Anatomy of a Kremlin assassination
It bore all the hallmarks of a classic Kremlin assassination. This month, Russia's ex-Transport Minister Roman Starovoyt was found shot dead in his car. It was mere hours after Russian President Vladimir Putin had dismissed him amid rumours of Starovoyt's implication in a corruption probe.
Suicide, proclaimed the Russian government. Well, it would do, wouldn't it? Yet, according to Mark Galeotti, Honorary Professor at UCL's School of Slavonic and East European Studies, that probably was the manner of Starovoyt's passing. He likely realised he was a scapegoat and chose death over hard labour: Russia's government has no need to assassinate a man it can easily imprison.
'It'll go after defectors abroad, but the Kremlin doesn't kill people at home,' says Galeotti. There are notable exceptions – opposition leader Alexei Navalny and ex-Wagner boss Yevgeny Prigozhin, whose high-profile challenges to Putin made their deaths desirable to deter others. Yet, Galeotti stresses that, on the whole, 'this is a system in which everyone has their own skeletons in the closet and so the instruments of the Kremlin are arrests, high-profile trials, imprisonments and expropriation of wealth rather than hurling people out of windows'.
Russian businessmen do have an unfortunate habit of getting defenestrated – or, in the case of ex-Lukoil manager Alexander Subbotin, dying from a toad venom hangover treatment administered by a shaman. They can't all be suicidal or clumsy or unlucky with toads. Galeotti believes such deaths are more likely to be murders stemming from business rivalries at a time of increasing competition for resources and rising contract killings.
The Kremlin is reluctant to take out foreigners like diplomats, spies or journalists. 'I'd hesitate to say they never would, but it would be a big escalation,' he says. 'Putin has this distinction between 'enemies' and 'traitors'. Enemies you fight with, but the hope is you'll meet some modus vivendi with them. Traitors you can do nothing with but kill'. A notable exception would be the alleged 2024 plot to assassinate Rheinmetall CEO Armin Papperger and other European defence industry executives arming Ukraine. While US and German intelligence claim to have foiled such a plan, Galeotti remains 'dubious' about it, given how little information has been supplied and what an escalation it would be from the standard Kremlin playbook.
Russian oppositionists abroad are another story, though. Ksenia Maximova, founder of the Russian Democratic Society, recalls that she and her compatriots marked the one-year anniversary of the invasion of Ukraine by projecting onto the Russian Embassy in London. Ambassador Andrei Kelin unexpectedly dashed out in his slippers to film them. Not long afterwards, she discovered via a fellow activist that she was on a Kremlin hitlist, complete with the patronymic only available on her Russian passport. She was reassured by Ukrainian government contacts that it was more likely to be 'psychological pressure' than the beginnings of anything more sinister.
Then came attempted hackings and a sophisticated phishing attack, in which she received a realistic-looking email purporting to be from Natalia Arno, head of the Free Russia Foundation – someone she had been expecting to hear from. Underside, a Telegram channel linked to Russia's FSB intelligence service, posted an investigation into Maximova that was later featured on Russian television. It contained information on her activities dating back years, protest footage in which individuals had clearly come close to film her, and even her 19-year-old daughter's name, university, and photo.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
She was amused by its portrayal of her. 'It was definitely to scare me, but it made me laugh.' The dossier claimed she had help from the Ukrainian government, exiled Kremlin critic Mikhail Khodorkovsky and a friend of ex-premier Boris Johnson, presumably in the belief that 'there's no way a blonde ex-model could do all this by herself! I messaged the Ukrainians: 'Where's all my protection from the Ukrainian government?''
Maximova can rest easier knowing that the proxies upon which the Kremlin now relies are – in her own words – 'notoriously crap'. Recent plots have not been well-executed and so neither have the targets. This year, six Bulgarians were imprisoned in the UK for their roles in a Russian spy ring. The trial revealed their plot to murder exiled Russian journalist Roman Dobrokhotov: the Bulgarians quarrelled about how to kill him, one dismissing an accident in the shower as 'not dramatic enough' and proposing to poison him with ricin, spray him with acid or publicly burn him alive. Plans to transport the target back to Russia by launching him in a dinghy from Norfolk faltered over doubts about whether their handlers would trust them with a submarine.
Five other men were convicted this month of an arson attack on a London warehouse filled with supplies for Ukraine. They had also received orders to kidnap Putin critic Yevgeny Chichvarkin and burn down his restaurant and wine shop. One of the ringleaders messaged his Russian handler about establishing a 'partisan movement' in the UK to 'punish Russian traitors,' conduct sabotage and spy on the British government – all of which came to naught when he was arrested in a B&Q car park.
