Twenty out of 35 houses were consumed by flames in the Russian village of Bayan-Bulak on Thursday night.
The steppe fire roared into the village, located 200 km from Chita, at 9 pm local time on Thursday due to strong winds. The fire took more than 12 hours to extinguish.
All 60 residents were evacuated to the neighboring village Tsokto-Khangil, where they were placed in a school and a cultural center. One woman broke her leg during the evacuation.
An investigation was opened on the accidental destruction of property.
Zabaikalsky region authorities promised to start reconstruction in May.
“It is necessary to sort out the issue of housing construction with everyone personally and start building no later than May. It is also necessary to tally the damage and process all the documents. We plan to open a charity account, organize a collection of clothes and money. We will build the houses. We will not leave anyone in strife,” said the spokesperson for Zabaikalsky Governor Ravil Geniatulin.
He promised Prime Minister Vladimir Putin that people would be able to move into their new houses by the start of heating season in autumn.
The governor visited the devastated village on Friday and held a special meeting with the local council.
Those whose houses burned down will be allocated money for immediate needs and provided with assistance in restoring their documents.
There is a storm warning in the region, and the steppe fire could strike other villages. More than 100 people and 26 fire-fighting units are battling the flames. Thousands of hectares of forest are on fire in Siberia in 34 locations.
Russian forest authorities will also send 200 fire-fighting paratroopers from the Moscow region, Karelia and Krasnoyarsk region.
The region is in the state of emergency because of dry weather with high winds and numerous fires. Grass burning is thought to be the cause of many fires. The authorities banned it, but locals still use it to remove old grass on hayfields and pastures.
Russia is plagued by wildfires every year. In 2010, burning peat bogs near Moscow covered the city in thick smoke, forcing many residents to flee the city.
Showing posts with label Moscow. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Moscow. Show all posts
Sunday, 15 April 2012
Sunday, 11 March 2012
Putin vote inflated – watchdogs
Independent monitors and election experts allege that voter fraud and new tricks added 10 to 16 percent to Vladimir Putin’s official result of 63.6 percent in Sunday’s election, a finding that prompted some watchdogs to refuse to recognize the elections as legitimate.
Based on voting protocols from monitors, the independent Golos watchdog put Putin’s national result at 54 percent, while Alexei Navalny’s RosVybory group estimated his real vote at 49 percent – a result that would have sent the election into a second round. Another watchdog, Citizen Observer put Putin’s real vote at 48 percent.
Meanwhile, the League of Voters, a watchdog of opposition activists and celebrities, presented a report Wednesday based on copies of voting protocols from over 5,000 observers from 23 regions.Experts say different types of falsifications were used to greater or lesser extent depending on the region.
“In Moscow, which was covered by election observers better than any other Russian region, nighttime falsifications [rewriting of protocols] accounted for only around 2 percent of Putin’s poll, because forgers knew that observers were watching,” political analyst and election expert Dmitry Oreshkin told .
Across the country, the share of this kind of falsification is at least 10 percent, the League of Voters claimed.
Forgers have resorted to new methods in addition to traditional tricks like rewriting protocols, ballot stuffing and forced voting through absentee ballots, election experts said.
For instance, many people voted as employees of enterprises with so-called continuous production cycles – which meant that they could vote anywhere without an absentee ballot. According to Oreshkin, this allowed the same group of workers to vote several times at several polling stations.
“All of a sudden, a lot of enterprises turned out to have continuous production cycles in Moscow, for example Tekhnosila [a retail chain of household appliances],” Oreshkin said. Its employees voted at several polling stations, each claiming that they work in the vicinity and showing respective documents signed by their enterprise’s director. “This cannot be controlled because they don’t even have absentee ballots or other documents that can be tracked,” Oreshkin said.
Another method appeared to be creating new polling stations at the last minute, making it difficult for observers to prepare.
Monitor Ksenia Vinkova reported that an additional polling station was formed ahead of the elections in her district of Strogino. “The polling station covered only one block of flats with 300 residents, while another 1,087 people voted by additional lists as employees of enterprises with a continuous production cycle,” Vinkova wrote in her report. “Strogino is a residential community and there are no such enterprises here.”
Nina Ostanina, a State Duma deputy for the Communist Party, the only parliamentary party that has so far refused to recognize the election results, told Ekho Moskvy radio on Monday that just two days before the election, six additional polling stations were created in the town of Rybinsk in the Yaroslavl region, where United Russia polled less than 30 percent on December 4.
There March 4 was announced as a working day in all state-funded organizations, she said.
“Parties just had no time to prepare monitors or delegate commission members to these precincts,” Ostanina said.
Journalist and publisher Sergei Parkhomenko, a founder of the League of Voters, told The Moscow News that in his precinct of 3,007 voters over 500 people voted by additional lists. “We found they all came from three organizations, namely the Federal Road Agency and two theater colleges,” he said.
These new rigging methods could account for as many as 10 to 20 additional percentage points for Putin, according to Georgy Alburov, a coordinator of the RosVybory election monitoring project, through which over 17,000 volunteers worked as monitors in 81 regions.
“Most of our monitors reported that they had detected carousel voting, which was usually carried out by additional lists from enterprises,” Alburov said.
People were brought to precincts by car or in tour buses. Dmitry Oreshkin said that the League of Voters found that at least 30 buses with voters from the Tver region alone cruised across Moscow and the Moscow region on March 4.
In Russia’s second largest city, St. Petersburg, nighttime falsifications were used more widely than in Moscow, the League of Voters claimed. Protocols were allegedly rewritten at 28 polling stations, where watchdogs estimate that about 44 percent of votes were added to Putin. His official vote tally in St. Petersburg stands at 59 percent.
Election experts admit that it is almost impossible to tell what is going on in Russia’s blind spots, where Putin has received 90 percent or more of the vote. Two out of 16 RosVybory monitors were beaten up in Chechnya, where Putin received 99.8 percent.
“In Chechnya and Dagestan they fill out protocols in whatever way they want, regardless of the real results,” Oreshkin said.
Parkhomenko said that it was extremely unlikely that the results will be canceled. “The only opportunity to prove in court that the vote was rigged is to show a forged protocol. Courts do not consider videos, photos, audio records and copies of protocols as evidence, only original protocols. But who would give them to a monitor?”
Parkhomenko added that he does not know of a single observer or watchdog winning a lawsuit against forgers after the Dec. 4 parliamentary vote, which was also widely alleged to be rigged.
According to Moscow’s Election Commission, there was not a single instance of so-called “carousel voting” in Moscow.
But pro-government experts insisted the official vote count was a pretty accurate reflection of people’s preferences.
“Putin clearly is supported by the majority,” political analyst Sergei Markov, a member of United Russia, told The Moscow News. He added that Putin’s electorate was mobilized ahead of March 4 because many believed in the possibility of an Orange revolution.
According to Markov’s estimate, only about 2 percentage points may have been added to Putin’s vote count by overzealous election officials in the regions.
“I call this phenomenon a selftwisting spring of bureaucratic hyper-loyalty,” Markov said. “I think the role of carousel voting on March 4 is exaggerated because the opposition reported all the buses they saw as carousel buses. But those were mostly people that came to Moscow for a pro-Putin rally from other regions, and they voted with absentee ballots.”
Based on voting protocols from monitors, the independent Golos watchdog put Putin’s national result at 54 percent, while Alexei Navalny’s RosVybory group estimated his real vote at 49 percent – a result that would have sent the election into a second round. Another watchdog, Citizen Observer put Putin’s real vote at 48 percent.
Meanwhile, the League of Voters, a watchdog of opposition activists and celebrities, presented a report Wednesday based on copies of voting protocols from over 5,000 observers from 23 regions.Experts say different types of falsifications were used to greater or lesser extent depending on the region.
“In Moscow, which was covered by election observers better than any other Russian region, nighttime falsifications [rewriting of protocols] accounted for only around 2 percent of Putin’s poll, because forgers knew that observers were watching,” political analyst and election expert Dmitry Oreshkin told .
Across the country, the share of this kind of falsification is at least 10 percent, the League of Voters claimed.
Forgers have resorted to new methods in addition to traditional tricks like rewriting protocols, ballot stuffing and forced voting through absentee ballots, election experts said.
For instance, many people voted as employees of enterprises with so-called continuous production cycles – which meant that they could vote anywhere without an absentee ballot. According to Oreshkin, this allowed the same group of workers to vote several times at several polling stations.
“All of a sudden, a lot of enterprises turned out to have continuous production cycles in Moscow, for example Tekhnosila [a retail chain of household appliances],” Oreshkin said. Its employees voted at several polling stations, each claiming that they work in the vicinity and showing respective documents signed by their enterprise’s director. “This cannot be controlled because they don’t even have absentee ballots or other documents that can be tracked,” Oreshkin said.
Another method appeared to be creating new polling stations at the last minute, making it difficult for observers to prepare.
Monitor Ksenia Vinkova reported that an additional polling station was formed ahead of the elections in her district of Strogino. “The polling station covered only one block of flats with 300 residents, while another 1,087 people voted by additional lists as employees of enterprises with a continuous production cycle,” Vinkova wrote in her report. “Strogino is a residential community and there are no such enterprises here.”
Nina Ostanina, a State Duma deputy for the Communist Party, the only parliamentary party that has so far refused to recognize the election results, told Ekho Moskvy radio on Monday that just two days before the election, six additional polling stations were created in the town of Rybinsk in the Yaroslavl region, where United Russia polled less than 30 percent on December 4.
There March 4 was announced as a working day in all state-funded organizations, she said.
“Parties just had no time to prepare monitors or delegate commission members to these precincts,” Ostanina said.
Journalist and publisher Sergei Parkhomenko, a founder of the League of Voters, told The Moscow News that in his precinct of 3,007 voters over 500 people voted by additional lists. “We found they all came from three organizations, namely the Federal Road Agency and two theater colleges,” he said.
These new rigging methods could account for as many as 10 to 20 additional percentage points for Putin, according to Georgy Alburov, a coordinator of the RosVybory election monitoring project, through which over 17,000 volunteers worked as monitors in 81 regions.
“Most of our monitors reported that they had detected carousel voting, which was usually carried out by additional lists from enterprises,” Alburov said.
People were brought to precincts by car or in tour buses. Dmitry Oreshkin said that the League of Voters found that at least 30 buses with voters from the Tver region alone cruised across Moscow and the Moscow region on March 4.
In Russia’s second largest city, St. Petersburg, nighttime falsifications were used more widely than in Moscow, the League of Voters claimed. Protocols were allegedly rewritten at 28 polling stations, where watchdogs estimate that about 44 percent of votes were added to Putin. His official vote tally in St. Petersburg stands at 59 percent.
