Putin doesn’t aim to recreate the KGB
Henry Plater-Zyberk is a Senior Lecturer at the Conflict Studies
Research Centre of the
- You wrote in your report: The involvement of
local politicians in what should have been a security operation was a mistake,
although considering the regional sensitivities it was a situation
- I would like to start
from an admission that analysing events in a foreign, distant country on the
basis of printed and electronic media and even the best library in the
Coming back to your question:
political leader, anywhere in the world, is qualified to run an anti-terrorist
operation unless he/she has quite recently been in charge of a professional
team conducting similar operations.
in Beslan was to some degree a failure of the special services, law enforcement
agencies AND local authorities and local law enforcement bodies before the
attack started. It seems to me, just to give you
one example, that the local authorities could have done more to clean up
the area around the school and to set up a more distant first security
parameter. I am not suggesting that
that the creation of GrOU confirms that theory.
Local politicians will now be responsible for local security victories but also
failures. Local people will not be able to blame
opinion, why Putin decided to make MVD, not FSB responsible for antiterrorist
- I find this decision logical, IF the
MVD gets its act in order. This should be, in theory at least, a police
operation with important input from other relevant organizations. Had Putin
given this responsibility to the FSB, he would have to reform it again,
boosting its fighting capabilities. I don’t think there is any need for that.
That also would be a perfect excuse for his critics to accuse him of wanting to
recreate the NKVD, KGB and so on. It
is easy to sit in a warm office and pontificate about what Putin should and
shouldn’t do - I know all about it, I do it every day - but he had to take
several difficult decisions and none of them would be popular. I think this
decision was correct but I don’t envy Minister Nurgaliyev. At the moment, he
has probably the toughest job in
- In case of new hostage crisis
commander of GrOU will have to be chief of operational staff. What do you think, is it correct decision? In case of
hostage crisis in
- I think I covered the first part of
your question at the end of my previous answer. In the
- You wrote FSB will concentrate mainly on collection and analysis of
information. Do you know that just after Beslan in OGV (objedinennaya
gruppirovka voysk) was created joint intelligence service (objedinennaya
razvedyvatelnaya slujba) from FSB, MVD and GRU. Chief of this new service - deputy chief of OGV. It doesn’t
look like FSB remain main structure for collection of information in
- You are absolutely right but it doesn’t contradict my point. I think that on the tactical level that will be the case. If the MVD is in charge of the antiterrorist operations in the regions the MVD will have to have the necessary information to do the job. To my knowledge the MVD has very limitted electronic interception capabilities, if any, and none when it comes to space imagery. That is where the FSB and the GRU come in. The most difficult part will be the distribution of humint information, which for understandable reasons each of the organizations involved could be reluctant to share, especially if it suspects that one of the partners leaks.
- To my impression, Putin choose regions, not centre for main role in counterterrorism operation, and after all - for responsibility. Why, what do you think?
- I entirely agree although I am
not sure whether we should speak about “main role”. I would feel better with
“increasingly important role”, although as a non Russian, sitting very far away
- Question, what I hear every day from Putin supporters if I mention Yandarbiev’s case - why we can’t do the same thing, that Israel and USA can do? What is your response?
- My understanding is that your government officially rejected the accusation and the local authorities based their accusation on strong but circumstantial evidence, imperfect by definition. I am not qualified to comment on the legal aspect of the case. As to the second part of the question…. I don’t know. On one hand, if one would absolutely guarantee that such an action would, for example, stop the 9/11 attack very few decisonmakers would hesitate. But then there is a question “What then?” How many future terrorists may such an attack create ? We in the EU approach these things much too ideologically. If we had something like 9/11 or Beslan we would look at certain things more realistically.