Showing posts with label kremlin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label kremlin. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 3, 2023

Russia's Botched False Flag Drone Attack on the Kremlin

                                    

According to Russian sources, Ukraine attacked the Kremlin last night with two drones, allegedly targeting Putin's residence.  There are abundant videos of the attack on Twitter, Telegram, and other media platforms.

There are equally abundant reasons to doubt the story.  To begin, Russia has provided no evidence for the claim that the drones were Ukrainian or that Putin was the target.

At least one drone appears in videos to have hit the roof of a Kremlin building, doing minor damage.  What could Ukraine have hoped to accomplish with such a small explosive device--significant destruction or the assassination of Putin would have been highly improbable?

Equally improbable is the idea that Ukraine would have carried out the attack to signal to Russia the risk of a potentially more significant attack or to disrupt Russia's May 9 military celebrations.  What would be the point of an advance warning?  As with Ukraine's attack on the Kerch bridge or recent attacks on Crimean fuel depots, Ukraine does not do small demonstration threats.  Ukraine is conducting a war of self-preservation against a Russian invasion of its territory.

A curious feature of the drone attack, visible in the videos, is that there were two men on the roof at the time the building was hit.

What were they doing there?  Some commentators suggest these are security guards attempting to defend against the drone attack.  It seems, however, an ineffective way to counter a drone attack.  And, why are they on that building and not on other roofs visible in the videos?  Why didn't the drones activate the anti-aircraft missile batteries that are all over Moscow?  A possible and more likely alternative explanation is that these were security guards or firefighters pre-positioned on that roof to put out the fire from the staged drone attack before the fire did serious damage.  No FSB officer wants to be responsible for burning down the Kremlin.

If not Ukraine, then who?  Small provocations or diversions do suit the Kremlin's playbook.  The Kremlin often carries out small, containable acts of aggression to rally Russians around the flag as a prelude to greater domestic oppression or new attacks on foreign targets.

Most likely this false flag is to ensure that the Russian people do not question their leadership during the sensitive period of the May 9 military celebrations, many of which have been canceled this year--Kremlin and provincial leaders claim due to the security risk of Ukrainian terrorist attacks.

Expect more of the same rhetoric from the Kremlin in the coming days, as well as additional domestic oppression and, if that isn't enough to rally Russians, expect more serious Kremlin false-flag provocations.

Friday, January 31, 2020

The Donut Holes in the Fake Ukraine Collusion Story


No alt text provided for this image

In the murder mystery Knives Out, Daniel Craig is devilishly entertaining as renowned detective Benoit Blanc as he describes "donut holes within donut holes" of overlooked evidence before connecting the facts about who murdered renowned novelist Harlan Thrombey. It's an excellent metaphor for Russia’s war on the West, of which the fake Ukraine collusion story is a part. As we delve deeper into donut holes within donut holes, we know more about Russia’s campaign of disinformation to discredit Ukraine and the West, even if sometimes the facts before us distract us from the underlying truth.

In a January 17 article in the Washington Post, Melinda Haring, Deputy Director of the Eurasia Center at the Atlantic Council, took credit for calling out eight months earlier the fake Ukraine collusion story--pushed at the time by John Solomon, an opinion contributor at The Hill--that Yuriy Lutsenko, then Prosecutor General of Ukraine, "was opening a criminal investigation into an alleged attempt by a top Ukrainian law enforcement official to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election." That fake story, Haring writes, "set off the ridiculous “Ukraine collusion” narrative that Trump loyalists have been pushing for 10 months” (Solomon is now a Fox News commentator; meanwhile, his contributions in The Hill are being reviewed by The Hill for false and misleading content).

In response, Alexandra Chalupa, a Ukrainian-American activist, wrote in a post on Facebook that the Ukraine collusion story did not originate with the Lutsenko story in 2019 but with the Kremlin in 2016 in comments made by Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson, Maria Zakharov, who accused Ukraine of interfering in the US election rather than Russia (probably to deflect from the discovery of the "black ledger" that detailed millions of dollars in payments to Paul Manafort).

