GAYDAR'S WEEKEND INTERVIEWS LEAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 MOSCOW 012878

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR EUR/RUS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/12/2016
TAGS: PGOV PINR KDEM RS
SUBJECT: GAYDAR'S WEEKEND INTERVIEWS LEAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT
ALLEGED POISONING UNANSWERED

Classified By: Ambassador William J. Burns: 1.4 (b).

--------------
Summary
--------------


1. (C) A December 6 Financial Times article and two TV
interviews with ex-Prime Minister Gaydar broadcast the
weekend of December 8 have shed little light on Gaydar's
alleged poisoning November 22 in Dublin. Although Gaydar's
Moscow doctors have been unable or unwilling to state that
Gaydar had been intentionally poisoned on November 22, Gaydar
himself joined Anatoliy Chubais in asserting that he had been
poisoned; Gaydar went further in connecting the alleged
attempt on him with the killing of ex-FSB operative
Litvinenko. Gaydar, while asserting that he did not believe
the perpetrators were Russian officials, allowed that it was
possible that others in Russia could have been behind the
attempt on him. Gaydar denied to the Swedish Ambassador that
he had been poisoned and was "angry" that others, presumably
Chubais, had alleged foul play. In a later conversation,
Gaydar told our Ambassador that what he experienced was not
run-of-the-mill food poisoning. End summary.


2. (C) Ex-Prime Minister Gaydar followed his December 6
article in the Financial Times with two interviews on Moscow
television over the weekend of December 8 in which he
continued to assert that he was poisoned on November 22 while
at a conference in Dublin. (Gaydar fell ill at the
conference, was hospitalized in Dublin then returned, at his
own request, to Moscow where he spent several days
recuperating in a clinic. United Energy Systems Chairman
Anatoliy Chubais was quick to label Gaydar's illness a
poisoning, and implied that exiled Russian billionaire and
foe of President Putin Boris Berezovskiy might be
responsible. In the Times article, Gaydar was careful to
note that doctors in Moscow did not use the word "poisoning"
in their diagnosis "for reasons of professional ethics."
(Gaydar said they could not make such a diagnosis as sixty
hours had passed since the poison had allegedly entered his
system. He said nothing in the article, or in the
interviews, to suggest that doctors in Ireland had suspected
poisoning. The Irish Embassy confirmed to us that they had
no evidence to support a claim of deliberate poisoning.)


3. (C) In an interview with the REN weekly news program
"Nedelya" broadcast December 9, Gaydar said he was certain
that he had not been poisoned by Russian officials, but he
thought it possible that others in Russia or the secret
services of some other state could be responsible. In a
second interview, broadcast on December 10 the NTV program
"Segodnya," Gaydar again asserted that he had been poisoned
and termed the intentions of the perpetrators to be "not in
the interest of the Russian state." In the television
interviews, Gaydar linked what had happened to him with the
poisoning of ex-FSB agent and London-based critic of the
Putin government Aleksandr Litvinenko. The only evidence of
such a link offered by Gaydar was the timing of the two
events.


4. (C) Gaydar's allegation that he had been poisoned has
provoked varying preliminary responses here, with some
accepting his version at face value, and others more
skeptical. Gaydar family friend and Ekho Moskvy journalist
Yevgeniya Albats told us December 8 that she had met Gaydar
and his daughter Mariya on December 7. Albats thought Gaydar
had been poisoned, but seemed uncomfortable with that version
of events, and later in the conversation suggested that
Gaydar was "under some pressure" from Chubais, who had
asserted almost immediately that Gaydar was the victim of
foul play and was pushing Gaydar to hew to that line. Albats
admitted that Gaydar's Moscow physicians had to her knowledge
not confirmed Gaydar's allegations. Gaydar has presented
different versions to his diplomatic contacts. A
Moscow-based Swedish diplomat, on the other hand, told us
that Gaydar had told his ambassador that he was angry and
embarrassed at allegations that he had been poisoned. In a
later conversation, immediately prior to the publication of
the Financial Times article, Gaydar told our Ambassador that
what he experienced was not run-of-the-mill food poisoning.



5. (C) In a December 9 conversation, "Other Russia's" Garry
Kasparov --who is otherwise predisposed to believe the worst
about the current government-- rehearsed many of the
arguments used by observers here to cast doubts on Gaydar's
version of events:

-- why was Chubais immediately so certain that Gaydar had

MOSCOW 00012878 002 OF 002


been poisoned?

-- if Gaydar thought he had been poisoned, why would he
return to the likely home base of those attempting to poison
him? Kasparov found Gaydar's rationale, in the Financial
Times piece, that he returned to Russia because the Moscow
doctors were more familiar with his medical history, "not
convincing";

-- Gaydar's doctors have not confirmed that he was poisoned;

-- it was odd that the Dublin doctors would not have been
alert to the possibility of poisoning, as the Litvinenko case
was unfolding at the same time in London;

-- if he had been poisoned, why was Gaydar so certain that
"Russian officials" could not be the culprits?


6. (C) A colleague at the British Embassy also found Gaydar's
version of events "not convincing," but was not willing to
exclude the possibility that the former Prime Minister may
have been poisoned.

--------------
Comment
--------------


7. (C) Although on a much smaller scale than the murder of
Litvinenko, this episode is even more difficult to
understand, as it cannot even be said with certainty that
Gaydar was poisoned. Whether it was a failed murder attempt,
an attempt to distract attention from the Litvinenko murder,
or just food poisoning is not clear and may never be.
BURNS