Election experts admit that it is almost impossible to tell what is going on in Russia’s blind spots, where Putin has received 90 percent or more of the vote. Two out of 16 RosVybory monitors were beaten up in Chechnya, where Putin received 99.8 percent.
“In Chechnya and Dagestan they fill out protocols in whatever way they want, regardless of the real results,” Oreshkin said.
Parkhomenko said that it was extremely unlikely that the results will be canceled. “The only opportunity to prove in court that the vote was rigged is to show a forged protocol. Courts do not consider videos, photos, audio records and copies of protocols as evidence, only original protocols. But who would give them to a monitor?”
Parkhomenko added that he does not know of a single observer or watchdog winning a lawsuit against forgers after the Dec. 4 parliamentary vote, which was also widely alleged to be rigged.
According to Moscow’s Election Commission, there was not a single instance of so-called “carousel voting” in Moscow.
But pro-government experts insisted the official vote count was a pretty accurate reflection of people’s preferences.
“Putin clearly is supported by the majority,” political analyst Sergei Markov, a member of United Russia, told The Moscow News. He added that Putin’s electorate was mobilized ahead of March 4 because many believed in the possibility of an Orange revolution.
According to Markov’s estimate, only about 2 percentage points may have been added to Putin’s vote count by overzealous election officials in the regions.
“I call this phenomenon a selftwisting spring of bureaucratic hyper-loyalty,” Markov said. “I think the role of carousel voting on March 4 is exaggerated because the opposition reported all the buses they saw as carousel buses. But those were mostly people that came to Moscow for a pro-Putin rally from other regions, and they voted with absentee ballots.”
Anti-Putin movement sees sharp drop in support
ome 20,000 people gathered on a central Moscow avenue Saturday to contest Vladimir Putin’s sweeping victory in presidential elections last weekend.
But the turnout, while unheard of for an opposition protest in Russia just four months ago, marks a sharp drop in support for the country’s newly formed protest movement, used to gathering crowds of up to 100,000.
Lining the entire stretch of a broad, kilometer-long forecourt on downtown Moscow’s Novy Arbat street, demonstrators waved white ribbons – the symbol of the protest movement – and brandished colorful placards bearing anti-Putin slogans.
The organizers of the demonstration called for fresh elections and deep political reform during two hours of speeches to muted cheering from the crowd.
“These authorities are illegitimate. The same people are in power, the same people who took away our right to choose, the same people who destroyed freedom of speech and political competition,” said protest organizer Vladimir Ryzhkov.
While most of the speeches focused on the violations recorded by monitors in last Sunday’s presidential elections, when Putin won nearly 64 percent of the vote, some attempted to clarify a question that troubles many protestors: where the movement will go now that it has failed to stop Putin securing another term.
“We need to quickly establish what we are protesting for - for judicial reform, for social improvements for youth, for free media, and for comprehensive political reform,” said popular TV host Ksenia Sobchak.
There was a deflated air to the event, with many protestors admitting that the movement had lost its focus now that the elections are over.
“There is certainly a trend towards diminishing numbers. I think people are starting to give up hope that anything can be achieved,” Lidia Mishenka, a student in her early 20s told The Moscow News. “I sincerely hope the movement won’t die out but, honestly, I’m not convinced it can achieve anything now.”
The last big sanctioned weekend protest by the opposition in Moscow attracted a crowd of over 100,000 people, despite temperatures around minus 20. Saturday’s weather was around zero.
Police put the turnout this time at around 10,000, while opposition leaders estimated 25,000. Moscow authorities had sanctioned some 50,000 people to take part.
In contrast to a small opposition protest Monday, where some 250 people were arrested, Saturday’s demonstration passed off peacefully without a single arrest. However, Left Front Leader Sergei Udaltsov was arrested after the event along with a dozen protesters when he attempted to hold an impromptu meeting on Pushkin Square.
Protestor Mikhail Tyoplenky said he felt the public were less angered by alleged violations in last weekend’s elections than they were following parliamentary elections in December.
“During the parliamentary elections there were a lot of obvious violations, which angered the whole population,” Tyoplenky said “This time round they [the authorities] made it look a lot cleaner – the violations were less obvious.”
How the movement will proceed now is as yet unclear. Udaltsov, of the Left Front, called for a mass protest on May Day, ahead of Putin’s inauguration - which is scheduled for May 7.
“Now it is up to the people on the street to decide what will happen,” Udaltsov told journalists as he left Novy Arbat. “If we don’t want to put up with crooks and thieves for the next six years, we need to solve this problem no later than May 1.
But the turnout, while unheard of for an opposition protest in Russia just four months ago, marks a sharp drop in support for the country’s newly formed protest movement, used to gathering crowds of up to 100,000.
Lining the entire stretch of a broad, kilometer-long forecourt on downtown Moscow’s Novy Arbat street, demonstrators waved white ribbons – the symbol of the protest movement – and brandished colorful placards bearing anti-Putin slogans.
The organizers of the demonstration called for fresh elections and deep political reform during two hours of speeches to muted cheering from the crowd.
“These authorities are illegitimate. The same people are in power, the same people who took away our right to choose, the same people who destroyed freedom of speech and political competition,” said protest organizer Vladimir Ryzhkov.
While most of the speeches focused on the violations recorded by monitors in last Sunday’s presidential elections, when Putin won nearly 64 percent of the vote, some attempted to clarify a question that troubles many protestors: where the movement will go now that it has failed to stop Putin securing another term.
“We need to quickly establish what we are protesting for - for judicial reform, for social improvements for youth, for free media, and for comprehensive political reform,” said popular TV host Ksenia Sobchak.
There was a deflated air to the event, with many protestors admitting that the movement had lost its focus now that the elections are over.
“There is certainly a trend towards diminishing numbers. I think people are starting to give up hope that anything can be achieved,” Lidia Mishenka, a student in her early 20s told The Moscow News. “I sincerely hope the movement won’t die out but, honestly, I’m not convinced it can achieve anything now.”
The last big sanctioned weekend protest by the opposition in Moscow attracted a crowd of over 100,000 people, despite temperatures around minus 20. Saturday’s weather was around zero.
Police put the turnout this time at around 10,000, while opposition leaders estimated 25,000. Moscow authorities had sanctioned some 50,000 people to take part.
In contrast to a small opposition protest Monday, where some 250 people were arrested, Saturday’s demonstration passed off peacefully without a single arrest. However, Left Front Leader Sergei Udaltsov was arrested after the event along with a dozen protesters when he attempted to hold an impromptu meeting on Pushkin Square.
Protestor Mikhail Tyoplenky said he felt the public were less angered by alleged violations in last weekend’s elections than they were following parliamentary elections in December.
“During the parliamentary elections there were a lot of obvious violations, which angered the whole population,” Tyoplenky said “This time round they [the authorities] made it look a lot cleaner – the violations were less obvious.”
How the movement will proceed now is as yet unclear. Udaltsov, of the Left Front, called for a mass protest on May Day, ahead of Putin’s inauguration - which is scheduled for May 7.
“Now it is up to the people on the street to decide what will happen,” Udaltsov told journalists as he left Novy Arbat. “If we don’t want to put up with crooks and thieves for the next six years, we need to solve this problem no later than May 1.
Saturday, 3 March 2012
Paid-for parking possible – Moscow mayor
Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin has announced in an interview with Komsomsolskaya Pravda that the city could see paid-for parking make a return in an experimental form.
“This year, a fee for parking is not likely to be introduced. And if it will be, it will be in an experimental mode. The task for this year – is to introduce some order with car parking. At present they are parked in rows of two and three. And right under no parking signs, anywhere,” said the mayor. “So this will be the year when the first steps are made to restore order to car parking.”
“This year, a fee for parking is not likely to be introduced. And if it will be, it will be in an experimental mode. The task for this year – is to introduce some order with car parking. At present they are parked in rows of two and three. And right under no parking signs, anywhere,” said the mayor. “So this will be the year when the first steps are made to restore order to car parking.”
Protesting Moscow
Moscow will see mass protests both for and against the authorities staged over the upcoming days. All the possible rallying points immediately next to the Kremlin have been given to pro-Kremlin youth groups, who will man their stations starting late on Sunday, March 4.
The opposition, meanwhile, will meet the following evening a little further from the Kremlin on Pushkin Square, while Eduard Limonov promises to rally his supporters outside the Central Election Committee building.
On March 4, Moscow will see night-time rallies, something that has not happened in Russia since early 90s. Pro-Putin Duma deputies will gather on Ploshchad Revolutsii at 9 pm on Sunday, and with Nashi on the neighboring Manezh Square, all of the very center of the city will be occupied.
In total, City Hall has given permission for 13 rallies on March 4, all of them to pro-Kremlin youth groups and all for the same time – 3-11 pm.
On March 5, the same groups have permission for rallies in the same areas.
Tverskaya Ulitsa may be blocked depending on the situation, the police have said that if there are a lot of people, they will close at least one lane, or maybe even all of it.
Law enforcement officials were given orders to strictly prevent any violations from protesters, Kommersant reported. Any attempts to put tents up will be prevented, police said.
Since March 1, all Moscow police are on alert until further notice. Moscow police will get reinforcements from Tula and Moscow regions. There are also rumors about a special forces “Chechen regiment,” being brought in, which are vehemently denied by Ramzan Kadyrov.
Pro-Kremlin youth will take-over Moscow
Pro-Kremlin protests were allowed on all the squares that the opposition applied for, Vedomosti reported. Nashi said they will not only to cheer for Putin, but also not to allow the opposition to use the areas.
“They will start a fight on Sunday night. They will do what was done after the Duma elections on Triumfalnaya. But if they want to take over the squares, they will not succeed – the squares will already be taken,” Nashi senior member Andrei Osipov told Izvestia.
“Every second blog from them is close to calling for a coup d’état. They even write that they will carjack snow ploughs that will break into the center,” he said.
Vladimir Putin could attend a rally on Manezhnaya
President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin could make an appearance on Manezh Square, the media has reported.
Dmitry Peskov, Putin’s spokesman, said that it was not clear whether Putin would appear, however.
The opposition, meanwhile, will meet the following evening a little further from the Kremlin on Pushkin Square, while Eduard Limonov promises to rally his supporters outside the Central Election Committee building.
On March 4, Moscow will see night-time rallies, something that has not happened in Russia since early 90s. Pro-Putin Duma deputies will gather on Ploshchad Revolutsii at 9 pm on Sunday, and with Nashi on the neighboring Manezh Square, all of the very center of the city will be occupied.
