Source: Garry Kasparov's blog.

JB Spins reviews a new film on Anna Politikovskaya:

If ever there was a woman who personified strength, dignity, and a commitment to human rights, it was Anna Politkovskaya, the crusading Russian journalist assassinated for investigating the neo-Soviet Putin regime. Unfortunately, there is not much human rights watching going on at the Human Rights Watch Film Festival, besides Letter to Anna, Eric Bergkraut’s dogged documentary investigation into her death (trailer here).

Of the thirty two films at the HRW Fest, five focus their fire on Israel and four concentrate on America, clearly safe targets to shoot at. Few films at the fest, besides Letter, tackle a government perfectly willing to murder those who questions its policies, as in the case of Politkovskaya in Putin’s Russia. (To be fair, it sounds like China’s Stolen Children also deserves recognition for taking on the country’s one child policy, but the fest completely ignores Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea.) However, the sins of the festival should not be held against Letter, a first-rate documentary.

When Politkovskaya looks into the camera and tells Bergkraut she expects to be killed, it is spooky. Obviously, she knew what she was talking about, having already survived a poisoning attempt (evidently no Polonium was available to those would-be assassins). Politkovskaya made her name exposing human rights abuses (real ones) in Chechnya, again nearly getting killed in the process. It was while filming a documentary on the Russian Dirty War that Bergkraut filmed hours of interview footage with Politkovskaya, which formed the backbone of Letter.

Although one could uncharitably characterize Letter as a film built around outtakes, much of that footage is quite insightful. Perhaps most controversial will be his decision to begin by taking the audience through her assassination step by step. As Bergkraut marshals the facts and circumstances around the event he makes a compelling case against the Putin machine. By American legal standards, he would probably have enough to indict, but not convict. Of course, on a common sense level, the notion that a free-agent in Putin’s Russia would take out a prominent Putin critic without the go-ahead from the highest levels, stretches all believability.

Things are bad in Russia—no question. Relatively few have been willing to publically challenge Putin’s authoritarian rule. Some of those who did join Politkovskaya, like democracy activist Garry Kasparov, participated in the film. We also hear from expat billionaire Boris Berezovsky, perhaps a problematic anti-Putin spokesman, but always a good interview.

Letter would make for good, if depressing, companion viewing with Poisoned By Polonium, as Litvinenko appears in the former and Politkovskaya is also featured in the latter. Politkovskaya had everything to live for, having just heard she was about to become a grandmother. However, she never backed down in her attempts to hold Putin’s government accountable for its crimes. If you want to see what “patriotic dissent” looks like, Politkovskaya is its human face.

Bergkraut makes another credible case against Putin’s criminal reign, and give Susan Sarandon credit for recording the English narration (and Catherine Deneuve for the French), but are people paying attention to the increasingly frightening developments in Russia? Letter screens only once during the fifteen day film festival, Thursday the 26th, at Lincoln Center’s Walter Reade Theater.

The Washington Post reports that, just as predicted, the Kremlin has closed the Politkovskaya investigation without apprehending the shooter or identifying the party who ordered the hit, instead attempting to claim by innuendo that it was Boris Berezovsky.

Three men were charged Wednesday with involvement in the October 2006 killing of investigative reporter Anna Politkovskaya, but investigators said nothing about who ordered the assassination or why. A man formally identified by authorities last month as the shooter remains at large, as does the unknown person who organized the murder.

Politkovskaya, a critic of the Kremlin known for crusading reports on human rights abuses in Chechnya, was shot in the lobby of her apartment building in central Moscow as she was returning home with groceries. Police immediately described it as a contract killing. The murder weapon was dropped beside the body.

The killing chilled public opinion in the West where Politkovskaya, 48, was lauded for her work. But it made little impression in Russia, drawing some derisory comments from then-president Vladimir Putin about the lack of impact the journalist had with her work in her home country.

Officials suggested that the killing was ordered by an exiled enemy of the Kremlin -- longstanding code for Boris Berezovsky, the London-based tycoon. Berezovsky denied any involvement, and Politkovskaya's colleagues said the person behind the killing was almost certainly in Russia.

Prosecutors charged Sergei Khadzhikurbanov, a former police officer, and two brothers from Chechnya, Dzhabrail Makhmudov and Ibragim Makhmudov, with involvement in the crime, but gave no details as to their alleged roles. The men have been in custody since their arrest last August. A fourth man, Pavel Ryaguzov, an officer in the FSB, the domestic security agency, was charged with extortion and abuse of office. Prosecutors said the charges against Ryaguzov relate to "separate crime," but officials previously said that he provided Politkovskaya's address to the killers.

