Polonium 210

Newspaper reports suggest it is hard to come by and traceable - not so sure, the dose might have been as small as a millicurie or two, and you could buy that for about half a million dollars - it is $690 per microcurie retail.

This from Steinn Sigurðsson who would seem to know what he's talking about. At first glance I thought -- hey, maybe you shouldn't be able to buy this stuff from a website that proudly proclaims "No NRC license required! All our radioactive isotopes are legal to purchase & own by the general public." But then again, sure you could kill someone by buying $500 grand worth of Polonium 210 and using it as a poison but why would you? Put this together with the Yuschenko incident and it certainly looks like someone in Russian intelligence circles really enjoys showing off their ability to find obscure ways of trying to kill people.

I have very little to add to your MSM coverage of this story except to note that I've seen Boris Berezovsky's name tossed around in relation to this in a manner that seems to imply he's some sort of heroic dissident rather than, say, a leading member of the circle of horribly corrupt gangsters who robbed Russia blind during the Yeltsin years and just happen to have been run out of town by the new gang.

Comments

it certainly looks like someone in Russian intelligence circles really enjoys showing off their ability to find obscure ways of trying to kill people.

It is also worth noting that since the IAEA has previously determined that Iran has obtained Polonium-210, and since this discovery has been accompanied since it was made by rumors of Russian involvement, then the whole purpose of this episode might be to scare people about Iran, its nuclear program and the potential for state terrorism of the Polonium kind - and simultaneously to discredit the Russian diplomatic attempt to chart a middle course between Iran and the US. Now ... who would want to do that?

I observe also that this assassination has been followed up with a mini Polonium poisoning scare, with many news reports about the chances of Polonium-210 contamination and about its dastardly effects, and with people rushing to hospitals claiming to be symptomatic. It is a bit reminiscent of the anthrax crisis. (Remember that?)

Posted by Dan Kervick | November 29, 2006 1:25 AM

I've seen Boris Berezovsky's name tossed around in relation to this in a manner that seems to imply he's some sort of heroic dissident rather than, say, a leading member of the circle of horribly corrupt gangsters who robbed Russia blind during the Yeltsin years and just happen to have been run out of town by the new gang.

It's worse than that. These guys are not just gangsters - they are extremely well-connected and politically influential gangsters. Perhaps an analogy is the role of organized crime in Cuba, pre and post revolution, and the relationships among those crime figures and foreign governments - but with the stakes in Russia 20 or 30 times greater. We should all look into who Berezovsky's friends are. Who are the people who have been defending these poor, sweet misundertood oligarchs, writing their propaganda, taking their cash and working on their legal teams? (One was Litvinenko.)

Watching the complete failure of most of the mainstream media to cover this aspect of Russian affairs in conection with the Litivenko affair over the past few days, I have been wondering whether they are just incompetent or are in the tank. However, maybe they are just scared of ending up like this guy.

Posted by Dan Kervick | November 29, 2006 1:43 AM

This article had some interesting theories (one that it was Berezovsky) but the other that it was rogue elements in the FSB trying to pressure Putin into a third term. The thinking is things could get awkward for some of these ex-KGB apparatchiks (awkward = "matter of life in death"). If they bind Putin down with blood, they can make being an ex-leader dangerous for him and force him to stay on.

Posted by Jacob | November 29, 2006 2:29 AM

I suspect that the most salient fact about Boris Beresovsky, from the point of view of media organisations, is that he's well-placed to sue you for libel in English courts. That isn't fun.

Posted by Jasper Milvain | November 29, 2006 3:44 AM

I'm no longer a big fan of double bankshot theories on political murders -- e.g., "Well, sure, it _looks_ like Mr. Big had his rival rubbed out, but, obviously, that was just a set-up to make Mr. Big look bad. Mr. Big couldn't possibly be that stupid, could he?"

I used to think like that, like Wallace Shawn in "The Princess Bride." That's what I thought when Marcos's arch-rival Aquino was gunned down at the Manila Airport in the 1980s -- "Marcos couldn't be _that_ stupid." In reality, however, yes, powerful men can be that stupid.

Posted by Steve Sailer | November 29, 2006 3:48 AM

A Russian friend of mine in London is a believer in the 'Berezhovsky did it' theory on the sensible grounds that Putin doubtlessly wanted this dissident dead, but would prefer to have been spared the inevitable and predictable PR disaster. His men would have gone for a slightly less showy method. Berezhovsky on the other hand would love the FSB to have a mound of bad press tipped over them. Still the Steve Sailer objection to this theory is cogent and will probably stand

Posted by John | November 29, 2006 4:14 AM

In reality, however, yes, powerful men can be that stupid.

Undoubtedly true. But then again the "double bank shot" scenarios often happen as well. Every important country has a secret service that can perform these operations. The Lavon affair is one example.

