Sheremet vs. Melyantsou: versions and political consequences of terrorist attack

On these topics in the "Prague accent" expert discuss the Belarusian Institute for Strategic Studies and a columnist Denis Melyantsou Russian newspaper "Kommersant", one of the leaders of the site "Belarusian Partisan" Pavel Sheremet.

Drakakhrust: Now the authorities give more information about the persons who are the main suspects: CCTV pictures were shown in the subway, in the media and got the video, the prosecutor Vasiljevic said that the fingerprints of an explosive device, which worked 3 July 2008 to coincide with the fingerprints detainee, said additional details on Saturday President Lukashenko.

However, many, or, at least, some of the statements of the authorities are not satisfied, in their view, it's all staged, hide the true culprits. Well, what evidence would convince them? For example, what would convince you, Paul?

Sheremet: The version announced by the authorities, is very contradictory. They are actually a few. When the terrorists were arrested just a day after the explosion, we are trying to tell Lukashenko, then it is unclear why a day after the explosion KGB chief Zaitsev gave three versions of what happened. But in an interview after Zaitsev BT Deputy Attorney General denied the Swedes version KGB. I have no doubt that among the Belarusian secret services there is a consensus about the versions of the attack.

There is growing evidence that the terrorist attack committed professional

So I'm wary of all official statements. There is growing evidence that the terrorist attack committed professional. Russian prosecutors involved in the investigation of the terrorist attack in Minsk, did not express any versions. They say only that there is any data to conduct a full investigation, but conservative in their estimates, which does not coincide with the propaganda version of Belarusian special services. Lie for the sake of political face, lie to appease public opinion only strengthens the suspicion of the authorities.

Drakakhrust: Paul, but that the authorities operate some objective facts, which in theory can be verified. The same video — is there a person detained or not, fingerprints — or they are or are not.

Sheremet: As long as we only hear about the objective evidence, they have not brought us. We have a lot of time on other high-profile cases — criminal and political — heard such self-assured statement of the Belarusian authorities. In the case of December 19, 2010 we also always say that all the investigated that there is a weight of evidence. But we all know that this case is sucked from the finger. Therefore trust the Belarusian special services I have no reason to.

I am very alarmed by Lukashenko's statement that the explosion in 2008, and the current explosion — the links of one chain. I am well aware of the investigation explosion in 2008, based on his conversations with former Interior Minister Naumov. The version that worked out then, does not lead in the direction of Vitebsk. It employed the best forces of the Interior Ministry, was done tremendous work. And the basic version was — part of special services, not necessarily Belarusian, but intelligence agencies, not anarchists or lone suicide.

There was to find out where these were special — from Belarus or from abroad, but the fact that they were professionals, the investigation did not have any doubts. And now we are trying to reveal all in one fell swoop attacks.

While the version that is played, only reinforces the suspicion is, and that makes me feel scared

When will the public trial, to be attended by independent lawyers, representatives of public organizations, if this court will be presented (that's presented, not stated) the evidence, if we hear the testimony of these alleged terrorists, it is clear, then I'm the first to ask forgiveness for their suspicions against the Belarusian government and Belarusian special services.

But while the version that is played, only reinforces the suspicion is, and that makes me feel scared.

DrakakhrustDenis, and you convince the official version? And how would you comment on the rather strange statement of Russian President Medvedev, who in connection with reports about the disclosure of the Minsk bombing case said: "From our experience, it is easier to identify perpetrators than to understand what mechanisms in this case were used and who organized crime and what goals he pursued unless there is an obvious version. " And this despite the fact that the official version is a single maniac and what can there be organizers or customers.

Melyantsou: I was a little alarming that so quickly was made in recognition of all three attacks. But the version does not seem fantastic. Much more unlikely and fantastic time version of the order from the authorities or the opposition or Moscow. Here are just a process of elimination you can act on the basis of the question qui prodest — who benefits.

The authorities need this attack less likely, especially given the economic difficulties and political consequences of last year's elections

The authorities need this attack less likely, especially given the economic difficulties and political consequences of last year's elections. Terrorist organization does not solve any problems, neither detracts from the currency crisis and rising prices (there is need each day, the currency needed for the calculations, and the terrorist attack in the mass consciousness will soon be forgotten) is not conducive to getting the Russian loan (credit conditions have changed for the latest applications), the EU has already introduced would never economic sanctions against Belarus. Especially the attack is not conducive to the exit of international isolation.

A deal with the opposition and could be for Square, the courts do not run out (you do not need any other reason). Russia generally satisfied with the kind of situation which hit Belarus, as it now is not going anywhere, you can wait until the very ripe and fall into the hands (plus Russia has never acted abroad such methods). The opposition in its current form is not capable of terror and does not want him here just to samazahavatstsa.

