The impunity with which murder can be committed in Russia is at the heart of the issue regarding such crime. It is unfortunate that there really is very little fear of reprisal of such politically-motivated murders. How does a government dismantle and rebuild a corrupt court and police system? Does it even have the willpower or interest to do so?

People are murdered in the US all the time! How can you criticize Russia? For shame.

I am greatly saddened by Anna's death. Putin is slowly snuffing out free speech on free speaking reporters one at a time. His limiting free radio cannot be ignored as well. Kadyrov is a very dangerous man; a terrorist himself and is under the accepting eye of the Kremlin. My book, "Beslan: Shattered Innocence" goes into detail about the shameful way the Kremlin has handled the courts, the war in Chechnya and those behind it. I hope Anna would be proud! Long live the truth! Long live freedom! Anna knew how valuable words were and I hope my words published in a book will be as worthy to alarm the world to the loss of freedoms in Russia as hers were.

In the post, you point out that Russian commentators, unlike Western pundits, are asking who benefits from this murder. What are your thoughts?

hi all,
yes I heard the news out here in australia....

not good....

perhaps a constructive perspective as to how things can be made better, would be more of value in the present world climate

there is that old saying

you can fool some of the people some of the time

but not all of the people all of the time

people in ANY COUNTRY know whats going on

trying to hide it is a waste of time, in fact the more one tries to hide it,
the more obvious it becomes

one cannot fool the general public

my prayers and thoughts go to the journalist ....
murder is a separate issue
and should be treated as such

and the person who did the act should go to jail

JHH

Richard- so, let me get this straight. Since murders occur in America, everything is morally equivalent and we should just keep our mouths shut- right? First, I agree that America has an unacceptably high crime rate, and I have criticized our own elected politicians for failing to take adequate steps to reduce it. That said, the cases are not equivalent. Just because murders occur in America and are often unresolved should not blind one to the fact that this occurs with far more regularity in Russia, and to the fact that the facade of stability and order touted by Putin's regime masks (and may even foster) a great deal of lawlessness and impunity. Most distressing to me has been Mr. Putin's reaction. While he did finally publicly condemn the killing during a speech in Germany, he followed with a statement downplaying the significance of Ms. Politkovskaya's work.

Brandon: "...he [Pitin] followed with a statement downplaying the significance of Ms. Politkovskaya's work."

And why not? Ms. Politkovskaya had significance only in the eyes of "free" western media, not in Russia. A lot of what she wrote was laughably ridiculous, I'm not sure if she was making the stuff up herself or simply didn't check the facts but the truthfulness her "reporting" had left much to be desired. Obviously, her truthfulness doesn't really matter to the "free" western media, it's much more important if her writing can be used to put pressure on Russia and, thus, you have "the significance of Ms. Politkovskaya's work."

Anyway, it's tragic that her life had to end this way, whatever one thinks of her work. It's interesting to see though how "free" western (US especially) media jumped to blaming Putin/Kremlin for the murder. Where's the proof? For all we know it could be a part of that big "October Surprise" promised by Republicans:

• Goldman Sacks is driving the gasoline futures down
  
• Politkovskaya Killed in Russia
  
• A plane hits NYC building
  
• ... more to come, I'm sure
  

The way the US is going, it's difficult to be certain of anything.

I've been thinking of this for a while now but, how hard would it be for a foreigner (American) to open up his own security business inside Russia? Is it even possible?

I'm not "fishing"! But I've been seriously thinking about getting four to five friends to form a personal protection/residential protection company.

It seems Russia at the moment needs some highly skilled, professional Personal Protection Specialists.

The case in mention is truly a sad one!

W.Shedd, getting your point across, or rather trying to, by asking rhetorical questions is shameful. Please do not generalize and use words like "some", "often", and "seems like".

Richard, it is not so much about a person being murdered as it is about who the person was. You're right about one thing though. No one in the blogosphere can criticise a whole country, we're just too small to do so.

Lynn, Brandon. Please do not paint the world the way you want to see it because your media brainwashed you in such a way and now you believe that these are actually your own thoughts. Read what you just wrote and ask yourself "am I 100% sure of what I say because I personally have been in Russia and talked to Putin/Kadyrov and therefore I know what kind of man he is. If you have purely relied on media to gain knowledge on the matter you may be severely mistaken.

