What s most astonishing to me as a scholar and a historian is the fact the Russian reporters don t feel professionally obligated to call me or Litvinenko before printing an article that contains various assumptions and guesses (very often erroneous ones, by the way) and to ask us the questions that interest them. Neither I nor, as far as I know, my coauthor, Alexander Litvinenko, has ever refused to give an interview to a reporter. Anyone who wants to know my phone number can find it through an American internet search engine in a few seconds. And common acquaintances are never hard to find. The problem isn t that we re hard to reach, it s that people have no desire in find out the truth.
Despite all the details that need more work (for which I was the first to criticize you, quite severely), one thing is certain: you have done more than anyone else for a public investigation of these events. When did you become interested in this topic? Was it Boris Berezovsky s idea?
The idea to work on the topic of the bombings was my own. Litvinenko (I ll call him Alexander from now on - it sounds a bit too formal otherwise) was still in Moscow at the time, recently released from prison. I collected some materials. It became clear that this topic was worth developing. I should point out that I ve studied Soviet history my whole adult life: Stolypin, the Revolution, Soviet-German relations, Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin&
Scientific (historical) research was a genre that was quite familiar to me.
It was in this familiar genre that I began investigating the apartment-house bombings in Russia in September 1999. But I didn t have enough inside information. There are certain purely psychological elements that a person who hasn t worked in the Russian security services simply isn t aware of.
231
232
Even now, the biggest problem that readers have with our book is psychological. It s very hard to believe that an officer of the Russian security services (FSB or GRU) can blow up an apartment building. All the facts, documents, and evidence are on our side. But the ordinary person finds it so hard to believe them that he keeps looking for other, more understandable explanations, although these explanations aren t supported by any facts.
They make life easier, though. And the reader lives in Russia (it s easier for me, I live in Boston). Russians living abroad, by the way, generally don t have this problem. Nor do Western readers. In the West, it s well known what the FSB is capable of, and no one says, that s impossible.
So I didn t have enough inside information. I flew to Moscow, to meet with Alexander, whom I ve known since 1998. I told him I d been doing research on the bombings for several months. I told him I had definite suspicions and asked him to help me in my research.
We were already being very cautious, as far as this was possible. Alexander was constantly being watched. Two surveillance cars, with three people in each, followed him all day and waited outside his apartment building at night& We went out of town, to the woods, and talked in a whisper. Alexander said that he would start working on the matter.
I flew back home to the US. And this turned out to be my last trip to Russia.
After some time, Alexander sent word that he had gathered some very important and interesting documents about the bombings, that they completely corroborate my account of the events, and that he considers it imperative to continue working on this topic.
By this time it was clear that Alexander and his family would not be allowed to live in peace in Russia. The public prosecutor s office had a number of completely trumped-up charges against him, all of which fell apart one after the other. But they wanted very badly to convict him. He had gone against the system (the FSB) and the system sought revenge. I urged Alexander to consider emigrating from Russia, since both he and his family were in danger of being killed. In fact, threats were made against his family. And then, on top of everything else, there was our book. To write it in Russia was just suicide& The conclusion of this part of Alexander s biography is now well known.
Alexander left Russia and managed to make it to England. In his very first interview in London, he said that he d left Russia because he possessed materials about the involvement of the Russian security services in the September 1999 apartment-house bombings. No one at the time paid any attention to this interview.
In the summer of 2001 the manuscript was more or less complete. We gave it to several people to read. One of them was Boris Abramovich Berezovsky, with whom both I and Alexander were well acquainted. B.A. read the manuscript and asked: So what will you do now?
I replied:
232
233
We will try offering this text to Novaya Gazeta. They ve covered the topic extensively. I think they should have first publication rights.
B.A.: And what will happen, in your opinion?
Well, it s obvious what will happen&
And then, in glowing colors, I proceeded to describe a triumphant procession: how the Duma and the President s Office will be flooded with inquiries, how a Duma commission will be formed to investigate the September bombings, how Putin will remove Patrushev - at least while the commission is investigating the bombings, since otherwise it will become obvious that the president was in league with Patrushev and other terrorists&
B.A. waited until I finished and said: Do you want me to tell you what will happen?