Extremist organizations that have professed terrorist methods of struggle in independent Belarus has never existed, as if they had suddenly appeared, then this would have been known to intelligence agencies. They would be fingerprinted and they would be calculated if they were involved in the previous explosions. Thus, we conclude that the attacks are not just systematic and random. Therefore, single version of the terrorist has a right to exist.

According attributed to Sigmund Freud, sometimes a banana — it's just a banana. The simplest is a clear version can be absolutely correct.

As for the words of Medvedev, then, since there are several official versions, they are not completely outcast, the Russians, and may believe that the attack should be customers. Especially, in the practice of Russian attacks Customer is always, there is a systemic reason for the attacks than the possible cause of the Minsk terrorist attack.

Drakakhrust: The official version — single maniac without any political motivations — in fact destroys the whole scheme of official also insinuations against the opposition. The same order Lukashenko interrogate the opposition, though he at the time of his applic
ation already knew the official version, it looks solid inadequate. However, the run-up continues on Saturday the President issued another set of charges:

Lukashenko: What say there made to divert (from the economic problems), people just idiots can talk like that … What they (the opposition) are doing — scum … You first raised at this level and compete with me. But what do you do mock ordinary people? What do you scare them? …

In his speech, several noteworthy features.

The first — the concentration of swearing and insults: idiot, scum, scum.

The second — kind of boyish bravado: "You want me to fight head-on, then go out on the hockey, football ground. Run, jump will be, we will fight, we'll shoot, for that matter."

Finally, the third — the strange arguments about the new president:

Lukashenko: Will I be your president or someone else, you get around these people party. What they say — they would have done so. Remember, this is terrible people … I must be with you will have to live with the new president. And I do not want to, so you do not have the opportunity to say a word.

What does this verbal aggression? He was so offended by the accusations or suspicions? Or is it a cynical calculation, an attempt to use the event for their own political purposes? And what makes this argument about another president, especially if the official version of the attack made crazy, and the president won the election by an overwhelming majority?

Melyantsou: I believe

The authorities have a feeling that not only the opposition expressed doubts about the official version, but think and the general public

and that the authorities have a feeling that not only the opposition expressed doubts about the official version, and distrust of the government, but people think so and the general public, so this version is to deny and refute aggressively. All of these quotes are not intended to accuse the opposition in connection with the attack (such attempts are only at the beginning of the week), but they have to discredit the opposition as such in the eyes of society, the destruction of her as a leader of public opinion (that she did not believe). In a situation of economic crisis, the post-election radicalized further electrification of the mass consciousness around the fact that the terrorist attack could have an extremely negative impact on the ruling government.

Lukashenko earlier with each situation, even hostile to him, tried to squeeze out what is possible. With this act of terrorism can once again pnuts opposition.

A passage of the next president is likely to context and not some hidden away message. It is likely that Ostap is called, has suffered. This often happens when Lukashenko breaks away from the prepared text.

Drakakhrust: Paul, how would you comment on the speech of the president?

SheremetI do not believe a word of it at all Lukashenko. I would like to remind you that at the meeting with the security forces, he said, it is necessary to search the entire country, search all, no matter what the democratic process and calls for democracy. He first says that we should all search and points directly to the opposition, and some time later assures us that it will not touch the opposition. Not one word of this man can not be trusted.

I understand that the people who are now in Belarus, every word can respond serious problems. But then it is better to remain silent than to try to justify the actions of the authorities

I am surprised by the statement that the government is disadvantageous that explosion. I understand that the people who are now in Belarus, every word can respond serious problems. But then it is better to remain silent than to try to justify the actions of the authorities.

When I say that the government somehow involved in the explosion, I mean that the situation in Belarus is so controlled by the security services, that if they ignore such attacks, it is 100% have at least their moral responsibility.

I do not condone these terrorists, but rather insist that these rascals, these bloody murderers were found as soon as possible and brought us so that we do not live in fear that these attacks are organizing people around the president who lost mind.

When we say that this explosion is disadvantageous to the authorities, let's just look at the facts. It seems we are talking about with Denis different countries. They say — do not attack diverted attention from the currency crisis. Dear friends, we are already a week discussing the attack, everyone forgot about the dollar.

The attack could not reject the Western countries against the imposition of economic sanctions. I want to remind you that on Tuesday, the day after the terrorist attacks, European leaders have generally refused to discuss the situation in Belarus. I tried on Friday to talk to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Poland Radoslaw Sikorski on the situation in Belarus, and he ran away from me, repeating the words of the attack.

And if it were not for the attack, it would Sikorski spoke out on the case Pochobut and on the political situation in general.

We already do not discuss political prisoners, we discuss anarchist bombings and stuff.

Drakakhrust: Paul, from what you said that some aspects of the situation were favorable to the Belarusian authorities. And you think of this with adnaznachnastsyu that she did?