In total, City Hall has given permission for 13 rallies on March 4, all of them to pro-Kremlin youth groups and all for the same time – 3-11 pm.
On March 5, the same groups have permission for rallies in the same areas.
Tverskaya Ulitsa may be blocked depending on the situation, the police have said that if there are a lot of people, they will close at least one lane, or maybe even all of it.
Law enforcement officials were given orders to strictly prevent any violations from protesters, Kommersant reported. Any attempts to put tents up will be prevented, police said.
Since March 1, all Moscow police are on alert until further notice. Moscow police will get reinforcements from Tula and Moscow regions. There are also rumors about a special forces “Chechen regiment,” being brought in, which are vehemently denied by Ramzan Kadyrov.
Pro-Kremlin youth will take-over Moscow
Pro-Kremlin protests were allowed on all the squares that the opposition applied for, Vedomosti reported. Nashi said they will not only to cheer for Putin, but also not to allow the opposition to use the areas.
“They will start a fight on Sunday night. They will do what was done after the Duma elections on Triumfalnaya. But if they want to take over the squares, they will not succeed – the squares will already be taken,” Nashi senior member Andrei Osipov told Izvestia.
“Every second blog from them is close to calling for a coup d’état. They even write that they will carjack snow ploughs that will break into the center,” he said.
Vladimir Putin could attend a rally on Manezhnaya
President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin could make an appearance on Manezh Square, the media has reported.
Dmitry Peskov, Putin’s spokesman, said that it was not clear whether Putin would appear, however.
Saturday, 18 February 2012
Moscow ranks 37th best student city – study
Quacquarelli Symonds has released its annual QS Best Student Cities in the World rankings. The study has two requirements for city’s to be included in the rankings, a minimum population of 250,000 and at least two ranked institutions. Five categories were used to rate the cities: university rankings, student mix, quality of living, employer activity and affordability. According to the ranking, Moscow came in at 37th place one step behind Amsterdam but ahead one place of Brussels. Paris took first place.
Audit Chamber head says Putin’s proposed privatization fee is doable
The head of the Audit Chamber, Sergei Stepashin, says he knows how to calculate what the so-called oligarchs still owe the state after the controversial and murky privatization of the 1990s.
Last week at a meeting with the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, Prime Minster Vladimir Putin called the privatizations’ results “unfair.”
“Of course, this page must be turned. We must end this period, there are different options being offered, of course, we must discuss it with experts. But it must be done in such a way that society will accept the closing of this problem from the 1990s, of the, let’s just say it, unfair privatization,”
Putin proposed a one-off payment to compensate for their dubious gains, in a proposal that resembled Britain’s 1997 Windfall Tax.
“It must be either a one-time fee, or something else. We must think about it together. I think in the first place, society in general and entrepreneurs are interested in this.”
Stepashin said in an interview said today that while difficult, it would not be impossible to determine who owes what.
“In principle, one can calculate the difference in the price of those assets – from what they were purchased in the ’90s and what they were actually worth. But I must warn you, to do it will be difficult. If there is a need, we can solve the issue through legal procedures, bring in independent financial supervisors, including the Audit Chamber.”
“I recall that in 2003, the Audit Chamber finished its study of Russia’s privatizations in the 1990s,” Stepashin said. “Analyzing the results of the privatizations, we openly and honestly said that it ‘was conducted the worst possible way out of all European countries.’ This I quote verbatim from a member of the expert group, which worked together with the Audit Chamber, the Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, an American professor. He is impartial, he grew up in a market economy. In not one country in the world, including Eastern European countries – Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, I am already not taking into account China, Vietnam -- was this kind of privatization carried out.”
Last week at a meeting with the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, Prime Minster Vladimir Putin called the privatizations’ results “unfair.”
“Of course, this page must be turned. We must end this period, there are different options being offered, of course, we must discuss it with experts. But it must be done in such a way that society will accept the closing of this problem from the 1990s, of the, let’s just say it, unfair privatization,”
Putin proposed a one-off payment to compensate for their dubious gains, in a proposal that resembled Britain’s 1997 Windfall Tax.
“It must be either a one-time fee, or something else. We must think about it together. I think in the first place, society in general and entrepreneurs are interested in this.”
Stepashin said in an interview said today that while difficult, it would not be impossible to determine who owes what.
“In principle, one can calculate the difference in the price of those assets – from what they were purchased in the ’90s and what they were actually worth. But I must warn you, to do it will be difficult. If there is a need, we can solve the issue through legal procedures, bring in independent financial supervisors, including the Audit Chamber.”
“I recall that in 2003, the Audit Chamber finished its study of Russia’s privatizations in the 1990s,” Stepashin said. “Analyzing the results of the privatizations, we openly and honestly said that it ‘was conducted the worst possible way out of all European countries.’ This I quote verbatim from a member of the expert group, which worked together with the Audit Chamber, the Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, an American professor. He is impartial, he grew up in a market economy. In not one country in the world, including Eastern European countries – Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, I am already not taking into account China, Vietnam -- was this kind of privatization carried out.”
Putin’s social projects to cost $170 billion - research
A range of social spending pledges outlined by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin in a newspaper article earlier this week could cost the Russian budget 5.1 trillion rubles ($170 billion) over the next six years, the Sberbank Center of Macroeconomic Research has found.
The research note published this week analyses the cost to the government of projects to increase public sector pay, raise social benefit payments and reduce the cost of housing.
All were policies laid out in an election campaign article by Putin, the leading presidential candidate, in an article published in Kommsomolskay Pravda Monday.
The research found that spending on the specific pledges in Monday’s article would constitute an annual average of 0.84 percent of GDP annually. The figure could be higher if added to other social spending projects proposed by the government.
The Sberbank figure also does not include some of the vaguer policies pitched by Putin in the article that were too difficult to quantify in financial terms, such as those to bridge social divides and lowering alcohol consumption.
“Unfortunately, a lack of detailed statistical data and detail in the measures outlined in the article, doesn’t allow us to accurately calculate the volume of spending required for their realization,” the report said.
The most expensive pledge, the research center found, was a promise to raise the pay of doctors, school teachers and university lecturers, which will cost 3.5 trillion rubles ($117 billion) over six years.
In his article, Putin put the price tag on the pay increases at around $30 billion, or 1.5 percent of GDP.
Many economists and political analysts described Putin’s article as populist and questioned how realistic the proposals were in the current economic uncertainty.
“There is a lot of discussion now about how to balance the budget given all these obligations,” Citibank strategist Andrei Kuznetsov told The Moscow News. “Now the government is discussing either which areas of spending to cut or which areas of taxation to increase.”
He said that increasing social taxes – currently the government’s preferred policy – would only raise a limited amount of funds because previous attempts have only led to a growth in the shadow economy.
Currently the government is also discussing cuts to military and defense spending, a policy popular with former Russian finance minister, Alexei Kudrin, who quit the government last fall over a dispute about spending policies.
Alexei Devyatov, chief economist at the Uralsib investment bank, said that a more effective way to create funds for increased social spending would be to increase budge spending efficiency by clamping down on corruption.
“Medvedev said in late 2010 that his estimate of corruption in the state procurement system was about 1 trillion rubles [$33 billion] per year,” Devyatov told The Moscow News “It think the real figure is more than that, but even at this level, over the next five years, it would be enough to finance social spending.”
The research note published this week analyses the cost to the government of projects to increase public sector pay, raise social benefit payments and reduce the cost of housing.
All were policies laid out in an election campaign article by Putin, the leading presidential candidate, in an article published in Kommsomolskay Pravda Monday.
The research found that spending on the specific pledges in Monday’s article would constitute an annual average of 0.84 percent of GDP annually. The figure could be higher if added to other social spending projects proposed by the government.
The Sberbank figure also does not include some of the vaguer policies pitched by Putin in the article that were too difficult to quantify in financial terms, such as those to bridge social divides and lowering alcohol consumption.
“Unfortunately, a lack of detailed statistical data and detail in the measures outlined in the article, doesn’t allow us to accurately calculate the volume of spending required for their realization,” the report said.
The most expensive pledge, the research center found, was a promise to raise the pay of doctors, school teachers and university lecturers, which will cost 3.5 trillion rubles ($117 billion) over six years.
In his article, Putin put the price tag on the pay increases at around $30 billion, or 1.5 percent of GDP.
Many economists and political analysts described Putin’s article as populist and questioned how realistic the proposals were in the current economic uncertainty.
“There is a lot of discussion now about how to balance the budget given all these obligations,” Citibank strategist Andrei Kuznetsov told The Moscow News. “Now the government is discussing either which areas of spending to cut or which areas of taxation to increase.”
He said that increasing social taxes – currently the government’s preferred policy – would only raise a limited amount of funds because previous attempts have only led to a growth in the shadow economy.
Currently the government is also discussing cuts to military and defense spending, a policy popular with former Russian finance minister, Alexei Kudrin, who quit the government last fall over a dispute about spending policies.
Alexei Devyatov, chief economist at the Uralsib investment bank, said that a more effective way to create funds for increased social spending would be to increase budge spending efficiency by clamping down on corruption.
“Medvedev said in late 2010 that his estimate of corruption in the state procurement system was about 1 trillion rubles [$33 billion] per year,” Devyatov told The Moscow News “It think the real figure is more than that, but even at this level, over the next five years, it would be enough to finance social spending.”
Saturday, 11 February 2012
Putin positive but cautious about Russia's political future
On February 6, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin published his fourth program article, in which he continued to describe his views about the further development of the country. Also on Monday, Putin had a meeting with leading political scientists of the country to discuss the course of the election campaign.
"I do not want to say long monologues. It would be much more interesting if we could exchange opinions about the current situation and the prospects of the nation's development, about the economy and the social field, about the state construction, about democratic institutes and about the presidential campaign, of course," Putin said in the beginning of the meeting.
The meeting started with the discussion of the subject of election rights and the development of the party system. First and foremost, Putin said that the changes, which the sitting president had made, would definitely lead to the increase of the number of parties. However, the prime minister added, there were some hidden rocks, which he would like to avoid.
"We have a very complex country. It is not just a federative state. Our country is unique because we have national and territorial establishments. We have autonomous entities, there are ethnic nations, which are strongly connected to their territories. If we make granulate the parties, which is what we are heading to, then we must not allow any sort of national parties, otherwise we will pull the country apart," Putin said.
The same goes for the situation with direct gubernatorial elections and the elections of the members of the Federation Council. On the one hand, one should expand the framework of democratic procedures of brining regional leaders to power. On the other hand, one should be accurate here as well not to repeat the mistakes of the past, when local oligarchic and criminal structures would hide behind the backs of the candidates.
