An apple a day... the faulty rhetoric of Yabloko and the faux outrage of the 'international community'

During a recent visit to Germany, blame for the murder of the Russian journalist, Anna Politkovskaya, was laid at the feet of Vladimir Putin by a crowd of 2000 protesters, one of whom shouted "murderer!" as Mr Putin got out of his limousine.

Later Mr Putin publicly acknowledged her death for the first time during a joint press conference with the German chancellor, Angela Merkel. During the press conference, he stated that although Ms Politkovskaya was a journalist known to be critical of the authorities in Russia, her influence on political life in Russia was insubstantial. He also promised that the murder, which he described as a "dreadful and unacceptable crime" will be fully investigated and the perpetrators apprehended. During talks with Mr Putin, Angela Merkin is reported to have raised the concerns of the mythical 'international community' with regard to the possibility of state involvement in the murder.

The murder of Ms. Politkovskaya is without doubt a cause for concern, as would be any suggestion of state intimidation of the media. However, the assumption that the murder was carried out on the orders of Mr Putin is either the product of simplistic thinking or ulterior motives. As with any significant event of this type, the first question any sane person should ask is 'cui bono'?

Who benefits? Certainly not Vladimir Putin, who is - without any real evidence - being accused of using murder to suppress media freedoms. If the Russian state had wanted to do away with a vocal opponent, their demise would have been made to look like an accident. Whoever perpetrated this murder wanted it to be clearly seen as an execution - in order to once more make the Putin administration the focus of the faux righteous indignation and moral outrage so beloved of those who regularly instigate or perpetrate atrocities all over the world. Those who benefit from this murder are those who want to demonise and punish the current Russian administration for their strident economic nationalism and for their attempts to review the flawed privatisations of the Yeltsin era.

When asked for comment about the murder, Grigory Yavlinsky, leader of the opposition Yabloko party stated that "Russia is becoming an authoritarian and corrupt country". The reality is that Russia is less corrupt now than it was when Yeltsin was busy selling off the Russian family silver to a small number of ultra-greedy oligarchs.

He went on to say that "This killing opens a new phase when the physical elimination of political opponents becomes possible". He has obviously had his eyes closed while the oligarchs and other assorted criminals were busy ordering hits on each other in their drive to establish exclusive control over the natural resources that rightly belong to all of the Russian people.

While I do not for one minute believe that the administration of Vladimir Putin is blameless or free from mistakes, I am sickened by the hypocritical critique of those who point fingers at Russia for their actions in Chechnya while simultaneously committing far greater atrocities in the Middle East, or at least tacitly supporting them.

I also find it ironic that the leader of a party that espouses the kind of liberal economic policies that allowed Yeltsin to divest the Russian state of its natural resources and large industries has the audacity to bemoan the increasing corruption in the country. Mr Yavlinsky believes that these fundamentally corrupt privatisations should be deemed legal and should not be open to administrative review. It is clear from this that Mr Yavlinsky does not represent the interests of the Russian populace at large, but is far more interested in protecting the ill-gotten assets of a small clique of kleptocrats.