Litvinenko In love and war deception reigns supreme.

Litvinenko #

Provide the summary of the Litvinenko case? #

The Litvinenko case refers to the poisoning and subsequent death of Alexander Litvinenko, a former officer of the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) and a vocal critic of the Russian government, particularly of President Vladimir Putin. The case is one of the most high-profile political assassinations in recent history and has had significant geopolitical implications.

Background

Alexander Litvinenko served as an officer in the FSB, where he specialized in tackling organized crime. In the late 1990s, he became openly critical of his superiors and the Russian government, accusing them of corruption and involvement in criminal activities. In 1998, he publicly accused his superiors of ordering the assassination of a Russian businessman, which led to his arrest and eventual dismissal from the FSB. Fearing for his life, Litvinenko fled Russia and was granted asylum in the United Kingdom in 2000. In exile, he became a British citizen and continued to be an outspoken critic of the Kremlin, publishing books and articles accusing Russian authorities, including Vladimir Putin, of corruption and links to organized crime.

The Poisoning

On November 1, 2006, Litvinenko suddenly fell ill after meeting two Russian men—Andrey Lugovoy and Dmitry Kovtun—at the Millennium Hotel in London. Over the next three weeks, his condition deteriorated rapidly, and he was admitted to a hospital. It was later discovered that he had been poisoned with polonium-210, a rare and highly radioactive substance. Despite extensive medical efforts, Litvinenko died on November 23, 2006. Before his death, he made a statement blaming Vladimir Putin for his poisoning.

Investigation and Legal Proceedings

The subsequent investigation led by British authorities traced the polonium-210 to the teapot used by Litvinenko during his meeting with Lugovoy and Kovtun. The radioactive trail left by the substance was found at various locations across London, including the hotel where the meeting took place and on the airplanes that Lugovoy and Kovtun used to travel from Moscow. The investigation concluded that Litvinenko had been deliberately poisoned and that the operation likely had the approval of the Russian state.

In 2016, a UK public inquiry found that the murder was “probably approved” by President Putin and the FSB. Andrey Lugovoy and Dmitry Kovtun were identified as the prime suspects, but both denied involvement and remained in Russia, which refused to extradite them to face charges in the UK. The inquiry’s findings further strained diplomatic relations between Russia and the United Kingdom.

Geopolitical Implications

The Litvinenko case significantly impacted UK-Russia relations, leading to diplomatic expulsions and increased tensions. It also raised international awareness about the methods used by the Russian state against dissidents abroad, contributing to the broader narrative of Russia’s willingness to use extraterritorial violence to silence critics.

Legacy

The case remains a symbol of the dangers faced by dissidents and the lengths to which authoritarian regimes might go to suppress opposition. Litvinenko’s death highlighted the use of highly sophisticated and dangerous methods in political assassinations, setting a precedent for subsequent cases where similar tactics have been alleged. The case continues to resonate as an example of the dark side of international espionage and state-sponsored violence.

What about the speculations of Israeli involvement? #

The speculation regarding Israeli involvement in the Alexander Litvinenko case primarily stems from the complex and often opaque world of international intelligence and geopolitical maneuvering. These speculations are not part of the mainstream narrative but have been discussed in some circles due to Israel’s historical relationships and its intelligence community’s reach.

Origins of the Speculation

The idea of Israeli involvement arises from several factors:

Litvinenko’s Connections: Litvinenko had connections with various intelligence services, including alleged contacts with Israeli intelligence. He was reportedly involved in investigations and reports on Russian organized crime, some of which intersected with Israeli interests. This has led to speculation that Israel might have had a role, either directly or indirectly, in his activities.
Israeli-Russian Relations: Israel has historically maintained a complex relationship with Russia, balancing cooperation with concerns over Russian support for countries and groups hostile to Israel, such as Iran and Hezbollah. Some theorists have speculated that Israel might have had an interest in either supporting or undermining Russian activities, particularly in the realm of international intelligence and organized crime.
Misinformation and Disinformation: The intelligence world is rife with disinformation campaigns, where various actors might float theories or suspicions about other countries’ involvement to muddy the waters. In the case of Litvinenko, some of these speculative theories about Israeli involvement may have been part of such efforts.