Investigators said in May that they believe that Politkovskaya was shot by Rustam Makhmudov, the eldest of the Makhmudov brothers. He had been identified in news reports as early as March. Makhmudov remains at large and prosecutors said their investigation of him continues.

Eleven people were initially detained in connection with the killing, but since then all but those charged Wednesday have been released. A fourth Makhmudov brother was released last month, but ordered not to leave Russia.

The editor of Novaya Gazeta, the newspaper where Politkovskaya worked, welcomed Wednesday's announcement, but said the probe was far from complete. "The case has not been solved . . . this announcement does not satisfy the newsroom or members of Anna Politkovskaya's family," said Dmitry Muratov, according to Gazeta.ru daily. "We insist that this case is followed through."

Muratov also said Wednesday that leaks during the investigation had allowed Rustam Makhmudov to evade capture.

The Moscow Times reports:

Swiss director Eric Bergkraut doesn't expect his latest film, "Letter to Anna," to go down well in Russia, or even to make it into theaters. But in an interview after the premiere of the feature-length version at the Hot Docs International Film Festival in Toronto, he said he didn't want his film to be perceived as "anti-Russian."

"One can be very critical of Mr. Putin's politics without being anti-Russian at all," Bergkraut emphasized. "I am not sure if that is understood in Moscow today."

"Letter to Anna" is a documentary describing the life and death of the independent-minded Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya, who was often treated with suspicion by the Russian authorities, and indeed by no small number of ordinary Russians.

Politkovskaya was best known for her critical writing on the wars in Chechnya, which appeared in the Russian newspaper Novaya Gazeta, and in her books, "A Dirty War," and "A Small Corner of Hell."
She was shot to death in the elevator of her Moscow apartment building on October 7, 2006.

Bergkraut first met Politkovskaya in 2003, while he was working on his documentary, "Coca: The Dove From Chechnya," a film about a Chechen woman who had filmed human rights abuses in the republic.

Bergkraut asked Politkovskaya to appear in the film, and she agreed.

"My first impression of Anna was that she was very busy, very focused on her work, and that she was afraid of wasting her time. But once we started talking, we had very long talks, much longer than we had intended," Bergkraut said.

"What I liked was that she was always on the side of the weak person. I never had the feeling that it was about good Chechens and bad Russians. She was not naive at all. She just found the way the Russian government was dealing with the conflict not very intelligent."

Bergkraut assembled "Letter to Anna" from footage of Politkovskaya left over from "Coca," as well as footage which he shot in Russia after her death.

The film includes interviews with Politkovskaya's son Ilya, her daughter Vera, her ex-husband, Alexander Politkovsky, and makes clear that Politkovskaya's family feared for her life.

"Her family wanted to stop her. The only person who did not want to stop her was her daughter, Vera, who had a deep understanding for what her mother did. All the others -- and it's very understandable -- tried to stop her, but it was not possible."

The idea of living in exile was impossible for her, he said. "She did not want to leave the country. That would have been in total contradiction to who she was and how she lived."

Expatriate Russian billionaire and Kremlin critic Boris Berezovsky is among the Kremlin opponents Bergkraut interviews in the film, which is one reason he expects to have difficulties getting it screened in Russia.

"The film could do without Berezovsky, but why should it? Why is it impossible for Russians to see Berezovsky?" Bergkraut asked.

"He is a kind of Mephisto in the film. He is not the good guy. He has to be in the film because, [Russian Prosecutor General] Yury Chaika said at a press conference that [Politkovskaya's] murder could only have come from abroad, from oligarchs. It is quite clear that he was pointing at Berezovsky," he said.

Another possible obstacle to the film's presentation in Russia might be Politkovskaya's characterization of the war in Chechnya as "genocidal."

"She gives a very good argument," says Bergkraut. "Do you know how many people have been killed in Chechnya? We do not know the figures. Maybe only 80,000. Maybe 150,000. Maybe 300,000. It's really a tragedy. Chechens are a very small community," he said.

"But every single Russian soldier and his family is a tragedy too, for me. It's not necessarily that I share [her] judgment, but I wanted to show it," he added.