I don't know what the deal is with this latest poisoning, but the Yuschenko "assassination attempt" was pure baloney:

...General Smeshko left the meeting with Mr. Kuchma and headed to a S.B.U. safe house in Kiev for a secret liaison with Mr. Yushchenko, the opposition leader. The meeting had self-evident ironies. Mr. Yushchenko, nearly incapacitated after being poisoned by dioxin in the summer, a crime that remains unsolved, had publicly linked the poisoning to a meeting with General Smeshko and another S.B.U. general.

Now he wanted another talk...Two agreements were struck, both sides say. Mr. Yushchenko requested more security for his campaign. General Smeshko agreed to provide him eight specialists from the elite Alpha counterterrorism unit - a highly unusual step - and to arrange former S.B.U. members to guard the campaign.

So Yushchenko suspects Smeshko of poisoning him, and then trusts the general enough to put him in charge of Yushchenko's security? Bull.

Posted by Carl | November 29, 2006 5:21 AM

It is a bit reminiscent of the anthrax crisis. (Remember that?)

Dan, I have no idea what you are talking about. Remember, there have been no terrorist attacks on the US since 9/11. I repeat, there have been no terrorist attacks on the US since 9/11. So I don't know where you're getting this 'anthrax' thing from.

Posted by ajay | November 29, 2006 5:23 AM

There's an interesting symmetry between the 'double bank shot' conspiracy theory about Litvinenko and the apartment block bombings conspiracy theory which Litvinenko himself promoted. The former is that someone else killed Litvinenko to make Putin look bad. The latter is that Putin (and/or Yeltsin) blew up the apartment blocks in order to make the Chechens look really bad (so as to provide a pretext for war). What's strange is that the chances seem pretty good that one of these theories is true. Suppose that the apartment blocks conspiracy is false: then Putin has much less reason to kill Litvinenko, so it becomes more likely that someone else had Litvinenko killed to try to discredit Putin. And suppose that Putin really did kill Litvinenko: that seems to give credence to the apartment blocks conspiracy. So we may be stuck believing one conspiracy theory or another. My bet would be on the apartment blocks one if forced to choose, because there is actually some evidence in its favour (but then again, that would be a bigger and more shocking conspiracy).

Posted by daniel elstein | November 29, 2006 6:31 AM

Berezovsky isn't just 'part of the old gang'. He was instrumental in bringing Putin to power, having been important (perhaps the most important) in convincing Yeltsin first to bring him to Moscow from Petersburg and then to make him Primeminister, and perhaps in encouraging Yeltsin to transfer power to him. It was pretty clear at the time that Berezovsky thought he could control Putin and lost the gamble and that this is why he was driven out. And the idea that Putin was behind the apartment bombings has more than a bit to it, especially once you look in to the 'fake' bomb in Ryazan, one that was clearly set by the FSB but that didn't work. Litvinenko could write a nice book about this since he worked for Berezovsky, who was likely one of the people behind the apartment bombings (he was clearly doing other things to help start the second Chechan war), while he (Berezovky) was part of the group running Russia and trying to control Putin. (I assume Putin was in on it.) This says nothing about who killed Litvinenko, though. (It does help show how stupid the British libel laws are, though.)

Posted by Matt | November 29, 2006 8:48 AM

While the alternative conspiracy theories are fascinating and all, I'm really not quite sure why anyone would doubt that the Kremlin had a hand in this. Putin is an old KGB hand, and they were not widely noted for their tendency to handle people with kid gloves. Furthermore, the person who benefits when Putin's critics are assassinated is Putin.

While I agree with Steve Sailer's contention that powerful men can be quite stupid, this wave of assassinations really isn't stupid at all. The victim is apparently associated with an unpopular political opponent of Putin's. Western leaders have given clear signals to Putin that he can get away with murder, and the Russians are unlikely to hold Putin accountable since he's busily seizing control of the media and intimidating people into silence. There is no obvious downside for Putin.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to Dan Kervick's view that Russia needed a leader like Putin in 1999. If one is going to live under mafia rule, it's undoubtedly better to have one civic-minded don than to have a turf war among dozens of corrupt thugs who hang out with Chicago School economists. It's a shame to see the dream of liberal democracy in Russia slip away, but (as in Iraq) it's become apparent that mere stability and rule of law are necessary preconditions for a successful democratic experiment. Both conditions were lacking in Russia in 1999.

That said, poisoning foreign politicians and whacking dissidents on British turf are actions that are way over the line, no matter what your opinion is of the victim.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | November 29, 2006 9:55 AM

It's far from clear that stability or the rule of law have settled in in Russia under Putin, though. The laws are enforced arbitrarily against state opponents and not at all in other cases, are widely ignored by the government at all levels, and so on. Nationalism has risen dangerously with a mixture of tacit and explicit support from Putin and others in the government. The economy is becomming more and more state controled, both explicitly and less so (the largest construction company in Moscow (and so the country) for example, one that is the biggest mover in re-building Moscow and also in tearing down historic sites (some of which mysteriously catch fire) in violation of the law, is owned by the wife of Yuri Lushkov, the mayor of Moscow. Unsurprisingly her company has no trouble with the law or doing whatever it wants, since it is essentially an arm of the Moscow city government.) Authority has been asserted in many ways by the Putin government but it cannot, in any plausible sense of the term, but called the rule of law.

