From the start, I insisted on my complete innocence. I stated that the article was based on the facts as I knew them from my work at GOSNIIOKhT, given my direct involvement in the binary program. I had wanted to expose the hypocrisy of the leaders of the chemical weapons complex, because they were simultaneously developing new weapons while pretending to work towards chemical weapons disarmament. While I knew that information about the binary weapons program was secret, it was clear to me that the binary program served only the interests of the leaders of the chemical weapons complex. The article dealt conceptually with the binary program, but I gave no specific data about it. In fact, I had not used a single line from any classified document and therefore I believed that I had not disclosed any state secrets in “A Poisoned Policy.”[92] Furthermore, I never gave any concrete information about the composition or properties of any of the new chemical agents or the binaries.
Captain Shkarin did his best to create an impression in the transcript, that I had thoroughly confessed and that I had disclosed state secrets entrusted to me at my work. I must admit that sometimes I enjoyed his game, because I eliminated the obstacles he presented, while trying not to show that I had guessed about them. By this time I had already realized that my investigator had no idea about the essence of my research, and I enjoyed leading him on a bit.
Today I can honestly say that I have nothing to reproach myself for. Looking back, it seems to me that I managed to distance myself from the investigator’s position, starting with the very first interrogation, in spite of the truly extreme pressure. My position was that my actions were based exclusively on moral considerations and the aspiration to save the world community from danger caused by the hypocritical policy of the leaders of the military-chemical complex. I remember that several times I had to insist on this very wording, although the investigator tried time and again to grossly distort it. I understood immediately what he was getting at. He wanted my very first testimony to lead to the certain conclusion that everything I published in the mass media was known to me through my responsibilities at work.
In reality, the situation was different from what Shkarin wanted to present. For example, I wasn’t allowed to work on the development of binary weapons. This is why I made a mistake in the article “Poisoned Policies”, when I wrote that the leaders of the military-chemical complex received Lenin Prizes for creating binary weapons based on a new chemical agent.
I couldn’t have known that the binary weapon was based on “Substance 33”, which had been produced for a long time at the Cheboksary Chemical Plant, and had already been tested and added to the arsenal of the Soviet Army. The investigator, his bosses, and even more so his consultants from GRNIIOKhT knew about this very well, but this didn’t prevent them from deliberately hurling false accusations at me. Their scheme was simple: the jailed suspect can’t properly defend himself. This is why Shkarin stubbornly stuck to the basis of the accusation – “the conclusion of the Permanent Technical Commission” at GRNIIOKhT.
A little later I understood the tactics of my investigator and made amendments to my answers on binary weapons. As for the rest, I had no intention of renouncing what I had written based on information I knew from GRNIIOKhT. The articles were conceptual and they didn’t disclose any technical or other kinds of details.
When Shkarin finished taping the investigation protocol, somebody knocked on the door and in came a lieutenant colonel with the happy face of a man who has accomplished something very important. Later I found out that he was investigator N. Fanin, who had arrested and brought Lev Fedorov to Lefortovo. Fanin told Shkarin that he and his man had “finished the job very well”. I discovered from my case materials, events that were some developments which I came to understand as the downfall of my co-author.
The Downfall of Lev Fedorov
The idea of renouncing the articles I published in the press in order to save myself seemed monstrous to me. Theoretically I could do this, especially since the investigator encouraged me to pass the blame to my co-author Lev Fedorov.
I could have claimed that he had written the largest part of “A Poisoned Policy” and a lot of problems would have been settled, but Fedorov, unlike me, didn’t work in a secret area, and he wasn’t legally liable for that. This was unacceptable because of moral considerations. Sadly, Fedorov proved to be not quite up to the same high mark when he appeared before his interrogator that same day.
On October 22, 1992, Lev Fedorov was brought to the Investigation Department of the MB RF. Before that, his apartment had been searched, and the report of the search says that he voluntarily produced all the materials that the investigation was interested in, so the Chekists didn’t have to search his apartment. These materials were three manuscripts of my articles. Other papers belonging to Fedorov were not confiscated.[93]
It seems that Lev Fedorov was not so uncomfortable with his investigator in Lefortovo. Ten months later, Lev Fedorov renounced his testimony after I showed the transcript of this report to Mironov and distributed it among my friends along with a copy of the entire case materials. Even so, it remained an enigma to me and many others that he didn’t do it the day after he was released, right after his interrogation.
According to the transcript of Fedorov’s interrogation[94] that day, he refused to have anything to do with the information which was the basis for the main idea of his published articles. In his conversation with the Chekists, my co-author reduced his role to that of a literary editor of the material presented by me.
To top it all off, Lev Fedorov signed a confidentiality contract on the subject of his interrogation, thereby entering into secretive cooperation with the investigation. However, there is some reason to doubt that his cooperation only began at this time.
I can confirm that Fedorov kept his promise in full. After I was released from prison, he never said a word about his confessions at the interrogation. Moreover, for a long time Lev played the role of a hero, who had suffered from persecution by the Chekists.
Unfortunately, I found out about this too late – only after the interrogation phase of my “case” was concluded and I could read through all the materials. No one can ever guarantee that spiritually weak people won’t attach themselves to a noble cause, or that they won’t prove to be agents of “our valiant Chekists”.
Obliging readiness to give such detailed and pejorative testimony shows that Lev was ready to betray everybody. How else can we explain why he even told the Chekists the full name of the secretary of the Editor in Chief of the newspaper Argumenti i Fakti? How else can we understand his detailed description of meetings with Starkov, Vishnyakov, and other people? And why did Fedorov tell the investigators that there were two versions of the prepared article in the editor’s office of Argumenti i Fakti? It all looks like undisguised cooperation with the Chekists. God forbid if they confiscated only one copy of that article!
Lev’s coached testimony was in fact followed by searches of the editors’ offices of the newspapers Moscow News, Argumenti i Fakti, and Novoe Vremya. In addition, Oleg Vishnyakov from Novoe Vremya was immediately brought to Lefortovo for interrogation. It is curious that there is no time registered in the transcript of that interrogation. In summer of 1993 when I was reading over my case materials, I asked Investigator Cheredilov, who had interrogated Vishnyakov, about it. He said that he had forgotten to do this but he added “You can write a complaint about my error”. Isn’t such forgetfulness a strange oversight for an investigator of special cases? However, I already knew that Vishnyakov was interrogated about 4 P.M., shortly after Fedorov had spoken to the Chekists.
92
“Transcript of the Interrogation of the Suspect Vil Sultanovich Mirzayanov,” Investigation Department, Case 92, (Moscow: Ministry of Security of RF, 22 October 1992. Top Secret). Later, I had the opportunity to copy this document verbatim, as well as many others assembled in the case against me.
93
“Report of the search”, Committee of Governmental Security [KGB] of the USSR. Top Secret.
94
“Transcript of the Interrogation of the Witness”, Investigation Department, Case 92 (Moscow: Ministry of Security of RF, 22 October 1992, Top Secret).