Talk:Alexander Litvinenko assassination theories

re: the “Other Responses” section of this article

Paragraph four of this section states, “British novelist and historian Rupert Allason said he would be most surprised if the FSB had tried to kill Mr Litvinenko because it would fly in the face of 65 years of Soviet or Russian practice, as "[n]either the FSB nor the KGB has ever killed a defector on foreign soil and their predecessors, even under Stalin, did so only once in the case of Walter Krivitsky in Washington in 1941."^[31] Despite some reports that a recent Russian counter-terrorism law gives the President the right to order such actions,^[32] in fact the law in question refers only to "terrorists and their bases" abroad.”

It must be noted whether the assassination of Soviet dissident and former Politburo member, Leon Trotsky, should be considered in this light. Trotsky was murdered by NKVD agent Ramón Mercader in Coyoacán, Mexico on August 20, 1940. On this basis, the statement, attributed above to Rupert Alison, appears to be false or at least misleading. The only argument that the statement is not false depends on whatever the specific definition of the term “defector” is intended. As the circumstances of Trotsky’s death are well known to history (and described on the Trotsky Wikipedia page), this should be referenced in the text of the paragraph to question the accuracy of the aforementioned statement.

Why Polonium²¹⁰

This article does not adequately address the issue why Mr. Litvinenko was poisoned specifically through the use of the agent Polonium²¹⁰. I recall journalistic coverage stating that the cost of the amount of Polonium²¹⁰ believed to have been used to Poison Litvinenko as having a cost in excess of three million dollars! It seems that the assassin of Litvinenko, whoever (s)he was, could have efficiently disposed of his/her target with a much more reasonably priced dose of hydrogen cyanide or, indeed, commercially available drain cleaner. In addition to the cost effectiveness of such more common toxins, the assassin would not have incriminated him/herself by leaving a radioactive trail around London. From this, the conclusion seems apparent that the assassin wanted it to be specifically known that Litvinenko was the victim of poisoning by a rare and expensive radioactive isotope. This suggests that the assassin was intending to send some kind of message, not just by the assassination, but by the specific means of assassination, to other parties still living. The hypothesis is that the message so intended was to other dissidents and/or critics of the Russian regime which is not only “we can/will kill you, as well,” but to clearly identify themselves by the implicit statement, “we are people with access to three million dollars worth of Polonium²¹⁰”. As the article does state, “They also say that only a ‘state’ institution would have access to polonium-210.”

Unfortunately, I don’t have the identities of the sources who put forward this hypothesis, so, on this basis, I cannot enter this discussion into the article itself. I do think, however, that the hypothesis is an important one, so I suggest that anyone who is aware of this line of reasoning and who can site referable sources as per the Wikipedia guidelines amend the article to include this analysis in a properly sourced manner. Thanks.

It's amazing how eager the Western media is to blame Kremlin for every evil thing that happens in the world. If this "hypothesis" is mentioned, then the other one - the more plausibel one - has to be as well. Why would the Kremlin had wanted to kill Litvinenko? His death hurt the Russian goverment's imago much more than the conspiracy theories he told - the lies that Berezovsky paid him to tell - ever did.[1] Litvinenko was just a crazy, exiled, unemployed man who had lost his job, a poor man who made his living by writing stories, smuggling and blackmailing. The Western media frankly didn't even pay too much attention to him before his death. No, the Kremlin would have had no real motive. Killing him would have been nothing but pure stupidity because of the catastrophical PR consequences it brought. Yes, the killer must indeed have been someone with lots of money, someone obsessed with an agenda[2], someone whose behaviour is "always marked with audacity and cunning." There is one man who is all of that, one who has the money, one whose agenda - to discredit the Russian government, to have his revenge, to get power himself - would be optimally supported by Litvinenko's murder: that man is no one else but Berezovsky himself. For years, after getting "betrayed" by Putin and going into opposition, Berezovsky has spent his millions in an extraordinary campaign to disdain the Russian government. He has even sworn to "bring it down." He has financed Litvinenko's books and published all kinds of conspiracy theory material, and made sure the claims are picked up and spread further by anglophone journalists for maximum coverage. Offliner (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You give the rationality--and CREDIBILITY--of the Kremlin too much credit. What in the history of the Kremlin has given you such notions? Is it rational for the Kremlin to try to clean up the image of Stalin and start denying that he was involved in murdering millions in the Ukraine (even Kruschev admitted this)? Is it rational to pretend Russia has never treated the Baltic/East European countries badly, when all Russia has to do is put all the blame on the commies (who harmed them too), thus completely saving face? Is it rational to move away from the friendly cooperation with the West/US Russia was heading in with Yeltsin and, instead, pursue provocative relationships with thug states like Syria, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela? Did it make sense for Russia to alienate itself with the West for the sake of sticking up for Serbia's right to commit genocide? Did it make sense when Russia restarted strategic bomber flyovers into US/Norweigan/Canadian/British airspace, in the absence of the US making such flights, thus increasing the risk of an incident that could lead to nuclear war? Does it make sense for Russia to take all the flak it has for the sake of attacking a teeny country like Georgia--what have they gained from this act of genius? Did it make sense for Russia to make such a big deal about the gas crisis with the Ukraine, thus leading all the EU to think Russia was completely unreliable and, therefore, they should start looking for oil elsewhere? Talk about DUMB! Russia has a long history of doing inexplicable, stupid things. You forget here that Litvinenko's polonium poisoning was NOT found initially (as was probably the plan). Perhaps, Putin is a bit Tony Montana, and when somebody ticks him off he, like many people corrupted with power, does not think rationally.68.164.0.155 (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

"It's amazing how eager the Western media is to blame Kremlin for every evil thing that happens in the world."

Hmmm, I wonder why....~

Russian State owned media unreliable

Would we let OJ Simpson edit his article ????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by N8Riley (talk • contribs) 23:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)