Posted by Matt | November 29, 2006 10:10 AM

Matt Taibbi provides a good deal of background here: http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/44846/

Posted by ahebg | November 29, 2006 11:44 AM

Expensive, true, but there's not many poisons that are completely undetectable until after you're guaranteed to have consumed an irretrievably fatal dose, no? I mean with arsenic, etc., there's always early symptoms, and emetics and other medical interventions that could give you some chance of survival. By the time you detected the symptoms of polonium, death is unavoidable providing the (extremely minute) quantity that has already been deposited in your organs and marrow was sufficient.

I mean, there's all kind of poisons out there, but this one's definitely more effective than, say, ricin. How much does a fatal dose of that go for, these days?

Posted by BruceR | November 29, 2006 2:00 PM

It's clear that Berezovsky did it.

The first suspicion would lie with Putin, since it was known he wanted Litvinenko dead. But thoughtful people would think "Why would Putin kill Litvinenko when everyone would suspect him, perhaps Berezovsky killed him in hopes of implicating Putin." Yet still more thoughtful people would think that Putin actually did kill him, knowing that thoughtful people would think Putin would never kill an obvious enemy & think Berezovsky.

I also suspect AIPAC had a role in this.

Posted by DRR | November 29, 2006 2:37 PM

This from Steinn Sigurðsson who would seem to know what he's talking about. At first glance I thought -- hey, maybe you shouldn't be able to buy this stuff from a website that proudly proclaims "No NRC license required! All our radioactive isotopes are legal to purchase & own by the general public."

See also their disclaimer

Not half a million dollars, but 15 million. And you would have to figure out how to deal with the 15,000 needles that the stuff is plated on...

Posted by BJ | November 29, 2006 3:37 PM

I always wondered about the Yushchenko poisoning. He would have to have been able to taste the dioxin (it was supposed to be in some soup). Why did he keep it eating it in light of a terrible taste? And you'd need quite a lot of it. And it's not very effective. Very slow acting and the chloracne makes diagnosis obvious--and it's easy to counter-act.

Posted by Jose Padilla | November 29, 2006 4:14 PM

Carl, Smeshko was always on the Orange side, he was one of the guys who intervened when one of the Interior Forces generals decided to mobilize troops to break up the Orange revolution protests. Yushchenko has never accused Smeshko of being personally involved, he was merely at the dinner the night Yushchenko took ill (though he did suspect others at the dinner). Since then most people believe the poisoning had to have happened sometime weeks before that dinner, because of the nature of Dioxin, the toxin that was responsible for Yushchenko's condition. It takes a while to take effect.

Posted by Sommer | November 29, 2006 4:19 PM

It turns out that the last man to see the victim was a mysterious "Professor Mario Scaramella" from Naples, formerly of Bogota, Colombia, who is some kind of expert on radioactive materials. "Professor Scaramella?" What a great name! This is starting to sound like Shakespeare, Arthur Conan-Doyle, John Buchan, and Ian Fleming collaborated on the most hackneyed thriller imaginable.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2006/261106Sushi.htm

Posted by Steve Sailer | November 29, 2006 7:07 PM

DRR: "It's clear that Berezovsky did it. The first suspicion would lie with Putin, since it was known he wanted Litvinenko dead. But thoughtful people would think "Why would Putin kill Litvinenko when everyone would suspect him, perhaps Berezovsky killed him in hopes of implicating Putin." Yet still more thoughtful people would think that Putin actually did kill him, knowing that thoughtful people would think Putin would never kill an obvious enemy & think Berezovsky."

Quite. A clever man would believe it was Berezovsky, because only a great fool would believe that Putin did it. But Putin would have known we were not great fools - he would have counted on it! - so clearly Putin did it after all.

-Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

-Wait till I get started? Where was I?

-Piccadilly.

-Yes. And Piccadilly, as we all know, is full of hedge funds, who are used to not being trusted, as you are not trusted by me, so I can clearly not eat the sushi in front of me. Wait! What in the world can that be?

Posted by ajay | November 30, 2006 7:36 AM

I agree that Berezovsky "did the deed". I don't think the Kremlin would have made such a mess of things. No one can cover their tracks like the Russians in Mother Russia. I hope that this is not swept under the proverbial carpet but I fear it will certainly happen. What is the connection with the good old United States of America? His best friend works for the Federal people in D.C.? The plot thickens.

Posted by Perry Lawrence | December 11, 2006 3:37 PM