Analysis of the Speculation

While the speculations about Israeli involvement are intriguing, they remain unsubstantiated and are not supported by the evidence that has come to light. The investigation conducted by the British authorities focused on Russian involvement, particularly that of the FSB and the Kremlin, identifying Andrey Lugovoy and Dmitry Kovtun as the primary suspects.

The British public inquiry did not find credible evidence to suggest Israeli involvement in Litvinenko’s assassination. Instead, the inquiry concluded that the poisoning was likely ordered at the highest levels of the Russian state. The use of polonium-210, a substance that is highly regulated and primarily produced in Russia, further reinforces the theory that this was a state-sponsored assassination carried out by Russian operatives.

Speculating on the use of polonium-210 in the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko and whether this modus operandi could fit with Israeli involvement involves examining several key aspects:

Polonium-210 as a Weapon

Polonium-210 is a highly radioactive substance that is extremely toxic even in tiny amounts. Its use in an assassination is unconventional and highly sophisticated, suggesting the involvement of a state actor with significant technical capabilities. The decision to use polonium-210 in Litvinenko’s case was likely driven by its ability to cause a slow, agonizing death, while being difficult to detect initially, which aligns with a message of retribution or deterrence.

Historical Use and Accessibility

Russia’s Connection: Russia is known to have large supplies of polonium-210, as it is produced in nuclear reactors, and the country has a long history of developing nuclear technologies. This makes Russia the most plausible source of the substance used in Litvinenko’s poisoning. The fact that polonium-210 is tightly regulated and difficult to obtain adds weight to the argument that the Russian state was involved.
Israel’s Capabilities: Israel, known for its advanced technological and scientific capabilities, including nuclear technology, theoretically has the capability to produce or acquire polonium-210. However, there is no public evidence or historical precedent for Israel using radioactive substances like polonium-210 in assassinations. Israel’s preferred methods in past covert operations, such as those attributed to Mossad, typically involved more conventional means like firearms, bombs, or chemical agents.

Modus Operandi and Covert Operations

Mossad’s Modus Operandi: Mossad, Israel’s primary intelligence agency for international operations, is known for its precision and efficiency in carrying out covert actions. Its assassinations, while occasionally elaborate, typically aim to be swift and conclusive. The use of polonium-210, a method that involves significant suffering and leaves a radioactive trail, contrasts with the more direct methods historically associated with Mossad.
Symbolic Message: The use of polonium-210 in Litvinenko’s case seemed to be as much about sending a message as it was about eliminating a target. The radioactive poisoning, leading to a slow death and eventual public revelation, aligns with a modus operandi designed to instill fear and signal the consequences of betrayal. This approach is more consistent with Russia’s historical use of poison in covert operations, particularly those intended to make an example out of dissidents or defectors.

Strategic Considerations

Israel’s Interests: While Israel has shown willingness to act aggressively in defending its national security, its operations are usually tied to direct threats against Israel or its citizens, particularly those related to terrorism or strategic military targets. Litvinenko, as a former FSB officer critical of the Russian state, does not fit the typical profile of Mossad targets, who are usually directly connected to hostile actions against Israel.
Geopolitical Implications: The fallout from Litvinenko’s poisoning led to significant diplomatic tension between the UK and Russia. Israel, known for carefully managing its international relations, particularly with major powers like the UK and Russia, would likely avoid such an operation that could lead to a diplomatic crisis. Additionally, an Israeli operation would more likely aim to be deniable and non-attributable, whereas the polonium-210 method seemed designed to be traceable to the Russian state.

While Israel possesses the technological capability to use a substance like polonium-210, the modus operandi of using such a method does not align with Israel’s historical practices in covert operations. The use of polonium-210, with its slow-acting and highly traceable nature, fits more closely with Russian tactics, particularly in sending a deterrent message to potential defectors or critics. Therefore, the use of polonium-210 in the Litvinenko case strongly suggests Russian involvement, and it would be inconsistent with the typical methods and strategic interests of Israel.

