From: MSN NicknameEagle_wng  (Original Message)    Sent: 7/20/2007 1:19 AM
The Big Question: What lies behind the crisis in relations between London and Moscow?
By Mary Dejevsky
Published: 20 July 2007
Why are we asking this now?
 
The Russians yesterday announced the expulsion of four British diplomats from Moscow, suspended negotiations on simplifying visa arrangements and halted bilateral co-operation on combating terrorism. The measures were a classic tit-for-tat response to the announcement by the British foreign secretary on Monday that four Russian diplomats were to be expelled and co-operation in other areas halted.
 
How bad are relations?
 
On the British side, probably the worst they have been since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. On the Russian side, relations reached rock-bottom in 2003, when Britain granted political asylum to Boris Berezovsky, the Russian oligarch who fled to London after falling out with President Putin. They have fluctuated from mediocre to bad ever since. Still, the current chill has to be seen in perspective. Business between Britain and Russia is thriving, and both insist they want to keep trade out of the current argument. This is not a new Cold War. Relations are nowhere near as bad as they were, for instance, in 1985 after Margaret Thatcher precipitated a round of tit-for-tat reprisals by expelling 25 Russians suspected of spying.
 
But this row is not about spying, is it?
 
No. At least not directly. When David Miliband announced the expulsion of four Russians on Monday, he cited Russia's refusal to extradite Andrei Lugovoi, the former security services operative suspected of murdering the Russian agent-turned-dissident, Alexander Litvinenko, in London last November. But he said that Britain had two other objectives: "to bring home to the Russian government the consequences of their failure to cooperate" and "to emphasis our commitment to promoting the safety of British citizens and visitors". In so saying, he suggested that, without such tough action on Britain's part, the lives of more Russian dissidents might be endangered in London.
 
Doesn't the attempt to kill Berezovsky show he was right?
 
Maybe - although the initial story, as told by the Sun and followed by others, poses all sorts of questions. The first version was that an assassin, armed with a pistol and using a child as a decoy, was about to take aim at Berezovsky in the Park Lane Hilton, when British secret service agents dramatically apprehended the gunman and saved Berezovsky's life.
According to subsequent reports, however, Berezovsky was out of the country, having been warned to leave. The would-be assassin was actually staying at the Hilton, and there was no gun, as the would-be assassin had been unable to obtain one. The man was apparently detained for two days, and deported back to Russia.
That's a pretty meek response from a country so concerned to prevent murder that it locks up suspected terrorists pre-emptively and is so keen on prosecuting criminals that it expels foreign diplomats because of a refused extradition warrant. The details are elusive and deniable.
 
So why was such a threadbare story put about?
 
It's hard to know, but here are a few theories. From least to most plausible:
1. The attempt on Berezovsky's life, if it took place, was the real reason for the diplomatic expulsions, and the British, for whaever reason, wanted to keep it quiet.
2. Berezovsky's ever-alert PR operation saw an opportunity to gain credence for another anti-Putin story.
3.The British government felt that the public had not been sufficiently supportive of the expulsions, and needed more convincing of Russia's wicked ways. This would help to explain the timing.
 
But Berezovsky was a target, wasn't he?
 
Certainly. There have been several documented attempts on his life. And it is regrettably true that a dissident who campaigns against his home country as openly as Berezovsky does is almost bound to be a target. But the Kremlin is not his only enemy. He has plenty of dangerous foes from the Nineties when he was amassing his fortune in Russia, and from his time as a negotiator with the rebels of Chechnya. Well aware of this, he surrounds himself with copious private security - and appears to have British secret service protection, too.
 
So how watertight is the case against Lugovoi?
 
Mr Miliband told MPs that the Crown Prosecution Service had amassed convincing evidence against him, but few details have been made public. Lugovoi is thought to have travelled on the commercial planes that were contaminated with polonium. And last Sunday (the day before Britain announced the expulsions - note the timing), the Sunday Telegraph reported the testimony of a waiter at the Millennium Hotel, who said he believed the lethal polonium had been sprinkled into the teapot while his attention was diverted (i.e. he did not see it happen).
 
Why such reticence about the case against Lugovoi?
 
Who knows? Even the source of the polonium, which British investigators initially said should be easily identified, has not been disclosed. Some possibly pertinent information came from Mr Lugovoi himself in a long press conference he gave in Moscow in May to protest his innocence. He claimed then that British intelligence had tried to recruit him in London, and gave chapter and verse of meetings. He also claimed that Litvinenko was in the pay of MI5. This has not been denied and suggests at the very least that Lugovoi was of interest to the British security services. Which poses further questions about what British intelligence knew, when it knew it, and whether Litvinenko's murder might have been prevented.
 
And where does the Kremlin fit in?
 
Lugovoi is the chief suspect, but who was he working for? The British authorities insisted for a long time that they were treating Litvinenko's murder as a criminal case. In expelling diplomats over the refused extradition, however, they have transferred it from the judicial into the political and diplomatic arena.
Officially, they say, this is because the judicial process has been exhausted. But it also suggests that they suspect the involvement of the Russian authorities - either the security services or the Kremlin, or both. They have not said as much openly, and have produced no evidence. But nor have they taken issue with the strident anti-Putin figures in the London emigration, chief among them Berezovsky, who have accused the Kremlin from the start.
Russian officials have categorically denied any state involvement, either in Litvinenko's murder or in the recent reported attempt on Berezovsky's life. But then they would, wouldn't they? The only certainty is that Russian London is teeming with secret agents from both sides.
 
Is the British-Russian stand-off just a storm in a tea-cup?
 
Yes...
 
* Russia's precise tit-for-tat response is the least it could do, while keeping its dignity intact and does not escalate the crisis.
* The murder of Litvinenko, though gruesome, was a one-off crime and no link with the Kremlin has been proved.
* Britain has not obtained the international support it might have hoped for and cannot afford to isolate itself over Russia.
 
No...
 
* Litvinenko's murder and its aftermath imply a continuing threat to Russian dissidents living in Britain.
* The use of polonium and Lugovoi's former employment as a security officer strongly suggest Kremlin involvement.
* Boris Berezovsky's asylum in Britain will affect relations with Russia adversely, at least as long as Putin is in power.
 
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article2785427.ece