Victims of reputation

Reputation is such a thing that can help out under some circumstances, and under certain circumstances, to bring it down. A good reputation will sometimes save, even if you do not a very decent act, because people simply will not believe that you are capable of this. But if your reputation is bad, they will believe that you are capable of and not like that.

In Russia, the reputation is bad, and the Litvinen-Love-Love case once again confirms this. And although the emphasis is placed, and estimates in the world are given to us, this is still a rather dark thing. If you understand well, our positions are a little worse than English. Britain demands to give out the meadow, and in this she is absolutely right, since he suspects him of committing a serious, and also savage crime.

But it is clear to everyone that this process is considered only formally criminal, because it is obvious that the meadow is not considered a single killer, a private person who committed violence. It implies the Kremlin’s hand, and it is impossible to convince the Western layman in this. As well as our liberal public. Although I still do not see any sense in the Kremlin to kill Litvinenko. And ultimately, it damaged Putin and the Kremlin.

But reputation! And it is such that it is enough just to make the assumption that the special services and the Russian president are involved here, as everyone will read this with readily. Of course, Russia would not give me a meadow under any circumstances, but it could not give it more likely, because she herself received a refusal of the British for similar requests for the issuance of Zakayev and Berezovsky. In this situation, any country would be indignant: you do not give us, but you yourself demand!

There is no need to say that the accusations against the meadow and against the gentlemen are not comparable. Even as comparable. Yes, Lugovoi seemed to expose hundreds of people to the risk of infection with radioactive substances, but are there these infected in reality? Where are they? And if they are not, maybe the risk was not so great? After all, the Polonius did not visit until he found himself in a cup of Litvinenko tea. And besides himself, everyone is alive and well. But reputation! Who will allow himself to doubt that the threat was, and it was real?

And on the other hand, Mr. Berezovsky. He is the same democrat, liberal and fighter for freedom, like ... I don’t even know what comparison to choose. According to my sensations, there is nowhere to put the stigma on Boris Abramovich. This is his reputation. Here. And "there" this still needs to be proved! “There” Berezovsky has another reputation - a prisoner of conscience and human rights activist. He openly proclaims a course for a revolution. Not a single country in the world will tolerate the impunity of a person calling for a rebellion. As well as she would not tolerate the impunity of a person who was one of the leaders of real armed rebels, like Mr. Zakayev. And in the same way it is difficult to believe that, taking such a post, in the conditions in which the war in Chechnya took place, he did not kill anyone or did not give the order to kill.

But our reputation is such that no one will ever believe in the arguments of the Russian prosecutor's office. Because, firstly, she was used to building her affairs not on evidence, but on “sensations”. It seems to be a fool that Zakayev is a bandit, and Berezovsky is a crook and a provocateur. But there is no legal term "and so understandable." But there is evidence and evidence. However, I will not be surprised if the prosecutor’s office limited myself to “sensations” and “already obvious things”.

For the West, this is not a sufficient basis for recognizing people by criminals. But, by virtue of our reputation, it is completely admitted that if we give Russia Berezovsky or Zakayev, the investigation and the trial of them will not be honest and objective, the evidence and testimony will be false, and violence will be applied to the suspects to knock out the necessary information.

At the same time, the reputation of British justice is such that the meadow - if he is really innocent - can be safely released into London, not fearing that the process will turn into a farce. We propose to judge the meadow here, but are we conducting an investigation against him? Because so far we still know about the Russian “version” of this investigation only that our investigators interrogated Berezovsky and asked him questions, but on completely different topics. Perhaps the British investigation against Russian political emigrants was no more careful, but the reputation of the British is such that they are obviously not considered hack.

And so you can continue to infinity. No matter what theoretical advantages we have, our reputation will work against us.