What was unknown then was how the story would take off with Trump-associated conspiracy promoters, especially Rudolph Giuliani, who promoted the Ukraine collusion story to undermine the impeachment of Trump by drawing attention to Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, who serves on the board of a Ukrainian company. Haring writes that she was wrong at the time to believe that the Ukraine collusion story had originated in Kyiv with President Poroshenko. With what we know now, she writes, the fake story originated in Washington with Giuliani. Chalupa--who was accused in another fake story by Solomon of seeking dirt on Trump through the Ukrainian embassy in Washington--points her finger at the Kremlin but directs her ire at Trump, Giuliani, and Manafort. Yet, what is staring us in the face is that nothing originates in Washington.

The new focus on Giuliani, for example, is incomplete. It is true that Giuliani pushed the Ukraine collusion story, along with his associates, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, who channeled Russian money to Republican politicians and worked to discredit US Ambassador Yovanovich, as well as Republican point men, such as Devin Nunes (R-CA) and Linsey Graham (R-SC), who repeat the same disinformation. But we are staring at the mask, not the face, of disinformation.

Malign actors, such as Trump, Giuliani, Manafort, Solomon, Fox News, and Republican apologists for Russia, draw our attention to Washington but distract us from the reality that at heart this is a part of Russia’s war on the West. Haring and Chalupa are not wrong that actors in Washington have an outsized influence in promoting the fake Ukraine collusion story, but the facts in front of us should not distract us from what should be our focus. As Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA) remarked in the Senate impeachment hearings last week, “the Ukraine conspiracy is brought to you by the Kremlin.” If we don't always know who is pushing the pen, we know it is the Kremlin that is writing the story.

Despite his malign influence, Trump is nothing in the Ukraine conspiracy but a whip wielded by Putin. The Kremlin created the fake story, promotes it through disinformation, and uses Putin’s leverage over Trump, through enticement or threat, to advance Russia’s interest.

Despite his Machiavellian contortions, Giuliani would be nothing without the backing from Ukrainian oligarch, Dimitri Firtash, for whom Giuliani’s associate, Lev Parnas, was working as a conduit for Russian money to Republican purses and as an agent to regain control of the Ukrainian gas transit business upon which Firtash first made his illicit money, which in turn leads to Russian organized crime and to Putin directly. New details about Firtash’s role continue to emerge in a steady drip from Parnas’ disclosures.

Similarly, Manafort is nothing without Russian oligarch, Oleg Deripaska, and corrupt Ukrainian intermediaries that paid Manafort to promote Russia’s interest in Ukraine and undermine Ukraine in the US.

In spite of the day-to-day, moment-to-moment distraction of new facts, the focus needs to remain on the principal suspect in the story. The evidence shows that all donut holes point to Russia.

Thursday, March 17, 2016

The Unaccountable Death of Kremlin Insider, Mikhail Lesin

Photo Credit: thetimes.co.uk

DC police seem oddly confused about the death in a hotel room in Washington, DC, in November of prominent Kremlin insider, Mikhail Lesin.  Police have provided little detail other than the death was related to, a result of, or unrelated to extensive blunt force trauma over large parts of his body.  The cause of death, “undetermined”.  An investigation--such as it is--is ongoing.

Mikhail Lesin was Putin’s press minister (a post as Orwellian as you might guess) and Putin aide who helped shape Putin’s macho political image to appeal to the Russian electorate.  Lesin built the English language news service Russia Today (RT) and used it to serve the propaganda needs of the Kremlin.  Known as the “Bulldozer”, he aggressively went after independent news services critical of the Kremlin and closed them down.

Although he worked much of his career as a civil servant, Lesin was immensely wealthy.  He bought $28m in real estate in Los Angeles and owned a US$50m mega-yacht News.com/au.  He was also reported to have property in Europe and the British Virgin Islands.  As with many improbably wealthy Russians residing in the West, the origins of Lesin’s immense wealth was unexplained.

The circumstances of Lesin’s death are equally poorly understood.  What is known is that Lesin was found dead in his hotel room at the Dupont Circle Hotel shortly before noon on November 5, 2015.  DC police and the DC Medical Examiner briefly reported four months later on March 10 that Lesin’s cause of death was “blunt force injuries of the head” and that he also suffered “blunt force injuries of the neck, torso, upper extremities and lower extremities.”  However, the DC Medical Examiner also states that the manner of death is “undetermined”; in other words, they don’t know how he got those injuries.  DC police have said that their investigation is still open but they have provided no additional details.