John, you're kidding right? You think Russia doesnt have such companies? And tell you what, if the person was ordered to be killed, she'd be killed together with your Personal Protection Specialists and their sophisticated american defense system any time and place - you name it.

Please do not generalize and use words like "some", "often", and "seems like".

Sorry Phil, I did not realise this was your blog and you have the authority to ask people to write in a manner of which you approve. Allow us to slit out throats and bleed in your dustbin by way of apology.

Who is this Phil...of course there are Russian security companies. It's apparent you have some kind of grudge against Americans. That's your problem though, not mine!

My sophisticated American Defense System is my brain!

I've got a question for the owners of this blog. Why don't you contribute to the comments? I may be wrong but I have yet to see a comment by any of you here.

Respectfully,
John

oh dear,

yes I think trying to be constructive about what CAN BE DONE in russia, and or anywhere else for that matter,
is a good idea....

so how does all the millionaires in moscow, fix some problems..... and how can they.... ?

same with leaders of any country....

my research showed, that people got shot, all the time, and or on a regular basis, in BUSINESS
a bit disconcerting to say the least

the only way to STOP THAT is to CHARGE THE people doing so.....
and MAKING SURE that , that happens

it will come, this from the lay person here, grin

I havent read this journalists writings, but truth is good, truth always outs in the end anyway...

the way I see it, is that Russia is big, and would be hard to govern on such a large scale,

perhaps if they got lots of the younger men into politics, and women

things would at least have some fairness, and development.....

positive answers, are what one needs..... does not matter what country you live in

its good to see all the large business happening in russia.... how much of this will go back into russian ownership, and therefore help the russian army kids,

and so on ?

just some thoughts....

JHH

Thoughts on Russia Blog's comments policy:

Some commenter asked why we don't jump into the comments threads very often. The answer, as I told one readerwho ended up being banned for (among other things) insisting that we censor any comment he/she didn't like, is that if we spent all our time editing or responding to comments, we wouldn't get any serious posts done. "Kim Zigfield" (I don't know who this person really is, we post with our real names here) then turned around and claimed on his/her blog that I admitted that we don't fact check our posts. This is a ridiculous distortion of what I said, which is that if we fact checked every single comment or corrected every commenter's misstatement, we'd never get anything else done!

Most of the time I spend on the comments section is keeping it clear from pornography and viagra-selling spambots. Sifting through all this garbage makes me glad to see comments from real live human beings, even when I don't agree with what they have to say.

Besides the incitement of racial hatred, obscenity or profanity, the only other comments I have blocked have all been from one reader - "Kim Zigfield". Based on his/her behavior at this and other forums, this person clearly has no interest in accurately quoting what people say, only stirring up Western fear and loathing of the Russian people (not just their government) and picking personal fights to promote his/her site. If you look at our blogrolll and some of the other Russian bloggers we have linked to for our posts, you will see that we have no problem with vigorous debate. We just don't make it personal or accuse anyone who disagrees with us of lying or having some evil agenda.

To the owners,

I appreciate your explanation but, I would really like to hear what you guys have to say too!

It's just not interesting enough when the creator of a certain article idly sits by and watches from the sidelines as his/her readers debate what the author created.

I mean, you guys are the experts here. Most of us readers, to include myself, are just "arm-chair" debaters who are set in our respective opinions. Your participation in the debate which is a direct result of your very words may do some good and possibly influence someone to the truth.

This being said though, on my blog there are times when it's popular. Other times it's not. I know how difficult it can be to comment in reply to everyone. In my early days I lost readers because of this mistake of mine. I now try my best and use my judgment to insert a comment here or there when things get busy or, when I just don't care to reply.

What you guys are doing here is a good thing! With that said though, don’t you think you owe it to your loyal readers to join in on the debate ever so often just to let us know you aren't mindles robots entering text into a computer for some blog?

Very respectfully,
John

Running contrary to Lynn M. Lansford are the fact based views expressed at the following links (a number of other Russia related topics are discussed as well):

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@801.mH69lLJtZ7q.15@.77480649/5458

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@801.mH69lLJtZ7q.17@.77480649/5535

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@801.mH69lLJtZ7q.19@.77480649/5549

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@801.mH69lLJtZ7q.21@.77480649/5559

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@801.mH69lLJtZ7q.23@.77480649/5579

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@801.mH69lLJtZ7q.24@.77480649/5591

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@801.mH69lLJtZ7q.26@.77480649/5609

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@801.mH69lLJtZ7q.27@.77480649/5611

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@801.mH69lLJtZ7q.27@.77480649/5632

I look forward to reading and-or hearing about the recent Discovery Institute panel discussion on Russia which was covered by RTTV.

