Кто владеет информацией,
владеет миром

To the Death of Anna Politkovskaya

To the Death of Anna Politkovskaya
Gaydar Dgemal 09.10.2006

Apparently, a murder of Politkovskaya – an event of a century, of such a scale which not one doesn’t manage to realize at once in a fever of the moment. Many have drawn at once an analogy with Dmitry Holodov's death, he was blown up in editorial office of "MK" 11 years ago. (He also, by the way, was engaged with Caucasus: it was the beginning of the first Chechen war). Some have in their memories the murder of Kirov. Well, it’s not worth speaking about analogies to the Ukranian Gongadze. It is represented as if the death of Politkovskay actually has little in common with these three examples. May be the case of Kirov is more or less close to the one.

It is not impossible that shooting of the journalist will become a prologue to the campaign of punishments with those who will be placed in a category of "especially disloyal" to authority - so-called "the fifth column". Actually, murderers were not interested who was Politkovskaya in reality. The main thing is that she for a long time has turned to a symbol. Politkovskaya personified absolute fearlessness of a person who decided once and for all that the meaning of his short life is - to go against the stream. She was a sign figure for all Caucasus: a man who kept his own special front against criminal rowdiness of satraps and oprichniks of the Russian state.

The fact that Anna Politkovskaya became a symbol and, most likely, was used by organizers of murder so that it served the purposes of their own internal war for at once there a question arose: "Who ordered?" Who needed the death of the journalist in any form? This old principle of the Roman jurisprudence "whom is it favourable to?" long time ago became a token money in bloody political intrigues in which classical expected reaction of the public is used for creation of scandal, political blackmail, a reason for the attack. Everybody “knew” about Kirov’s death: he was killed by Stalin. Why? So that to fall on with repressions on the opposition. But the matter is that Stalin was innocent in this only case. He didn’t kill Kirov though he used the murder in his own aims. Here again – the first who was pointed became Ramzan Kadyrov.   

They say it’s necessary for him! What for? Yes, really, there were no special sympathies between him and the journalist who used to write sharply about him. Kadyrov did not like Politkovskaya. But he understood perfectly well that her death, first of all, was brought, say, "to his doorstep". Murder of Politkovskaya automatically opens an opportunity of political impact on Kadyrov! Those who like very much Kadyrov’s theory say: "Well, certainly he did not give the order but there could be found in his environment an obliging fool who could on his own will make him such present”. The fact that he would pull the plug for his boss with inevitable consequences for his own silly head – but he is a full to think about it!

This "plain" course of thought doesn’t look convincing! No matter how many fatal events occur everybody obstinately and insistently try to prove that everything occured very simply, by itself and there is no necessity to search any plot … Annushka poured oil! The plot always takes place. It’s not a secret that among the Chechens cooperating with federals there are such that feel fatal enmity to Kadyrov. Some of them recently could be on their business affairs in Moscow. It is clear that they could happen to be very suitable instrument of execution for those who organized the murder. In reality, in this case it’s not even Kadyrov himself who is the aim. The object of discredit in this or that way becomes that part of Administration which is connected with Kadyrov. That’s why Politkovskaya’s murder is a pace in internal war tearing off “vertical of power”. 

There was a time when the Chechen business threatened to get command heights in just privatized postSoviet economy. In all large companies the second and the third posts (and often the first) were Chechens. One of many problems of the first Chechen war was to beat out, in particular, Chechens from economy. The logic of "chechenisation" of the war (it could not be won without it) led to the appearance of legal Chechen armed formations that firstly were engaged with insurgents inside of the Chechen Republic. Then they acquired the character of interCaucasian military factor, they started to settle questions in Dagestan and other places. Then Moscow politicians began to invite special troops of these superelite formations to the capital for decision of their own questions. Today their participation in shootouts "at a high level" in the capital is - usual business. The Chechen war all the same – by hook or by crook - came to Moscow. We speak about war, not about its criminal background - abductions, acts of terrorism, arrests, etc. Anna Politkovskaya became the first victim of newly opened Moscow front of this war which she hated and with which crimes fought uncompromisingly.

In other::