plenty of chocolate eggs as I understand the price of cacao globally is rising. I also wish you a season of renewal as we celebrate Easter, the end of Ramadan and Pesach within a twenty-two day period. Trees are budding and flowers are bursing from the soil in the northern hemisphere while our southern neighbours prepare for a similarly renewing period of autumn, then winter. I consider this a time to rejoice regardless where one might be.

Thank you for reading this column; please send me your thoughts as I am genuinely curious. Thanks to the subscribers who support this column financially as it helps me with my delivery. I welcome anyone to subscribe monthly or annually. Plase circulate the column to others if you think it would benefit them.

Be well and be safe. FIN

Andrew Roth, ‘The mysterious, violent and unsolved deaths of Putin’s foes and critics’, TheGuardian.com, 16 February 2024, retrieved at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/16/the-mysterious-violent-and-unsolved-deaths-of-putins-foes-and-critics-alexi-navalny

Michael Schwirtz and José Bautista, ‘A Russian Defector’s Killing Raises Specter of Hit Squads’, NewYorkTimes.com, 31 March 2024, retrieved at https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/31/world/europe/russian-defector-murder-spain.html