Will audience apathy and disinterest in Russian news let editors get away with it?
This post first appeared on Russia Insider
It's said that some people will believe anything. And that's what Guardian editors must be thinking, based on their latest story on the Litvinenko affair. It's titled "Fresh Evidence Suggests Litvinenko Was Killed to Keep Him Quiet."
Here's what the Guardian wants its readers to believe:
1. Some bad actor (widely expected to be the Russian state according to the Guardian) wanted to "prevent [Litvinenko] from testifying about Vladimir Putin’s links with Russian organized crime."
2. That there is now added "credence to the theory that eliminating Litvinenko was a matter of utmost urgency for the Kremlin."
3. "Amateur killers" were sent in to do the job.
4. These killers used polonium 210 as their weapon of choice.
Does that make any sense to you? Certainly it defies reason that a bad actor, motivated by a sense of "utmost urgency" would send "amateurs" to do the job. What's more it is puzzling that the instrument of death would be a radioactive element that would take over 20 days to bring about the desired silencing of Litvinenko. What kind of urgent silencing is that?
I think a good measure of gullibility is required to believe that Guardian story.
The idea that the Kremlin wanted to silence Litvinenko has been around since 2006. I treated that allegation in my 2011 book The Phony Litvinenko Murder. In it I elaborate upon the unsubstantiated premise that Litvinenko "knew something that would be incriminating of others, and that he was poisoned to keep him from talking."
I continued in my book:
"Didn't time prove that to be false? In the three weeks before his death, Litvinenko didn't reveal these secrets. He gave a number of interviews, but didn't name names and didn't spill the beans.
"That raises one very big challenge to the plausibility of this storyline. The spy-who-knew-too-much theme just didn't add up. Yet, I didn't find where any journalists came to grips with that. It is as if everyone pretended that this story angle made sense. In reality, however, there was no apparent sense to it. It's just another unexplained, illogical peculiarity relating to the Litvinenko case."
And isn't the 2006 nonsensical reportage basically the same kind of thing the Guardian is trying to pull off today? It's offering a story that simply does not make sense if examined critically.
In fact, a close look at the Guardian story will show that it would be foolhardy to believe any of it. Look at who wrote it. The primary author is Alexander Goldfarb. He is a longtime henchman of the Russian fugitive oligarch Boris Berezovsky, now deceased. (Berezovsky had employed Litvinenko throughout the time when Litvinenko uttered a long series of fantastical and malicious allegations against Putin, none of which ever had been substantiated.) The secondary author is Anastasia Kirilenko, a virtually unknown former Russian journalist.
Goldfarb and Kirilenko characterized Litvinenko as an honest whistleblower never given his due. They claimed in the Guardian that "during [Litvinenko's] lifetime his voice was not heard." That's clearly not true. Any simple search of news items that appeared during Litvinenko's employment by Berezovsky will quickly disprove Goldfarb's claim. It's quite apparent that Litvinenko was a malicious blabbermouth listened to by many journalists and Western politicians.
But here's the coup de grace to any credibility in the Guardian article. Goldfarb wrote:
"While [Litvinenko] lay dying in a London hospital, he addressed his alleged assassin with these words: 'You may succeed in silencing one man but the howl of protest from around the world will reverberate, Mr. Putin, in your ears for the rest of your life.'"
Goldfarb initially claimed Litvinenko dictated those words to him. But the truth is that Litvinenko issued no such statement. The quoted words were not Litvinenko's. Litvinenko never made that purported deathbed statement. And there were telltale signs that the statement was a hoax.
When Goldfarb finally realized that the jig was up, he confessed: it was he who wrote the statement and then tried to pass it off as Litvinenko's words. What's more, Goldfarb even publically admitted there is "no direct evidence" to support his malicious allegation.
If you are interested in further refutation of the fabricated deathbed statement, see the video slide presentation titled "The Faked Deathbed Statement". You'll hear proof Litvinenko didn't even know enough English to have fingered Putin in the poisoning as claimed.
So who killed Litvinenko? Actually, I have no idea whether Putin was involved or not. But I have shown evidence that those who are trying to convince us of the Putin-did-it story are fabricating and lying.
Is there any reason to trust anything they are now saying about anything?
The Guardian has shown great disrespect for its readers with its hogwash article about Litvinenko.
This post first appeared on Russia Insider
Anyone is free to republish, copy, and redistribute the text in this content (but not the images or videos) in any medium or format, with the right to remix, transform, and build upon it, even commercially, as long as they provide a backlink and credit to Russia Insider. It is not necessary to notify Russia Insider. Licensed Creative Commons