"Letter to Anna" also includes appearances by Garry Kasparov, Novaya Gazeta editor Dmitry Muratov, and other colleagues and acquaintances of Politkovskaya.

Bergkraut regrets that he was not able to represent "official Russia" more thoroughly in his film.

"I tried very hard to get an interview with Yury Chaika, but it was not possible. I am trying hard to understand [his position]. I would have loved to have more official Russian voices," he said.

Bergkraut also laments that no one from "official Russia" has attended any of his international screenings.

"At all the screenings of my film, I was expecting that some day someone from the Russian embassy would come, and we would have a discussion. Nobody ever came. It's a pity. My last film has been shown in about 30 countries, but not in Russia. Isn't that strange?"

After winning the International Human Rights Film Award for "Coca" in Berlin last year, Bergkraut was approached by several film stars who expressed interest in collaborating with him. As a result, Susan Sarandon, Catherine Deneuve, and Iris Berben provided the narrations for "Letter to Anna" in its English, French, and German versions, respectively.

Bergkraut's film was also honored by Vaclav Havel when it screened at the One World International Human Rights Documentary Film Festival in Prague earlier this year.

"Festivals and television stations are now approaching me because they want to show "Letter to Anna," but no one has come to me from Russia," Bergkraut said.

"A discussion [about Politkovskaya] -- which may be controversial -- would be interesting and somehow natural. The best thing would be if a Russian television channel bought "Letter to Anna. Maybe one day. Things can change."

Jeremy Putley points out that Index For Free Expression republishes a 2002 interview with Politkovskaya in honor of the somber one-year anniversary of her killing:

The journalist and author Anna Politkovskaya was assassinated on 7 October 2006. To mark the first anniversary of her death, Index here reproduces this interview with Politkovskaya, which originally appeared in Index on Censorship in 2002. At the time, Politkovskaya was living in Vienna: she had moved there after receiving death threats following her reports on Chechnya. The interview is a reminder of her remarkable courage in the face of increasing intimidation. It also gives an insight into her motivation and integrity: ‘If people in my country have no protection from this lawless regime, that means I survive here while others are dying... People who were my witnesses and informants in Chechyna have died for that reason, and that reason alone, as soon as I left their homes. If it again proves the case, then how can I go on living abroad while others are dying in my place?’ Index calls on the Russian authorities to conduct a fair, exhaustive and unprejudiced investigation into Anna Politkovskaya’s murder.

Just before my last trip to Chechnya in mid-September my colleagues at Novaya gazeta began receiving threats and were told to pass on the message: I shouldn’t go to Chechnya any more, they said, because if I did my life would be in danger. As always, our paper has its 'own people' in the General Staff and the Ministry of Defence – I mean those who shares similar views to our own. We spoke to people at the ministry but, despite their advice, I did go back to Chechnya, only to find myself blockaded in the capital, Grozny. The city was sealed off after a series of strange events there. Controls were so tight you couldn’t even move between different districts within the city, let alone make your way out of Grozny on foot. On that day, 17 September, a helicopter carrying a commission, headed by Major-General Anatoly Pozdnyakov, from the General Staff in Moscow was shot down directly over the city. The general was engaged in work quite unprecedented for a soldier in Chechnya.

Only an hour before the helicopter was shot down, he told me the task of his commission was to gather data on crimes committed by the military, analyse their findings, put them in some order and then submit the information for the president’s consideration. Nothing of the kind had been done before. The helicopter in which they were flying out of Grozny was shot down almost exactly over the city centre. All the members of the commission perished, and since they were already on their way to Khankala airbase to take a plane back to Moscow, so did all the material they had collected.

That part of the story was published by Novaya gazeta. Before the 19 September issue was sent to the printers, our chief editor Dmitry Muratov was summoned to the Ministry of Defence (or so I understand) and asked to explain how on earth such allegations could be made. He gave them an answer after which the pressure really began. There should be no publication, he was told. Nevertheless he decided to go ahead, publishing a very truncated version of what I had written.

At that point, the very people at the ministry who had declared our report to be false, now conceded it was true. But they began to warn of new threats: they had learned that certain people had run out of patience with my articles. It was, in other words, the same kind of conversation as before my last trip to Chechnya. Then someone started saying there were threats from a particular officer, a Lieutenant Larin, whom I had described in print as a war criminal. The deaths and torture of several people lie on his conscience and the evidence against him is incontrovertible. Soon there were warnings that I’d better stay at home. Meanwhile the Internal Affairs Ministry would track down and arrest this self-appointed military hitman, and Deputy Minister Vasilyev would himself take charge of the operation.