As Galeotti explains, the mass expulsion of Russian agents from embassies following the Ukraine invasion made Moscow turn to messaging apps and the darknet to hire local criminals and sympathisers. 'Their tradecraft is terrible,' he says, 'but they get it done. A thug with a hammer can do a lot of harm too. It's cheap, you can treat these assets as disposable, they're harder to identify in advance and there's always some other maladroit violent misfit willing to get hired'. Even if they fail to carry out instructions or get caught, Moscow doesn't mind, because 'everyone gets worried' all the same and 'Russia wants people to be scared of it. It likes plausible deniability with a knowing wink.'
And who's behind the screen, issuing orders? The Bulgarians' internal discussions imply substantial latitude on determining the where and when of a hit. Last year, ex-MI6 chief Richard Moore claimed that Russia's intelligence services had 'gone a bit feral'. But those agents are still on a leash. 'A killing generally requires sanction from the very top,' confirms Galeotti. He explains that the 2015 murder of opposition leader Boris Nemtsov sparked a 'massive crisis' in Russia, not only because he was 'regarded as one of us by the elite', but also because 'this had not been sanctioned. This was something by Chechnya's Ramzan Kadyrov'.
When the Kremlin does give that green light, it does not want targets removed quietly. Take the 2018 Salisbury poisonings targeting ex-spy Sergei Skripal. 'This was sanctioned from the top,' Galeotti says. 'It was complex and unnecessarily expensive. You use more outré methods because you are playing to the theatre of assassination, you want it to be shocking, bizarre and a news story. They wanted Skripal's death to be a lesson to other defectors or would-be defectors about what happens if you break the rules around your release'. While swapped agents are usually safe if they stay out of espionage, Moscow suspected Skripal of dabbling again, with the approval of the British government. 'Going after him was also a warning to the British government of 'don't try to double-cross us'.'
So what should you do if you end up on a Kremlin hitlist? Stay calm, Maximova advises. 'If you're constantly afraid, it's futile because if they really decide to, there's not much you can do. Otherwise, you just get on with it'.
[See more: Trump goes to Scotland]
Related
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
an hour ago
- The Herald Scotland
'Nicola Sturgeon most feared figure in UK politics'
However, she criticised the former SNP's leader's handling of the party, saying that the structure of the SNP had "never grown or adapted" under Ms Sturgeon's watch. Her comments come as the former SNP MP and ex-Westminster deputy leader for the party, Ms Black, recently revealed to The Herald she had left the SNP because she was unhappy with the direction it had taken. READ MORE: Mhairi Black: 'I thought politics would be about team work' Mhairi Black leaves SNP after disagreeing with party direction Asked by the paper how Ms Sturgeon's legacy would be judged, Ms Black said: 'Undoubtedly no one can take away that she reached levels of influence and popularity and fear that I don't think anyone else has in recent memory … I can't think of anybody who has had that kind of impact, certainly on UK politics.' She recalled the atmosphere in Westminster during Ms Sturgeon's visits: 'They were terrified of her, absolutely terrified. When she was in the building it spread like wildfire. You could see they're actually quite shaken at the very fact that she's here in person.' Ms Black praised Ms Sturgeon as a skilled political operator. She said: 'I've always said I think she is possibly the best politician I can think of UK-wide as to competency and being able to answer a question. I've never seen her shaken. She was always unflappable and I know from experience how difficult that is to do. So, as a politician I thought she was s**t hot.' The former MP, who stood down at the last general election, was more critical of Ms Sturgeon's record as party leader — especially on internal reform. 'As the leader of a political party, I thought she could have done so much better,' Ms Black said. 'The same is true of Alex Salmond when he was in charge and even John Swinney now. "The actual structure of the party has never grown or adapted to that influx of membership, which I think has actually played a role in why a lot of folk have turned away from the party. It's because the structure just wasn't there to give people the kind of membership they were craving.' Last week, Ms Black said there had been "too many times" where she did not agree with decisions and strategies made by her former party, adding: "There are better organisations that I could be giving a membership to than this one." The former MP said her party's "capitulation" on LGBT rights and trans rights in particular was one of the main reasons which motivated her to leave the party. Ms Black was first elected to Westminster in 2015 aged 20, ousting Labour's Douglas Alexander as MP for Paisley and Renfrewshire South. She later served as Deputy Leader of the SNP in the House of Commons from 2022 to 2024 and she stood down ahead of the general election last year, citing safety concerns, social media abuse and unsociable hours. Outside of her party, Ms Black criticised UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer for 'believing in nothing'. She said: 'The guy believes in nothing. I've no doubt that he goes home and convinces himself that he's a very practical, reasonable set of hands who is guiding us through a very turbulent time. I just think it's rubbish." The former [[SNP]] member described Reform leader Nigel Farage as "poisonous" and the UK's version of Donald Trump. Ms Black said: 'He's the British Trump. Poisonous. I have absolutely nothing nice to say about him. How far have we fallen as a society when all it takes is a millionaire in a cravat holding a pint and suddenly we're like, 'Oh, yes, you must have my interests at heart?'' Read the full interview with Mhairi Black in The Herald Magazine.
