Litvinenko, a former KGB officer and vocal critic of former Russian President Vladimir Putin, was poisoned with a radioactive substance in London in 2006. One high-ranking official said he had “very strong indications it was a state action.”

British investigators have complained that Russian authorities have not been cooperative. Citing a law barring extradition for its citizens, Russia has refused to hand over Andrei Lugovoi, another former KGB officer suspected by UK authorities of the murder. Lugovoi maintains his innocence.

MI5 officers also said they had averted an assassination attempt against Boris Berezovsky, a wealthy Russian oligarch living in exile in London. Russia has previously tried to extradite Berezovsky, a vocal Putin critic charged with fraud and political corruption.

Relations between the UK and Russia reached post Cold-war lows after the Litvinenko murder, and have remained rocky ever since. The Times newspaper reported on July 4th that British security services see Russia as the third most serious threat facing the country, after Iran and Al-Qaeda.

Other officials told the Telegraph newspaper that that Russia’s spy efforts in the country have taken resources away from fighting terrorism.

“MI5’s resources have been stretched to the limit for the past few years,” one source said. “There have been times when there was nothing left in the locker, when all of our assets were being used on one operation.”

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev are currently meeting at talks of the Group of 8 in Japan.

Russia and Belarus are the only European nations on the list. Separate chapters are also devoted to Afghanistan, Myanmar, China, Columbia, Cuba, the Dem. Rep. of the Congo, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Israel and the Palestinian territories, Nepal, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Vietnam and Zimbabwe.

According to the publication, Russia has experienced “a shrinking of the democratic space” over the past year and a half, resulting in part from recent laws on non-governmental organizations and countering extremism. The British Foreign Office is also concerned with violations during December 2007 State Duma elections, and is disappointed that Russian authorities “prevented” independent electoral monitoring by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s (OSCE’s) Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR).

Other issues include new restrictions on the freedom of the Russian mass-media, and the growing security risks faced by journalists. The report also voices concern over an accelerating rate of attacks on ethnic, racial and religious minorities, increasingly common use of punitive psychiatry, and the endless reports of murder, torture, kidnappings and unlawful arrests in the North Caucasus region.

The publication also devotes time to Anna Politkovskaya, the slain investigative journalist whose violent murder remains unsolved. Additionally, the authors bring to light gross violations on the freedom of assembly for both the political opposition as well as the gay-rights movement.

The British Foreign office earmarked some 700 thousand pounds to Russian non-governmental organizations in the 2006-2007 fiscal year, funding 18 projects for developing the rule of law and protecting human rights. According to the report, 16 projects in the same fields will receive over 440 thousand pounds in the 2007-2008 fiscal year.

Read the complete report (pdf). The section on Russia begins on page 169.

Russia this week upheld another shining foreign policy victory: The work of regional branches of the British Council in St. Petersburg and Yekaterinburg was suspended. These brazen British, who have been soiling Russia for more than just the past century, reckoned on defending themselves with certain arrangements, like the 1994 bilateral agreement on cooperation in the domains of culture, science and education. Since in accord with [the agreement], Moscow pledged (oh, those “accursed 90s”) to “foster on its territory the opening of centres of culture, education and information of the opposite side,” and “provide every assistance to such centres.” Those shysters from foggy Albion were also counting on the fact that the British Council in Russia holds the status of a cultural branch of the embassy, and that all diplomatic privileged are extended to it. They were calculating, no doubt, that our mighty state would be proving somewhere, that the activities of British Council employees were illegal.

The good people studied our history poorly. Otherwise, they would have known how [Count Alexander von] Benckendorf rebuked the unfortunate [Baron Anton Antonovich] Delvig, who risked making reference to the law: “Laws are written for the subjects, and not for the authorities, and you don’t have the right to refer to them or use them to excuse yourself in your explanations with me.” And [the laws] are not strong in the ideology of the present-day Russian government. Otherwise the [students] would remember how one of Benckendorf’s successors explained the essence of “sovereign democracy” a few years back: “We must be the masters in our own country.” Not the law, not the people –THEM. And that’s why [the authorities] can demonstrate their truth by having “prophylactic talks” with Russian citizens working at the British Council, or by arresting Stephen Kinnock, who heads the St. Petersburg branch, for driving under the influence.

In truth, this whole comical war with the British Council—an organization called to serve the dissemination of the English language [and] knowledge of Great Britain’s culture—very clearly demonstrates the fundamental differences between the political cultures of the two countries.

More than a year ago, even before [Alexander] Litvinenko’s poisoning, when the Kremlin was taking pleasure in badgering the British ambassador with the help of the Nashi [youth group], one of Russia’s political analysts couldn’t bear it and asked a question: why don’t the British respond appropriately. Why not establish an “Ours” movement (preferably out of the most die-hard Liverpool [Football Club] fans”) and establish a merry existence for the Russian ambassador. Any why not, at present, make use of the circumstance that the children, wives and mistresses of Russia’s highest-[ranking] civil servants permanently reside in the United Kingdom? A Scotland Yard special division, in collaboration with MI-5 could easily discover a couple cartridges, or a baggie with heroin on family-members of some ardent British detractor. Under an “eye for an eye” logic, they would entirely have the right—remember, that the Stephen Kinnock arrested in St. Petersburg is the son of Neil Kinnock, the former head of the [British] Labour [Party].

Finally, why don’t they use the bank accounts of Russian citizens as a pressure lever. Well, why not review them for money laundering? And block them for the period of examination.

In a word, a lot of things could be contrived. And all that would remain would be to marvel at the desperation of Russia’s higher-ups, who had turned their loved ones into natural hostages on enemy terrain. But that’s just it, what the representatives of the so-called Russian elite understand perfectly well is that on the territory of the United Kingdom, nothing will endanger their families or even their money. For the simple reason, that even now, as in Benckendorf’s times and even earlier, the authorities in that country serve the laws, and not the other way around. The court there isn’t [like] Basmanny. And it doesn’t hand out arrest warrants on the prime minister’s command. And it allows extradition only in the event if a person’s guilt is proven.

And Russia’s patriotic superiors are perfectly aware of this. They prefer to keep their families in England, as at any moment, their close ones could become hostages in their native land.

Translated by theotherrussia.org