I respectfully caution those two venues to be wary of limiting the discussion of Russia related topics.

The coverage of Politkovskaya has been shamefully flawed in its one sidedness. The unchecked censorship and suppression continues to be along the lines of how views like my own are treated in a supposedly open society.

IMHO, the contents raised in this post should be appearing at a more high profile environment.

I thank my friends who have expressed support.

Dear Readers,

I apologize for not responding sooner to your comments. RussiaBlog is part of the Real Russia Project at Discovery Institute; I am the director of both. As many of you know, last Wednesday we had a big event How Do Western Stereotypes Harm U.S. – Russia relations. The event was a huge success and answered a lot of the questions our readers have asked. The video will be available on the blog in about two weeks, the transcript in about a week, and the news clip from Russia Today TV as soon as they mail it to me.

On the question of "Who killed Anna Politkovskaya?" the opinion of both international attorney Bill Robinson and University of Washington Professor Herb Ellison expressed at the event was that the ONLY people who benefited from her murder are the liberal Russian parties and exiled oligarchs. The Kremlin's image only suffered as a result of this crime, and suffered A LOT. The current Georgian government benefited a little bit as well; some of the Kremlin's attention was redirected towards fighting all the black PR, rather than "taking care" of the neighbor. You can draw your own conclusions based upon this information.

According to a famous Russian analytist Vladimir Pozner, the murder of Anna Politkovskaya unfortunately means little to most of the Russian people. She was a semi-popular journalist (among liberals) about 5-10 years ago. Today, only one out of five can even recognize her name. Also, public opinion polls and the stock market both show that the Russian nation has largely gone on with business as usual even after the murder of Vice Finance Minister Andrei Kozlov just a few weeks ago. It is a very sad truth, but Russians are busy getting on with their lives, and they are used to prominent people getting killed now and then, and they don't have as much time as the Washington Post to stress about these things. I know this sounds cold and rude, but that's what it is. Western media reaction has been absolutely overblown and has often accused the Russia government without any evidence of being involved in this assassination. No one mentions that many more journalists were murdered during the "liberal and democratic" Yeltsin years than during Putin's administration.

Speaking about private security firms – there are many of those in Russia. You can even officially hire police and special police vehicles to protect you. It's called "Upravlenie vnevedomstvennoy ohrani" – (department of non-administrative security). But as recent history shows, if someone is a target, he will be killed no matter what. Everything depends on amount of money placed in security vs. what is offered to the killers. If the latter receive more, they'll make sure the "job" gets done.

I hope this answers some of the questions posted above. Please keep on coming back and don't miss the video and transcript of the panel held this Wednesday.

Thank you for reading the RussiaBlog!

Yuri

I can relate and understand the death of this woman not meaning much to the average Russian citizen. They do have their lives to live while raising their children the best way they know.

The way to change and battle this is to some how get the work of this woman to trickle down to the hearts and minds of every Russian citizen. If anyone who may be up next on that "hit-list" is listening, you may want to remember this. I realize it's easier said than done though. Tug at the heart strings of the average citizen, get it to where the average citizen loves and cares about you and your enemies will find you that much more of a harder target.

The only catch here is: your efforts must be sincere. I'm not saying Anna wasn't sincere at all. I think she was a good woman. But what did her work really, truly do for the working class citizen. If she was loved and cherished by the Russian citizens themselves the ones who had her killed would have known this and just may have, just possibly went a different route out of fear of the damage from the public, who, would have been very powerful in numbers.

About your reply to security firms; you are correct in more ways than one! I'm not a believer in fate myself but, I do believe certain individuals were born to do what they do. From a professional sport player to a master artist to a five Olympic gold medalist, these kinds of people were born and thrive in their chosen profession not because it pays well or gives them fame, but because it's what calls out to them and is what they can't live without.

It's the same thing when you speak of a Special Forces soldier, Professional Protective Specialist or what ever you want to call them. It's in their blood and it's what calls them not because of the money, but because it's the only thing they are good at and the only thing that satisfies them professionally. When all the keys line up perfectly it's like magic - even luck takes notice and lends her mighty hand when needed. It's something special!