The Herald Scotland
3 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Trump said he ordered 2 nuclear subs moved after Russia nuclear threat
President Donald Trump said on Aug. 1 he ordered two nuclear submarines to "appropriate regions" in response to Russia's nuclear threats. "Based on the highly provocative statements" of Russian spokesperson Dmitry Medvedev, "I have ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions, just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "Words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences, I hope this will not be one of those instances."
New Statesman
3 hours ago
- New Statesman
How Britain lost the status game
Photo by Stefan Rousseau/AFP I've always been a bit puzzled by the 1956 Suez Crisis. The idea of Britain, France and Israel plotting together but being defeated by the honest, righteous Americans does feel, nearly a lifetime later, a little strange. But the most baffling thing about the Suez Crisis is the idea that it was a crisis. It's always described as this a great national humiliation which ruined a prime minister, the sort of watershed to inspire national soul-searching, state-of-the-nation plays and a whole library of books. And yet, compared to the sort of thing which literally every other European country had to deal with at some point in the 20th century, it's nothing. Britain was not invaded or occupied; Britain did not see its population starve. Britain simply learned that it was no longer top dog. That's all. The event and the reaction don't seem to go together. But this, of course, is to see the world from the perspective of today. Now, we all know that Britain cannot just do what it wants – that the US is the far more powerful player. At the start of 1956, though, large chunks of the map were still coloured British pink (or, come to that, French bleu), and the median opinion at home was that this was broadly a good thing. Suez was the moment when the loss of status we now date to 1945 came home. I wonder, in my darker moments, if we're going through something similar now – a less dramatic decline, perhaps, but a potentially more ruinous one. The loss of empire, after all, was mainly an issue for the pride of the political classes. Today's decline in status affects everyone. Consider the number of areas in which the current British government seems utterly helpless before the might of much bigger forces. It's not quite true to say that Rachel Reeves has no room for manoeuvre – breaking a manifesto pledge and raising one of the core taxes remains an option, albeit one that would be painful for government and taxpayer alike. But her borrowing and spending options are constrained by the sense of a bond market both far flightier than it once was, thanks to an increase in short term investors, and less willing, post-Truss, to give Britain the benefit of the doubt. The thing that much of the public would like Reeves to do – spend more, without raising taxes – is a thing it is by no means clear she has the power to do. Over in foreign policy, Keir Starmer has offended sensibilities by making nice with someone entirely unfit to be president of the United States, and whose actions place him a lot closer to the dictators of the 20th century than to Eisenhower or JFK. The problem for Starmer is that saying this out loud would likely result in ruinous tariffs, or the collapse of NATO before an alternative system for the defence of Europe can be prepared, or both. Again, he has no space to do what his voters want him to do. In the same vein, consider the anger about Britain's failure to act to prevent the horrors still unfolding in Gaza. It is not to imply the government has handled things well to suggest that at least part of the problem is that – 69 years on from Suez – the government of Israel doesn't give a fig about what the government of Britain thinks. The things the public wants may be outside the realm of things the government can actually deliver. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Even in less overtly political realms, the British state feels helplessly at the mercy of global forces beyond its control. The domestic TV industry, a huge British export, is in crisis thanks to the streamers. AI will change the world, we're told, and it's very possible that isn't a good thing: and what is Westminster supposed to do about that? And with which faculties? In all these areas and a thousand more, people want their government to do something to change the direction of events, and it is not at all obvious it can. Ever since 2016, British politics has been plagued by a faintly Australian assumption that, if a prime minister is not delivering, you should kick them out and bring in the next one. That is not the worst impulse in a democracy. But what if Britain is so changed that delivery is not possible? Researchers have found that social status affects the immune system of certain types of monkey – that the stress of lower status can, quite literally, kill. It already looks plausible the electorate might roll the dice on Nigel Farage. This is terrifying enough. But when it turns out he can't take back control either, but only trash what's there – what then? [See more: Trump in the wilderness] Related
