Tim Hames<\/a>. Le th\u00e8me en est cette affaire Litvinenko (sous-titr\u00e9 : Poutine coupable), l’humeur en est passablement agac\u00e9e.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00abWere it not that a man has died, the Litvinenko affair might be viewed as the most extraordinarily effective publicity campaign for the new James Bond movie. It has everything that once made 007 so successful. There are a host of shady spies, unseen masterminds in the background and a mystery poison that has led to luxury hotels, a fleet of aircraft and even an entire football stadium being checked for radioactivity. It produced reports yesterday of Alexander Litvinenko having suggested to a female Russian academic that they team up to exploit his many contacts in the Russian security services and then blackmail several prominent figures and an excited front-page headline somewhere else that read: Revealed: how Russia is biggest spy threat to Britain.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbThe effect has been to suggest that the Cold War is not quite history. The collective rush to judgment to pin blame directly on Vladimir Putin, as Litvinenko did so spectacularly from his hospital deathbed, is breathtaking. The Russian President has been portrayed as if another Ernst Blofeld, the sinister founder of Spectre, stroking his white cat while calmly deciding whether or not to terminate his enemies.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbIt has been widely concluded that whether or not Mr Putin endorsed this specific hit the lid has been lifted on his regime. This supposed democrat, it has been declared, is the heir to Lenin, Stalin and several of the brutal Tsars before them.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbIt is not merely my desire to avoid an encounter with polonium-210 that makes me cautious about this emerging consensus. The counsel of John Reid, the Home Secretary, both publicly in the House of Commons and, apparently, privately in Cabinet, not to make assumptions about this astonishingly murky saga seems to me to be wise.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n\t\u00bbThe notion that we have somehow travelled back in time 30 or 40 years, with Russia once more to be treated as the menace that it used to be to Britain and the British, is dangerous nonsense.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tLe reste de la chronique est \u00e0 cette aune. L’auteur trouve l’attaque contre Poutine hyst\u00e9rique, pr\u00e9cipit\u00e9e, infond\u00e9e ; il juge les appr\u00e9ciations sur la Russie, d\u00e9nonc\u00e9e comme anti-d\u00e9mocratique, perverse, dangereuse, etc., comme exag\u00e9r\u00e9es, int\u00e9ress\u00e9es et souvent absurdes. Nous ne sommes plus en 1968 ni en 1936 mais en 2006, nous rappelle-t-il. Surtout, dit Hames, Poutine et la Russie sont engag\u00e9s dans la guerre contre le terrorisme, notamment dans l’affaire tch\u00e9tch\u00e8ne. (\u00abThe Kremlin is a natural ally to Downing Street and the White House in this struggle. James Bond is very entertaining. In the real world, we should not recast Russia as the enemy.<\/em>\u00bb) <\/p>\n<\/p>\n\tL’int\u00e9r\u00eat du commentaire est que la critique qu’il nous offre met en \u00e9vidence le dilemme de la droite atlantiste, lib\u00e9rale et anglo-saxonne. D’un c\u00f4t\u00e9, il y a un courant, m\u00ealant des lib\u00e9raux anciennement proches des communistes, des anciens trotskistes reconvertis en n\u00e9o-conservateurs, des nostalgiques divers de la Guerre froide et des causes simples, tous ces gens appuy\u00e9s sur les anciens pays d’Europe de l’Est et les diverses r\u00e9volutions arc-en-ciel, qui voient dans la Russie un ennemi mortel, et dans Poutine un nouveau Staline. Du moins est-ce le fondement de leur plaidoirie.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tDe l’autre c\u00f4t\u00e9, il existe un courant plus nettement conservateur, qui a fait sien le choix de son Ennemi favori dans le terrorisme islamiste. Dans ce cas, Poutine devient un alli\u00e9, et la Russie une place-forte de la barri\u00e8re \u00e9rig\u00e9e contre le terrorisme. Pour cette tendance, d\u00e9noncer la Russie et Poutine constitue une d\u00e9marche l\u00e9g\u00e8re et compl\u00e8tement contre-productive.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tCe dilemme, cet affrontement fratricide est int\u00e9ressant \u00e0 suivre et il le sera de plus en plus. L’affaire Litvinenko pr\u00e9sente tous les ingr\u00e9dients de complication, d’implications byzantines, de manipulations dans tous les sens, de mythomanie et de d\u00e9sinformation, pour faire monter la sauce. Le fumet est remarquable.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
\tMis en ligne le 4 d\u00e9cembre 2006 \u00e0 15H45<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
On trouve un tr\u00e8s int\u00e9ressant commentaire dans le Times de Londres de ce matin, sous la plume de Tim Hames. Le th\u00e8me en est cette affaire Litvinenko (sous-titr\u00e9 : Poutine coupable), l’humeur en est passablement agac\u00e9e. \u00abWere it not that a man has died, the Litvinenko affair might be viewed as the most extraordinarily effective… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[3711,2689,6188,6176,916,1267,2852],"class_list":["post-68272","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-atlantiste","tag-droite","tag-hames","tag-litvinenko","tag-poutine","tag-terrorisme","tag-times"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68272","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=68272"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68272\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=68272"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=68272"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=68272"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}