Sheremet: For any act of terrorism in the first place it is necessary to understand who benefits from it.

Drakakhrust: In the first five and the last?

Sheremet: The first question asked by investigators who it was profitable. In Belarus, no one has claimed responsibility for the attack. And even a version with a lone terrorist is suspect, as in similar situations in other countries, lone terrorists still claimed authorship of the work. Unabomber, the FBI caught 20 years, have left the letter as proof of his authorship of the explosion.

Islamists, political extremists in Spain, in Germany always take responsibility. In a situation where no one takes responsibility, always looking for who benefits from it, and are looking for a trace of the secret services.

We discuss the story with Lukashenko and attack, allegedly the first time we have seen this president. And I always urge to look in the future and in retrospect.

Who were profitable kidnapping in Belarus 10 years ago, who were favorable to the murder Gonchar and Zakharenka?

Who were profitable kidnapping in Belarus 10 years ago, who were favorable to the murder Gonchar and Zakharenka? However, we all understand where the roots of these crimes who were profitable destroying the opposition.

Why do we exclude the possibility that both could appear among the opposition crazy, just crazy could appear among the generals of the KGB?

When it is said that the terrorist attack undermines Lukashenko, I want to remind you that all acts of terrorism in Russia led to the unification of society around the government. All terrorist acts in Russia does not weaken the position of Putin and Medvedev, and only intensified.

Since the bombings in Moscow, remember, the second Chechen campaign.

Why, when we analyze such attacks do not take into account the experience of other countries?

I therefore so aggressive that if proven version of intelligence involvement in the bombings, it means fear for the Belarusian society.

DrakakhrustDenis, Pau
l says here that your position is explained simply by the fact that you live in Belarus, and just afraid that if you tell the truth, you do something bad.

Melyantsou: The fact is that the truth does not know anybody. Paul was right to say that we are probably talking about different countries. I see the same line in exchange near my house, which pounded dozens of people who, in addition to lack of currency and economic crisis did not discuss.

Currency is necessary for all and forever. A terrorist attack was seen as something tragic and unfortunate, but that did not affect most people. And even that amount of Minsk residents who have come to put flowers on the October shows that is not so much the attack shocked the Belarusian society, so that we can talk about the significant social changes.

If someone is actively discussing the attack, its consequences and the course of the investigation, so it's bloggers, active citizens who sit on the Internet

If someone is actively discussing the attack, its consequences and the course of the investigation, so it's bloggers, active citizens who sit on the internet. Believe me, the majority of the society, the more nemenchuki, this terrorist act is gradually forgotten and remembered only when there are news on television.

There are people need every day, they go shopping, see a daily increase in prices and that is what they are discussing every day. Terrorist attack — it's tragic, but the attack was not with them and it was a long time ago.

Regarding the EU and sanctions. Indeed, for ethical reasons, the EU Council has refused to discuss the situation in Belarus, because it looked strange when people have a tragedy on Monday, on Tuesday to discuss what their democratic shortcomings.

But the question of sanctions, if and rising in advance when preparing the agenda of the meeting is not about to adopted a package of documents to impose economic sanctions.

It was absolutely impossible in those relationships that exist between the EU and Belarus. I believe that Lukashenko's analysts are not so little knowledge of the situation in the European Union to rely on the fact that the organization and promotion of terrorist attack can prevent the imposition of sanctions, which would never do it.

Thirdly, an example of the abduction of opposition that led Paul — is the phenomenon of quite another order, this is a political struggle is very cruel and cynical measures, but it is a political struggle. Abduction of their political opponents and vzryvanne its citizens in the metro — this will agree, totally different methods and phenomena. And not the fact that the explosions in the subway can contribute to the establishment of a better image of power and a solid control in the country.

In the case of Russia, the situation was quite different. Russia had to justify the war in Chechnya, there was only one enemy that could unite around the current government. In Belarus, there is no such an enemy. Lukashenko had not even mentioned. If his ideologues have tried to connect area, the crisis and the attack to show that customers — external, that these statements were braked and Lukashenko himself says he does not need to look no enemies, we have a crazy single.

DrakakhrustDenis, but Lukashenko himself said that these things are related, he said different during those days.

Melyantsou: I'm talking about the last statement. They disavowed those that have been done before, and now is a unique person who is well versed in chemistry and does not like people and like Lukashenko said, "for this is no political or religious hatred."

I do not see any benefit in the attack to the authorities, and not because I'm afraid, but because they do not see the argument

It's hard to imagine how people can unite around Lukashenko after such statements.

I do not see any benefit to the government, and not because I'm afraid, but because they do not see the argument. Those arguments are presented Paul, are not strong enough to convince me and others that the government was interested in organizing and conducting the attack.

Like this post? Please share to your friends: