Perhaps you should have read through to the end some of the websites you posted:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061203/ts_afp/britainrussiaspy

"The Observer newspaper said the US Federal Bureau of Investigation had accompanied Scotland Yard detectives during questioning of another Russian exile, former KGB agent Yuri Shvets, in Washington.

Shvets -- who has links to London-based dissident Russian tycoon Boris Berezovsky -- reportedly compiled a file Litvinenko had in his possession containing potentially damaging revelations about Moscow and the state takeover of Russian oil company Yukos."

So yes, Yukos is involved in the case now, specifically Putin's shady maneuvering to strip its executives of power and secure for the Kremlin majority ownership.

Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely no love for Russia's robber-barons either. But as the post below noted, the only difference between Putin and one of Russia's countless billionaire tycoons is the power-base each was able to consolidate around him. An executive at Yukos had wealth, connections in the business world, and the leverage that comes from controlling a small chunk of an inelastic resource like oil. Putin had the "legitimate" powers of the state - the police, the security services, and the provincial governors. It just so happened Putin knew how to wield his power better. Anyone who can ascend to Russia's presidency (other than that ineffectual drunk, Yeltsin, who had the luxury of Western backing) and not only keep power for six-plus years, but strengthen his grip exponentially, has somethng of the archcriminal in him.

Trust me, Putin fears organized discontent at home far more than a "tarnished" image abroad. It's understandable why Russians would want some stability after a decade of Chicago-style gangland killings, and Putin understands better than anyone what people are willing to give up in order to get it. Eliminate street-level crime, and most Russians won't make a peep if you happen to clear out any street protests in the process. Especially if they know it might mean tossing back a vodka-and-cyanide cocktail one afternoon as a consequence.

I also agree with just about everything you just wrote in your last post.

Litvinenko could easily have been murdered BEFORE his book was published, with far less visibility or repercussions for Putin politically.

So why was Litvinenko even allowed to write this book?

Why wasn't he gunned down or car bombed or poisoned while he was writing it?

Putin had Litvinenko completely in his power during Litvinenko's prison term. Why didn't Litvinenko slip in the shower and burst his spleen? He could have died of food poisoning, or a sudden heart attack, or he could have accidentally electrocuted himself by accidentally jamming his own fungers into a live socket.

I mean, you know, slopping a fat trail of Po210 all over Mayfair and Picadilly in full view of the international press with the embarassing book ranked in the top 1,000 at Amazon.com wasn't the most clever way for Putin to silence his opposition.

Why would he choose the least clever, most poorly timed way, instead of the most clever, most well timed way, to get rid of him?

I mean really -- right before his own party congress? Was that good timing for Putin? Not at all. It's cost him already.

But the American press is so dumb, we don't even get to learn he has a political party or that they have a congress or that Putin doesn't control the party himself.

No matter who is really guilty for this crime -- the reporting of it has completely sucked and made it look as if blaming Putin is a no-brainer.

Putin's guilt is not a no-brainer. It's American journalism that lacks the brains.

Nobody could open a small business, because the business model didn't allow paying taxes and mob protection at the same time.

So there were no good medium-priced restaurants in Moscow that managed to stay open for longer than a couple of months. The thick-necked muscle bound young man in the shiny brand new leather jacket with the giant gun bulge under his arm eventually started showing up and then it would close.

You saw those guys everywhere a new business was struggling to its feet.

That was a horrible human defeat, it wasn't just an inconvenience for hungry ex-pats.

It got so bad, the local newspapers were reduced to issuing pleas for the Mafia to cut their protection fees so the neighborhood restaurant business could grow.

I guess I do have a lot of anger stored up about that. It felt really terrible reading about what happened to the restaurant owners who didn't pay up.

I'm not really enamored of Putin. I am disgusted by American journalism.

The American press, as far as I know and understand, doesn't blow up apartment buildings to provoke wars.

Yes, I agree wtih you that super-rich Russian business men, by defintion, are not innocent lambs, and neither is anyone who worked at the FSB. They've all got dirty hands, but some hands are dirtier than others.

I agree with you that Putin's guilt isn't automatic, but I am a little disturbed by how much you come down on the US press, and jump to defend an almost-dictator. You may need to readjust your badness-meter. :)

Government workers including nuclear scientists going without paychecks for six months at a time because the government was broke because they couldn't make the oligarchs pay any taxes.

I saw how they had to collect to taxes in Moscow under Yeltsin -- an OMON raid. They had to call out the black berets to collect the taxes. It was wild. False walls, triple books, miniature armed wars.

It was wild, wild, scary time.

So under Yeltsin, small-business owners were extorted into non-existence. And under Putin, non-profits and activist groups are thrown into prison.

The American press is too easy on Russian tycoons. The American government is too easy on Putin.

Putin and the oligarachs - same aims, same morals, different tactics and bedfellows.

But I fear the power a one-party state possesses far more than the Wild-West-like environment that followed the fall of Communism. Organized crime always fills the immediate power vacuum that accompanies the fall of a tyrant. They're the best adapted to chaos and exploiting the capitalist model. The difference is that the countries that have fought and struggled their way through these ugly transition periods - Bulgaria, Romania, Georgia, etc. - have weathered the worst and are now rapidly modernizing under a free-market system with upcoming entry into the EU for the first two mentioned. There are still plenty of problems, but for the most part these countries are stable, and I met not one person in my year-plus living in the region who desired a return to their pre-1989 situation.

Your mistake seems to be in assuming that Putin stands in contrast to the mob bosses of the 1990s; quite the contrary, they all play the same game, and the fact that Putin has stood alone at the top of the heap for so long marks him a dangerous man. After all, what's shaking down a few restaurants compared to a hostile takeover of your country's entire energy industry?