"Of course, one should not restrict the spheres of direct democracy for good because of those reasons. We should keep this detail in mind, though," Putin said.
In general, one may say that Putin is positive, although cautious, about the future of the above-mentioned reforms. Speaking about program statements from other candidacies, Putin said that all those people were experienced and reasonable individuals, whom he treated with respect.
"The good thing is that none of the current presidential candidates will betray the interests of the country. I can say that responsibly. I've known them for a long time, and I am sure of that," he said.
However, he added, his colleagues in the presidential race may very often say impossible things. "If a candidate suggests something unrealizable and then, if he is president, begins to implement them, they are not going to do anything but harm to the country," he said.
Commenting a suggestion from Gennady Zyuganov to elect judges on the level of cities and districts, Putin said that there was such practice in the USSR. "It was like that during the time of the USSR. However, all that electivity was a pure formality, just like all kinds of elections," he said.
As for the present-day situation, the law allows the election of peace justice. "Have they ever elected one in at least one entity of the Federation? No. There are representatives of the communist party, LDPR and Just Russia in those territories. Why is it so? Because it's expensive!" Putin said.
"The electivity of judges is becoming a political process. Judges must be out of politics," Putin said. "If we introduce the elections of judges, I think that we will create even more problems in the field, not to mention the fact that we will add the political aspect there," he noted.
Putin is skeptic about the total nationalization and total privatization. They both can lead to negative consequences due to objective reasons, which one should try to overcome, of course.
For instance, Sergei Mironov, a presidential candidate from Just Russia, said that he wanted to reduce prices on AI-95 petrol and diesel fuel to 15 rubles per liter. According to Putin, this can be technically possible. However, this will at least result in the shortage of the fuel. "We may not have the 95th petrol at gas stations. It will simply disappear in two or three days. They will simply stop to make this product. This is completely unprofessional, you know," he said about Mr. Mironov's initiative.
There are less serious obstacles on the way of such seemingly attractive initiatives as the nationalization of banks or promises to provide young families with homes. "This can only evoke the feelings of regrets. One would like to give everything for free to everyone. I would like to ask Mr. Zyuganov if they were able to give everything for free to all during the Soviet times. It did not happen. The problem was extremely serious, and it still seems that it is impossible to solve it today, although we try to solve it. The housing problem is one of those social problems, which we will be able to solve within the forthcoming five, six, seven, eight years - fundamentally. But it was impossible to give away everything for free back then and now," Putin said.
The same goes about the idea to give away land. According to Putin, this is pure populism. The problem is not about land per se. It is about the required infrastructure - electricity, water and heat supplies, roads, etc. "The state will be investing in the infrastructure, this is big money," Putin said.
Another popular idea - the establishment of the contractual army - is also all about the money. "The professional army is a positive thing, of course, taking into consideration the fact that military hardware has become more complicated. We need professionals for this army. We also think that we could recruit people from both military and civil institutes. Will we be able to do that by 2015? I am not sure. It goes about enormous resources. We have certain plans about it, and we will continue to work in this direction," Putin said.
As for the questions regarding the formation of the government after the elections, Putin said that he would like to attract people with different political views in the new government.
"It's important those people are professionals, although it is not going to be a coalition government in the classic perception of this word. When different parties come to the parliament, none of them has the majority, so they have to share. I do not think that this is very effective. When we have people sharing different views, then it very often happens that the decisions that they make are made on the base of compromise - they are not always effective," Putin said.
Any discussion about the rotation will make sense only after the results of the voting become known, he concluded.
"I do not want to say long monologues. It would be much more interesting if we could exchange opinions about the current situation and the prospects of the nation's development, about the economy and the social field, about the state construction, about democratic institutes and about the presidential campaign, of course," Putin said in the beginning of the meeting.
The meeting started with the discussion of the subject of election rights and the development of the party system. First and foremost, Putin said that the changes, which the sitting president had made, would definitely lead to the increase of the number of parties. However, the prime minister added, there were some hidden rocks, which he would like to avoid.
"We have a very complex country. It is not just a federative state. Our country is unique because we have national and territorial establishments. We have autonomous entities, there are ethnic nations, which are strongly connected to their territories. If we make granulate the parties, which is what we are heading to, then we must not allow any sort of national parties, otherwise we will pull the country apart," Putin said.
The same goes for the situation with direct gubernatorial elections and the elections of the members of the Federation Council. On the one hand, one should expand the framework of democratic procedures of brining regional leaders to power. On the other hand, one should be accurate here as well not to repeat the mistakes of the past, when local oligarchic and criminal structures would hide behind the backs of the candidates.
"Of course, one should not restrict the spheres of direct democracy for good because of those reasons. We should keep this detail in mind, though," Putin said.
In general, one may say that Putin is positive, although cautious, about the future of the above-mentioned reforms. Speaking about program statements from other candidacies, Putin said that all those people were experienced and reasonable individuals, whom he treated with respect.
"The good thing is that none of the current presidential candidates will betray the interests of the country. I can say that responsibly. I've known them for a long time, and I am sure of that," he said.
However, he added, his colleagues in the presidential race may very often say impossible things. "If a candidate suggests something unrealizable and then, if he is president, begins to implement them, they are not going to do anything but harm to the country," he said.
Commenting a suggestion from Gennady Zyuganov to elect judges on the level of cities and districts, Putin said that there was such practice in the USSR. "It was like that during the time of the USSR. However, all that electivity was a pure formality, just like all kinds of elections," he said.
As for the present-day situation, the law allows the election of peace justice. "Have they ever elected one in at least one entity of the Federation? No. There are representatives of the communist party, LDPR and Just Russia in those territories. Why is it so? Because it's expensive!" Putin said.
"The electivity of judges is becoming a political process. Judges must be out of politics," Putin said. "If we introduce the elections of judges, I think that we will create even more problems in the field, not to mention the fact that we will add the political aspect there," he noted.
Putin is skeptic about the total nationalization and total privatization. They both can lead to negative consequences due to objective reasons, which one should try to overcome, of course.
For instance, Sergei Mironov, a presidential candidate from Just Russia, said that he wanted to reduce prices on AI-95 petrol and diesel fuel to 15 rubles per liter. According to Putin, this can be technically possible. However, this will at least result in the shortage of the fuel. "We may not have the 95th petrol at gas stations. It will simply disappear in two or three days. They will simply stop to make this product. This is completely unprofessional, you know," he said about Mr. Mironov's initiative.
There are less serious obstacles on the way of such seemingly attractive initiatives as the nationalization of banks or promises to provide young families with homes. "This can only evoke the feelings of regrets. One would like to give everything for free to everyone. I would like to ask Mr. Zyuganov if they were able to give everything for free to all during the Soviet times. It did not happen. The problem was extremely serious, and it still seems that it is impossible to solve it today, although we try to solve it. The housing problem is one of those social problems, which we will be able to solve within the forthcoming five, six, seven, eight years - fundamentally. But it was impossible to give away everything for free back then and now," Putin said.
The same goes about the idea to give away land. According to Putin, this is pure populism. The problem is not about land per se. It is about the required infrastructure - electricity, water and heat supplies, roads, etc. "The state will be investing in the infrastructure, this is big money," Putin said.
Another popular idea - the establishment of the contractual army - is also all about the money. "The professional army is a positive thing, of course, taking into consideration the fact that military hardware has become more complicated. We need professionals for this army. We also think that we could recruit people from both military and civil institutes. Will we be able to do that by 2015? I am not sure. It goes about enormous resources. We have certain plans about it, and we will continue to work in this direction," Putin said.
As for the questions regarding the formation of the government after the elections, Putin said that he would like to attract people with different political views in the new government.
"It's important those people are professionals, although it is not going to be a coalition government in the classic perception of this word. When different parties come to the parliament, none of them has the majority, so they have to share. I do not think that this is very effective. When we have people sharing different views, then it very often happens that the decisions that they make are made on the base of compromise - they are not always effective," Putin said.
Any discussion about the rotation will make sense only after the results of the voting become known, he concluded.
Russia and China chain the dogs of war
The diplomatic struggle due to the crisis in Syria on Sunday (5th) moved into a new phase after failing in a week of overwhelming pressure from western powers to achieve the fall of Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad.
Meanwhile, Syrian forces discovered two workshops for the manufacture of explosives
US/westerm global domination objectives were masked in a draft resolution expressing the support of the Security Council on a proposal from the Arab League in which the Syrian president would transfer the government as a first step to elections and other actions.
The maneuver was shot down on Saturday by the double veto of Russia and China against the document, discussed for eight days by 15 members of this body and subjected to constant changes that resulted in three different versions.
The pressure from western nations, headed by the United States, France and Britain, forced a special session of tense extraordinary sessions and the vote ended with the rejection of the text with 13 votes in favor and two opposed.
Washington, Paris and London were accompanied in their vote by the 13 delegation members of the Security Council: Germany, Portugal, India, Colombia, Guatemala, Morocco, Pakistan, South Africa, Togo and Azerbaijan.
n explaining his opposition to the initiative, the Russian ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, criticized the attempts by some members who want to force regime change in Syria.
The text constituted a bad sign for the conflict and efforts to advance a political solution, by not considering that opposition groups are largely responsible for the violence in that country, the diplomat stated.
In this sense, promoters of the resolution indicated their demand that the Syrian government withdraw its forces unilaterally, and leave the ground free for armed opposition groups to continue their violence.
Likewise he criticized "influential members of the international community who since the beginning of the Syrian crisis are undermining the possibility of a political solution and urging regime change, stoking the opposition against the authorities."
For their part, the chief representative of China, Li Baodong, backed Russian proposals to amend the text under discussion and lamented that the project has been submitted to a vote without taking them into account.
Beijing's ambassador reiterated the need to seek a political solution to the Syrian crisis through dialogue, to restore stability in that country.
"The idea of a regime change does not contribute to an arrangement, but it complicates the situation in a State of great importance for the Middle East region," he underlined.
Churkin and Li also executed the veto that their respective countries imposed last October to another western project directed against the government of Damascus.
After yesterday's vote, the Permanent Representative of Syria to the UN, Bashar Jaafari, argued that the promoters of the text tried to turn the United Nations, created as an instrument for peace, into a tool for war.
He also accused the west and some Arab countries of funding and supporting the armed opposition terrorist groups that are attempting to overthrow the government of al-Assad by force and violence.
"If those responsible for this situation stop instigating and financing these terrorists, Syria can solve the crisis by itself through political dialogue," he said.
