Russia to search for gold in Tanzania

Russian geological holding company Rusgeology will search for minerals in Tanzania. The appropriate program is ready; representatives of the holding have already attended the talks in the African country. Tanzania is a treasure trove of a wide variety of minerals. However, the exploration will cost quite a sum. Since colonial times, Tanzania has been a storehouse of a variety of minerals. The country ranks third in Africa in terms of gold reserves; there are rich deposits of diamonds, copper and hydrocarbons. During the visit to Tanzania (it took place in early October) representatives of Rusgeology met with the heads of the Ministry of Energy and Mines and other officials of Tanzania. The talks were held to discuss the prospects of cooperation in the field of ​​regional geological exploration in promising territories. At the meeting with First Deputy Minister for Energy and Mines of Tanzania, representatives of Rusgeology discussed the program of projected metallogenic research in central Tanzania. The program has been coordinated and is currently being considered by management. Rusgeology possesses a staff of highly qualified professionals and extensive and sometimes unique experience in exploration and mining in Russia and abroad. This knowledge and the available production capacity will make a valuable contribution to quick and efficient research on the territories of the interested countries," the head of the International Cooperation Department of the company, Mr. Demidov said. There were large deposits of oil found in Tanzania too. In the winter of this year, it was reported that Rusgeology could both look for oil and extract it. Then-CEO of Rusgeology, Alexander Pisarnitsky, said that the company was planning to start own production of hydrocarbons in five or seven years. Most likely, though, the valuable information on the industrial resources of one of the richest countries in Africa will be more expensive than the crude oil of the country. Technically, it was Rusgeology that was supposed to become the exploration corporation. It was thought that the company would be providing is extremely valuable to its customers in the first place. The information could then be converted into profit. Incidentally, in 2010, the Russian government abolished the fee for the information from the State Fund of the Interior. The info on the deposits that was sold to miners, replenished the budget with 150-170 million rubles every year. The establishment of the state-run corporation Rusgeology was tied to the need to ensure the uniform exploration of the territory of Russia, the reproduction of the mineral resource base, as well as with the need to develop a fundamentally important new directions of geological research. The plans for such an organization are registered in the strategy for the development of geology before 2030. The registered capital of Rusgeology, which was created on the basis of JSC Central Geology, is based on the shares of 38 major state-owned geology enterprises of Russia. They provide a variety of services in drilling, geophysics, etc. The priority areas for the work of Rusgeology abroad include African countries (Tanzania, Mauritania, Sudan, Angola, Namibia, Congo, South Africa, etc.), Latin America (Venezuela, Chile, Peru), South-East Asia (Vietnam, Laos Mongolia), Indonesia and others. The company has intergovernmental agreements signed with many of them. The corporation was created primarily to address Russian issues and eliminate the vacuum that was formed in the industry during the 90's, when found in the Soviet times. The search for new deposits was not important at all thanks to the reserves discovered during the Soviet period. In 2012, Russia intends to spend 41 billion rubles on geological exploration, which is considerably more than in the previous year (19 billion). According to the government, one should increase the proportion of non-budgetary sources in funding geological exploration. In 2015, it should reach 20 percent, in 2020 - 40 percent, in 2030 - 50 percent. The implementation of geological exploration by the holding in the interests of governments and private companies of third countries fits into this strategy well.