Mr. Mamchur, I'm not looking for a job or trying to impress anyone. I'm just an anonymous blogger who has a bit of experience fighting the corrupt, evil bastards of the world.

It's not impossible to defeat the ones who ordered the death of Anna. And it's not impossible to protect those who may be next on the list. When all the keys line up – nothing is impossible!

Just my thoughts on this needless, shameful and wasteful murder!

Sincerely,
John

John,

I agree with everything you are saying. The problem of Russians not caring for the murder in my mind is more an issue of church and religion in the state. 70 years of atheism produced a society rather indifferent to sufferings of others. It is changing today, but it will take some time to be really noticeable. This is interesting how one murder echoes in so many different ways and brings up so many issues, both positive (stable stock markets) and negative (the obvious ones).

Yuri

You have a point about the atheism but, I'm a believer in people. For the most part they are honest and decent.

These atheists have children, mothers, fathers and grandparents. They know right from wrong, what is good and what is evil. It may be indifference but I tend to believe it's more of a matter of becoming desensitized to a certain aspect of humanity when corruption is rampant as, like you mention, these things are a common occurrence.

Please don’t take this the wrong way but, I’m not a believer in organized religion. I believe in God and I pray every night to my God but, I’m my own human-being with my own thoughts and desires. I would be willing to bet my life that even though atheism may be there, most still have faith and pray even if it’s in the privacy of their own minds as they lie in bed at night.

It’s not atheism, it’s a matter of being fed up and disgusted with those in power. It’s a matter of feeling helpless to evoke change; a disgruntled almost revengeful attitude.

And yes, it is very interesting how one murder echoes in so many different ways. I had never heard of this Anna before her death. She must have been someone special, for I have seen her named time and time again since. I also agree with what you said about the Western coverage of this matter. If I were the detective assigned this case the last thing I would be looking at would be the obvious.

No need to reply unless you feel compelled. It’s late in my time zone and I’m about to retire to my own dreamland. I’ll say a prayer for Anna as well as for those who had her killed. Thank you for the dialogue.

Good night,

John

John:

Bravo on your point about organized religion.

Personally, I believe more in G-d, as opposed to a set doctrine for honoring that belief.

Having said all this, I in no way disrespect the well meaning followers of any of the major faiths. They're among my best friends.

As human beings, there're good and not so good atheists. The same goes for those professing a belief in G-d.

Many others unjustly die each day. The focus on a select few who meet that fate can at times get perverted.

Anna Politkovskaya was and wasn't a number of things.

Here're some updated links to the previously posted ones at this venue:

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@348.kGPWl70i02l.1@.77480649/5676

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@348.kGPWl70i02l.3@.77480649/5677

http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@348.kGPWl70i02l.5@.77480649/5706

hi all,

1. MURDER is murder

2. Russia and here ..australia...have laws on murder

3. simply put, people go to jail for life, for murder here...

4. MURDER is only committed regularly if the persons who KILL, dont go to jail

5. thats another reason, Andrei Sychev court ongoing,
is at least trying to put someone IN JAIL,
for attempted murder

6. one cannot make pretty words up, willy nilly, to try and hide the truth...any moscow resident would know far better than we do

7. if there are BILLIONAIRE killers, or one dollar killers around

8. they commit murder, they go to jail, and get CLOSED DOWN

much regards JHH

Thanks Michael! I agree with you too.

JHH,

With all due respect it's not that simple. Murder is not Murder at times. Sure there is a black and white, with no grey in between, that is a book of words made into rules and law but, we all know the real world doesn't rotate around black and white issues.

Cops get on the payroll, manufacture evidence and even provide intelligence for the bad guys to commit these murders. Some cops even commit the murders themselves. Murder will be committed regardless of who goes to jail. For every murder at this level there will always be some higher echelon in the shadows pulling the strings of their puppets. These puppet masters will never go to jail.

I don't understand your #6.

Come to think about it, I really don't understand what you were trying to get across at all.

Respectfully,
John

hi all,
and John, sorry I can be hard to understand at times..

basically I was saying that murder is murder....
and which ever way one kills another human being
it is still murder....

I assume you mean when one is at war, it is okay to murder ? it is not....as far as I know.... there is such a thing as self defence....? self defence and murder are two separate things....well here in australia I would say...on the whole I think I am trying to understand... simply put
why... murder is considered ok on a regular basis in russia....

out here... one tries all the legal recourses...and there are many.... and this seems to work on the whole,
if one has problems with others

out here, one can get 4 years jail for breaking and entering, and LIFE for murder

I think that perhaps what I am really trying to say is that there are many different political ideas, and systems, where some do far better for the whole country and its peoples,
than others.....

