Marina Litvinenko, the wife of former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko, speaks to the media outside the Royal Courts of Justice, London, where the findings of the inquiry into his death were revealed. ©Philip Toscano/PA Wire/Press Association Images
Sir Robert Owen, the chairman of the enquiry into the assassination of former Russian spy and UK citizen Alexander Litvinenko, has today achieved the singular feat of delivering a verdict that manages to resist certainty, but remain utterly explosive.
And it’s easy to see why. On page 246 of his report, Owen writes that “the FSB operation to kill Mr Litvinenko was probably approved by [Russian President] President [Vladimir] Putin.” The fact that it attributes the assassination partly to personal “antagonism” between Putin and Litvinenko only makes the story even more remarkable.
Though perhaps this is unsurprising. The killing had all the hallmarks of a tacky thriller: a dissident Russian spy–one that, moreover was working for MI6–was killed in London with the use of a radioactive substance (Polonium-210) given to him in a cup of tea. That this murder is now discovered to have emanated from “the very top” is perhaps the only fitting end–dramatically-speaking at least.
It is, however, likely to be only the start of a new drama—this time an overtly political one. If there is another example of a British Government-ordered enquiry that accused the head of another state–let alone a UN Security Council Member—of sanctioning an assassination, then I can’t think of it. The political fallout is likely to be considerable and voluble.
It has already begun. The Russians are, predictably, outraged. "We regret that the purely criminal case was politicised and overshadowed the general atmosphere of bilateral relations"said the Russian Foreign Ministry shortly after the report was published. The Home Secretary, Theresa May, has declared that David Cameron will be raising the issue with Putin at “ the next available opportunity.”
The verdict is troublesome for the Prime Minister. Russia is supposed to be an ally, and a powerful one at that. It is hard to see how Cameron could possibly broach the subject with Putin. I suspect that he won’t. Meanwhile, the Russian Foreign Ministry has also declared that the verdict will “darken” relations with the UK, while Moscow has refused to extradite the two Russian men—Andrei Lugovoi and Dmitry Kovtun— the report accuses of actually killing Litvinenko.
Perhaps the most striking thing about the verdict was that it was given at all. Everyone knew Russia would be held culpable (if not that the verdict would be so personally damming for Putin). As Lugovoi himself said: “there were no surprises.” It has seemingly served only to create a political firestorm for the UK, while achieving little in the way of justice for Litvinenko, apart from giving his wife Marina, who has campaigned hard for this result, some deserved satisfaction.
In this perhaps is the key to understanding the verdict, and its importance. The Russian Foreign Ministry was correct in one sense at least when it claimed the report was “politicised.” Litvinenko was assassinated in 2006, almost a decade ago, but the report into his death was only ordered in 22nd July 2014. Indeed, May had previously rejected calls for an inquiry on the grounds that it might be harmful to UK-Russia relations.
But that was before Russia had annexed Crimea, invaded East Ukraine and enraged both the EU and the United States. The decision to open the enquiry was pointedly announced just five days after the downing of the civilian passenger plane Malaysian flight MH17 by Russian-backed separatists over Eastern Ukraine.
Russian-British relations are now set to become even more strained and to a large degree this is–partly– the point. In ordering the enquiry last year the British government was sending a signal to Putin’s Russia: your behaviour is unacceptable.
Today’s verdict merely served to underline the strength of that message. Through its behaviour in Ukraine (and in Georgia before that) a belligerent and unpredictable Moscow has repeatedly acted like a rogue state, moreover, one that sits on the edge of Europe and is viewed by many EU member states as a threat to the entire continent. Today the British government named it as such, though indirectly.
With both Britain and Russia involved in the fight against ISIS as well as the extensive commercial ties between the two countries, strained relations between them are a political problem. David Cameron will be under considerable pressure to take some kind of action. But the problem is manageable. Moscow won’t break off diplomatic ties and the City will continue to devour Russian money. Business will go on, but London will have sent one more warning signal to a Russian leader that the west increasingly fears.