Nord Ost hostages never forget three days of hell in 2002

Russia marks the tenth anniversary of the hostage crisis at the Moscow music theater. On October 23, 2002 an armed group of terrorists broke into the building of the theater where a popular musical "Nord-Ost" was being performed. The group with Movsar Barayev at the head took 916 people hostage - artists and spectators. The building was stormed in nearly three days. The terrorists were killed, and most of the hostages were released. However, the number of victims was quite large - 130 people. Russian mass media widely discussed the impact of the sleeping gas, which was used during the storm, on the health of the hostages. The gas was emitted into the ventilation system of the building prior to the storm. Moscow's Chief Doctor Andrei Seltsovsky said that the poisoning showed no significant influence on the death rate among the former hostages. Russian President Vladimir Putin officially announced the same in 2003. The formula of the gas still remains unknown - the authorities do not disclose it. It was only established that its main component was fentanyl - a strong opioid analgesic, used in anesthesia, and most often in neurosurgery during highly complicated operations on the brain, when it is required the patient should remain conscious. The negotiations continued for three days - on October 23-26. Only on October 25th the terrorists allowed to give hostages water and juices. Politician Irina Khakamada and singer Iosif Kobzon tried to negotiate with terrorists to free the hostages. Deputy of the State Duma, Aslambek Aslakhanov, addressed the Chechens too. In the evening of October 25th, the terrorists announced that they would no longer conduct any negotiations. During the three days of the crisis, the terrorists shot several spectators and killed two relatives, who sought the release of their loved ones. The decision to storm the building was made at night of October 26th. Late last year, the European Court of Human Rights ordered Russia to pay 1.3 million euros to Nord-Ost victims. The panel of seven judges unanimously recognized that there was a real threat of mass deaths during the hostage crisis, and that the Russian authorities had every reason to break off the negotiations with the terrorists and storm the building. The court also ruled, though, that the use of gas was justified. However, according to the court, the rescue operation after the storm was not prepared well. The victims of the tragedy did not receive adequate medical care after the use of the unknown gas. The actions of various services were poorly coordinated, the evacuation of victims came late, there was a lack of medical equipment, the transportation was organized poorly. There were many children - both small children and teens - among the hostages. Ten years later, they shared their memories of hell that they had to experience. Ksenia Zharkova told NTV that she and her classmate, who died, were sitting right underneath the air vents, where the gas came from. "For a few hours I had a terrible headache, and the doctor, who was sitting on the balcony, put me on another row to make me an injection. Perhaps I am still alive because of that," she said. Olga Protas remembers that the worst moment for her was when the terrorists said they would choose ten people from the audience and shoot them right on stage. "During the last day, I lost hope that I would see my loved ones. I wrote my phone number and my name on my hand so that my parents would be able to recognize me in a morgue," confessed the former hostage. The terrorists broke into the building and went up on stage, where they announced their requirement to withdraw federal forces from Chechnya. At first, many did not even understand what was happening. Choreographer of "Nord-Ost" Galina Delyatitskaya told the Rossiyskaya Gazeta newspaper: "When the second act began, I went up to the balcony to see the quality of the dance of pilots. I saw a camouflaged man with a gun climbing on stage. I thought that he had drunk too much at the buffet during the intermission. The audience thought it was a part of the spectacle and they cheered." Those who lost their loved ones in the hostage crisis still remember the words that they heard from them in a few phone calls. Many hostages tried to calm their relatives down: "It's okay, no need to panic," "They are placing bombs in the auditorium, but it's nothing really..." Actions in memory of the victims of the terrorist attack are held at the Moscow music theater in Dubrovka every year. The ceremony to lay flowers and hold a moment of silence will take place on October 26. In 2003, a seven-meter stele of white granite was erected on the square in front of the theater: "In memory of the victims of terrorism." In April 2011, a stone was placed in the foundation of the church in memory of the hostages. The construction of the church is about to end. The consecration of the church is to be held on 26 October, during the anniversary of the terrorist attack.