JHH

From yesterday's Johnson's Russia List, but not posted at Russia Profile, which will post what it feels to be the best of JRL posted material. Note that it did the same with Justin Raimondo's most recent article that appeared at JRL with Ware's. No Moscow Times editing influence?

Subject: A Reporter's Influential Death Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 From: Robert Bruce Ware

Anna Politkovskaya's reporting is of enduring significance for the light it shed on abuses in Chechnya. Yet while her reports were compelling, her untimely death was not the only reason that they were incomplete.

Politkovskaya rarely focused on the other side of her story: the fact that human rights abuses in Chechnya did not begin in 1999, when Russian forces returned to the region. Though she regularly focused on the Chechens who have gone missing under the current Chechen administration, she rarely mentioned that the numbers of the missing were even higher during Chechnya's three years of de facto independence. During those years, the Chechen hostage industry claimed more than 10,000 Chechen victims, according to some accounts.

Politkovskaya was certainly aware of these facts since, unlike many western journalists, her championship of the North Caucasians began long before the second Chechen war. Yet somehow they evaded much of her recent work. While this imbalance dove-tailed with western perceptions of Chechnya, the oversight proved unfortunate for her influence at home. Since most Russians knew that her story was one-sided, her genuinely important revelations were too easily dismissed.

Her murder raised inevitable apprehensions at home, while providing an excuse for another round or Russia bashing in the West. Whether or not he was correct when he suggested that the murder may have been orchestrated by Russia's enemies abroad, President Putin's numerous western critics have now demonstrated the salience of his point.

Nevertheless it should, by all rights, be more difficult for the Kremlin to dismiss the current wave of criticism. This is for one important reason, of which the Kremlin is certainly aware. In the North Caucasus, it is no longer the time of the corrupt ex-Soviet elite, who governed many of the republics in the Yeltsin years. Nor is it any longer the day of their charismatic counterweights, such as Dshokhar Dudaev and Shamil Basaev in Chechnya or Ruslan Aushev in Ingushetia. Rather this is the dawn of the North Caucasian technocrats.

The emergent technocracy is illustrated nowhere better than in Chechnya's neighboring Republic of Dagestan, where Mukhu Aliev was appointed by Putin earlier this year to be the Republic's first president. Though he served for more than a decade as chair of the local parliament, Aliev managed to avoid the factionalism and corruption that undermined Dagestan's nascent democracy. With a doctorate in philosophy and a three-room, Soviet-style apartment, he is seen by most Dagestanis as a principled manager, who is attempting to build a meritocracy while undercutting local corruption.

There are many comparisons between Aliev in Dagestan, and imuraz msurov in North Ossetia. Much like Aliev, Mamsurov was the speaker of the North Ossetian legislature, who was relatively free of political baggage. Already known for his decency, Mamsurov achieved overwhelming popularity when he declined to have his own two children released from the school in Beslan during the 2004 hostage crisis. How, he asked, would he then be able to look his neighbors in the eye? Less than a year later Putin appointed him to lead his republic.

A few months after that, Putin appointed Arsen Kanokov to replace Valeri Kokov as the head of Kabardino-Balkaria. During Kokov's fifteen-year rule, the republic was mired in political corruption and economic stagnation. As a wealthy businessman, Kanokov resembles neither Aliev nor Mamsurov, but he is a step up from his predecessor.

Back in Chechnya, the Kremlin anointed Alu Alkhanov as Chechnya's president prior to the 2004 election that replaced his assassinated predecessor, Akhmed Kadyrov. A former policeman, Alkhanov is respected by most Chechens as a principled, if not particularly powerful, leader. Alkhanov lacks power vis a vis Kadyro'v 30-year-old son, Ramzan, who serves as Chechnya's loyalist premier and leads a militia of several thousand men. The rivalry between Alkhanov and Ramzan illustrates two Weberian ideal types, "bureaucratic" versus "charismatic" authority.

Ramzan has had a role to play because Chechnya's government is too weak to support Alkhanov's bureaucratic approach. Through brute force, Ramzan gets things done, but Ramzan's brutality was a regular target of Politkovskaya's exposés.

