First, on the Nemtsov murder, there is no sane way to claim that Nemtsov
represented any threat whatsoever to Putin with the latter's 87% popularity
rating. Who can deny that Nemtsov was thoroughly discredited by his role in the
Yeltsin administration when Western speculators destroyed Russia, or that his
support was minuscule when he was killed?
The prominent French economist and Russia expert Jacques Sapir posted an
analysis today titled,
"Who Framed Vladimir Putin?" It
shows, on the one hand, that Nemtsov's killing was a professional murder, like a
contract murder, but, on the other hand, that it was staged in the open air,
virtually under the windows of the Kremlin, in such a way as to greatly increase
the risk to the killers and to the whole operation,— in order to frame Vladimir
Putin.
Among other considerations, Sapir notes that the shooting from behind implies
that one has perfectly identified the target, and the modus operandi implies an
expertise only compatible with a contract murder; the risk of missing or
inflicting non-lethal wounds is high. Note the large number of shots, eight or
more, the lack of a coup-de-grace shot, and the fact that Nemtsov's companion
was unharmed.
"From this point of view one wonders why not wait till Nemtsov
returned home? The classic type of contract killing occurs in a spot where one
is sure to find the victim: the stairwell of the apartment building, or as the
victim exits a restaurant. The very choice of crime-scene could indicate a
demonstrative intention, such as to implicate Putin in the murder. In any case,
it is evident that the assassins took risks that seem to indicate a political
intention. All this makes one think of a set-up, a staging.
"Why would these people kill Nemtsov more or less directly under the
windows of the Kremlin?"
This point made by Sapir is confirmed by the dispatch from Moscow of an
unnamed, but credible correspondent of former U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet
Union Jack Matlock, who wrote similarly,
"The Kremlin Walls and the Bekhlimishevskaya Tower frame the scene
with St. Basil's to the right. It is simply difficult to imagine a location that
could include more symbols of the Russian state. It looks like a frame-up."
Sapir continues,
"How would these people have gathered knowledge about Nemtsov's
behaviour after he left the restaurant with a girl on his arm? Again, a killing
at Nemtsov's home would have made much more sense. And, if the girl is linked to
the killing (even not directly and not in the intent), that would have
necessitated deep connections in Ukraine."
(Do these have any connection to Assistant Secretary of State Victoria
Nuland's connections to Ukrainian Nazis, one might ask?)
Sapir totally discredits the notion that this could have been a murder
directed by Putin, writing:
"The media, in France and in countries of the West, have put forth the
idea of a murder commanded by the Kremlin, or by movements close to Kremlin. We
will say right now that the first hypothesis is not coherent with the crime
scene. Further, it is hard to see what interest the Russian government would
have to have one of the opposition killed, certainly a well-known opponent, but
one who had fallen into the political background. When Vladimir Peskov,
spokesman for President Putin, said that Nemtsov did not represent any danger
nor any threat for power, it was perfectly true. And supposing the murder of
Nemtsov was an attempt to frighten the others in opposition, it would have been
a lot simpler to hit him at home. The idea of an involvement direct or indirect
of the Russian government thus appears highly improbable."
After equally discrediting the notion that Nemtsov was killed by right-wing
Russian nationalists, Sapir says,
"Vladimir Putin and the Russian government have immediately advanced
the hypothesis of a provocation. It is easy to see the appeal for them of this
hypothesis. But one must have the honesty to say that's what it is. Putin is
actually the target of a deep and widespread hate campaign in the Western media.
The killing of someone supposed to be an opponent is just something journalists
could not resist. They moved on accusing him of all sins on the earth. The fact
that Nemtsov was strongly linked to policies which failed in the 90s, and led
Russia to the brink of collapse has been forgotten. The fact that Nemtsov has
chosen to advise Orange Revolution Ukrainian governments since 2004 has been
forgotten. A lot of people, and not just in Russia, could want to see Nemtsov
dead. But all this has been forgotten and the rallying word is now 'Putin is a
killer,' or 'Putin has inspired Nemtsov's killer.' It is just a shame, a dirty
shame. But this is consistent with the war Western media are waging against
Russia and Putin."
Now, Obama has put himself in the middle of this frameup with a March 2
statement to Reuters which characterized Nemtsov's murder as
"an indication of a climate at least inside of Russia in which civil
society, independent journalists, people trying to communicate on the Internet,
have felt increasingly threatened, constrained. And increasingly the only
information that the Russian public is able to get is through state-controlled
media outlets."
"This means Obama has to go," LaRouche said.
"Because our defense is getting Obama dumped. And that
would save the United States. Because the President of the United States did not
deny it; he did not withhold such an allegation, he allowed it to go through.
Here we are, the world is now facing a threat of thermonuclear war, global
thermonuclear war, which has never happened before in the history of mankind;
and you sit back there as the President of the United States and you condone the
spread of a false report of this nature, and you have tacitly committed yourself
to being thrown out of office. And that's what we should do. So the dumb
son-of-a-bitch knew one thing: what he was doing. And for that, for his allowing
that, condoning that, and not going out there and disowning it, he is guilty.
"Want to save the United States? Want to save civilization? That's what you
do."
No comments:
Post a Comment