Russia builds cropdusters, US designs new airships

The Moscow region may become a center of the production of small aircraft, the governor of the Moscow region Sergei Shoigu said. The meeting on the development of regional and local air service in the Central Federal District of Russia took place on October 23rd in the town of Zhukovsky. The authorities announced their intention to build assembly plants in the town of Balashikha to assemble American five-seated Maule M-9, Czech 19-seated L-410 and Russian upgraded An-2 aircraft there, the Kommersant said. "I know for certain that next year in May we will begin to assemble the An-2 aircraft. We will start doing it, at all costs. If there's a need to repair the workshops - we will repair them. If there's a need to raise loans - we will raise them," said the governor. Sergei Shoigu is sure that reviving the production of the upgraded An-2 aircraft is essential for the whole country. Responding to the remarks from one of the leaders of Zhukovsky airfield, who said that creating small aircraft was unprofitable due to transportation charges, Shoigu said: "It's good that the people living in Tiksi, Podkamennaya Tunguska or other hard-to-reach locations in Siberia do not hear you. And if it wasn't for highly expensive Alrosa aircraft, I do not know how people could live there at all, and how the Northern delivery could be conducted there!" According to him, one should produce at least 100 such aircraft. "They used to fly in the north and in Siberia. Now there is nothing that people can fly there. Airplanes and helicopters of foreign production began to appear, but we have no place where we could repair them," said Shoigu. "If this plane [An-2] doesn't appear, we will not have the planes that would fly to northern territories. Attaching highest priority to profitability is wrong. Profitability is a temporary concept," said the governor. First class test pilot Alexander Akimenkov told Pravda.Ru that the An-2 was a unique aircraft for Russia. "This is the only aircraft, where pilots can choose a landing spot while flying. The plane can land anywhere. When Medvedev flew to the Far East, people were begging him to give the An-2 back to them. This is the only aircraft that can be of huge help there. The An-2 gave rise to oil and mining industries. If they stop the production of An-26 and An-2, then over 2,500 settlements will be left without doctors. There will be no pension, no mail, no power for them in the end. 82 percent of Russian territories are the places that can be reached only by plane. And most importantly, the aircraft maintains crude oil production. Russia is an oil power," said the pilot. As for the production of American small capacity aircraft, Akimenkov is not sure whether the models are going to be in demand in our country. "As for U.S. and other foreign planes - why do we need a 5-seater? We need to transport sheep and goats! Foreign planes are not for our remote settlements, plus it's expensive. Yes, it is very comfortable for officials to fly them. So let them buy a plane like that," he said. The An-2 is a 12-seated transport aircraft, the so-called "cropduster". Aircraft designer Oleg Antonov designed it in October 1940. Nowadays, it is used as a passenger and cargo aircraft in local air traffic. Meanwhile, US specialists have developed a prototype of a new cargo airship -Pelican, Vzglyad reports. The aircraft can become an alternative to modern military transport aircraft, including the strategic Boeing C-17, the load capacity of which exceeding 70 tons. One of the major advantages of airships is the possibility of vertical takeoff and landing. In addition, cargoes can be unloaded from airships on unprepared locations. The ground tests of Pelican airships should begin at the end of October; flight tests are said to begin in early 2013. In Russia, there are two companies that design airships. The firm Augur has produced 12 airships of five different types since 1999. Nowadays, one of the company's latest models, Au-30, prepares to fly to the North Pole. The Defense Ministry buys the majority of airships to conduct patrol, technical monitoring, aerial, geophysical and other surveys. The company Locomosky designed "Locomoskyner" airship to explore the Earth interior and offshore areas of the ocean. The carrying capacity of the airship is one ton. There is also a model for monitoring and control - for example, to monitor oil pipelines and special objects. In 2006, the company decided to revive the project of Academician Yuri Ryzhov to design a thermoplane that would be capable of carrying 600 tons of cargo. Chairman of the Board of Directors of Locomosky, Kirill Lyats, said that until the end of the year the company would fine sources to finance the project to build a cargo airship in three or four years.

Russia rejects the merger of Moldova with Romania

If Moldova loses its sovereignty or neutrality, the Russian Federation has the right to propose the right of self-determination for Transdniester the messenger of Moscow for special missions, Sergei Gubarev, informed on Sunday. The expert said that the Kremlin does not rule out recognizing the independence of the breakaway republic located within Moldovan territory. It was repeated that Russian authorities have expressed their rejection of the merger of Moldova with neighboring Romania and their possible annexation to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Gubarev insisted on the need to negotiate an exit to reach an agreement suitable to both parties, according to the radio station Echo Moscow. Building a future of coexistence with Tiraspol and Kishinev, capitals where the solution to the problem is, should be the goal of the talks, he insisted emphatically. The transformation of the Soviet Union and the fear of annexation of Moldova to Romania in the early 1990's caused the creation of five districts on the left bank of the Dniester, with a mostly Russian population, proclaimed as the self-styled Republic of Transdniéster, with Tiraspol as its capital. In retaliation, Kishinev sent forces against the separatist territory that led to a war that lasted several months. Peace was achieved by a mediated integrated mixed contingent of 402 Russian military, 355 Moldovans and 492 from Transdniéster, as well as a dozen Ukrainian observers. A negotiating process was initiated on the basis of the formula called "five plus two" - Moldova, Transdniestria, Russia, Ukraine, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), besides the United States and the European Union. These agreements were interrupted from 2006 to 2011, although the parties continued performing periodic consultations until November 30, 2011 and Moldova and Transdniéster restored the practices. Upon reaching the presidency of Transdniester at the end of that year, Yevgeny Shevchuk reaffirmed the foreign policy of his administration and will seek to recognize and maintain a relationship with his Russian partners. "We will also be open for neighborly relations with Moldova and Ukraine," expressed the representative of the Republic.

