The murder of the Russian opposition politician Boris Nemtsov still hasn’t been solved. At least not by those who have been charged with solving it, that is the Moscow authorities. Of course we in the West do not suffer from the same problems that the investigators might have: uncovering the murder weapon, establishing possible motives, finding out why the 23-year-old Ukrainian “model and actress” that was walking with Mr Nemtsov was left alive. We already know who did it. Russian opposition politician + murder outside the Kremlin = Vlad did it.
Not that we necessarily openly state it like this. Some do, although others prefer to insinuate who was behind it with stuff like “Putin critic murdered,” or talk about how even if he didn’t personally order the killing he’s still responsible because he has apparently “fanned the flames of nationalism”. Then there is the likes of John Kerry with his urging the “Russian authorities to act expeditiously to investigate and bring to justice those responsible”.
Despite the fact that the “Putin did it” is one of the least likely of all the possible scenarios, for reasons discussed here, Western media and governments are really incapable of coming to any other conclusions than this for two very important of reasons. One is that they are clearly intent on seeing regime change in Russia, to the point that they actively milk this sort of thing in the hope that it might begin to bring about the sort of movement which will lead to a coup. And secondly, because regime change is their primary aim, they are incapable of seeing opposition figures as anything other than apostles of light, which makes it practically impossible for them to imagine that the likes of Boris Nemtsov might have been targeted by anyone other than the Russian state.
Looking at the second of these points first, are there any other possible motives:
1. There is Mr Nemtsov’s — shall we say — unusual arrangements with females. Officially, he was still married to his wife, but for the past 20 years he had had a string of “wives”, that is women who he had open relationships with, including it seems call-girls in the mix, and he has fathered at least four children by three different women (I say at least since there has been credible speculation that the woman he was with on the night of his murder, Anna Duritskaya, had recently returned from Switzerland, where she is rumoured to have had an abortion. So there may have been more). As an aside, those Western liberals who might want to make him into a martyr for their liberal cause should Google Boris Nemtsov and Bozhena Rynsky to find out what his attitude to women really was. It comes as no surprise to me, given the way he viewed his wife and marriage, but it may surprise liberals looking for a martyr.
2. Mr Nemtsov seems to have made himself a good deal of enemies whilst Deputy Prime Minister back in the Yeltsin era. For one thing, he had a few too many gushing words of praise to say about Yeltsin, the man who became hated by the vast majority of Russians for the way he allowed the country to be plundered and pillaged by the West and the oligarchs. In addition to this, the “anti-corruption” programme he brought in seems to not only have had the effect of making him enemies of some of the oligarchs, but it also had the opposite effect than the one apparently intended and only led to corruption on an even bigger scale. Which in turn explains why he was nowhere near the populist opposition figure that many in the West seem to be making out.
3. Then of course there was his support for the Ukrainian Maidan and the subsequent so-called “Anti-Terror Operation” campaign by the Kiev authorities, a campaign by the way so woefully misnamed that it ought to win some sort of award for “calling good evil and evil good.” This didn’t exactly endear him to the average Russian, witnessing as they did on their TV screens every night, the indiscriminate shelling of Russian speaking civilians in residential areas by the Kiev forces. But more than that, he will have enraged the more nationalistic elements amongst the population, many of whom are openly critical of President Putin for not intervening in the conflict and doing more to protect those Russian speakers — a confusing position for the Western liberals to explain, that one.
None of which is to say that his death was necessarily in connection with any of these things. It could have been for an entirely different reason and motive. But it is simply to say that for the West to overlook all of these sorts of possibilities, and instead insinuate that the Russian state was behind it, is sloppy at best, insidious at worst.
What of the other point, which is that the Western governments and their toadying media are clamouring for regime change in Moscow, and are clearly using this incident for this end:
1. They are utterly deluded. The vast majority of Russians are behind their president, as they can clearly see that their country is under unprecedented attack from the West. Many of them will sooner suspect that this was a Western-backed provocation before they will believe that it was a Kremlin-ordered assassination.
2. Why do we need regime change in Moscow? What’s it got to do with us? The people that tend to support regime change in Moscow (and in other places) tend to be the ones that bleat the loudest about international law and respecting the territorial integrity of other countries. Yet they show by their actions and their words that they have no such respect for the sovereignty of other nations.
3. Have we not learned anything from recent history that encouraging regime change in other countries is just about the most dangerous thing we can do? We’ve done it in Iraq, Egypt, Libya and Ukraine, and have spent the last few years trying it on in Syria. In each of these cases, the country in question is now in an immeasurably worse situation than before we helped to topple their tyrants. One would almost begin to think that it was our aim to export chaos to the world (ahem, ahem!).
4. But whatever we have done in those countries mentioned above, attempting this in Russia would prove immeasurably worse. You just don’t foment opposition and “colour revolution” in the biggest country in the world, which also happens to have an army of over 1,000,000 men and which also possesses an enormous collection of nuclear missiles. Not unless you are really, really stupid. We had no idea what a catastrophic chain of events would be set off by our meddling in Iraq, Libya, Syria and Ukraine, and we have no more idea what a catastrophic chain of events could be set off if our attempts to undermine Russia are successful. Those most in favour of regime change in Moscow might also like to consider that the most popular opposition party in the country is not Nemtsov’s, which scored less than 1% at the last election, but rather the Communist Party.
5. Finally, doesn’t the West’s transparent and increasingly daring attempts to foment a popular uprising in that country, as they have now done in countless others, show just how shallow, hypocritical and shambolic their use of their favourite word –“democracy” — really is? They plotted and funded the overthrow of the democratically elected leader in Ukraine just over a year ago and that was clearly just a prelude to them trying the same in Russia. Yet they well know that if a free and fair election took place tomorrow in Russia, the present incumbent would be returned by a landslide. But they won’t accept it. And that ought to tell you more about their commitment to “democracy” than any number of gushing words they can utter on the subject.