I was supposed to remain at our apartment and go nowhere. They made no progress in finding Larin, however, and I began to realise that it was simply another way of making me stop work. The newspaper decided I should leave the country until the editors were sure I could again live a normal life and resume my work.

The paper was forced to omit from my story the sort of detail that is vital to the credibility of an article like this, which suggested the military themselves had downed the helicopter. All my subsequent difficulties began with those details. If these details surface, the ministry of defence told our chief editor, then that’s the end for you …

In fact, since I was moving around the city at the time, I can personally testify to what happened, as can otheres who were there with me. And these were no ordinary citizens, I may add: among them were Chechen policemen and Grozny Energy Company employees who, like me, were trapped inside the city. FSB General Platonov was also there: currently he serves as a deputy to Anatoly Chubais, chief executive of United Energy Systems. All of these people saw and knew exactly what I know. Platonov is not only Chubais’ deputy but remains a deputy to the FSB director Patrushev. And no one else saw and knew as much about what happened as General Platonov – he couldn’t help but see it. Not one person was allowed into the city centre after 9am. that morning. And yet a helicopter was downed there.

Different branches of the military are split over future policy in Chechnya. There are good reasons why the recent public statements of defence ministry spokesmen all repeat the same phrases: ‘We deny the possibility of negotiations’; ‘it’s out of the question’; ‘We are just doing our job’. Indeed they are: their ‘sweep and cleanse’ operations have become even more brutal. Let us suppose that those representing certain other branches of the military on the ground in Chechnya are pursuing a rather different policy. That is where you should seek the reason for the deaths of all the commission members. I’m just a small cog in that machine – someone who happened to be in the thick of events when no other journalists were around.

Those who want to continue fighting seem to have the upper hand; they represent the more powerful section within the Combined Forces Group (CFG). To avoid repetition of the disastrous lack of coordination between ministries of defence and internal affairs and the FSB during the first Chechen conflict in 1994-96, overall command of army, police and other paramilitary and special units in the present war was given to the military. Although the FSB supposedly now exercise overall control of the ‘anti-terrorist operation’, the military are too strong for them. On the fateful day the helicopter was downed and the commission perished, not even servicemen and officers were permitted to enter the central, cordoned-off area of Grozny. Only defence ministry officials were allowed through. Even FSB and ministry o justice people were kept out; that was extraordinary. No one was permitted to enter the area where the helicopter was about to fall. Representatives of other military bodies and organisations, even ranking officers, had no right to go there.

I don’t think we should expect much from the defence ministry, nor from President Putin [in light of the US-led campaign in Afghanistan]. He has received carte blanche to take the measures and employ the forces that he considers necessary in Chechnya. I’m thinking of Tony Blair’s recent activities and words spoken by Chancellor Schroeder when Putin was visiting Germany. As you know, it was then said that Europe should re-examine its stance on Chechnya.

Their position was already rather feeble and bore no relation to the real state of affairs in Chechnya concerning the abuse of human rights. If, however, they are going to alter that position then it’s clear what will happen. In practical terms they’ll support Putin. Whatever he does will be fine by them. I think he’s been working steadily and persistently towards that end for some time. And, I’m sure he’ll make good use of it now. There’s been a battle to see whose nerve is stronger, and it’s not for the first time during the present war. Putin held back [over the west’s own ‘anti-terrorist operation’] for some while: we shan’t support the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, he said, but we’ll offer them back up. Then he nevertheless agreed to supply them with arms and, evidently, advisers. In exchange he received a free hand in Chechnya. That’s the way things are likely to go, I’m afraid.

I can’t say when it will happen, but whatever happens there will be a more intensive ‘liquidation of Chechen partisans’. As always in Russia, however, it all depends on the methods to be used. What will the ‘liquidation of Chechen bandits’ amount to this time? Will they herd everyone into concentration camps, or hold repeated sweep operations in all the population centres in Chechnya?