Well?
Nothing will happen.
What do you mean, nothing will happen? We will publish this text - and nothing will happen?!
Nothing will happen.
On August 27 Novaya Gazeta put out a special edition with large excerpts from our book.
And nothing happened.
Some time later, when I met B.A. again, he asked me: Well?
We both knew what the question was about. I just hung my head and thought: He was right, as always&
There were, of course, responses to our publication. I don t want to go over them in detail now. Let s just say that many of these articles revealed more about their authors than they did about us and our book&
An English edition of the book was published in the beginning of January 2002, in New York, with the title Blowing Up Russia. Again, silence. (Work was in full swing on a documentary film - Assassination of Russia - but only a few people knew about it.) A Russian edition came out at the end of January, again in New York. And again, silence.
233
234
And then I sent a copy of the book to Berezovsky. Unexpectedly for us, in a February interview on NTV, he displayed it on the air to the whole country and said that the FSB was behind the apartment-house bombings in Russia. That s when things started to happen. Everyone suddenly became interested in the bombings. And ever since then, people haven t stopped asking me and Alexander questions& about Berezovsky.
We are extremely grateful to Boris Abramovich for making our book world-famous. We realize that it s only because of him that this issue got into headlines all over the world.
It s only because of him that this issue now will never be forgotten, and that sooner or later the question of who was behind the bombings in Russia in September 1999 will have to be answered. And believe me, the defendants in this trial will yet sit in the dock, and a verdict will yet be read. And everyone who took part in this event, the worst terrorist attack in Russian history, will be named. And all of this, only because of B.A.
Berezovsky.
When I read articles by Russian reporters - whose own buildings, really, were blown up by the FSB and the GRU in September 1999 - and when I find statements such as: The authors account of the events would look more credible if the documentary had no connection to Berezovsky, then I recall the period between the end of August 2001 and the middle of February 2002, when our more credible account had no connection to Berezovsky and no one paid any attention to it at all.
In your view, how many more years will the public investigation of the bombings take?
Or is everything already clear to you?
You know, what is going on in Russia now, in connection with our investigation, reflects the state of mind in Russia more than it does the actual regrettable bombings.
After all, the bombings were organized by a relatively compact group of people - a few dozen individuals. They are unquestionably evildoers. They are obviously terrorists.
They are obviously members of a terrorist organization.
This terrorist organization is called Russian national security.
Yes, everything is already clear to us. We don t know all the perpetrators by name. But that s not so important. It s not our responsibility to bring this matter to trial. It s Russia s responsibility, the responsibility of Russian law enforcement. Plus, many of these people are no longer living. We know that the bombings in Moscow and in Volgodonsk were carried out by the FSB in collaboration with the GRU; that the explosion of the building in Buinaksk on September 4 was carried out by a 12-man team from the GRU.
Considering the fact that Alexander and I conducted our investigation as private citizens, I think that it has been a clear success. We identified the people who ordered and organized these terrorist attacks. I should point out that at the head of those who ordered
234
235
the attacks is the current president of Russia, V. V. Putin, and until he leaves his post, this crime will not be investigated in Russia by anyone.
We know the names of the people who led the operation at the middle (practical) level.
Some of them we have already made public. Others - not yet. When I say we know the names, I don t mean that we can guess who planned an operation or who ordered it. I mean that we have testimony from the perpetrators, who give the names of those who ordered, planned, and organized the operations.
This is not even to mention the fact that we simply know everything about the episode in Ryazan, since the FSB itself admitted that it carried out the operation there.
Would you agree that not all the evidence you have assembled is equally convincing?
Which parts of it would you put before a court, if you had to present your case on one page?
Let s start with Ryazan. Patrushev confessed that he personally issued the orders for the operation. An FSB agent admitted on camera (filmed from the back) that he personally placed the bags in the basement of the building in Ryazan. An expert from Ryazan law enforcement confirmed that he personally defused the bomb, which was real and contained a power source, a detonator, and an explosive substance. The public prosecutor in Ryazan filed a criminal charge of terrorism. The Ryazan police confirmed that at least two terrorists had been detained who turned out to be FSB agents.