The myth of affordable energy

Ed Dolan, a well known economist, gave an interview to Oilprice.com, in which he spoke about various energy and economic issues. Mr. Dolan shared his thoughts on why the US oil and gas boom is hurting Russia's global influence, why Obama's desire to cut oil industry tax breaks could be a great idea, why the EU was flawed from the start and many other things Q: Access to cheap energy is vital to economic growth. What do you see happening with the economy over the coming years as the time of cheap oil comes to an end? A: In my view it is a myth that cheap energy - "affordable energy" as many people like to say is vital to growth. The idea that there is a lockstep relationship between growth of GDP and use of energy is widespread, but the data simply does not bear it out. Instead, what they show is that the world's best-performing economies have become dramatically more energy efficient over time. The World Bank uses constant-dollar GDP per kg of oil equivalent as an energy efficiency metric. From 1980 to 2010, the high-income countries in the OECD have increased their average energy efficiency by 55 percent. The United States has done a little better than that, increasing its energy efficiency by 81 percent over that period. That's pretty remarkable, considering that we haven't really had a policy environment that is supportive of efficiency. Think what we could do if we did. Even after the efficiency gains in efficiency we have made, we still have a long way to go. The US economy is still 15 percent less energy efficient than the average for high-income OECD countries, giving it plenty of room to improve. Switzerland is almost twice as energy-efficient as the US, and the UK is 68 percent more efficient. Some people say that the only reason the United States has been able to grow while using less energy is the deindustrialization of its economy, outsourcing heavy industry to China. However, compare the US with Germany. Germany is an export powerhouse and Europe's best-performing economy, yet its energy efficiency has increased at almost the same rate over the last 30 years as the United States, an 80 percent gain in efficiency compared to 81 percent. Furthermore, despite being proportionately more industrialized than the US and a major exporter, Germany squeezes out 41 percent more GDP from each kg of oil equivalent. In short, we don't have to hypothesize about the possibility of someday breaking the lockstep relationship of growth and energy use-we and most of the rest of the advanced world are already doing it. Q: What effect can you see America's Oil & Gas boom having on foreign policy? A: On the whole, I see it as beneficial. Energy dependence has led us to buy a lot of oil from countries that are unstable and/or unfriendly to us. Anything we can do to reduce that dependence gives our foreign policy more room to maneuver. The beneficial effects reach beyond our actual imports and exports. The US gas revolution is having repercussions all the way to Russia, where Gazprom is seeing its market power undermined, and Russia, as a result, is losing some of the geopolitical leverage its pipeline network has given it. Q: From Siberia and Poland to China and Qatar - the shale revolution has politicians salivating at the thought of a cheap and abundant source of energy. But can the results seen in the U.S. be easily replicated in other parts of the world? A: I think you're going to have to ask someone with more engineering background for the technical details, but from what I read, the answer is that it won't always be easy. It is my understanding that some countries where shale seemed just recently to have great promise have already encountered disappointments in practical exploratory work. Poland I think is an example. Furthermore, the environmentalist opposition to fracking seems even stronger in many European countries than in the United States. Still, I am hoping that the shale revolution will pan out in at least some countries. Think how much difference it would make, say, to Ukraine's foreign policy if they were able to break their dependence on Russian gas. Q: Gail Tverberg has written a recent article suggesting the world is suffering from high-priced fuel syndrome, which has the following symptoms: A: I don't buy the argument at all. Yes, when countries are hit by unexpected upward shocks in fuel prices, we do see short-run results like slower growth and layoffs, but those are short-term problems. When the proper structural adjustments are made, countries with high fuel prices manage to achieve strong growth and full employment. Where are fuel prices lowest? If you look up the data and rank countries by retail fuel prices, you find the low-price end of the rankings crowded with countries like Egypt, Cambodia, Iran, Pakistan-not exactly economies we would like to emulate. We've got big economic problems, but a lot of them don't have much to do with energy. What about a healthcare system that delivers mediocre results at the world's highest cost? Health care isn't all that much energy driven. What about our steady move down the international rankings in education-are you going to blame that on the high cost of heating classrooms? Hardly. Q: Oil prices have been near to the $100 a barrel mark for some time now, and don't look likely to drop back to previous low