News reports are as short on facts as the DC Medical Examiner.

An article in the Washington Post newspaper can best be described as a mélange of isolated facts and speculation.  The Washington Post reports that police claim Lesin showed up at the Four Seasons hotel drunk one night in early November and was turned away from the bar.  He is then said to have checked out of the Four Seasons, where he had been staying, and checked into the Dupont Circle Hotel, where he was found dead on November 5th.  Only The Washington Post seems to be aware that Lesin stayed at the Four Seasons.  No other news service has reported this.  If true, though, it undermines speculation that Lesin was staying at the modest Dupont Circle Hotel in order to keep a low profile.

The Washington Post does not explore why Lesin checked out of the Four Seasons hotel or why he chose the Dupont Circle Hotel to check into.  There are any number of higher end hotels closer to the Four Seasons.

The Washington Post doesn’t explore why the Dupont Circle hotel would check in a guest so drunk he was tossed out of the Four Seasons bar, or how Lesin managed to get to Dupont Circle in his condition. 

The Washington Post reports police speculation that Lesin may have been injured in a brawl or was hit by a car, but does not explore how then Lesin’s condition did not attract the attention of the Dupont Circle Hotel front desk when he checked in.  The Dupont Circle Hotel’s discretion must be exemplary.

The brawl theory seems a red herring, though.  The neighborhoods around the Four Seasons and Dupont Circle, where most embassies are located, are upscale and heavily policed.  A serious brawl would have attracted immediate attention.  The streets are also heavily traveled.  Someone getting hit by a car would also attract immediate attention.  According to police, they just don’t know.  The New York Times reports that Lesin arrived at the Dupont Circle Hotel “disheveled” but without apparent injuries, leaving one to wonder if Lesin didn’t acquire his extensive injuries after arriving at the hotel.

The Washington Post goes on to say that a Russian television station reported that Lesin had been with friends before his death.  How his friends disappeared so completely or, if there had been a fight or a car accident, why they were not there to help him with his injuries is not explored.

The Washington Post reports that a certain long-term friend of Lesin’s in Russia, Sergey Vasiliev, believes Lesin died from heavy drinking, which is what Vasiliev says he was told by the Russian Foreign Ministry.  This is the same Foreign Ministry that is complaining that they do not have any information and are demanding to be briefed by US authorities.  The BBC reports that the Russian embassy in Washington told them it only became aware of Lesin’s injuries when the DC medical examiner’s report was released.  The BBC reports that the Russian embassy press secretary criticized the lack of communication by US authorities, “saying Russia had made repeated requests for updates on the investigation but very few facts had been given.” 

A number of news sources report an unspecified long-term illness, inferring that the illness may have had something to do with Lesin’s death.  The BBC quotes the head of Russian media regulator, Rosepechat, as saying that Lesin had had spinal surgery but was in good health.  The inference seems a highly doubtful explanation for Lesin’s death.

The only sensible comment out of Russia seems to be a BBC quote from Lente.ru from a Russian forensic expert that Lesin’s injuries “were consistent with a severe beating, not an accident or the result of convulsions”.

The Washington Post reports that the same Vasiliev claimed that on November 4 a hotel guard at Dupont Circle checked on Lesin because he had failed to come out of his room for a long time.  However, according to The Washington Post, Lesin had only just checked in, so he could hardly have been there for a long time.  Vasiliev claims Lesin was found dead the next morning by the hotel maid, although The Washington Post can’t say because the hotel declined to comment when asked by them.

Vasiliev also claimed that Lesin had had breakdowns and drinking bouts in the past and had sometimes fallen and injured himself.  Who is Sergey Vasiliev?  Take your pick.  There are many on the web, though none are an obvious candidate.  The Washington Post does not provide enough information to identify Sergey Vasiliev.  [NB; subsequent news reports identify Sergey Vasiliev as CEO of VI Group, a Moscow advertising media company.  However, assertions by the improbably well-informed Vasiliev beg corroboration.)