Therefore, we have to arrest the FSB agent who confessed that he personally placed the bags in the basement. We have to establish the identities of the terrorists (who were arrested and then released by the Ryazan police) and arrest them again. We have to arrest Patrushev, who confessed that he issued the orders for the operation. And I m sure that once Patrushev and others are questioned, everyone else who took part in the operation will be named and arrested.
Then there s the cover-up, the campaign to mislead the public. Naturally, this matter must be taken up separately. The key witnesses here will be Zdanovich and other highranking FSB agents who took part in the cover-up.
Moscow. I m certain that Patrushev knows exactly who was in charge of the operation to blow up the buildings in Moscow. Krymshamkhalov and Batchayev, who evidently had the most direct connection to this operation, named Patrushev as its head, German Ugriumov as its director, and FSB agent Max Lazovsky as a key figure in its execution.
Since Lazovsky was shot in Moscow and Ugriumov died under unclear circumstances in Chechnya, we again have to question Patrushev. I m certain that an experienced investigator will obtain answers to all these questions from him.
Buinaksk is the simplest case, since we know absolutely everything: the whole chain of command, from who gave the order for the operation to who carried it out. But I won t go into these details now, since for a number of reasons I don t want to disclose the source
235
236
of our information for Buinaksk, and if I name all the people involved, the GRU will easily figure it out.
One way or another, if the case must be presented on one page to put before a court, the correct thing to do would be to list the names of the people who must be called in for questioning as defendants; to request materials connected with the Ryazan case from the General Prosecutor; to request the materials connected with the criminal investigations of the apartment-house bombings in Buinaksk, Moscow, and Volgodonsk. And then it will also become clear to everyone that all the legal proceedings carried out by the FSB are complete falsifications, meant to conceal the evidence of crimes and actual criminals.
After the TV bridge in July, were you able to obtain additional proof that Gochiyaev s letter is authentic, or other evidence in addition to this letter? Do you admit the possibility that the letter may have been forged? Who would profit by such a forgery?
After the TV bridge in July (after which, by the way, not a single reporter or commission member called me or Alexander for questions and explanations), we not only received new photographs of Gochiyaev, which proved once more that the FSB had put up pictures of another man on its website, but also a new note from Gochiyaev, confirming the authenticity of his first letter.
We checked the information contained in Gochiyaev s letter - as far as it was possible for us to do so, acting as private citizens - and made sure it was supported by other sources. Consequently, we have no basis to consider Gochiyaev s letter a forgery.
Therefore, I will leave your question about who would profit by such a forgery unanswered.
On the other hand, we know very well who would profit by putting up forged materials on the FSB website - the FSB itself. And notice the shameless way in which this is done.
Following the TV bridge, there was an announcement that the FSB will put up new evidence of a connection between Gochiyaev and Khattab. Instead of this new evidence, what appeared on the website was one more old photograph - not even with Khattab, but with someone else - and again of the wrong man, who, as we ve already established through expert testimony, is not Gochiyaev.
I would like the following statement to be taken very seriously: The FSB has no proof that there is any connection between Khattab or the Chechens and the bombings, except for this one photograph, which is, I repeat, not a photograph of Gochiyaev, but of some unknown person.
The FSB has no proof at all that the terrorist attacks were carried out by Chechens.
Because the terrorist attacks were not carried out by Chechens. They were carried out by the FSB and the GRU.
236
237
After last year s terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, many Muscovites brought flowers to the American embassy. In September 1999, did anything analogous happen at the Russian embassy and consulates in America?
To bring flowers to a Russian government agency (and the embassy represents Russia, and first and foremost, the Russian government) when it s well known that this very government carried out the bombings (which is something generally known in the West about the September bombings in Russia) would have been somewhat inappropriate. No, no one brought any flowers to the Russian embassy.