levels. What effect could this increased price have on oil importing economies compared to oil exporting economies? A: Clearly, any oil price increase has the short-term effect of transferring wealth from using countries to producing countries. However, the long-run effects are what matter. In the long run, high prices just accelerate the trend for using countries to become more efficient and less dependent. Meanwhile, the producing countries often don't manage their oil riches well. They fall victim to the "curse of riches." The curse takes the form partly of a loss of competitiveness in their non-energy sectors (the so-called "Dutch disease"). Partly it takes the form of corruption of their political systems. Russia is a poster child for both aspects of the curse of riches. Q: Renewable energy is more expensive than fossil fuels, so how can people be persuaded to choose the less economical option of renewables over the likes of coal and natural gas? A: There is only one right way to promote renewables, and that is to introduce full-cost pricing of all forms of energy. Full-cost pricing is a two-part program. First, it means pricing that covers the full production costs for every form of fuel. No subsidies for anyone-not for oil, not for ethanol, not for wind or solar. The second half of full-cost pricing is to include all of the nonmarket costs, what economists call the "external costs" or "externalities." The most publicized of these are pollution costs, whether those take the form of local smog, oil spills, climate change, or bird kills. Some people, I am one of them, would like to count in something for the national security costs of dependence on unfriendly and unstable foreign sources of energy supply. Full-cost pricing accomplishes two things. First, it levels the playing field so that each form of energy competes on its economic merits, not whether corn-growing states have early primaries or oil companies have big SuperPacs. Second, by raising prices to consumers to a realistic level, it accelerates the trend toward energy efficiency that is already underway. Subsidies for renewables are just plain wrong, even if you look at them from a hard-core environmentalist point of view. With a subsidy, on the one hand, you say, "produce more green energy" and other the other hand, you turn around and tell the consumer, "waste more green energy." We don't want to waste energy from wind or solar any more than we want to waste oil and gas. We shouldn't forget that even the greenest renewables can have significant environmental impacts. The whole "affordable energy" idea is based on the myth that if we don't include those external costs in the price-the pollution costs, the national security costs-they just go away. They don't. Keeping prices artificially low just transfers those costs to someone else, someone unlucky enough to live downwind, someone who owns beachfront property that gets eroded away as the sea level rises, someone who has to go off to fight a war to keep the shipping routes open. There are two things wrong that. First, it's immoral. If we believe in the market economy, the rule of law, and all that, we have to respect people's property rights and their human rights. Second, it's inefficient. It doesn't strengthen our economy, it weakens it. If there's one thing we can't afford, it's "affordable energy." Q: Obama has made clear his desires to cut the $4 billion a year tax breaks given to oil companies. What affect do you believe this would this have on the US economy and the US oil industry? A: If it is done as part of a comprehensive move toward full-cost pricing, it could only strengthen the US economy. The oil industry would whine, but if we cut subsidies and tax breaks for competing energy sources at the same time, oil will remain a competitive part of the energy mix for many years to come. Q: The oil industry has enjoyed decades of subsidies and grants, so do you think it is unreasonable to already start cutting the subsidies to renewable energies and expect them to survive on their own? A: As I explained above, the answer is yes, provided it is done as part of apackage that reforms our energy policy as a whole in the direction of full-cost pricing. Q: Economic growth is generally dependent on the access to energy. As the supply of energy grows, so too does the economy (more or less). Global oil supplies are pretty much stagnant, so do you predict that only nations that successfully convert to a renewable energy mix with an abundant supply of cheap energy will be able to experience continued economic growth at a similar level experienced by the developed countries of recent years? A: Again, I just don't buy the doctrine that growth is dependent on ever-increasing energy use. For sure, those countries that pursue sound policies, like full-cost pricing to rationalize their energy mix and promote efficiency, are the ones that are going to keep growing. Q: As the arctic ice melts at a rapid pace the world's superpowers are jockeying for position to exploit the region's vast oil & gas & mineral deposits. Environmental groups are rightly concerned, but is this a resource that we cannot afford to ignore? A: Arctic oil, like any other source of energy, should pay full freight for any environmental impacts it has. If it can bear those costs and still be competitive, I think it should be in