Did the Kremlin kill Lesin?  The Moscow Times reports that Lesin had had a falling out with another Kremlin insider, Yuri Kovalchuk, a major shareholder of Gazprom Media, where Lesin most recently worked.  Reportedly Lesin owed Kovalchuk a large sum of money that he did not intend to pay back.   TheDailyBeast (and TheDailyBeast2) reports that Lesin owed money to “some of the most powerful men in Russian media and finance.”

If the Kremlin is involved though, it is loosing its touch.  This murder will be tough for the Kremlin to pin on rogue Chechens or accidental poisoning by rare radioactive isotope that the victim had lying around the house, as the Kremlin has claimed about other Russians who fell foul of Putin and died in unusual circumstances.  Blunt force trauma lacks finesse and is kind of hard to explain away.  All one can say is that the mortality rate among not only Kremlin critics but also Kremlin supporters is high.

The police are oddly reticent to call Lesin’s beating a crime.  Even if it were an ordinary drunken bar fight, possibly with friends who were supposedly accompanying Lesin, he is dead, and that is still at least manslaughter.  The only reason to tread carefully is if those who beat Lesin were powerful men (really, no pun intended) or connected to the Russian embassy and had diplomatic immunity; without compelling evidence, even to make the accusation could escalate to a major diplomatic confrontation.  That the Russian embassy in DC feigns complete ignorance while some in Russia share detailed information, suggests that the Kremlin wishes to distance itself from Lesin’s death or someone is engaged in obfuscating the truth.  But that is all just speculation on my part.

In an otherwise fantastical article, the Pro Russia News service, helpfully posts images of the original death notice for Lesin issued on November 7, 2015, and the Chief Medical Examiner’s statement on March 10, which contain curious errors.  PRN notes the seemingly hastily prepared nature of the March 10 notice that misspelled the title of the Chief Communications Officer, had no date, and did not provide the names of the Chief Medical Officer or the Chief of Police in whose names it was issued.  The New York Times reports that the “medical examiner’s office did not explain the timing of its announcement, nor why the findings took so long. Officials there had said as recently as Wednesday that it would not imminently release its findings, only to reverse course the next day.”  The rest of the PRN article is complete nonsense. 

There are other anomalies.  Lesin was discovered dead around mid-day on November 5.  Within hours Russian news services were reporting his death and that, according to family members, he had died of a heart attack.  That the family may have been informed of his death so quickly seems possible, but why Russian news services?  And on what basis did the family believe Lesin had died from a heart attack?  Is the connection that Lesin’s daughter works for the US bureau of Russia Today (RT), the news service that her father had set up?

Lesin’s family is surprisingly quiet.  His son, Anton Lessine, is a financier and film producer in Los Angeles.  Lesin’s daughter, Yekaterina Lessina (or Ekaterina Lesina) also lives in Los Angeles.  Both live far beyond their incomes in houses that were purchased by their father.  Lesin is said to have provided tens of millions of dollars to fund his son’s business interests and may have been involved in the business himself (Margarita Simonyan, RT editor in Moscow, claims Lesin invited her to come to Hollywood to write screen plays and he would act as her producer, Radio Free Europe).  Business Insider.

One reason to be quiet is that, as direct beneficiaries of their father’s alleged corruption, they may be subject to criminal charges and penalties also, such as confiscation of their properties, threatening the pampered lifestyle of both children.  Despite a lack of evidence from the US Justice Department of an active investigation, TheDailyBeast reports, “it was all but certain that he [Lesin] was being pursued by US law enforcement” and “the FBI had enough evidence to consider opening a case.”  Dicey stuff for recipients of allegedly ill-gotten gains.

VirtualGlobeTrotting.com provides a tidy snapshot of the former civil servant and his children’s privileged lifestyle:

Ekaterina Lesina is the daughter of powerful Russian media mogul Mikhail Lesin, who is one of Vladimir Putin's top advisers and the former Kremlin media chief.

In summer 2014, a scandal arose when an otherwise mundane lawsuit revealed that Lesin had secretly purchased three multi-million dollar mansions in Los Angeles (one for himself, one for his son Anton Lessine, and one for Ekaterina) at a cost of nearly $30 million. He and his family also purchased at least 8 luxury vehicles, at a cost of more than $1 million, including a $250k Bentley and a $300k Ferrari.