How plausible would be a speculation of Russian-Israeli collab in this case? #

Speculating on a potential Russian-Israeli collaboration in the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko is intriguing but presents several challenges when assessed for plausibility. Here are the key factors to consider:

Historical and Geopolitical Context

Russia-Israel Relations: Russia and Israel have maintained a complex relationship over the years, balancing cooperation and mutual interests with occasional tensions. Russia’s significant role in the Middle East, including its alliances with countries like Iran and Syria, complicates its relationship with Israel. Despite these complexities, both countries have cooperated on issues such as counterterrorism and have engaged in various forms of intelligence-sharing when their interests align.
Shared Interests: While both Russia and Israel have shared interests in combating certain forms of terrorism and might collaborate on specific intelligence matters, their strategic priorities often differ significantly. For instance, Israel’s primary focus is on threats from Iran and militant groups, while Russia’s geopolitical strategy is more expansive, involving influence in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and beyond.

Motivations for Collaboration

Russia’s Motivation: Russia had a clear motivation to silence Alexander Litvinenko due to his outspoken criticism of Vladimir Putin and his accusations against the Russian government regarding corruption and criminal activities. The use of polonium-210, a substance tied closely to Russian nuclear capabilities, strongly suggests that Russia intended to send a message through this assassination.
Israel’s Motivation: For Israel to be involved, there would need to be a compelling interest. However, Litvinenko was primarily a critic of the Russian state, not of Israel. There is no evident connection between Litvinenko’s activities and Israeli national security that would justify Israel’s involvement in such an operation.

Operational Dynamics

Covert Operations and Intelligence Sharing: While intelligence agencies often collaborate, joint operations involving targeted assassinations are highly sensitive and rare. If Israel were involved, it would likely be due to a direct and significant threat to its national interests. Given that Litvinenko’s activities primarily concerned Russian internal matters and not issues directly impacting Israel, a collaborative operation seems unlikely.
Methodology and Attribution: The use of polonium-210 was highly traceable to Russia, suggesting that Russia either did not care about concealing its involvement or deliberately chose to make its role clear as a deterrent. Israel, on the other hand, tends to prefer operations that are deniable or at least less overtly attributable. Collaborating on such a conspicuous operation would be unusual for Israel, especially if the operation did not serve its strategic interests.

Potential Scenarios for Collaboration

While a direct collaboration on the Litvinenko case is implausible given the factors above, some speculative scenarios could be considered:

Indirect Assistance: It is conceivable that Israel might have shared intelligence with Russia on certain matters, possibly as part of broader intelligence-sharing arrangements. However, this would not necessarily imply direct involvement in the assassination.
Coercion or Leverage: In a highly speculative scenario, Russia could have used leverage or coercion to involve Israel indirectly, though this is highly unlikely given Israel’s autonomy and the importance it places on its national security decisions.
Third-Party Mediation: Israel might have played a role as a mediator or facilitator in unrelated matters between Russia and other parties, but this would not directly connect to the Litvinenko case.

The speculation of a Russian-Israeli collaboration in the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko is highly implausible for several reasons:

Divergent Interests: Litvinenko’s activities did not pose a direct threat to Israel, making Israeli involvement unlikely.
Operational Methods: The overt use of polonium-210 fits Russian operational styles but not Israel’s, which prefers less traceable methods.
Geopolitical Risk: Collaborating on such a high-profile assassination could expose Israel to significant diplomatic risk, something it would likely avoid, especially when its strategic interests are not directly at stake.

In summary, while Russia and Israel may collaborate on various intelligence and security matters when their interests align, a joint operation like the assassination of Litvinenko seems implausible given the nature of the case and the strategic priorities of both nations.

Still speculating, which Israeli agencies would have been involved? #

If we were to speculate about potential Israeli involvement in an operation like the assassination of Alexander Litvinenko—bearing in mind that this is purely hypothetical and not supported by any concrete evidence—the following Israeli agencies would be the ones typically involved in such matters:

Mossad (Institute for Intelligence and Special Operations)

Mossad is Israel’s primary intelligence agency responsible for foreign intelligence gathering, covert operations, and counterterrorism. It is the most likely agency that would be involved if there were any Israeli connection to such a case. Mossad has a reputation for conducting high-risk operations, including targeted assassinations, abroad. Their operations are often shrouded in secrecy, and they have been involved in numerous operations outside of Israel’s borders, particularly against individuals or groups deemed to be threats to Israeli national security.