Shortly after he rose to power in 2004, it was possible to view Ramzan as a necessary evil. Perhaps his brutality was the only realistic alternative to the brutality of Russian-Chechen warfare, on the one hand, and the brutality of Chechnya's de facto independence on the other. But Politkovskaya never saw the necessity of Ramzan; she just saw the evil.

It is no longer possible to dismiss her point, given the Kremlin's recent bureaucratic appointments in the region. If the Kremlin can support principled bureaucrats in Dagestan and North Ossetia, and something remotely along those lines in Kabardino-Balkaria, then why can't it bolster Alkhanov in Chechnya and nudge Ramzan toward the sidelines? However slowly and painfully, Chechnya has stabilized in the past two years, and it will soon be ready for bureaucrats like Alkhanov.

Western observers might have paid more attention to Putin in 2000, when he tried to explain the complex reasons for Russia's return to Chechnya. But Chechnya has changed since then, and Putin might now pay more attention to western criticism in the aftermath of Politkovskaya's murder. Three days after her murder, Putin denied that Politkovskaya had won much influence in Russia. If so, then one hopes that her death will help to accomplish what she sought to achieve with her life.

Russia Profile has since posted Robert Bruce Ware's article.

Here's a sincerely well written critique of Politkovskaya's work. Maybe Someone can explain to why it's unacceptable in some circles.

http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/2006-236-28.cfm

Anna Politkovskaya and the Self-Defense of Democracy
By Jon Hellevig

The writer is a Finnish lawyer who has lived in Moscow for 15 years. He has written the book Expressions and Interpretations (www.hellevig.ru) discussing Russia's social development from the viewpoint of philosophy and judicial philosophy. He is also the author of several books on the Russian tax and labor law.

The murder of Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya has once again induced a surge of anti-Russianism in Finland. Politicians, so-called researchers and media declare that Russian leaders masterminded the murder. Many people cautiously avoid these direct expressions, while being highly critical of the Russian government. Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja falls somewhere between the two groups, whereas Markku Kivinen from the University of Helsinki affiliated Aleksanteri Institute and MP Heidi Hautala clearly belong to the latter. It is obviously not in the interests of the Russian President to have a well known journalist killed (pointing this out would not be necessary, but for the continuous smear campaign against Russia). Based on information I received from Jukka Mallinen (translator of Politkovskaya's "Putin's Russia" into Finnish), there were no Russian government officials behind the murder. On the other hand, there is reason to put forward an alternative motive, which is quite possible -- that the murder was orchestrated by those wishing to create the kind of public opinion climate to compliment an anti-Russian agenda.

In our culture, we usually honor the memory of the deceased by saying positive things about the departed in times of sorrow. One would like to show the same respect for Politkovskaya as well. But I cannot keep quiet when I see how her memory has been turned into a weapon to hit the Russian people in a manner that hinders Russia's development.

Some are not happy with the opportunities that have been created during Putin's presidency.This includes the chance for many to now actively participate in a democratically run market economy. Upon the Soviet breakup, criminal elements took advantage of the weakness of a young nascent democracy by grabbing and stealing enormous possessions. Putin, courageously challenged the Mafia and oligarchs (often separated through a fine line drawn on water).

Thirsty for "revenge", some of the non-Russian former Soviet states egg on the EU to engage Russia in a confrontational manner They overlook that Russia and the Russian people were the biggest victims of communism. Led by Yeltsin, the Russian people freed themselves from that burden and encouraged this spirit to other former prisoner-countries. Due to Russia's large land mass encompassing troubled regions, Russia unwillingly gets drawn into dirty games. This predicament gets twisted into the claim of a revanchist Russia bullying small, defenseless others.

Given the uncritical fanfare accorded to Politkovskaya's work as a journalist, there is reason to critically review it. A case in point is her book "Putin's Russia", (published in 2004) which has been translated into several languages.

