Much has been said about Alexander Litvinenko’s death in the past weeks; all sorts of opinions have been voiced and assessments made. What was left out of the context, however, was his family’s personal tragedy. As if we are discussing just another up or down of the dollar exchange rate… What do we really know about November 23? That the distraught ex-lieutenant-colonel died in a London hospital.

A different interpretation would smack of gutter journalism, and more, it would affect the course of investigation, directly or indirectly. Inventing versions and shifting emphases, journalists and analysts might prompt an unusual approach. At the same time, they might disturb the detectives’ objectiveness, which is of major importance, because the case has political implications.

Whatever our attitude to Litvinenko as a person, or to the reasons for his flight, one must bear in mind the following axiom. A former special service agent mingling in unofficial politics and entering the area of oligarchic interests is in for unpredictable and even tragic consequences. In other words, the former FSB officer must have known what he was doing. It means there must have been something that was worth it, something much bigger than an ordinary émigré’s income. If he had no idea he was asking for trouble, than one might doubt his responsibility.

In any case, a special service turntail can expect neither political, nor personal trust, even if his “new motherland” welcomes him with open arms. The same holds true for his contacts – I mean the “reliable witnesses” in Litvinenko’s case, English or Italian or whatever they are. After granting him refuge, the British government was surely watching him – but only as closely as was good for Britain’s interests. Maybe they didn’t need him anymore, thinking he had annoyed Moscow just enough by defecting and pouring out his political troubles to them. Maybe he even became dangerous for his new benefactors. In any case, a “well-behaved” and “law-abiding” defector would by all means avoid both publicity and political protection. Litvinenko was different. There is something worth investigating here.

It looks like almost each important event in modern Russia is accompanied by something like a Litvinenko case. Why is it so? It became very conspicuous after Vladimir Putin replaced Boris Yeltsin. For some reason, the West was much kinder to the latter. Why, might one ask? Why had no one been so loudly concerned about Chechnya before Yeltsin’s abdication on the New Year’s Eve (2000)? While now, the highly concerned Lord Jadd appeared in Grozny simultaneously with President Putin, if not even earlier.

Did you notice when exactly they started to describe Russia as “incorrigible,” meaning the aggravated energy problem? It was when the North European Gas Pipeline was first mentioned. Then came the time of the St. Petersburg summit, devoted to the same problems. Belarussian leader Alexander Lukashenko was then dubbed the key destroyer of the Russia-West trust: a week to the G-8 meeting, 20% of the total news content of the main western portals was given to him.

Now, back to Litvinenko. Sky News, one of the leading TV channels in Britain, devotes almost 90% of its air-time to this case. Other West European and American channels give less, but still around 20 to 30% of their air-time is used to discuss the death of the Russian FSB defector. As if they couldn’t find other problems worthy of their coverage on all five continents… OK, but someone must be paying for 20% and up of those major media empires’ attention, as they are far from altruistic. Now they are looking for Polonium traces in Abkhazia. Where would have they been looking if Moscow and Tbilisi got along better?

It seems that the West was kinder to Russia when the latter was pushed to the geopolitical margin. Today this humanitarian and compassionate concern of the West has reached a global scale. If this is so, we had better start discussing a political-information parity, in addition to a military one. Murders and inexplicable deaths happen in all parts of the world. For instance, the US vice president injures a friend while hunting; let’s universally discuss whether or not he is suited for his post! If the friend had died, the vice president would have gone straight to the International Tribunal, for a crime against humanity. Because each Homo sapiens is a model of the universe. Let us also hint here that the Iraqi statistics has long outmatched the Chechen figures.

The geopolitical confrontation is leading us into an information war. Litvinenko died; maybe it’s time those who survive stop and reflect?