The document vetoed by Russia and China would have imposed six demands on Syrian officials, including "the withdrawal of armed forces and security for the cities, villages and people and their return to their barracks."
It also called for free movement and full access to "all relevant institutions of the Arab League and Arab and international media to all parts of Syria to determine the truth about the situation on the ground and monitor incidents that occur."
After the veto from Russia and China, the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, took advantage of the opportunity to side with the countries that supported the resolution and regretted that the Security Council had been unable to agree on the project that supported the Arab League.
He thought that the failure to approve the text "undermines the role of the UN and the international community when the Syrian authorities should hear a unified voice that calls for an immediate end to 'their violence' against the Syrian people. The Security Council has missed an opportunity to decide on a united action to help end the crisis," he insisted.
Nevertheless, Moscow announced yesterday that its foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, and Secretary of the National Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev, will travel next Tuesday to Damascus to meet with President al-Assad.
Perhaps this is the first movement of a new diplomatic battle between the promoters of a political solution and the instigators of regime change in that Arab country as occurred in Libya last October.
Meanwhile, Syrian forces discovered two workshops for the manufacture of explosives
US/westerm global domination objectives were masked in a draft resolution expressing the support of the Security Council on a proposal from the Arab League in which the Syrian president would transfer the government as a first step to elections and other actions.
The maneuver was shot down on Saturday by the double veto of Russia and China against the document, discussed for eight days by 15 members of this body and subjected to constant changes that resulted in three different versions.
The pressure from western nations, headed by the United States, France and Britain, forced a special session of tense extraordinary sessions and the vote ended with the rejection of the text with 13 votes in favor and two opposed.
Washington, Paris and London were accompanied in their vote by the 13 delegation members of the Security Council: Germany, Portugal, India, Colombia, Guatemala, Morocco, Pakistan, South Africa, Togo and Azerbaijan.
n explaining his opposition to the initiative, the Russian ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, criticized the attempts by some members who want to force regime change in Syria.
The text constituted a bad sign for the conflict and efforts to advance a political solution, by not considering that opposition groups are largely responsible for the violence in that country, the diplomat stated.
In this sense, promoters of the resolution indicated their demand that the Syrian government withdraw its forces unilaterally, and leave the ground free for armed opposition groups to continue their violence.
Likewise he criticized "influential members of the international community who since the beginning of the Syrian crisis are undermining the possibility of a political solution and urging regime change, stoking the opposition against the authorities."
For their part, the chief representative of China, Li Baodong, backed Russian proposals to amend the text under discussion and lamented that the project has been submitted to a vote without taking them into account.
Beijing's ambassador reiterated the need to seek a political solution to the Syrian crisis through dialogue, to restore stability in that country.
"The idea of a regime change does not contribute to an arrangement, but it complicates the situation in a State of great importance for the Middle East region," he underlined.
Churkin and Li also executed the veto that their respective countries imposed last October to another western project directed against the government of Damascus.
After yesterday's vote, the Permanent Representative of Syria to the UN, Bashar Jaafari, argued that the promoters of the text tried to turn the United Nations, created as an instrument for peace, into a tool for war.
He also accused the west and some Arab countries of funding and supporting the armed opposition terrorist groups that are attempting to overthrow the government of al-Assad by force and violence.
"If those responsible for this situation stop instigating and financing these terrorists, Syria can solve the crisis by itself through political dialogue," he said.
The document vetoed by Russia and China would have imposed six demands on Syrian officials, including "the withdrawal of armed forces and security for the cities, villages and people and their return to their barracks."
It also called for free movement and full access to "all relevant institutions of the Arab League and Arab and international media to all parts of Syria to determine the truth about the situation on the ground and monitor incidents that occur."
After the veto from Russia and China, the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, took advantage of the opportunity to side with the countries that supported the resolution and regretted that the Security Council had been unable to agree on the project that supported the Arab League.
He thought that the failure to approve the text "undermines the role of the UN and the international community when the Syrian authorities should hear a unified voice that calls for an immediate end to 'their violence' against the Syrian people. The Security Council has missed an opportunity to decide on a united action to help end the crisis," he insisted.
Nevertheless, Moscow announced yesterday that its foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, and Secretary of the National Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev, will travel next Tuesday to Damascus to meet with President al-Assad.
Perhaps this is the first movement of a new diplomatic battle between the promoters of a political solution and the instigators of regime change in that Arab country as occurred in Libya last October.
Russia can be in trouble because of Finland's new president
Finland elected a new president. It is Saul Niinistö, a 63-year-old right-wing politician, former Speaker of the Parliament and a representative of the Coalition Party. While he does not deliver Anti-Russian speeches, Russia still needs to be alarmed. Niinistö established himself as a politician who is not opposed to Finland's NATO membership.
Niinistö won by a large margin. He enlisted the support of nearly 62.6 percent, while his rival, the representative of the "green" Pekka Haavisto, scored 37.4 percent. The losing candidate initially was unacceptable for the residents of the Finnish outskirts. An open homosexual who never served in the Army and who quit the church is too much even for such an "ultra-democratic" country as Finland. This means that for the next six years the country will be led by Niinistö.
Saul Niinistö is one of the oldest Finnish politicians with 35 years of tenure. At various times he served as the Minister of Justice and Treasury, and the chairman of the Parliament. In 2006 he ran for presidency, but lost to the outgoing President Tarja Halonen at least by four percent. For some time Niinistö served as the Deputy Director of the European Investment Bank and knows about the European policy firsthand.
With regard to the basic internal political guidelines of the new President, he advocates for raising taxes on the rich. Before, such statement from the right-wing politicians was virtually impossible, but the crisis dictates its own terms. Niinistö is considered a champion of European integration. He strongly objects the exit of Finland from the euro zone, but openly called the acceptance of Greece into Euro zone a mistake.
Since Finland is a neighbor of Russia, Niinistö's attitude towards Russia is a very important issue. "Many Russian tourists travel to Finland. At the same time many Finns are interested in and own businesses in Russia. We must create such conditions that our relationship continues to evolve smoothly," said Niinistö in a recent interview with Finnish television. According to him, Russia does not present a threat to Finland.
Niinistö said that the question of Finland's accession to NATO could be put to a referendum. In Russia, these words can be interpreted as support for Euro-Atlantic integration of the neighboring country with which it has 1,300 kilometers of common border. Niinistö's companion in the Coalition Party, Foreign Minister Alexander Stubb of Finland, is known as one of the most ardent "Atlanticists."
Another issue is possible territorial claims of Finland for Vyborg, Karelia isthmus and part of the territory of Karelia. Niinistö never made these claims, neither did Finland. However, there are well-known politicians among those who seek the return of these territories. The dissatisfaction with the introduction of the ban on the sale of land in the border zone in Russia was met with resentment among the country's top leadership. The new President's position is fundamentally important.
There are a few other important issues in the Russian-Finnish relations. For example, visas. Although the Finnish Consulate is different from its many colleagues in the EU because of its effective work, the leadership of Finland has never talked about the total abolition of visas. Niinistö has not yet paid particular attention to this issue.
On the first night after winning the elections, Niinistö did something that Russia was not particularly happy with. He appointed the deputy of the European Parliament from the Green Party Heidi Hautala the Minister of International Cooperation in the affairs of Finland. She is known for her close ties with the Russian non-systemic opposition. In addition, she has repeatedly criticized Russia for poor care of the preservation of the Finno-Ugric peoples.
What could the Russian-Finnish relations under President Niinistö be like? Should Russia be afraid of their deterioration and the accession of Finland to NATO? A Finnish professor and political scientist, chairman of the Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee Johan Backman answered :
"Saul Niinistö cannot be called a supporter of the Finnish entry into NATO. He never openly spoke of accession to the North Atlantic Alliance. The very fact of his belonging to the right Coalition Party that is the biggest advocate for the development of ties with the U.S. says that he is not an "Atlanticist."
Niinistö's program on Russia reflects quite objective, realistic interests, focused on economic integration. Being a supporter of Finland's entry into NATO is equal to committing a political suicide. The recent polls showed that 68 percent of the Finns are dead set against NATO membership. Finland will never be its member, only a madman could demand this.
Niinistö has good political instincts. Here is an example from his biography. He was in Thailand in 2004 when the tsunami hit. Hundreds of people were killed around him, but he escaped. This man was born twice, and it left a mark on his life experiences. In addition, he worked briefly in the European structures, so for Russia such a partner is very convenient.
As for the topic of territorial claims, the very statement is offensive to people of Vyborg. This issue was settled in the Paris Peace Treaty of 1947. During the reign of President Martti Ahtisaari, who was born in Vyborg, there were a number of provocations on the Finnish side. But Niinistö is not a revanchist. "
Niinistö won by a large margin. He enlisted the support of nearly 62.6 percent, while his rival, the representative of the "green" Pekka Haavisto, scored 37.4 percent. The losing candidate initially was unacceptable for the residents of the Finnish outskirts. An open homosexual who never served in the Army and who quit the church is too much even for such an "ultra-democratic" country as Finland. This means that for the next six years the country will be led by Niinistö.
Saul Niinistö is one of the oldest Finnish politicians with 35 years of tenure. At various times he served as the Minister of Justice and Treasury, and the chairman of the Parliament. In 2006 he ran for presidency, but lost to the outgoing President Tarja Halonen at least by four percent. For some time Niinistö served as the Deputy Director of the European Investment Bank and knows about the European policy firsthand.
With regard to the basic internal political guidelines of the new President, he advocates for raising taxes on the rich. Before, such statement from the right-wing politicians was virtually impossible, but the crisis dictates its own terms. Niinistö is considered a champion of European integration. He strongly objects the exit of Finland from the euro zone, but openly called the acceptance of Greece into Euro zone a mistake.
Since Finland is a neighbor of Russia, Niinistö's attitude towards Russia is a very important issue. "Many Russian tourists travel to Finland. At the same time many Finns are interested in and own businesses in Russia. We must create such conditions that our relationship continues to evolve smoothly," said Niinistö in a recent interview with Finnish television. According to him, Russia does not present a threat to Finland.
Niinistö said that the question of Finland's accession to NATO could be put to a referendum. In Russia, these words can be interpreted as support for Euro-Atlantic integration of the neighboring country with which it has 1,300 kilometers of common border. Niinistö's companion in the Coalition Party, Foreign Minister Alexander Stubb of Finland, is known as one of the most ardent "Atlanticists."