In this book, she emotionally focuses on peoples' life situations (a style used in Karl Marx's Das Kapital, where he childishly tries to prove his theories of capital through the stories of people's everyday lives). Politkovskaya begins and ends her book with a stated disgust of Putin (as per the English translation of the book, see the Introduction as well as pages 281 and 282). She states her dislike of Putin "because he was a product of the Russian security service" (as if George Bush Sr.'s politics should be condemned on the grounds that he headed the CIA; a prevalent talking point in some circles). According to Politkovskaya, the KGB influenced Putin "does nothing but destroy civil liberties as he has all through his career". No mention is made of Putin's support for the late democratic mayor of St. Petersburg, Anatoly Sobchak. At the end, Politkovskaya states she is disgusted with Putin because there is a war in Chechnya (as if he started it). She adds that in her view, he is a cold, cynical, racist, who is prone to lying (among other references in her book, see pages 281-82). Politkovskaya does not like the fact that this evil (in her view) man goes to Easter church services (pages 279 and 280).

Politkovskaya attacks Putin for being a "racist" and then like a racist claims that Silvio Berlusconi as a European has better powers of thinking than Russia's Putin (page 279).

Politkovskaya's likening of Putin with Stalin (page 272) shows that neither the journalist nor her prize givers and back patters have any sense of proportion. But one should remember that the purpose of this investigative journalist was to tell us about her feelings on why she abhors another person.

Politkovskaya displayed no perception that all phenomena in society are based on social practices and that only a positive historical process can promote the wellbeing of society. She does not understand that the basis of a working society was totally destroyed in the Soviet Union and that it was not until 1990 that the building of a democracy, market economy and society at large was started from the ruins of the bankrupt Soviet estate. Through glimpses of peoples' life experiences, she brings up some of Russia's problems, such as the undeveloped democracy, criminality, corruption, the poor condition of the army, low pensions and the state of the judicial system. In her state of disgust, Politkovskaya did not analyze what has been done about these matters during Putin's presidency. Nor does she consider the impact of decisions taken under him. Instead, she writes of human tragedies like the suicide of an alcoholic and about a former friend of hers; a busy businesswoman who went into politics to grab more riches, etc. She tries to convince the reader that Putin is to be blamed for a tragic suicide and a woman politician's ruthlessness (who succeeded remarkably well). Politkovskaya's idea was that from day one of his presidency, Putin alone had to make sure that all in Russia was right. Much like if President Tarja Halonen was responsible for the unemployment in Kainuu and drunks at Hakaniemi Market Square.

In one of her brief accounts, Politkovskaya mentions an 80 year old man, who had been found frozen to a floor in Irkutsk, Siberia (page 194). The journalist says the emergency services refused to come to the rescue claiming "the man was so old he could obviously not be all right". According to Politkovskaya - Putin should have stopped this. She seemingly suggests that it was brave of her to have said as much.

Politkovskaya writes of an impoverished former navy captain Aleksey Dikinin (page 198). His fate is attributed to Putin (with Politkovskaya having the guts to say so). She does not even think of referencing Soviet Communism as the main culprit Mind you, her chronicling of Dikinin was in the first year of Putin's presidency (2000). Since then, there has been an enormous increase in pensions. I have personally experienced this in the Russian hinterland. At the beginning of this year, I visited a friend of mine in the native village of Azikeevo, situated in the Ural Mountains region of Bashkortostan. A road connection to Azikeevo was opened about ten years ago, at approximately the same time that gas and heating systems were installed. A couple of years ago, phone connections were completed to every cottage. Without any prompting, my friend's 70 year old uncle repeatedly lauded how good living conditions had become. In a healthy spirit, this senior citizen regularly takes care of horses, cows and chickens. Some retired teachers in that village (a married couple) said that pensions were now so good that they could support their children's families (there is a photo report of this trip at www.hellevig.ru).

Politkovskaya was far from expert on government, military and legal matters. Topics which Putin has frequently discussed in an openly candid way.

Politkovskaya's writing on terrorist dramas sugarcoated the actions of terrorists. Through their deeds, terrorists try to hurt the society they hit. By killing innocent people, they create public discussion designed to fault the leaders of the target country (reference how terrorists sparked a change in government in Spain). This is incomprehensible logic for a sound person to comment on.