And just look at how modestly this tragic date was observed in Russia itself. The government did not organize any memorial ceremonies, since it knows very well who blew up the buildings. Staging a theatrical performance on camera with the whole world watching would have been stupid and risky. The press was modestly silent. In general, the media s lack of curiosity in this matter is truly surprising and indicative. The people held several memorial services, in which local authorities took part. For the local authorities, I have no doubt, this was indeed a tragedy, as it was for the people who were the victims. Of course, Putin s refusal to observe the one-year anniversary of the event is just additional proof of the fact that he himself was at the head of the operation to blow up the buildings in Russia three years ago. But this proof is psychological. It won t get you very far in court.
In your opinion, why did the CIA say to Litvinenko about the bombings in Russia: That s not our concern ? Does the CIA know everything, or are they really so uninterested?
The CIA undoubtedly knows that the buildings in Russia were blown up by the FSB.
The CIA has no psychological difficulties accepting this fact. All of the CIA s past experience with the KGB and the FSB (that is, fighting the KGB and the FSB) goes to show that this is not just a possibility, but that it can t be otherwise.
What would you wish for the Moscow commission?
That the Russian public takes an interest in the results of its objective investigation. As of now the public is not interested, and therefore the commission is working in a vacuum.
It really has no one to report its findings to. The government has no interest in this commission. The Duma doesn t either. The law enforcement agencies - even less so.
Reporters are hiding their heads in shame.
The public is silent, at best. At worst, they re watching with curiosity as the government shamelessly unleashes a war against Georgia, right in front of the whole Russian public, including the reporters (in exactly the same way as Stalin unleashed a war against Finland).
And notice: they re starting a war with Georgia only so they can destroy certain individuals who have settled there (in the opinion of the Russian government) -238 Gochiyaev, Krymshamkhalov, and Batchayev - individuals who are supplying us with testimony. Believe me, Russia has no other reasons for invading Georgia. Everything else is Kremlin PR.
Remember how before the invasion of Finland there were provocations by the Finnish military against the Soviet Union ? In 1991 we found out that there were no provocations. There was an unprovoked invasion of Finland by Stalin. Believe me, if Russia invades Georgia, some time will go by and then we will find out that there were no provocations by Georgia, but that there was an unprovoked invasion of Georgia by Putin. And very many members of the Duma, who are today voting in favor of a new war in the Caucasus (while the war in Chechnya is still going on, and has perhaps already been lost), will be ashamed, at the very least, for collaborating in another crime perpetrated by the Russian security services. And their children will be ashamed. And someone s children, I m certain, will die in Georgia. And the children of Duma members may be among them.
Mark Ulensh
237
239
Appendix 17
Novaya Gazeta, Moscow, December 2, 2002
TERRORISTS DEMANDED $3,000,000 FOR THEIR TESTIMONY
Historian Yuri FELSHTINSKY talks about the private investigation of the terrorist attacks in Moscow, Volgodonsk, and Buinaksk - In their testimony, Krymshamkhalov and Batchayev mention three men who were, according to them, involved in the terrorist attacks - the apartment-house bombings in Moscow and Volgodonsk: Lazovsky, Ugriumov, and Patrushev. I want to ask about the first two, to begin with. Don t you find it strange that they only mention people who are dead? Ugriumov, according to the official account, died of a heart attack in the Grozny airport, where he had his office. Lazovsky was killed not far from a church near his dacha outside of Moscow&
To me, of course, this doesn t seem strange. I ll explain why. With Lazovsky, it s not completely definite that it s him. The photographs have to be examined and a serious identification has to be made. But it s highly probable that it s him. I think the whole logic of the events says that it must be him. Lazovsky was a prominent security agent. He was involved, without any doubt, in a whole series of terrorist attacks that had taken place earlier in Moscow.
To assume that this man wasn t connected to the operations in 1999 is something that I personally can t do. In the interview with Galkin that you published (that story requires separate commentary, by the way), in the second interview, there s an interesting sentence: But I think that in life there are no accidents. I, too, don t believe in such accidents: Max Lazovsky couldn t have been killed by accident in the neighborhood where he lives, which is, incidentally, not the most undesirable neighborhood.