Elderberry in the garden...

When spies are not found, they are appointed...

Back on June 24, 2008, academicians V.L. Ginzburg and Yu.A. Ryzhov, head of the Glasnost Defense Foundation Alexey Simonov and I, executive secretary of the Public Committee for the Protection of Scientists E.I. Cherny, sent a letter of appeal to the President of the Russian Federation D.A. Medvedev with a request to deal with the cascade of accusations against scientists of espionage, disclosure of state secrets, and export of dual-use technologies.

We applied because for more than 10 years there has been rampant, immoral, unsubstantiated and unpunished discrediting of scientists and scientific institutions. On seven pages of the appeal, we tried to paint a depressing picture of the fabrication of criminal cases with serious charges against scientists, which has developed over the past decade - in fact, during Putin’s tenure in senior government positions: from the head of the Main Control Directorate to the President of the Russian Federation. It was then that spy mania blossomed in a lush, poisonous bouquet, carefully compiled by V. Putin himself.

Putin’s profound position can be understood if you carefully read part of his speech in the State Duma back on April 19, 2000, i.e. before the official assumption of office by the President. It deserves the most careful analysis: “If the Minister of Foreign Affairs is noticed that outside the scope of his official duties he maintains contacts with representatives of foreign states, then he, just like any other members of the government, deputies of the State Duma, leaders of factions, will like all other citizens of the Russian Federation, will be subject to certain procedures in accordance with criminal law. And I must say that the latest events that are being carried out in the Federal Security Service tell us that this is quite possible...”

What did lawyer Putin say? Where did he find the criminal law, according to which the FSB was already working so actively at that time (“the latest events”)?

But it was precisely at that time that the FSB was in full swing in promoting the “spy” cases of Alexander Nikitin, Grigory Pasko, Valentin Moiseev, Igor Sutyagin, Vladimir Soifer, Vladimir Shchurov... In a word, from Putin’s “theory” to the practice of the FSB!

Meanwhile, there is still not a word in criminal law about responsibility for communicating with foreigners... What happens? It's very simple: Putin let it slip! It turns out that the above-mentioned and many other scientists were actually prosecuted for communicating with foreigners. Simply, due to the absence of a corresponding article in the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, they were charged with high treason, disclosure of state secrets, etc. It was important to punish, but what excuse the FSB came up with for this did not matter.

Let's return to our letter. It also had about 100 pages of appendices, which made it possible to examine in detail and understand the arguments of the members of the Public Committee for the Defense of Scientists. We really hoped that our arguments would be heard by the new government.

As we were informed by the Presidential Administration, the letter was reported by D.A. Medvedev and, by his order, sent for consideration to the Prosecutor General's Office.

Well, then, despite the change of supreme power, things turned out as always. Head of the department for supporting prosecutors in the supervisory stage of criminal proceedings G.N. The Motherland sent a reply. And, of course, without a single argument. The following passage cannot be considered an argument: “The guilty verdicts against Sutyagin and Danilov were decided by a court with the participation of a jury. According to the current legislation, the jury’s verdict cannot be questioned.” That’s great, but why was the 2003 jury’s acquittal verdict in the case of V.V. called into question? Danilova? Mrs. Rodina doesn’t say a word about this. There is complete silence about the Decision of the Kaluga Regional Court of 2001 in the case of I.V. Sutyagin, where on each count of the charge Judge Gusev (not human rights activists!) indicated that neither the accused nor the court could understand what Sutyagin was accused of.

And the Prosecutor General’s Office is not interested in this? She is also not interested in the fact that in Sutyagin’s second trial, judges and jury panels were changed like gloves, and they managed to “accidentally elect” intelligence officer Yakimishin to the last panel. This, of course, is for greater objectivity! But this is not interesting for the Motherland either. Then a completely legitimate question arises: why does this lady work in the highest prosecutor’s office in the country?

It is obvious that Ms. Rodina should not hold responsible positions in the public service, just like the head of the FSB investigative department, General N. Oleshko. It is equally obvious that they are exactly what Vladimir Putin’s government needs. As long as Putin is in power, such “personnel” will determine the fate of our citizens. And vice versa: as long as such people occupy high government positions, Putinism is unshakable.

Discouraged by the monstrous verdict against Danilov, academician Yuri Ryzhov at the end of 2004 gathered experts on the problem (protection of spacecraft in geostationary orbit from factors of the space environment), which was also dealt with by V.V. Danilov. The question was posed clearly: to assess the degree of openness of the work that Valentin Danilov, on behalf of his university, WAS GOING to carry out for China. Note that Danilov did nothing and did not transfer anything to the Chinese side, except for the TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS (this can be called a declaration of intent). The scientists invited to the seminar were highly qualified experts - doctors of sciences who dealt with this particular problem. The answer was unequivocal: there are no secrets left in this problem for a long time. What Danilov was going to implement has long been published both here and abroad.

Two FSB generals were present at this seminar: Deputy Head of the FSB Investigation Department N. Oleshko and Deputy Head of the FSB Operations Department A. Raikovich. The scientists' assessments left the generals despondent. N. Oleshko immediately stated that they were investigators, not specialists - it was the experts who told us that everything was secret. We, as law-abiding officials, were forced to initiate a criminal case. A simple question remained behind the scenes: why did they attract as experts not the famous specialists present at the seminar, but the most varied audience: a combined arms commander, a person with a physical education education, professors from Baumanka, who at the same time for some reason were experts in the field of hydrodynamics in the case of prof. Anatoly Babkin... That is, experts were selected that were necessary and convenient for the investigation and prosecution. As a result, the court worked and made decisions based on unreliable expert information.

Similar manipulations with experts were carried out in the case of Igor Sutyagin.

I cannot help but recall the words of General Raikovich, who was present at the seminar - we, of course, are not calling for a return to the times of the USSR, but we cannot allow a situation where anyone can freely communicate with foreigners. Let us pay attention to the fact how clearly this statement agrees with the above words of President Putin and we will make a well-founded conclusion that there was no treason. Measures were taken to prevent communication between specific scientists and foreign citizens. And the very atmosphere of spy mania was supposed to intimidate scientists and public structures. Therefore, no one cared about the credibility of the accusations. It was believed that intimidated scientists and citizens would be completely satisfied with the usual declarations of the FSB, which were always accepted by society and the courts as evidence. This time it failed. The public realized that the accusations of espionage were crudely and unprovenly fabricated by the FSB. That the FSB, among other things, needs to constantly prove its necessity to fight the internal enemy (terrorists and spies all around). Otherwise, how can one justify the gigantic costs incurred by the state and society for the maintenance of this department?

Moreover, the imprisonment of another “spy” results in new titles, positions, awards and transfers to the center for FSB functionaries. In such a situation, the flow of spies will be inexhaustible. The FSB annually reports on many dozens of spies captured. Some department heads even reported hundreds. A keen nose for the wishes of superiors guarantees honors and a comfortable existence. In other words, when real spies are not found, they are assigned.

Whether the new president will want to know and understand the truth about the strange activities of his intelligence service remains in question. But we have a completely precise answer to one historical question: we have forgotten 1937 and are therefore doomed to repeat a poorly learned lesson.

The author is the executive secretary of the Public Committee for the Protection of Scientists