It was also revealed that Lisin had invested tens of millions of dollars through anonymous corporations into the production of Hollywood blockbusters, including the Brad Pitt thriller "The Fury".

Following the emergence of these details, Mississippi Senator Roger Wicker called for the Department of Justice to investigate whether Lesin's money was being illegally laundered in the US and/or was generated via government corruption.

The original lawsuit was the result of two former nannies suing Carole Lessine (Ekaterina's sister-in-law) over wrongful termination and abuse.

Ekaterina's house is located in the exclusive gated community of Mulholland Estates and was purchased for $5.6 million. Her brother's mansion in Brentwood and her father's estate in nearby Beverly Park are also featured on this site.


The theory that Lesin was in Washington to cut a deal with the US seems though to be largely based on his staying at the low profile Dupont Circle Hotel.  However, The Washington Post’s claim that he was actually staying first at the very high profile Four Seasons pretty much blows that theory out of the water.  In any case, The Washington Post also reports that Lesin was in town to attend a charity function honoring Pyotr Aven, a Russian billionaire and philanthropist for which he had paid $10,000 for a dinner ticket, not a good way to keep a low profile.

In some sense, the Kremlin turning on its own people, if true, is comforting.  It means less attention on others.  The Kremlin is showing strains, and Putin’s affection for Stalin extends to Stalin’s methods and climate of paranoia.  Those still in the Kremlin’s favor need to be careful.  It is so easy to fall out of Putin’s good will.  Might Vladimir Yakunin, former head of Russian Railways, or Herman Gref, CEO and Chair of Sberbank, Russia’s largest bank, who have spoken out recently about problems in Russia, be next?  Or, Arkady Rotenburg, if that bridge to Crimea doesn’t work out?  In good stead today doesn’t mean waking up in good stead tomorrow—or waking up at all.  It just takes a twitch to fall out of line with Putin, also a Stalin characteristic.

What should concern Americans is the work of the DC police and the medical examiner.  So far, they appear either evasive or ineffectual.  Lack of progress leaves the impression that Russian oligarchs are treated as “hands-off,” which everywhere else has emboldened their criminal behavior.  A body is a body.  It was either homicide or manslaughter.  What it is not is just those madcap Russians having fun on holiday.

A rogue Russia reaching out to murder its citizens in the United States and other countries, as well as conducting subversive acts including military aggression is a threat to everyone.  It has been months since Mikhail Lesin’s death but the DC police have only now released a brief, inconclusive description of what they know.  The case echoes the British government’s treatment of the Litvinenko murder, which was investigated only after Litvinenko’s wife get a court order for a public inquiry.


Not only are the DC police less than impressive in pursuing and making public the essential facts of Lesin’s death, US law enforcement appears derelict in pursuing obvious instances of money laundering by Russian citizens and their families, including Lesin, who establish themselves in legitimate enterprises in the US to “launder” criminal gains, which only facilitates the dangerous conduct of a rogue state with an unstable leadership that is capable of far greater harm.

Dirk Mattheisen is a writer and blogger on political economy with a focus on European affairs.  He is also an independent consultant on institutional governance of international economic and financial institutions.  Dirk Mattheisen is a former Assistant Corporate Secretary of The World Bank Group.

Friday, February 12, 2016

Lessons From the Kremlin Murders



The British public inquiry into the murder of Russian whistleblower, Alexander Litvinenko, (Litvinenko Inquiry) has thrown up some interesting Kremlin insights.

The most dramatic insight is the number of Kremlin critics murdered by exotic poisons and other means.  That the Kremlin is accused of murdering critics of President Putin is not new, but the Litvinenko inquiry provides a breathtaking summary of the number and manner of the killings.  John Le Carré couldn’t write this stuff.

The inquiry lists at least 13 murders, and there are numerous more.  The victims die from gunshot, such as Anna Politovskaya, crusading journalist, and Boris Nemtsov, opposition leader; or from poisons of various kinds, such as Ibn Khattab, Islamist guerrilla leader, killed with a poison letter, or Alexander Perepilichny, businessman and whistleblower, who may have died from ingesting a rare poison flower; or from radioactive materials, such as Roman Tsepov, one time associate of Putin, who died from an unknown material, and, of course, Alexander Litvinenko who died from ingesting polonium 210 while drinking tea with two Russian agents at the Millennium Hotel in London.  The list goes on.