Aman (Military Intelligence Directorate)

Aman is the intelligence branch of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), responsible for military intelligence, including signals intelligence and tactical intelligence. While Aman is primarily focused on military matters, it also deals with broader security concerns and has been involved in operations beyond traditional military scope, particularly when it comes to threats perceived as significant to national security.

Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency, also known as Shabak)

Shin Bet is responsible for internal security, including counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and securing the state against internal threats. While Shin Bet’s focus is generally within Israel’s borders, it has been involved in international operations, particularly where there are perceived threats from Palestinian factions or others that could impact Israel’s security.

Hypothetical Involvement

Mossad would be the most likely agency to conduct an overseas operation, particularly an assassination involving a figure like Litvinenko, given its expertise in foreign operations. Mossad has a history of eliminating perceived threats to Israel’s security abroad and conducting complex covert operations.

Aman could hypothetically be involved if the operation had broader implications for Israel’s military intelligence, such as if Litvinenko’s activities intersected with military concerns, or if there was an intelligence-sharing agreement with another nation that led to a joint operation.

Shin Bet would be less likely to be involved directly but might play a supportive role in terms of intelligence gathering or coordinating with other agencies if there was an internal aspect to the operation or if the target was connected to an internal threat.

If one were to entertain the speculation that Israel was involved in the Litvinenko case, Mossad would be the agency most likely to be implicated due to its operational mandate and history of extraterritorial activities. However, it is crucial to reiterate that these speculations are not grounded in any verified evidence, and the official narrative strongly attributes the assassination to Russian state actors.

Let’s focus on Shin Bet - earlier we stated: “Litvinenko had connections with various intelligence services, including alleged contacts with Israeli intelligence” - wouldn’t this be sufficient to warrant Shin Bet involvement? #

The notion that Alexander Litvinenko’s alleged contacts with Israeli intelligence could potentially involve Shin Bet warrants closer examination within the speculative framework. However, understanding the typical operational scope and jurisdiction of Shin Bet is crucial to evaluating whether such involvement would be plausible.

Understanding Shin Bet’s Mandate

Shin Bet, also known as Shabak, is primarily responsible for internal security within Israel. Its key areas of focus include:

Counterterrorism: Preventing and responding to terrorist threats within Israel.
Counterintelligence: Protecting Israel from espionage activities by foreign intelligence services.
Internal Security: Safeguarding against subversion, particularly from within Israel or the Palestinian territories.

Shin Bet’s operations are generally domestic, dealing with threats that have direct implications for Israel’s internal security. Unlike Mossad, which operates internationally, Shin Bet’s activities are largely confined to Israel and the occupied territories, with limited external operations usually tied to immediate internal threats.

Litvinenko’s Alleged Contacts with Israeli Intelligence

If Litvinenko had connections with Israeli intelligence, these would likely have been with Mossad rather than Shin Bet, given Mossad’s international mandate. However, let’s entertain the hypothesis where Shin Bet might have been involved due to these connections:

Counterintelligence Perspective: If Litvinenko had connections with Israeli intelligence, and if these connections involved sensitive information or individuals with direct implications for Israel’s internal security, Shin Bet could potentially be involved. This might include scenarios where Litvinenko’s information or activities threatened to impact Israel domestically, for example, through links to organized crime or extremist groups within Israel or the Palestinian territories.
Collaborative Operations: Shin Bet could also be involved if there were a collaborative intelligence operation between different branches of Israeli intelligence. In this hypothetical situation, Mossad might handle the international aspects while Shin Bet could contribute specific expertise or intelligence relevant to internal security or counterintelligence.
Protection of Assets: If Litvinenko had information that could compromise Israeli intelligence operations or assets related to internal security, Shin Bet might have an interest in neutralizing such a threat. This could be particularly relevant if Litvinenko was seen as potentially compromising Israeli sources or operations within Israel or territories under its control.