In "Putin's Russia", Politkovskaya blames Putin for government corruption in Ekaterinburg. There is no acknowledgement on her part that this political environment was evident BEFORE Putin became president. Putin proposed to correct this by having the political center play a more active role with the outlying regions. Instead of lauding this action (a popular one with most Russians), Politkovksaya wrongly concluded it to be anti-democratic. A stance overlooking how the political center was more democratic than the most "independent" of Russian regions. The regional governors operated under the cloak of democracy. They were chosen through "democratic" elections, as in the Soviet Union (in another connection, Politkovskaya remembered how people were elected in the Soviet Union, page 271). A colorful bunch of criminals and adventurers appointed themselves as governors under the shelter of formal electing and voting procedures. This view is acknowledged by the European Commissioner for Human Rights (see: Alvaro Gil-Robles, Report on Visits to the Russian Federation, 2004). In these conditions, anyone wanting to be governor had himself elected by using threats, bribes, blackmail and bodily harm. Putin's proposal to strip the regional governors of their mandates made a positive impression. Democracy is now practiced in much more civilized circumstances, based on a democratic competition between the regional parliament and the president. To have the courage to rise against a powerful elite and to succeed is an unbelievably big achievement. In the West, this reality is not fully appreciated, let alone understood. Instead, Politkovskaya's blinded disgust with Putin is uncritically accepted as the gospel.

Politkovskaya characterizes Putin as seeking "revenge" against the oligarchs. Her characterization of the Mikhail Khordorkovsky owned and operated YUKOS is flawed (pages 275, 276, 284 and 285). She erroneously claims that this business entity "operated in daylight" and "gave five percent of its profits to charity". YUKOS flagrantly violated tax laws and other legislation through (among other things) criminal tax paradise companies (I reference a Sitra Report: Suuri Maa Pitka Kvartaali, Big Country Long Quartile, 2005).

Furthermore, Politkovskaya claims that Khodorkovsky got into trouble with Putin because he supported "the liberal opposition". She omits the fact that Khodorkovsky supported the Communist Party. The romantic side of her activity would be lost if this point was made. She did not state the ulterior motive behind Khodorkovsky's political activism. The "democratic" parties sold him top positions in electoral candidate lists to enable him to place his own trusted candidates. This was how he planned to carry through a takeover of the Russian Duma. But is this the kind of democracy desired by Politkovskaya, Tuomioja and Hautala? In Finland, this advocacy would be considered treason.

A number of anti-Putin analysts admit that former YUKOS CEO Mikhail Khodorkovsky had committed crimes, while rhetorically asking "but why Khodorkovsky, just Khodorkovsky"? The answer is clear: others were quicker to realize that their criminal activities in Russia were over. A society cannot be built on revenge. Putin offered an invitation for all to move forward. Russia loses if there is a large scale injustice. This does not mean that democracy has no right to self-defense. This is Putin's Russia, and mine.

I just read Jon Hellevig'article. Since I am not even sure this comment will be approved, I will go straight to the point: Mr Hellevig obviously has a post-card conception of contemporary Russia. No serious, respectable specialist on Russian Politics would ever dare to make such naive, irrelevant statements.

PS. I am not defending Mrs Politovskaya's position. My comment had just the purpose of pointing out Mr Hellevig's (surrealistic) description of an emerging democratic Russia.

Carlos:

As a comparison, you've proven nothing to the contrary.

Hellevig's piece is a spot on slam dunk on the PC - BS that has been shamefully spewed in English language mass media circles.

It is all so easy to blame President Putin without any fear of retribution because deep down I think that most people feel he is not the sort of monster one would normally be afraid of criticising. But there is one who is to be feared. Someone who has an unquenchable thirst for wealth and power and who has devoted his life to his revenge against Putin.

This is none other than Boris Berezovsky.

This man is very likely associated with the deaths of both Anna Politkovskaya and Alexander Litvinenko. His only agenda is to pit the West against Putin since it was Putin who bravely decided to take action against Boris's grand theft and contributed bankrupcy of Russia in the 90's. Boris is proving to be a master of flying false colors. His financing of the October revolution in the Ukraine is a clear indicator there is nothing he won't do to thwart relations with Russia and Putin.

hi, i am a law student from bangaldesh.
anna will be alive. she is a pheonemenon, she is history. she shows us the path.

her death is only the death of his body, but this death prooves she had the capability to shake the vested interest groups.

as a law student i will keep her name in my heart and will write on her and will encourage my fellow students to be her.it is better to die like anna being a symbol of ideal lawyer and human rights activist than being alive like a lawyer -liar term .
hat;s off to anna .

Mr. Hellevig's has attempted to critically analyse Politkovskaya's work "Putin's Russia" but his efforts have backfired. Now I really want to read this woman's work. I found it comical that Hellevig calls Marx "chidish" & Politkovskaya "emotional" & reproaches the pair of them for writing about individual "ordinary" people. I did not find Hellevig's writing very clear either.