The inquiry observes,

“These cases suggest that in the years prior to Mr. Litvinenko’s death, the Russian State may have been involved in the assassination of Mr. Putin’s critics; they suggest that those who were seeking to uncover the truth about the 1999 apartment bombings may have been targeted, and that living overseas may not have provided complete protection. Lastly, these cases suggest that the Russian State may have sponsored attacks against its opponents using poisons, including radioactive poisons.”

Since Mr. Litvinenko’s death in 2006 the number of unsolved murders has only grown.

The inquiry is quick to say that much of the evidence for Kremlin involvement is circumstantial, as many of these murders are unsolved.  However, given that the victims were all critics of Putin and the large number of deaths and exotic methods, what are the odds that it is not the Kremlin?  The Litvinenko inquiry points the finger directly at the Kremlin and at Putin personally.

A second, intriguing insight is Putin’s fastidiousness.  Putin may have prepared the way for Litvinenko’s murder and the murders of others by enacting laws that legitimated murder by the FSB at home and abroad.  In 2006, just before the murders of Politovskaya and Litvinenko, Putin signed a Counteraction to Terrorism law that permits the Russian military and “federal security services” (or FSB) to take action against terrorism outside of Russia.  Putin also signed an amendment to a Counteracting Extremist Activity law that one expert witness described as,

“Extravagantly vague, and more than one category allows for unfettered repressive activity by the authorities. The item on the slandering of holders of public office is remarkable for the room it gives to treat any strident critique of the President or other leading officials as extremism.”

There is disagreement about the scope of the laws, but the upshot is that the laws are said to have created an atmosphere where the FSB was free to act without constraint.  In short, the laws gave legal cover to Putin and the FSB to murder critics at home and abroad. 

However, if these murders had been going on for some years already, why pass the laws?  The explanation may be that the inquiry learned that a list of targets had been drawn up in 2006 that included Politovskaya, Litvinenko and others.  This suggests a systematic campaign seemingly directed at critics of the 1999 Moscow bombings and Putin’s second Chechen war, rather than ad hoc or opportunistic killings.  Moreover, the names on the list were prominent expatriates, some living in London.  For such high profile killings, Putin may have felt he needed legal cover.  Or, it may be that, having perfected a regimen of political killings, it was time to tidy up the practice with some authorizing legislation. 

The murders of Putin critics may be immoral, objectively illegal, or contrary to international law, but Putin may have felt the 2006 laws provided adequate cover for a willfully ignorant Russian population and for an international community that is hesitant to out Mr. Putin’s rogue behavior.  One need look no further than Putin’s high popularity ratings in Russia each time he goes rogue or at Britain’s hesitancy to act on the compelling evidence of the Litvinenko inquiry.

 The third insight is that this torturing of the law by Putin to suit base purposes has eroded the basic logic that law serves to establish acceptable and commonly held norms of civil conduct.  Putin has used hastily passed legislation on numerous occasions to cover actions well beyond the reach of normal legal standards, including the annexation of Crimea and invasion of eastern Ukraine.  In Putin’s hands, the law is a tool used to legitimate criminal acts, such as murder, or to deny inconvenient truths, such as the deaths of Russian troops in eastern Ukraine.  Putin even turns the law on its head to suppress opposition to his actions by criminalizing rights guaranteed by the Russian constitution, such as free speech (Chapter 3, Article 29, of the 1993 Constitution). 

The Russian Constitution is a sound document of high principle, that provides “…for the rights and freedoms of man and citizen according to the universally recognized principles and norms of international law and according to the present Constitution.”  Under the Russian constitution, the President is guarantor of these principles.  At the moment, it just doesn’t work that way.

Want to know what Putin will do next? Check his legislative agenda.





Dirk Mattheisen is a writer and blogger on political economy with a focus on European affairs.  He is also an independent consultant on institutional governance of international economic and financial institutions.  Dirk Mattheisen is a former Assistant Corporate Secretary of The World Bank Group.