“No matter what the cost!” This tradition from the Soviet days once again was in demand at ‘Nord-Ost’ in 2002.

Dubrovka’s cost: 130 living, innocent citizens, dozens of whom were children, dozens left orphaned and hundreds handicapped, thousands of persons who were left morally ruined, whose lives were stolen as if by bandits taking that most valuable: their relatives and loved ones.

The Russian Attorney General also celebrated a “noteworthy” date: for five years these servants of the public order have been as busy as bees, here and there restlessly drawing out and covering up the investigation into the ‘Nord-Ost’ criminal case, persistently searching for those they could ‘frame’ for this crime, and hide their own responsibility.

Five years have passed, and it is time to sum up the facts. The investigation has never determined the following:

How many hostages were killed at Dubrovka? The official count of 130 differs from that taken from the investigators’ materials by 45. The procurator has never confirmed nor denied this inconsistency, and it is possible that they consider these people as simply an allowable arithmetical error.

What happened to the gunmen who took part in the terror act? According to the procurator’s materials 52 terrorists broke into the building, but after the assault the bodies of only 40 gunmen, shot by the special forces, were to be found. One can incluse one other who “unexpectedly survived” but soon died as a result of a highway accident after giving an interview to Anna Politkovskaya, during which he told of his participation in the seizure of hostages, as well as his work for the government even after the terror act. In this case, however, the “terrorist sum” kept by the investigators does not add up: it is obvious that “the missing”, after carrying out their assignments during the terror act and after leaving the auditorium alive before the assault continue to enjoy life, preferring not to give interviews about their participation.

What were the ingredients of the substance used during the gas attack? This, perhaps, was considered an unnecessary detail: “the ingredients of the gas had no bearing on the provision of assistance” (from the investigators’ materials), though they did note the presence of an “identified” substance in the bodies of the dead. Apparently, they were looking for something, but had no idea what is was.

In the end, the investigation determined that:

The “harmless gas” (in Putin’s words) was a government secret, the Kremlin’s private property, and therefore inaccessible to those who breathed it in the theater as well as the world community, despite Russia’s obligations under international treaties.

The collective, simultaneous death of hostages after the gas attack was the result of other factors, and the “gas” played no role in their deaths. On the basis of the findings of “recognized experts”, there is no cause and effect relationship between the “gas” and the hostages’ deaths.

Full medical assistance to the injured in this “gas chamber” was provided, and this led to the “low lethality” during the special operation, despite it being, percentage-wise, twice as high as during gas attacks of the First World War.

The hostages died as a result of the seizure of the building by terrorists, not as a result of the special forces’ assault. Thus, the dead were “victims of crime and terrorism”, not collateral damage. The logic displayed in the investigators’ conclusions, however, is flawed: the hostages remained alive for 57 hours following their seizure by the terrorists, but then, after the assault by the special forces, 114 died within a single hour. This fact was determined by the investigation, but not who did the deed.

The extra judicial executions of the unconscious gunmen were a necessary measure to “protect” the special forces. It is possible that other methods to neutralize the terrorists may not have been dependable. In reality, however, this act was brilliant, “killing two birds with one stone”: they got rid of potential witnesses, who could now never say who gave them the green light to Moscow. Now there was no need to hide from court hearings, since, according to Russian law, the deaths of the terrorists accused of killing hostages was now grounds for closing the case, and it need not ever be sent to court.

And the most cynical finding by the investigators, that this “successful operation” preserved Russia’s authority in the international area”. This blasphemy allows Russian law enforcement agencies to “measure” the cost of a human life in Russia in units of “national authority”. Two years later in Beslan, where 330 hostages died, life in Russia was shown to have depreciated, losing almost three times its former value. Is preserving Russia’s authority worth it?

Russia is a sovereign nation. Everything about it is unique, and it lives in the 21st century according to its own “sovereign” calendar, marking time from terror act to terror act: "Nord-Ost" in 2002, Beslan in 2004, the murder of Anna Politkovskaya in 2006. What does the approaching year 2008 have in store for us?