“The Estonian president, prime minister, and interior minister have KAPO's report, in which the chair of the Centre Party, Edgar Savisaar is identified as a threat to national security. Specifically for the last half year KAPO counter intelligence officials have designated him as a threat and have named him as an agent of influence”, printed Postimees on December 16, 2010.
The term “agent of influence” usually describes both individuals and organizations serving the interests of a foreign power who is involved in operations influencing decision-making or opinions by holding considerable credibility among the target audience. They serve a foreign power either as a controlled agent directly recruited and controlled from abroad, as a “trusted contact” that deliberately collaborates to advance foreign interests, or as a “useful idiot” that is completely unaware of how he may be furthering the interests of a foreign power. Usually an agent of influence is someone of public stature and are the most difficult to detect as there is seldom any material evidence to connect them to a foreign power.
In Savisaar's petition to the courts these ‘unjust' assessments of him as using his position of influence as a bargaining tool were violations of his rights. He demanded the retraction of such statements, determination that his human rights have been violated and compensation for moral damages. The circuit court left a lower court finding unchanged in which Savisaar's claim had not been satisfied.
In 2010 Postimees published that KAPO reported the mayor had received $1.5 million from Moscow “to increase Russia's influence in Estonia”. The paper had noted that this was the exact amount of money spent on the construction of a Russian Orthodox church in Tallinn's most largest Russian-speaking district, Lasnamäe. It is also approximately the amount the Centre party would spend in an election campaign.
Some of the details of Savisaar's relationship with Russian establishments emerged during his personal discussion with KAPO. Other aspects of the contacts KAPO has uncovered itself. In the spring and fall of 2010 Savisaar had occasion to visit Moscow. His host was a long-time friend Vladimir Jakunin, ex-KGB and head of Russian Railway who has visited Savisaar country home at Hundisilma and helped to finance the church in Lasnamäe.
He was invited to stay at the Russian Railway's lush Rublevka complex, in a district populated by Russia's most wealthiest entrepreneurs. One of Putin's residence's is located there, next door to Savisaar's host.
Savisaar's official explanation of his visit to Moscow in April 2010 was to see about the publishing possibilities of his book “Prime Minister”. But Estonian counterintelligence had another reason – to find a solution to pay off the 30 million crowns that Savisaar's Centre party owed creditors. Financing for the Lasnamäe church was not on the agenda according to counterintelligence. The latter was interested in the transfer of 1.5 million euros (not the 1.5 million the church needed). It's claimed that Estonian intelligence operatives were able to block an exchange of luggage, hindering the transfer of the money.
Savisaar was also under surveillance in October of 2010 on a trip to Greece to attend the “The Dialogue of Civilizations” conference, accompanied by city council member Sofia Derjugina. Also attending was Vladimir Jakunin, of Russian Railway, a man of prime interest for Estonian intelligence. Since Jakunin had a close personal relationship with Putin, it was certain that the financing of the Centre Party would be known to him. Savisaar's meetings of that ilk were all electronically recorded.
In the eyes of KAPO, Savisaar's reputation within the Russian-speaking community in Estonia is solid and thus fits a classical agent of influence from the Kremlin's perspective. The director of the Baltic Research Centre in Moscow Vladmimir Juskin described some of the characteristics of an agent of influence: They are not recruited. They don't get assignments from intelligence services nor are they regularly compensated for their efforts. The work of an agent of influence can usually be interpreted in more than one way therefore it's difficult to label it as working against the interests of the home country. A good example would be from the establishment of the Nord Stream undersea pipeline from Russia to Germany several years ago. Three top decision makers from the West promoted the pipeline amidst an extremely tense and controversial political setting. There was the former East German secret police (Stasi) co-worker Matthias Warnig as a director, German ex-Chancellor Gerhard Schröder as a member of the share-holders' committee and Finnish ex-Prime Minister Paavo Lipponen, as Nord Stream's counsellor.
In the eyes of opponents of the pipe line internationally prominent individuals such as those above were most obviously advancing the strategic interests of Russia, who clearly wanted a stronger presence and thus a dominant role in the Baltic Sea and region. The individuals, on the other hand, were motivated by a solution to the chronic energy shortage that most of Europe suffers. Which is the more principle-based behaviour?
Laas Leivat