I can’t answer for [Chechen president] Maskhadov, but will offer a brief analysis of his actions. In my view, he is doing nothing whatsoever. He has retreated into his shell and is thinking, to the exclusion of all else, about his own immediate future – he’s forgotten the Chechen nation. Just as the federal authorities in Moscow have abandoned the Chechens, so now have the other side. The nation has to fend for itself, with no leadership or protection. It survives as best it can. If people need to take revenge for their tortured and murdered relatives, they will. If they need to say nothing, they’ll keep their mouths shut. In such circumstances, which are the equivalent of a civil war, and under continuing pressure from the federal forces, no one today could say whom the Chechen nation would vote for if elections were held. No one now has any idea whom they’d elect and in that respect everyone has committed the same enormous mistake.

Maskhadov has obviously been driven into a corner. That’s quite clear. But the struggle for independence has become an obsession with him, it seems to me; he will now hear of nothing else. I don’t really understand what use independence will be to him, when he, Basayev and his immediate bodyguard are all that’s left. The first duty of a president is to fight for the well being of his nation. I have my own president, and it makes no difference that I personally did not vote for Putin. He remains the most important figure in the Russian state. And I’d like him to enable me, and everyone else, to live a normal life. I’m referring to the laws that should govern our existence. I find myself in a situation, however, where no one gives a damn how I survive. I’m cut off from my family. I don’t know what will happen in the future to my two children. It is not law that rules Russia today. There’s no person and no organisation to which you can turn to be sure that the laws there are have any force.

I have no thoughts about my future. And that’s the worst of all. I just want everything to change so I go back and live in Moscow again. I can’t imagine spending any length of time here in Vienna. Or in any other place, for that matter. I must do all in my power to return to Moscow. But I have no idea when that will be.

If people in my country have no protection from this lawless regime, that means I survive here while others are dying. Over the last year I’ve been in that position too often. People who were my witnesses and informants have died for that reason, and that reason alone, as soon as I left their homes. If it again proves the case, then how can I go on living abroad while others are dying in my place?

Javno reports further details on the harassment of those who sought to commemorate Anna Politkovskaya (pictured) on the one-year anniversary of her killing:

Here is what Anna's colleagues at Novaya Gazeta wrote about her as their collective remembrance, translated lovingly by La Russophobe staff, with the Russian original following:

One said: She was beautiful. And as time passed, she only became more beautiful. You know why? Because she through her own labors she improved on the handiwork of God. Life itself, the act of living, made her more beautiful with each passing day.

Another added: As a person ages, she begins to express her soul. Her soul was beautiful.

She was feminine. Skillful. Charmingly ready to joke, laugh or cry out loud at injustice. Any injustice, against anyone, was perceived as a personal attack upon her. And she fought against injustice until the very last opportunity. She was amazingly courageous. Where will you find a braver person? Among the many machismo gentlemen surrounded by their armored jeeps and their bodyguards. Not there, surely, not there.

She was threatened. They tried to intimidate her by organizing surveillance and searches. She was arrested in Chechnya by "our troops" and threatened with being shot on the spot. She was poisoned when she flew to Beslan. It emerged only later. Although she survived, she was weakened and sick at heart.

Many, even her friends Novaya Gazeta, sometimes said : "Well, Politkovskaya reports rumor." Not true! She always wrote the truth. But there were many times that the truth she told was so horrible, her readers lacked the courage to believe it, and responded with the psychological defense mechanism that her stories had been invented. Sometimes even we ourselves did that.

Indeed, it may be an ordinary human's greatest challenge to look horror directly in the eye. We fear that if we look directly into the eyes of evil, we might not ever get the chance to look away, that it will consume us. But Anya looked evil in the eye, and lived to tell about it, surviving challenges mere mortal eyes could not endure.

For us she remains alive. We do not accept her passing. Her murderers, and their masters, we will seek them out, wherever they may be hiding.

And not for Anya alone. Two other colleagues have also been struck down. Igor Domnikov. Yuri Shchekochikhin. And now our Anya. When they struck her down, they killed not only a journalist, not only a human rights activist, not only a citizen. They killed a beautiful woman and a mother.

As long as there is a Novaya Gazeta, these murderers will have no peace.

Writing on the BoingBoing blog at the end of August, blogger Jasmina Tešanović remembers her friend

We Mustn’t Forget Russia’s Truth Seeker[1] Anna Politkovskaya

S.R. Brophy

12 February 2007

"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."

—Albert Einstein

A. Introduction: “What are we Supposed to do?”

An article in the Washington Post entitled “U.S. Hopes for Democracy in Russia Fade,” quoted a U.S. official as saying “what are we supposed to do?” (with regards to the undeniable authoritarian Russian regime) and the same official lamented that we shouldn’t exaggerate our ability to shape Russian politics.

