Alexander Litvinenko report: Vladimir Putin's cronies are telling lies they know they can get away with

While chaos rules in large parts of the world, there is no meaningful way of dealing with Russia

By Charles Crawford 21 January 2016 • 5:29pm

Former Russian security agent Alexander Litvinenko pictured before his death at University College Hospital in central London Credit: Photo: PA

For anyone interested in the way governments operate, there is nothing more astonishing than the policy memorandum sent from Beria to Stalin in 1940, tersely recommending a colossal war crime.

The Russians themselves have published the original text. It’s laid out in a dry, methodical way familiar to anyone in public service. It describes the problem, then makes the formal recommendation: that 25,000 Polish and other prisoners be summarily murdered “without the convicts being summoned and without revealing the charges; with no statements concerning the conclusion of the investigation and the bills of indictment given to them”.

"Russian experts will pounce on the report’s finding that there is no way to show that the poisonous polonium 210 used to kill Mr Litvinenko came from Russia"

The agreement of other top Soviet leaders is recorded, including that of Mikhail Kalinin as nominally the most senior person in the USSR. My final FCO telegram to London from Warsaw in 2007 reminded Whitehall that part of Europe (Russia’s Kaliningrad enclave) is named after this Soviet war criminal.

After the Katyn massacres, Moscow for decades simply lied and lied and lied again about its responsibility. During the Cold War successive British governments shamefull played along with these lies, ducking and weaving to avoid directly accusing the Soviet Union for the Katyn killings. Finally in 1990 Russian President Yeltsin revealed the truth, sending key documents to Poland’s new president Lech Walesa.

So to the Litvinenko case. The report by Sir Robert Owen is itself a very different but no less remarkable example of meticulous public service work. It makes an overwhelming case that Alexander Litvinenko was murdered by senior Russian intelligence operatives, and states that President Putin himself "probably" approved the operation.

The report will be closely read in Russia, not least by senior officials in the Putin hierarchy who will be impressed by the way the Owen report painstakingly balances masses of highly technical evidence and expert testimony to build its case. They also will be struck by how much we are ready to say we know (and how much maybe we apparently don’t know) about the workings of the Russian intelligence machinery. The detailed 2006 claim by Mr Litvinenko that Putin has paedophile tendencies known to others in the Russian secret apparatus will be re-read with nervous excitement.

Russian experts will pounce on the report’s finding that there is no way to show that the poisonous polonium 210 used to kill Mr Litvinenko came from Russia. They’ll jeer at anything suggesting’s President Putin’s personal involvement in any of this, noting that the Owen Report’s passages reaching this conclusion are curiously speculative. Official Russian outlets are busy issuing blustery angry denials, emphasising that the "so-called evidence" is at best "circumstantial" and that the "illegitimate" report will have "serious consequences" for Russia/UK relations.

This reminds us of the initial absurd public denials from Moscow when the Americans broke open a large nest of Russian "sleeper" spies in 2010. The ten Russian spies soon pleaded guilty to espionage charges, allowing a significant "spy swap" between Washington and Moscow soon thereafter. It also reminds us of the scarcely less absurd denials from London when the Russians caught MI6 red-handed in Moscow using a hollowed-out rock to communicate with their agent.

"Tempting though it is to clear out a swarm of Russian spies based in London, that too merely prompts Moscow to retaliate in kind against British officials"

UK allies wanting more quiet details about our findings on the Russian intelligence services’ overseas machinations will quietly be briefed, but they will not want to get involved. Beyond that, the British government will not find it easy to come up with any new action against Moscow, even though the Owen Report makes such a compelling case for official Russian involvement in a murder on British soil. How to tackle the Litvinenko case in any way that makes a difference, while we are working with Russia at the UN and elsewhere on Iran, Syria and terrorism? No good answer, because there isn’t one.

Russia’s economy is already under significant economic sanctions because of its brutal involvement in Ukraine, with the falling oil price adding new pain. Further UK targeted financial sanctions or asset freezes here and there won’t make any real difference to the Kremlin’s calculations. Tempting though it is to clear out a swarm of Russian spies based in London, that too merely prompts Moscow to retaliate in kind against British officials and wider UK interests in Russia.

London also knows that down the centuries the Russians have developed a highly specific approach to negotiation. It comes in two stark propositions:

"Whatever you do to try to hurt us, we’ll do worse to you ... We can take more pain than you’re ready to inflict."

Hence the noises from No 10 that it is “weighing options carefully” (diplo-speak for “this is all very difficult – we’ll get back to you”).

In short, as in the Katyn case it may take decades for any formal proof of official top-level Russian involvement in the Litvinenko murder to be formally acknowledged by Moscow. For now we find it repellent that far from being made to answer in open court the grave charges against him, Andrej Logovoy hides behind immunity as a Russian MP. Moscow’s Putinist establishment tells more lies, and smirks at its own droll cleverness.