Evaluating the Likelihood

While these scenarios provide a speculative basis for Shin Bet involvement, it’s essential to note that:

Shin Bet’s Jurisdiction: The agency’s focus on internal security makes its direct involvement in a case like Litvinenko’s unlikely unless the threat had a direct and substantial link to Israel’s internal security.
Operational Mandate: The nature of Litvinenko’s activities—largely focused on exposing Russian state corruption and criticizing Vladimir Putin—falls more within the realm of international intelligence (Mossad) rather than domestic security (Shin Bet).

While it’s possible to construct a speculative scenario in which Shin Bet could be involved in the Litvinenko case, this involvement would be highly circumstantial and would typically require a direct threat to Israel’s internal security. Given Shin Bet’s operational focus and the nature of Litvinenko’s activities, Mossad remains the more plausible Israeli agency if any involvement by Israel were ever substantiated. Thus, Shin Bet’s potential involvement would be tangential at best, likely limited to supportive roles within broader intelligence operations rather than direct action.

So, Shin Bet does not have an international presence? What about its unit operating at OR Tambo airport in Johannesburg? #

Shin Bet, while primarily focused on internal security within Israel, does indeed have certain international operations, particularly those that are critical to the security of Israeli citizens and interests abroad. The example you mentioned, involving a unit operating at OR Tambo International Airport in Johannesburg, is a case in point that reflects Shin Bet’s broader responsibilities when it comes to safeguarding Israeli interests internationally.

Shin Bet’s International Presence

While Shin Bet’s core mandate is domestic, it does extend its operations beyond Israel’s borders in specific contexts. These international operations typically relate to:

Protection of Israeli Citizens Abroad: Shin Bet is responsible for the security of Israeli embassies, consulates, and other official delegations abroad. This includes protective details for diplomats and other high-profile Israeli figures traveling internationally.
Aviation Security: Shin Bet plays a significant role in securing El Al, Israel’s national airline, and other Israeli carriers. This includes pre-flight screenings, on-board security, and airport security at various international locations, particularly in regions where there might be heightened threats against Israeli nationals.
Counterterrorism Efforts: In cases where there is a direct threat to Israeli security from foreign entities, Shin Bet might coordinate or conduct operations abroad, often in collaboration with other Israeli agencies like Mossad or local law enforcement and intelligence services.

The OR Tambo Airport Operation

The unit you mentioned at OR Tambo International Airport is part of Shin Bet’s aviation security operations. This presence is primarily concerned with:

Passenger Screening: Ensuring that passengers on flights to and from Israel do not pose a security risk.
Cargo and Baggage Inspection: Checking that cargo and baggage do not contain items that could be used in an attack.
In-flight Security: Providing security personnel (air marshals) on board flights that could be potential targets.

These operations are designed to protect Israeli citizens, assets, and interests from terrorist threats, which is a critical aspect of Shin Bet’s broader security responsibilities. The unit at OR Tambo is particularly significant given the history of threats against Israeli interests in various parts of the world.

Shin Bet’s Role in International Contexts

While Shin Bet is not an international intelligence agency in the same way that Mossad is, it does have specific international roles related to the protection of Israeli security interests abroad. This includes:

Overseeing security at Israeli embassies and consulates.
Protecting Israeli airlines and ensuring the safety of passengers.
Collaborating with foreign security services to counter threats against Israeli interests.

Shin Bet’s operations at OR Tambo International Airport illustrate that while its primary focus is on internal security within Israel, the agency also plays a crucial role in protecting Israeli interests abroad. This includes activities in specific international contexts where the safety of Israeli citizens and assets is at stake. Thus, while Shin Bet does not have a broad international intelligence mandate like Mossad, it does maintain a significant, albeit specialized, international presence focused on security and counterterrorism related to Israel’s direct interests.