No sane person thinks that we are capable of shaping Russian politics (or the politics of any country for that matter). What we are capable of doing is controlling our own actions. In this respect the answer to the question “what are we supposed to do” is simple.

We are supposed to act in accordance with our beliefs and principles and not fall prey to the mistaken belief that appeasing the Russian government will somehow lead to a change in their behavior. We are supposed to stand united with those who fight for liberty, democracy, and justice. We are supposed to remember with whom we are dealing, because as the Russian proverb goes, ‘live in the past, lose an eye, forget the past lose both eyes.’

Anna Politkovskaya was murdered one year ago. She new what she was supposed to do and she did it—even though there was danger, risk and in the end, death because of what she believed in. But she did it because she knew that the Russian regime could and would get worse. Time has proven Anna correct…which begs the question, are we doing what we are supposed to do?

B. Anna Politkovskaya: Truth Seeker

Until recently the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko consumed the media. It is, as of yet, unsolved. If Russian history has taught us anything, it will remain so. But Litvinenko’s murder is not the subject of this article. This article is about Anna. Litvinenko’s murder overshadowed the heinous killing of the brave Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya. It is a sad state of affairs when one of the G8 countries is the topic of such intrigue. Aren’t these countries supposed to be an example to the world? Anna Politkovskaya was trying very hard to tell the world something. It would be wise of us to listen.

Anna Politkovskaya was a staunch critic of the Putin administration and of the Russian army leadership. She was a fervent supporter of the rule of law and human rights, and argued that Putin was stifling civil liberties and moving the country back to a Soviet style dictatorship. “Everyone is convinced that the Soviet Union has returned, and that it no longer matters what we think.”[2] In light of death threats, and a case of poisoning, she continued to confront the government whom she accused of abusing her beloved Russia and its people. On October 7^th, 2006, she was killed contract style-four bullets, including one in the head- in the elevator of her Moscow apartment building. United States Congressmen, Representatives Adam Schiff and Mike Pence, Co-Chairs of the Congressional Caucus for the Freedom of the Press, wrote to Putin calling on him to fulfill his promise to investigate the murder. Pence said, “The troubling trend of the intimidation and murder of Russian journalists must be investigated vigorously by President Putin and his government. The killers must be brought to justice if Russia is to be taken seriously as a nation that values a free press.” Anna is the thirteenth journalist who has been murdered since Putin’s ascendancy to President. All thirteen cases remain unsolved.

On October 16, 2006, the National Endowment for Democracy held a memorial gathering for Anna Politkovskaya. Among the speakers were Don Jenson of Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty, Andrei Piontkovsky of the Hudson Institute, David Satter, author of Age of Delirium and Darkness at Dawn: The Rise of the Russian Criminal State and also affiliated with the Hudson Institute, Susan Glasser of the Washington Post, Undersecretary Paula Dobriansky, and former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzinski. One of Anna’s Moscow colleagues sent a message to be read at the memorial. In it he said, “…to keep silent now, after Anna’s murder amounts to becoming complicit with her murderers.” The theme throughout the memorial was not only one of remembrance, but also one of responsibility and honor.

Undersecretary Paula Dobriansky said that the role of a true journalist is to bring the truth, especially regarding difficult situations, to the citizens of the world; and that is exactly what Anna Politkovskaya did. David Satter said that Anna acted according to her own moral criteria, and did not fall to the pressure of the authoritarian Putin regime. He said, “…what she represented were a set of values, and those values insofar as they represent something that is basic to all people, and represent the best in people, are the most formidable enemy of a regime which tries to rule through violence, and has no respect for the truth.”

Former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzinski said that Anna Politkovskaya was a lonely hero; that she stood for something transcendental, something utterly good, amidst silence, indifference, hostility, cowardice and opportunism. And Andrei Piontkovsky stated that Anna was a dedicated person of one noble mission, to save the souls of the Russian people. “What made her unique was… her enormous moral and spiritual courage.” Piontkovsky also said, “If Saint Peter has read Anna’s book, Putin’s Russia, I think that Mr. Putin may find at the Pearly Gates that Anna was much more influential than he would like to believe.” Following Anna’s murder, Putin made a public statement in which he stated, “She was known among journalists, and in human rights circles and in the West, but I repeat that she had no influence on political life.”

