When Alexander Litvinenko, Putin critic and self-exiled former Russian FSB agent, died in London on Nov. 23 of radioactive polonium-210 poisoning, talk instantly turned to "Whodunit?" and "Why?" Indeed, all throughout his long illness and undoubtedly painful death that began after falling ill on Nov. 1, speculation ran wild, and it was hard not to feel that we were living out some fabulous Cold War spy flick.
The intrigue! The mystery!
Well, most members of the Western press have succeeded in removing the guesswork for us, as they almost universally accuse one person of masterminding the murder: Russian President Vladimir Putin. In fact, they are so adamant in their assertion that Putin must have done it that Scotland Yard should have a pretty easy task ahead of them.
For most people, it is easy to accept the suggestion that Putin was responsible. It seems like such a "Russian" thing to do. After all, what is Russia? A snowy, anti-democratic country steeped in corruption and mafia types chugging vodka and offing each other in a battle for oil and gas money.
Oh, and bears. Lots of bears.
So this Litvinenko murder fits right in. However, the accusation that Putin is to blame lacks one important element: logic.
It is very possible that we will never know who killed Litvinenko, but Putin's involvement is highly unlikely. He simply does not stand to gain enough. On the contrary, after Litvinenko, Putin is the one suffering the most from this scandal, as commentators ready to point any fingers have called his leadership ability into question.
The fallout from Litvinenko's murder could have been predicted, and any rational leader would see that the benefits do not outweigh the risks. To his credit, Putin has, over the last six years, proved himself to be extremely rational.
He is a logical and methodical man who acts, as a national leader should do, in the interests of Russia and Russians, and of extreme interest right now is Russia's international political clout. This is seen as an incredibly important moment for Russia. In the last year, Putin and his government have pushed very hard for Russia to be recognized as a significant world player, hosting the G8 summit this summer in St. Petersburg and recently signing an agreement with the United States regarding Russian ascension to the WTO. Putin's focus right now is on international affairs, and murdering Litvinenko would put at risk everything so delicately constructed within the last few months.
It could not be worth it. Litvinenko may have been a critic, but certainly not one of any importance. There are many dissenters, some of whom pose a much greater threat than Litvinenko. It does not make sense for the Russian government to bother with someone of Litvinenko's consequence or do it in such a long, drawn-out way that would garner so much attention. The huge onslaught of criticism Putin is facing now from the world is a hundred times greater than the criticism he received from Litvinenko.
Larissa Ivanovna Moskvitina, a professor of mass media at Saint Petersburg State University's Center for Russian Language and Culture, agrees that it lacks logic to assume that Putin was to blame and believes that Litvinenko's murder is another result of the unending and shockingly complex war between secret Russian organizations. If one is to accuse Putin of cronyism and associating with shady characters, it is absolutely necessary to acknowledge that his self-declared enemies do the same; they are running in the same circle, just on the opposite side.
However, it is easy for people who love black-and-white issues to disregard the dark and tainted pasts of men like Litvinenko and his colleagues, as long as they die proclaiming to do so in the name of freedom and democracy.
Litvinenko's murder and the subsequent press reports have served to perfectly highlight a long-running negative trend in Western reporting on Russia. Rarely is an article published about something other than corruption, oil and gas, anti-democratization or murder. Perhaps it wouldn't be so bad if there were at least a variety of stories on these subjects.
Unfortunately, all we see are the same tired tales about Russia's 'backward slide' and the promotion of a very marketable image of Russia as an unpredictable mafia state. Readers get the impression that, as the St. Petersburg Times appropriately put it, "Russian security services are running amok." Even if one were to agree that it is unlikely that Putin or the Russian government was involved in Litvinenko's death, the accusations and negative press coverage have taken their toll. There seems to exist a desire - almost a need - to demonize Putin.
This outlook lacks perspective. Good things are happening in Russia: Civil society is developing; the government is also taking steps integrate with Europe.
They want to prove that they can play with the big boys, and do so fairly. However, murders like Litvinenko's and journalist Anna Politkovskaya's are going to make it difficult for the Russians to convince the world that they are a modern, democratic state, and they certainly won't be helped by unceasing negative Western commentary.
This is certainly not to say that things in Russia are perfect. There are many problems, but it is important to not allow the recognition of such problems to turn into vast generalizations about Russia and Vladimir Putin. It is crucial that we demand not only a more sophisticated discourse, but also some critical thinking and simple logic when it comes to reporting on Russia.
Megan Carter is a junior majoring in international relations.
