www-russia.org

Chapter 28: The Ledger of the Lost

After the visceral, emotional impact of the stolen children, the prosecution’s strategy pivoted. The temperature in the courtroom dropped. The evidence of tears was replaced by the chilling quiet of the morgue.

The first witness was Lyudmila Volkova, the daughter of a liberal politician who had died after “falling out of a hospital window” two years prior. She was a woman of forty, her face poised, her grief honed to a sharp, articulate fury. She spoke of her father, of his quiet courage, of the escalating threats he had received.

“The official report,” she said, her voice steady, “concluded that my father, a man who had a lifelong, paralyzing fear of heights, suddenly decided to commit suicide by climbing onto a sixth-floor window ledge while suffering from a mild case of pneumonia.” A bitter, humorless smile touched her lips. “The state asked us, and the world, to believe this absurdity. They did not even try to make the lie convincing. The sheer, naked contempt for the truth—that was part of the message.”

Next, the prosecution submitted a thick binder into evidence, a file formally provided by the government of the Federal Republic of Germany. It was their complete investigative report on the death of a Russian diplomat found on the pavement outside the Russian embassy in Berlin.

The prosecutor, his voice a dispassionate scalpel, dissected the case with brutal precision. He showed the court architectural diagrams of the embassy, highlighting the impossibly high, unclimbable fence. He presented the German coroner’s report, which noted multiple fractures inconsistent with a simple fall, but chillingly consistent with a body that had been severely beaten before being thrown from a great height. Then came the final, damning evidence: German intelligence intercepts from the night of the death. The disembodied voices of two known FSB agents stationed at the embassy were played in the silent courtroom, their conversation transcribed on the monitors.

AGENT 1: “The package is damaged.”
AGENT 2: “The fall was higher than anticipated. The delivery is still a delivery.”

The sloppiness, the sheer, breathtaking arrogance of it, hung in the air. This was a regime that had believed it could commit murder on the sovereign soil of a NATO country with impunity.

The final witness of the day was the ghost in the machine. A high-level defector from the FSB’s Fifth Service, provided by General Volkov’s new government. He testified from a remote, undisclosed location, his face a digital blur, his voice a synthesized monotone. He calmly and methodically laid out the internal architecture of the state’s assassination program. He spoke not of crimes of passion, but of a bureaucratic procedure.

He described the “Zayavka,” the formal application process for an elimination, which would be reviewed for its political necessity. He described the “Metod” committee, a ghoulish board that would then decide on the most appropriate method of disposal: a “neschastnyy sluchay” (unfortunate accident), a “serdechnyy pristup” (heart attack), or the classic, deniable “vypadeniye iz okna” (fall from a window). He confirmed that both Lyudmila Volkova’s father and the diplomat in Berlin were entries in this terrible ledger, their fates decided in a quiet meeting room in the Lubyanka.

In the dock, the former President, who had remained impassive throughout the evidence of the crying children, now showed a flicker of raw, undiluted emotion. It was not horror. It was not shame. It was a flash of pure, cold fury. He was not enraged by the murders being described. He was enraged by the betrayal. The sacred, unspoken law of the siloviki—the code of silence—had been broken. He stared at the blurred face on the monitor, his eyes filled with a look of murderous hatred.

The prosecutor concluded his examination. “So, to be clear for the court, the elimination of political opponents was not a matter of rogue agents. It was a formal, state-sanctioned administrative procedure?”

The synthesized voice of the witness replied, the words stripped of all human feeling. “Yes. As routine as applying for a passport.”

The Discourse, 28: State-Sanctioned Assassination as a Tool of Governance

Section 28.1: The Banality of Administrative Evil
The defector’s testimony provides a chilling look into what the philosopher Hannah Arendt famously called the "banality of evil." The true horror of the regime's assassination program lies not in its brutality, but in its bureaucratization. The creation of a formal, procedural system—with applications ("Zayavka") and committees ("Metod")—transforms murder into a routine administrative task. This is a crucial psychological mechanism for the perpetrators. It detaches the act from its moral consequences. An official is no longer ordering a murder; he is simply approving a file, processing paperwork. This administrative evil is often more terrifying and more scalable than the passionate evil of a single tyrant, as it allows an entire system of otherwise ordinary people to become complicit in extraordinary crimes.

Section 28.2: "Plausible Deniability" and the Contempt for Truth
The regime's chosen assassination methods—falls from windows, sudden heart attacks—are a cynical application of the principle of "plausible deniability." However, as the witness Lyudmila Volkova points out, the constructed lies were often deliberately absurd. This serves a secondary, more sinister purpose. By forcing the population and the international community to pretend to believe an obvious falsehood, the state demonstrates the totality of its power. The message is not just "we can kill you," but "we can kill you, and then we can make you thank us for the lie we tell about it." This contempt for truth is not a byproduct of the autocracy; it is a central pillar of its power.

Section 28.3: The Strategic Blunder of Arrogance
The case of the diplomat in Berlin illustrates a common strategic blunder of long-entrenched authoritarian regimes: the erosion of caution by arrogance. A regime that has successfully carried out such operations for years can begin to believe it is infallible, leading to sloppiness and a disregard for operational security. The assumption that they could operate with impunity inside a sophisticated adversary's capital, without being monitored, was a fatal miscalculation. In the context of the trial, this arrogance becomes a gift to the prosecution. The state’s belief in its own impunity created a clear, damning evidentiary record (the signal intercepts) that a more cautious and professional intelligence service would have avoided, turning their own hubris into a key that would unlock their crimes for the world to see.