Originally Posted by
laxxy Now, this is an interesting interview. He is a very smart man and it looks like he chose his answers with great care. You see, when people hear about "taking power by force" and other such things, usually what one thinks about is something rather more extreme and less legitimate than Ukrainian/Georgian events -- and he made sure that he made this association, so that when someone speaks about any possible plans of his regarding such a coup he would always have an option refer back to this interview and say "you see, this is what it really means, I've been saying that from the beginning" and so on. You don't really think that speeches of this kind would be considered grounds for prosecution/extradiction, do you? Perhaps not even in Russia.
Do read the part about Russians failing to provide sufficient evidence, which sounds just about right. I think that this was a matter of choice rather than that of non-professionalism -- surely it should have been possible to collect enough solid evidence on his "economic" crimes, but who would want such evidence publicly discussed and contested in front of a British court? Much better just leave him be (for all his talk I doubt he can do much) and blame the court's bias.