Another issue is possible territorial claims of Finland for Vyborg, Karelia isthmus and part of the territory of Karelia. Niinistö never made these claims, neither did Finland. However, there are well-known politicians among those who seek the return of these territories. The dissatisfaction with the introduction of the ban on the sale of land in the border zone in Russia was met with resentment among the country's top leadership. The new President's position is fundamentally important.
There are a few other important issues in the Russian-Finnish relations. For example, visas. Although the Finnish Consulate is different from its many colleagues in the EU because of its effective work, the leadership of Finland has never talked about the total abolition of visas. Niinistö has not yet paid particular attention to this issue.
On the first night after winning the elections, Niinistö did something that Russia was not particularly happy with. He appointed the deputy of the European Parliament from the Green Party Heidi Hautala the Minister of International Cooperation in the affairs of Finland. She is known for her close ties with the Russian non-systemic opposition. In addition, she has repeatedly criticized Russia for poor care of the preservation of the Finno-Ugric peoples.
What could the Russian-Finnish relations under President Niinistö be like? Should Russia be afraid of their deterioration and the accession of Finland to NATO? A Finnish professor and political scientist, chairman of the Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee Johan Backman answered :
"Saul Niinistö cannot be called a supporter of the Finnish entry into NATO. He never openly spoke of accession to the North Atlantic Alliance. The very fact of his belonging to the right Coalition Party that is the biggest advocate for the development of ties with the U.S. says that he is not an "Atlanticist."
Niinistö's program on Russia reflects quite objective, realistic interests, focused on economic integration. Being a supporter of Finland's entry into NATO is equal to committing a political suicide. The recent polls showed that 68 percent of the Finns are dead set against NATO membership. Finland will never be its member, only a madman could demand this.
Niinistö has good political instincts. Here is an example from his biography. He was in Thailand in 2004 when the tsunami hit. Hundreds of people were killed around him, but he escaped. This man was born twice, and it left a mark on his life experiences. In addition, he worked briefly in the European structures, so for Russia such a partner is very convenient.
As for the topic of territorial claims, the very statement is offensive to people of Vyborg. This issue was settled in the Paris Peace Treaty of 1947. During the reign of President Martti Ahtisaari, who was born in Vyborg, there were a number of provocations on the Finnish side. But Niinistö is not a revanchist. "
Russian communists politically impotent, albeit prone to dictatorship
Presidential candidate Gennady Zyuganov, the leader of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, released quite exotic ideas about the future of the political development of the country. If Mr. Zyuganov wins the presidential election, he promises to change the Constitution and abolish the position of the prime minister.
Mr. Zyuganov became the last candidate, who presented his vision about the new government and new political reforms in the country. One shall admit that the communist leader is planning curious changes in Russia indeed.
First and foremost, Zyuganov wants to establish the government of people's trust. The new government will consist only of professionals who have remarkable education, extensive work experience and abilities to work in the team. As long as the world is expecting another wave of the economic crisis, as Zyuganov said, one would have to combine the positions of the president and the prime minister for the period of the crisis.
This would of course require adequate changes in the text of the Russian Constitution. To make it happen, the leader of Russian communists offers to set up the constitutional council to develop and introduce the adequate amendments. The council, Zyuganov added, would be chaired by Sergei Baburin and Yury Boldyrev. The political evolution of these two men is like a salad of Yeltsin, Yabloko, Just Russia and finally the CPRF.
As a matter of fact, Zyuganov intends to establish a mild form of dictatorship. He wants to have the "people's" government and hold unlimited powers as the head of state.
Boris Yeltsin did something like that in 1991. When he became the President of the RSFSR (Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic), he chaired the government too. Making a speech at the Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR, Yeltsin surprised the country and the world. He stated that he would chair the Russian government, or the "cabinet of reforms," as he put it, during this critical time of the country's history.
The eye-opening news generated a joke: "When looking for the prime minister, Yeltsin looked into the mirror and chose himself."
The democratic community was hailing the "courageous" decision of the president. There were also many of those who said that Yeltsin was not competent at all as far as the economic side of the question was concerned. No one listened to them, though. Everyone knows the outcome of the experiment connected with the government of Yegor Gaidar.
Such attempts were taken during the Soviet times as well. The excessive concentration of power in the hands of Joseph Stalin was later interpreted as "personality cult." Nikita Khrushchev also tried to combine high-ranking official positions, for which he was subsequently criticized. It was later decided not to combine the positions of the First Secretary of the Central Committee and the Chairman of the Council of Ministers. However, Brezhnev, Andropov and Chernenko later used the new opportunity to combine the positions of the General Secretary of the Central Committee and the Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Council.
Mikhail Gorbachev was not an exception either. He set a record on the number of official positions that were taken in Soviet history. In May 1989, he became the chairman of the Supreme Council of the USSR. It is worthy of note that Boris Yeltsin criticized Gorbachev for doing that and said that the concentration of power in the hands of one person contradicted to democratic principles.
"When there are no clear ideas about the development of economy and the social field, when there's nothing to say about the strengthening of Russia's international position - this is the time when such absurd suggestions appear. Change the Constitution and make president and prime minister become one. All this testifies to Zyuganov's political weakness," Dmitry Vyatkin, a member of United Russia party, deputy chairman of the parliamentary committee for constitutional legislation said.
Zyuganov's other initiatives raise many questions too. For example, the leader of the Communist Party believes that Sergei Udaltsov, the leader of the Left Front, should be in charge of youth policies. Mr. Udaltsov is known for his activities to organize unauthorized actions of protest.
Moreover, Gennady Zyuganov said that Grigory Yavlinsky, the leader of Yabloko Party, was a "professional economist." However, Zyuganov preferred not to include Yavlinsky in the structure of his "new government" for personal reasons. Zyuganov claimed that Yavlinsky literally compared communists to fascists in his TV ad. "I consider this insulting," Zyuganov said.
Mr. Zyuganov became the last candidate, who presented his vision about the new government and new political reforms in the country. One shall admit that the communist leader is planning curious changes in Russia indeed.
First and foremost, Zyuganov wants to establish the government of people's trust. The new government will consist only of professionals who have remarkable education, extensive work experience and abilities to work in the team. As long as the world is expecting another wave of the economic crisis, as Zyuganov said, one would have to combine the positions of the president and the prime minister for the period of the crisis.
This would of course require adequate changes in the text of the Russian Constitution. To make it happen, the leader of Russian communists offers to set up the constitutional council to develop and introduce the adequate amendments. The council, Zyuganov added, would be chaired by Sergei Baburin and Yury Boldyrev. The political evolution of these two men is like a salad of Yeltsin, Yabloko, Just Russia and finally the CPRF.
As a matter of fact, Zyuganov intends to establish a mild form of dictatorship. He wants to have the "people's" government and hold unlimited powers as the head of state.
Boris Yeltsin did something like that in 1991. When he became the President of the RSFSR (Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic), he chaired the government too. Making a speech at the Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR, Yeltsin surprised the country and the world. He stated that he would chair the Russian government, or the "cabinet of reforms," as he put it, during this critical time of the country's history.
The eye-opening news generated a joke: "When looking for the prime minister, Yeltsin looked into the mirror and chose himself."
The democratic community was hailing the "courageous" decision of the president. There were also many of those who said that Yeltsin was not competent at all as far as the economic side of the question was concerned. No one listened to them, though. Everyone knows the outcome of the experiment connected with the government of Yegor Gaidar.
Such attempts were taken during the Soviet times as well. The excessive concentration of power in the hands of Joseph Stalin was later interpreted as "personality cult." Nikita Khrushchev also tried to combine high-ranking official positions, for which he was subsequently criticized. It was later decided not to combine the positions of the First Secretary of the Central Committee and the Chairman of the Council of Ministers. However, Brezhnev, Andropov and Chernenko later used the new opportunity to combine the positions of the General Secretary of the Central Committee and the Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Council.
Mikhail Gorbachev was not an exception either. He set a record on the number of official positions that were taken in Soviet history. In May 1989, he became the chairman of the Supreme Council of the USSR. It is worthy of note that Boris Yeltsin criticized Gorbachev for doing that and said that the concentration of power in the hands of one person contradicted to democratic principles.
"When there are no clear ideas about the development of economy and the social field, when there's nothing to say about the strengthening of Russia's international position - this is the time when such absurd suggestions appear. Change the Constitution and make president and prime minister become one. All this testifies to Zyuganov's political weakness," Dmitry Vyatkin, a member of United Russia party, deputy chairman of the parliamentary committee for constitutional legislation said.
Zyuganov's other initiatives raise many questions too. For example, the leader of the Communist Party believes that Sergei Udaltsov, the leader of the Left Front, should be in charge of youth policies. Mr. Udaltsov is known for his activities to organize unauthorized actions of protest.
Moreover, Gennady Zyuganov said that Grigory Yavlinsky, the leader of Yabloko Party, was a "professional economist." However, Zyuganov preferred not to include Yavlinsky in the structure of his "new government" for personal reasons. Zyuganov claimed that Yavlinsky literally compared communists to fascists in his TV ad. "I consider this insulting," Zyuganov said.
Tuesday, 17 January 2012
Consumer rights watchdog targets McDonald’s
A consumer rights watchdog wants McDonald’s to list the contents of its hamburgers and it has gone to court to see that the fast-food chain does so.
The Consumer Rights Protection Society filed a lawsuit against the fast-food empire demanding it disclose all its ingredients information to customers, especially since it enjoys a lower tax rate applicable to stores and not the usual tax for restaurants.
“The McDonald’s restaurant chain deliberately violates the Russian consumer rights legislation, profiting twice from the privileged situation created by Moscow’s Arbitration Court decision,” an announcement on the organization’s website read.
McDonald’s milkshakes shouldn’t mention milk in their name, since a considerable amount of vegetable oil was contained in the product, a CRPS-backed investigation claimed.
If the court finds CRPS’ claims justified, the fast food chain will have to provide full information on ingredients, product weight and the standards it was made in accordance with.
And the list of requirement should be the same as for regular store-bought food, since McDonald’s has been “recognized as a grocery chain” by courts, the watchdog claims.
After an arbitration court’s ruling from July 2011, some of McDonald’s products are being sold as regular food commodities, which allows the company to pay VAT at the rate of 10 percent. The regular VAT rate for restaurants is 18 percent.
The McDonald’s says the lower tax rate applies only to certain products listed in respective government documents, according to a press-release published on its official website.
However, there is little chance that the corporation will lose the case. The tax scheme is absolutely legal – it is not widely used only because smaller food chains don’t have the resources to implement it given the modest revenue it will bring given their turnover, Yelena Perepelitsina, director general at consulting company Restcon, told Kommersant. And lawyer Alina Toporina from law firm Yukov, Khrenov i Partnyory believes that CRPS might have difficulties proving that one the world’s most famous chains operates entirely as a grocery store.