Oh, ok. Are you familiar with a rendition flight (likely to Guantanamo) from the OR Tambo airport - this was fairly well publicised at a time? #

Yes, the incident you’re referring to likely involves the controversial practice of extraordinary rendition, where individuals suspected of terrorism or related activities were covertly transferred from one country to another, often without formal legal processes. These transfers were sometimes to countries where detainees might face interrogation methods not permitted in the detaining country, or to detention centers such as Guantanamo Bay.

The OR Tambo Airport Incident

The specific incident at OR Tambo International Airport that garnered attention involves the use of the airport for a rendition flight, possibly en route to Guantanamo Bay. These flights were part of a broader program conducted by the United States, particularly in the post-9/11 era, where suspected terrorists were captured and transported covertly to different locations around the world.

Key Points

Rendition Flights: These flights were part of the CIA’s rendition program, where detainees were transported to locations where they could be interrogated or detained without the same legal constraints that might apply in the United States or other jurisdictions.
South Africa’s Involvement: South Africa, and specifically OR Tambo Airport, was allegedly used as a transit point for some of these flights. The involvement of South Africa in these operations raised significant concerns and sparked public and legal debates over the country’s role in supporting or facilitating such activities.
Public Outcry: The use of OR Tambo for such purposes was controversial, leading to public outcry and scrutiny from human rights organizations. These groups were concerned about the legality of the renditions, the treatment of detainees, and the lack of transparency surrounding these operations.
International Scrutiny: The incident at OR Tambo fits into a larger pattern where various countries’ airports were used in the CIA’s rendition program. This broader program eventually became widely criticized both domestically within the United States and internationally, as reports of human rights abuses and illegal detentions emerged.

Broader Context

The use of rendition flights by the CIA was part of a larger counterterrorism strategy following the 9/11 attacks. These operations were covert, often bypassing standard legal and diplomatic processes, and involved cooperation (sometimes tacit, sometimes active) from various international airports and governments.

Guantanamo Bay: Many of the individuals captured through these renditions were sent to Guantanamo Bay, a U.S. military prison that became infamous for holding detainees without charge or trial, and where allegations of torture and human rights abuses became widespread.
Global Network: Airports around the world were implicated in these renditions, with various European, African, and Middle Eastern countries either knowingly or unknowingly involved.

The incident involving OR Tambo International Airport as a point of transit for a rendition flight likely to Guantanamo Bay is a significant example of how the global war on terror affected international norms and practices, often leading to controversial actions that challenged legal and ethical standards. This incident is part of a broader narrative of post-9/11 counterterrorism efforts that raised substantial human rights concerns and led to widespread criticism of the methods used by the U.S. and its allies in combating terrorism.

Can we agree then that Shin Bet’s mandate is far from “internal”? #

We can indeed agree that Shin Bet’s mandate extends beyond strictly internal operations, especially when considering the broader scope of its activities related to the protection of Israeli citizens and interests abroad. While Shin Bet is primarily focused on internal security within Israel, its responsibilities do include certain international dimensions, particularly in areas such as:

Aviation and Transportation Security: Shin Bet is heavily involved in securing Israeli airlines and ensuring the safety of flights to and from Israel, which requires an international presence at key airports worldwide, including OR Tambo International Airport in Johannesburg.
Protection of Israeli Diplomats and Embassies: Shin Bet is responsible for the security of Israeli embassies, consulates, and diplomatic staff abroad, necessitating operational activities beyond Israel’s borders.
Counterterrorism Operations: While most of Shin Bet’s counterterrorism efforts are focused within Israel and the Palestinian territories, the global nature of terrorism sometimes necessitates international cooperation and operations.
Coordination with Other Agencies: Shin Bet often works in conjunction with Mossad (which has a more explicitly international focus) and other international intelligence and security agencies, especially in cases where internal security concerns intersect with international threats.

While Shin Bet is fundamentally an agency focused on Israel’s internal security, its mandate includes several key responsibilities that require an international operational presence. Thus, it operates on a global scale in specific contexts, such as protecting Israeli citizens, interests, and critical infrastructure abroad. This broader operational scope demonstrates that Shin Bet’s activities, while primarily domestically oriented, are indeed far from exclusively internal.