Anna’s most recent book, Putin’s Russia-Life in a Failing Democracy is a damning conviction of Putin and the current state of affairs in Russia. She says, “This book is about Vladimir Putin-but not, as he is normally viewed in the West, as seen through rose colored glasses. This book is also about the fact that not everyone in Russia is prepared to put up with Putin’s kind of government. We demand our right to freedom.” In it she says that stability has come to Russia, but a stability under which no one seeks justice in courts that flaunt their subservience and partisanship. In her own words, “Nobody in his or her right mind seeks protection from the institutions entrusted with maintaining law and order, because they are totally corrupt.”

She called to the responsibility of her own people to change the political climate in Russia, and blames apathy for the increasing police state that it has become. “Society has shown limitless apathy, and this is what has given Putin the indulgences he requires.” She argued that Russian citizens respond to his actions and speeches not just lethargically, but fearfully. “As the Chekists have become entrenched in power, we have let them see our fear, and thereby have only intensified their urge to treat us like cattle. The KGB respects only the strong. The weak it devours.” Since Putin’s ascendancy to President, many former KGB or FSB (the domestic successor to the KGB) hold influential or lucrative positions. His main support derives from Russia’s intelligence services, stemming from his own former intelligence career.

Anna also lamented that there seems to be a change in moral values. She argues that this change in moral values is more noticeable as the war in the Caucasus continues and broken taboos increasingly become familiar facts of life. “Killing? Happens every day. Robbery? What of it? Looting? Perfectly legal in a war. It is not only the courts that fail to condemn these crimes, but society as well. What was regarded in the past with repugnance is now simply accepted.”

There seems to be a lingering culture of Communism, not just in Russia, but in many of the former states of the Soviet Union. Communism is a system of monolithic political control. The Communist regime did not provide for opposition or dissent. The few vocal non-Party members were harassed, imprisoned, or killed. The majority of the population kept quiet, regardless of whether or not they believed in the party line. The people learned they were better off conforming, even if only externally. At work and in social environments, the people erected a façade of compliancy and congeniality towards the ruling regime. Relationships were superficial, speech was guarded, and truth became nonexistent.

This is important because of the moral devastation Communism left in its wake. People learned to lie, cheat, and steal-often out of survival exigencies-but that does not negate the moral deficit these actions produce. Russia’s recent history, since the Bolshevik’s 1917 coup d’etat, has been a tragic story of oppression and manipulation. The fall of the Soviet Union and Communism was touted as the beginning of a new era, a new Russia-free and democratic. But evidence shows that Russia and her leaders are not forging a new path, but following the old one. Anna said, “There is no doubt that Communism was a dead loss for Russia, but what we have today is even worse.”

Russia is a dangerous place, not just for its citizens and journalists (even Western correspondents-those who record the truth-are hesitant to go there), but for all of us who believe in the rule of law and universal values. The West has given Russia plenty of rope to forge her own way, her own democracy, but she is hanging herself. We must not look away this time. We must listen to Anna, and her call for help. In 1975 Alexander Solzhenitsyn stated, “On our crowded planet there are no longer any internal affairs. The Communists say ‘Don’t interfere in our internal affairs. Let us strangle our citizens in peace and quiet.’ But I tell you: Interfere more and more. Interfere as much as you can. We beg you to come and interfere.” Though Anna did not ask, or expect, the West to help save Russia, we must. We must stop condoning Putin’s policies, and we must stop inviting him to our table, until he is ready to start serving his country, instead of ruling it. The longer we refrain from truly standing by our own moral principles, the larger the dissonance will become between our thoughts and deeds. Then we too will be susceptible to falling morally ill, if we already haven’t. Anna was right; Putin’s Russia really is a failing democracy.

Note from the author:

I cannot claim to be unbiased. All people are subject to deeply embedded internal ideologies and beliefs stemming from sociological influences. I am an outsider, idealist, and a product of Western civilization which is based on democratic and Christian principles. I do not claim to be an expert on Russia; just a devout student of history and international affairs. My information is secondhand; therefore I am relying on the integrity of the authors who have decided to record what they have seen with their own eyes. That being said, there is no doubt that certain facts can be gleamed intuitively. Common sense and accepting that there is such a thing as universal values, leads to only one conclusion. Cultural pluralism does not account for what is occurring in Russia.