Back in 2007, the CRPS tried to force McDonald’s to change its take-outs scheme but courts took the side of the company.
McDonald’s representatives said they didn’t receive any notification of the lawsuit and it was also absent in the court’s database, according to an official statement sent to The Moscow News. A staff member of the Tverskoi court, where the CRPS said the lawsuit had been submitted, confirmed to Vedomosti that the document has been filed.
The company also added that information on their products’ energy and nutrition value is provided and only high quality ingredients are used. And the milkshakes frowned upon by the CRPS are produced according to a technology certified by the Russian branch of Europe’s biggest milk product manufacturer Ehrmann.
The Consumer Rights Protection Society filed a lawsuit against the fast-food empire demanding it disclose all its ingredients information to customers, especially since it enjoys a lower tax rate applicable to stores and not the usual tax for restaurants.
“The McDonald’s restaurant chain deliberately violates the Russian consumer rights legislation, profiting twice from the privileged situation created by Moscow’s Arbitration Court decision,” an announcement on the organization’s website read.
McDonald’s milkshakes shouldn’t mention milk in their name, since a considerable amount of vegetable oil was contained in the product, a CRPS-backed investigation claimed.
If the court finds CRPS’ claims justified, the fast food chain will have to provide full information on ingredients, product weight and the standards it was made in accordance with.
And the list of requirement should be the same as for regular store-bought food, since McDonald’s has been “recognized as a grocery chain” by courts, the watchdog claims.
After an arbitration court’s ruling from July 2011, some of McDonald’s products are being sold as regular food commodities, which allows the company to pay VAT at the rate of 10 percent. The regular VAT rate for restaurants is 18 percent.
The McDonald’s says the lower tax rate applies only to certain products listed in respective government documents, according to a press-release published on its official website.
However, there is little chance that the corporation will lose the case. The tax scheme is absolutely legal – it is not widely used only because smaller food chains don’t have the resources to implement it given the modest revenue it will bring given their turnover, Yelena Perepelitsina, director general at consulting company Restcon, told Kommersant. And lawyer Alina Toporina from law firm Yukov, Khrenov i Partnyory believes that CRPS might have difficulties proving that one the world’s most famous chains operates entirely as a grocery store.
Back in 2007, the CRPS tried to force McDonald’s to change its take-outs scheme but courts took the side of the company.
McDonald’s representatives said they didn’t receive any notification of the lawsuit and it was also absent in the court’s database, according to an official statement sent to The Moscow News. A staff member of the Tverskoi court, where the CRPS said the lawsuit had been submitted, confirmed to Vedomosti that the document has been filed.
The company also added that information on their products’ energy and nutrition value is provided and only high quality ingredients are used. And the milkshakes frowned upon by the CRPS are produced according to a technology certified by the Russian branch of Europe’s biggest milk product manufacturer Ehrmann.
Billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov
Billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov is close to getting into the presidential race after announcing that his campaign has gathered the necessary 2 million signatures to register with the Central Election Commission. Yet in spite of getting more campaign donations than Putin, his political prospects remain unclear.
The lanky businessman towered over supporters and journalists who crowded into his reception office Friday hoping for a chance to talk, but some people came away hoping for more certainty – did the oligarch even stand a chance against the far more popular Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who has effectively been running the country since 2000?
“Prokhorov doesn’t have enough faith in himself,” Adam Kungayev, a pensioner who had signed up to support of Prokhorov’s campaign, told The Moscow News. “If he did, he could win the presidential race.”
Just 3 percent of respondents said they would vote for Prokhorov in a presidential election according to the latest Levada poll released Jan. 12, where Putin led with 42 percent.
But Prokhorov – who has a predominantly business-oriented middle-class support base and has even called for a longer working week in the past – can boast one area where he’s well ahead of Putin: Campaign donations.
In that arena, the billionaire beats the Prime Minister four to one – with over 400 million rubles ($13.3 million) collected against Putin’s 102.5 million ($3.4 million), Vedomosti reported Friday. If Prokhorov were campaigning in the U.S., that would give him a key edge. But in Russia, where state-owned television has been accused of leaning toward coverage of Putin and his United Russia party, that’s just not the case.
Prokhorov’s campaign managers dismissed the achievement. “That’s an exceedingly small sum for a campaign,” Anton Krasovsky, the TV anchor who heads Prokhorov’s campaign staff, said during Friday’s meeting.
Prokhorov was ousted as leader of the pro-business Right Cause party by pro-Kremlin forces in September, after just three months in the job, and is now determined to forge a successful party for Russia’s burgeoning middle class. Prokhorov, who accused other opposition leaders of being longtime “Kremlin agents” in a Monday article for RBC Daily, pledged to create an independent party when announcing his presidential bid on Dec. 12.
He may have some help from longtime Putin ally and former Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin, who posted on his Twitter page Friday that he was holding “consultations on joining democratic and liberal forces and creating a new party.”
Prokhorov’s staff confirmed that talks with Kudrin were taking place.“Especially since the raid on Right Cause, it is crucial to create a party that’s not run from Staraya Ploshchad,” Krasovsky said, referring to the address of the presidential administration and underlining the need for full independence
But so far Prokhorov, who is widely seen as having the Kremlin’s blessing to run, has avoided open criticism of his opponent, Vladimir Putin.
“I think the slogan ‘Fire Putin’ is too radical,” Prokhorov told Radio Liberty on Friday.
Last week, Prokhorov called for evolution rather revolution in a column in The Guardian. Commenting that the age of managed democracy was “over,” he vowed to make free elections a priority.
To accusers who claim that his campaign is a Kremlin project, Prokhorov cheekily replied that that the Kremlin is his project instead. “I believe I have two opponents, Putin and [Communist Party head Gennady] Zyuganov. I will fight for second place – and for a second round of elections,” he was quoted by Radio Liberty as saying Friday.
Asked about the negotiations with Kudrin, and Kudrin’s de facto status as a mediator between the government and the opposition, Krasovsky, Prokhorov’s campaign manager, suggested that Kudrin’s connections could only be an asset.
“Why should [Kudrin’s closeness to Putin] be a bad thing? I’m for continuity,” Krasovsky said.
The lanky businessman towered over supporters and journalists who crowded into his reception office Friday hoping for a chance to talk, but some people came away hoping for more certainty – did the oligarch even stand a chance against the far more popular Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, who has effectively been running the country since 2000?
“Prokhorov doesn’t have enough faith in himself,” Adam Kungayev, a pensioner who had signed up to support of Prokhorov’s campaign, told The Moscow News. “If he did, he could win the presidential race.”
Just 3 percent of respondents said they would vote for Prokhorov in a presidential election according to the latest Levada poll released Jan. 12, where Putin led with 42 percent.
But Prokhorov – who has a predominantly business-oriented middle-class support base and has even called for a longer working week in the past – can boast one area where he’s well ahead of Putin: Campaign donations.
In that arena, the billionaire beats the Prime Minister four to one – with over 400 million rubles ($13.3 million) collected against Putin’s 102.5 million ($3.4 million), Vedomosti reported Friday. If Prokhorov were campaigning in the U.S., that would give him a key edge. But in Russia, where state-owned television has been accused of leaning toward coverage of Putin and his United Russia party, that’s just not the case.
Prokhorov’s campaign managers dismissed the achievement. “That’s an exceedingly small sum for a campaign,” Anton Krasovsky, the TV anchor who heads Prokhorov’s campaign staff, said during Friday’s meeting.
Prokhorov was ousted as leader of the pro-business Right Cause party by pro-Kremlin forces in September, after just three months in the job, and is now determined to forge a successful party for Russia’s burgeoning middle class. Prokhorov, who accused other opposition leaders of being longtime “Kremlin agents” in a Monday article for RBC Daily, pledged to create an independent party when announcing his presidential bid on Dec. 12.
He may have some help from longtime Putin ally and former Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin, who posted on his Twitter page Friday that he was holding “consultations on joining democratic and liberal forces and creating a new party.”
Prokhorov’s staff confirmed that talks with Kudrin were taking place.“Especially since the raid on Right Cause, it is crucial to create a party that’s not run from Staraya Ploshchad,” Krasovsky said, referring to the address of the presidential administration and underlining the need for full independence
But so far Prokhorov, who is widely seen as having the Kremlin’s blessing to run, has avoided open criticism of his opponent, Vladimir Putin.
“I think the slogan ‘Fire Putin’ is too radical,” Prokhorov told Radio Liberty on Friday.
Last week, Prokhorov called for evolution rather revolution in a column in The Guardian. Commenting that the age of managed democracy was “over,” he vowed to make free elections a priority.
To accusers who claim that his campaign is a Kremlin project, Prokhorov cheekily replied that that the Kremlin is his project instead. “I believe I have two opponents, Putin and [Communist Party head Gennady] Zyuganov. I will fight for second place – and for a second round of elections,” he was quoted by Radio Liberty as saying Friday.
Asked about the negotiations with Kudrin, and Kudrin’s de facto status as a mediator between the government and the opposition, Krasovsky, Prokhorov’s campaign manager, suggested that Kudrin’s connections could only be an asset.
“Why should [Kudrin’s closeness to Putin] be a bad thing? I’m for continuity,” Krasovsky said.
Russian billionaire battle reaches London court climax
LONDON, Jan 17 (Reuters) - A gargantuan lawsuit between two of post-Soviet Russia's richest and most powerful men reached its climax in a London courtroom on Tuesday, with lawyers for tycoon Boris Berezovsky making their case that he was extorted into turning the crown jewel of his business empire over to billionaire rival Roman Abramovich.
The $6 billion case has thrown a spotlight on the shady business dealings of post-Soviet Russia, when opaque privatisation deals turned a handful of insiders into the owners of multi-billion dollar natural resources firms.
It has also captivated the legal industry in Britain, whose globally respected, tradition-bound courts - where lawyers still wear powdered wigs - have become the venue of choice for rich Russians to sue each other, generating massive fees.
Berezovsky, 65, accuses Abramovich - known in Britain as the owner of Chelsea soccer club - of intimidating him into selling his stake in oil firm Sibneft at a knockdown price. Abramovich, 45, denies Berezovsky ever had an interest in Sibneft.
Speaking in a courtroom packed with bodyguards and ranks of lawyers and aides on Tuesday, Berezovsky's lawyer devoted a large part of his closing statement to examining what he said was untruthful evidence by Abramovich and his witnesses.
"The dishonesty of Mr Abramovich and his key witnesses, their cynical manipulation of evidence and indeed of the trial process, is...perhaps the most important of the general points which my Lady will wish to have in mind when weighing up the evidence and making findings of fact in this case," Laurence Rabinowitz told judge Elizabeth Gloster.
A Kremlin insider in the 1990s under former President Boris Yeltsin, Berezovsky left Russia after falling out with Yeltsin's hand-picked successor Vladimir Putin. He says he gave up his Sibneft stake because he feared that if he refused, Abramovich would ensure Putin had the shares expropriated.
Abramovich says he paid Berezovsky $2 billion for his political patronage and protection from criminal gangs, but not as dividends from Sibneft because Berezovsky was never an owner.
Abramovich has since sold Sibneft to the Russian state natural gas monopoly Gazprom.
The trial has been tabloid fodder in Britain ever since a tussle between the two tycoons and their retinues of bodyguards in a Hermes luxury boutique in London, when Berezovsky spotted Abramovich and served him with a writ.
During Tuesday's hearing, Berezovsky appeared relaxed, often laughing and conferring with his younger girlfriend. Abramovich, sitting at the opposite end of the courtroom, listened intently to the Russian translation of the proceedings in headphones.
The trial, which started in early October, is being followed closely by Russia watchers from London and Moscow for new clues into Russian business and politics under Putin, now prime minister but expected to become president again this year.
Abramovich and Berezovsky were close allies when making their fortunes in Russia in the 1990s under Yeltsin.
Since then, Berezovsky has become a sworn enemy of Putin, fending off requests to extradite him from London on Russian criminal charges by arguing that he could not get a fair trial in Russia. Abramovich became a Putin ally and prospered.
The $6 billion case has thrown a spotlight on the shady business dealings of post-Soviet Russia, when opaque privatisation deals turned a handful of insiders into the owners of multi-billion dollar natural resources firms.
It has also captivated the legal industry in Britain, whose globally respected, tradition-bound courts - where lawyers still wear powdered wigs - have become the venue of choice for rich Russians to sue each other, generating massive fees.
Berezovsky, 65, accuses Abramovich - known in Britain as the owner of Chelsea soccer club - of intimidating him into selling his stake in oil firm Sibneft at a knockdown price. Abramovich, 45, denies Berezovsky ever had an interest in Sibneft.
Speaking in a courtroom packed with bodyguards and ranks of lawyers and aides on Tuesday, Berezovsky's lawyer devoted a large part of his closing statement to examining what he said was untruthful evidence by Abramovich and his witnesses.
"The dishonesty of Mr Abramovich and his key witnesses, their cynical manipulation of evidence and indeed of the trial process, is...perhaps the most important of the general points which my Lady will wish to have in mind when weighing up the evidence and making findings of fact in this case," Laurence Rabinowitz told judge Elizabeth Gloster.
A Kremlin insider in the 1990s under former President Boris Yeltsin, Berezovsky left Russia after falling out with Yeltsin's hand-picked successor Vladimir Putin. He says he gave up his Sibneft stake because he feared that if he refused, Abramovich would ensure Putin had the shares expropriated.
Abramovich says he paid Berezovsky $2 billion for his political patronage and protection from criminal gangs, but not as dividends from Sibneft because Berezovsky was never an owner.
Abramovich has since sold Sibneft to the Russian state natural gas monopoly Gazprom.
The trial has been tabloid fodder in Britain ever since a tussle between the two tycoons and their retinues of bodyguards in a Hermes luxury boutique in London, when Berezovsky spotted Abramovich and served him with a writ.
During Tuesday's hearing, Berezovsky appeared relaxed, often laughing and conferring with his younger girlfriend. Abramovich, sitting at the opposite end of the courtroom, listened intently to the Russian translation of the proceedings in headphones.
The trial, which started in early October, is being followed closely by Russia watchers from London and Moscow for new clues into Russian business and politics under Putin, now prime minister but expected to become president again this year.
Abramovich and Berezovsky were close allies when making their fortunes in Russia in the 1990s under Yeltsin.
Since then, Berezovsky has become a sworn enemy of Putin, fending off requests to extradite him from London on Russian criminal charges by arguing that he could not get a fair trial in Russia. Abramovich became a Putin ally and prospered.
Saturday, 14 January 2012
Bolshoi administration steps into dancer scandal
The Bolshoi’s administration has stepped into the unfolding scandal over ballet star Nikolai Tsiskaridze's sacking from Russia’s most famous theater.
Anatoly Iksanov, the Bolshoi’s director general, refuted Tsiskaridze’s claim that his dismissal from the position as a ballet instructor was nothing but revenge for his slamming of the results of the highly-publicized six-year renovation of the theater.
“No one is going to fire Nikolai Tsiskaridze, who was, and is, to remain Bolshoi Theatre’s soloist,” Iksanov told the news agency Itar-Tass. The discharge of Tsiskaridze’s pedagogical part-time contract was in order to give a full-time job to an instructor, he added. Regina Nikiforova, 76, who was a Bolshoi ballerina during her time, is to take the position
The scandal broke out when the celebrity dancer claimed the administration of the theater was trying to get rid of him after he shared several outspoken judgments about the theater with journalists.
“The thing is that Bolshoi Theatre director general Mr. Iksanov has been for a long time considered the Bolshoi Theater his own home territory,” Tsiskaridze told Interfax at the beginning of January, shortly after he received a notice about the annulment of his contract.
The famed ballet dancer said that his sacking was also to prevent any public criticism from his other colleagues, “who could possibly feel like criticizing the Bolshoi’s administration in the future.”
Tsiskaridze threatened to take a legal action against the theater If the decision was not revoked, he told Moskovsky Komsomolets. The dancer said terminating his contract was illegal according to the Russian Labor Code as he wasn’t offered to fill the full-time position.
Tsiskaridze was sacked together with Yan Godovsky, another Bolshoi ballet soloist who was a part-time instructor, and the official line is that the theater needs a full-time instructor.
“This season we have to move a whole collection of large-scale shows to the main stage, including ‘Le Corsaire,’ ‘Swan Lake,’ ‘Romeo and Juliet,’ ‘Giselle’ and ‘The Pharaoh's Daughter,’” Iksanov said.
Tsiskaridze’s instructor contract is to be discharged on Jan. 17, Iksanov said, and a notification was sent to the dancer on Dec. 15.
Anatoly Iksanov, the Bolshoi’s director general, refuted Tsiskaridze’s claim that his dismissal from the position as a ballet instructor was nothing but revenge for his slamming of the results of the highly-publicized six-year renovation of the theater.
“No one is going to fire Nikolai Tsiskaridze, who was, and is, to remain Bolshoi Theatre’s soloist,” Iksanov told the news agency Itar-Tass. The discharge of Tsiskaridze’s pedagogical part-time contract was in order to give a full-time job to an instructor, he added. Regina Nikiforova, 76, who was a Bolshoi ballerina during her time, is to take the position
The scandal broke out when the celebrity dancer claimed the administration of the theater was trying to get rid of him after he shared several outspoken judgments about the theater with journalists.
“The thing is that Bolshoi Theatre director general Mr. Iksanov has been for a long time considered the Bolshoi Theater his own home territory,” Tsiskaridze told Interfax at the beginning of January, shortly after he received a notice about the annulment of his contract.
The famed ballet dancer said that his sacking was also to prevent any public criticism from his other colleagues, “who could possibly feel like criticizing the Bolshoi’s administration in the future.”
Tsiskaridze threatened to take a legal action against the theater If the decision was not revoked, he told Moskovsky Komsomolets. The dancer said terminating his contract was illegal according to the Russian Labor Code as he wasn’t offered to fill the full-time position.
Tsiskaridze was sacked together with Yan Godovsky, another Bolshoi ballet soloist who was a part-time instructor, and the official line is that the theater needs a full-time instructor.
“This season we have to move a whole collection of large-scale shows to the main stage, including ‘Le Corsaire,’ ‘Swan Lake,’ ‘Romeo and Juliet,’ ‘Giselle’ and ‘The Pharaoh's Daughter,’” Iksanov said.
Tsiskaridze’s instructor contract is to be discharged on Jan. 17, Iksanov said, and a notification was sent to the dancer on Dec. 15.
Putin launches presidential-bid web site
Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has launched a website in support of his presidential bid. The web site, www.putin2012.ru, outlines his planned presidential program as well as his biography, experience, interests, upcoming events and people’s opinions section. There is also a virtual suggestions box.
Moscow's hotels most expensive in Europe
As of November 2011, prices in Moscow’s hotels were the highest in Europe, RIA Novosti reported citing information obtained from the Hotel.info web site. Hotel.info provides booking services for over 210,000 hotels worldwide. The research was conducted in January and announced yesterday. According to the study, prices in Moscow rose 8.35 percent in autumn to reach 7,684 rubles for a room per night. Oslo came second at the equivalent of 7,145 rubles a night.
Old-Russian names making a return
Old-Russian names made a comeback among Muscovites in 2011, RIA Novosti reported the head of the births, deaths and marriages office as saying on Thursday. Irina Muravyeva said that rare names that previously popped on birth certificates such as Radost, Okeana, Kit and Sammerset Oushen, fell out of fashion in 2011.
“Such names were not used in 2011,” said Muravyeva. “However, in 2011 Old Russian and Norwegian names were used more often. Lyubomira, Radamira, Milalika for girls and Budemir, Luchezar, Bronemir, Svetloyar for boys.”
“Such names were not used in 2011,” said Muravyeva. “However, in 2011 Old Russian and Norwegian names were used more often. Lyubomira, Radamira, Milalika for girls and Budemir, Luchezar, Bronemir, Svetloyar for boys.”
Index of Economic Freedom says Russia ‘stuck’ at ‘mostly unfree’ level
The Heritage Foundation and Wall Street Journal have released their annual Index of Economic Freedom rankings list. Russia’s score remains unchanged at 50.5, making it 144th in the world in the “Mostly Unfree” group together with Italy, Greece, Brazil, China and India.
“Its score is unchanged from last year, with a significant increase in business freedom counterbalanced by a significant deterioration in control of government spending,” read the report. “The Russian government has demonstrated little if any commitment to economic reform in recent years, and the country’s economic freedom score remains stuck at the lower end of the ‘mostly unfree’ category.”
“Its score is unchanged from last year, with a significant increase in business freedom counterbalanced by a significant deterioration in control of government spending,” read the report. “The Russian government has demonstrated little if any commitment to economic reform in recent years, and the country’s economic freedom score remains stuck at the lower end of the ‘mostly unfree’ category.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)