the mix. I am worried about Russia, though. It has a dangerous combination of an environment-be-damned attitude and low technical competence that could lead to headline-grabbing disaster worse than the Gulf blowout or Exxon Valdez. Q: What effect do you see the shale revolution having on investments in renewable energy? A: If I were trying to make money by generating electricity with wind or solar, I'd be worried about gas. I don't have all the relevant numbers at my disposal, but my gut feeling is that even if you price in full environmental costs for wind, solar, and gas-including environmental costs associated with fracking-gas is still going to be pretty competitive. Q: What are your views on Ben Bernanke's QE3? A: I've written repeatedly about QE over at Economonitor, so I am on record as saying we should try it. The trouble is, QE is not a magic bullet. Properly executed and properly communicated, it can help support the recovery, but it can't do it alone. That is one point where I agree 110 percent with Ben Bernanke Here is what he said in a speech at the Fed's Jackson Hole conference at the end of the summer: "It is critical that fiscal policymakers put in place a credible plan that sets the federal budget on a sustainable trajectory in the medium and longer runs. . . Monetary policy cannot achieve by itself what a broader and more balanced set of economic policies might achieve." Q: How do you see the EU solving its debt crisis? A: I'm afraid I'm a euro pessimist. The US debt situation is hard enough to resolve, but Europe's is worse. At the same time, whatever you say about gridlock in Washington, our political decision making is a model of streamlined efficiency compared with the EU. Q: Do you think the EU was doomed to fail from the start with the format that it has? Could more success be seen in a split EU, with the northern/richer nations using one currency, and the southern/poorer nations using a different currency? A: Doomed, I don't know, but flawed, certainly. Just recently, I was looking back at what economists were writing about the prospects for the euro back in the early 1990s, when it was still just a project. They were telling us, for one thing, that Europe is too diverse to be ideal for a currency union-and that was when there were only 15 EU countries. Second, they said that you can't run a monetary union without a central government, a fiscal union, and a banking union. You still don't have any of those. I am not sold on the idea of a northern euro and a southern euro. If the currency union doesn't work, it doesn't work. Break it up. Sure, some countries will find it works for their special circumstances to tie their currencies to a large, stable neighbour. I could see the Danes or the Latvians keeping a link to the German currency, for example, and I'm sure the Vatican will continue to use whatever currency Italy uses. But a formal, north-south divide doesn't make much sense to me. Q: In terms of tackling the current economic situation in the US, of the two main presidential candidates, who do you suggest is the best man, and why? A: I do not think we can tackle the current economic situation without a thorough-going fiscal policy reform that includes three key elements: Spending cuts, revenue increases, and a rewrite of the whole tax system to eliminate loopholes and cut marginal rates. Furthermore, the package can't be heavily front-loaded like George Osborne's austerity program in the UK, which has sent their economy back into recession. Ours should be back-loaded, with an element of stimulus now and an ironclad commitment to move the budget toward surplus as the economy improves. It's a lot to ask for. We are not going to get good budget policy out of the GOP unless members of that party make a clean break with mantra that they will not accept a dime of new revenue, not even if it comes from eliminating the most loathsome tax loopholes. Personally, I am never going to vote for a candidate for President, the Senate, the House, or any office who has signed that nonsensical Grover Norquist tax pledge. At the same time, I have been very disappointed at the lukewarm support Obama has given to the kind of program I would like to see. During the first debate, Romney said that when Obama didn't "grab" Simpson-Bowles-that was his word, and a good one-it was a failure of leadership. That was one point where I agreed with Mitt. Then, you also have to take into account the vote for Congress. I'm afraid there is going to be continued gridlock as long as the GOP controls the House. In the Senate, there are at least a few people in both parties who are willing to meet behind the scenes and talk compromise, but not in the House, not right now, anyway. Maybe what we need in the White House is someone who is a real politician, a negotiator and dealmaker in the mould of a Clinton or an LBJ. Instead, we have the choice between a manager and a law professor. I'm not optimistic that either of them will be able to do what needs to be done.

Tortured victim of atrocious rape sees no justice

he tragic March case of Oksana Makar, which saw the 18-year-old from Mykolaiv, southern Ukraine, raped, torched and ultimately killed, shocked the world and cast a dark cloud over a Ukraine which was at that time looking towards Euro 2012 with anticipation. Now, more than six months later, the trial of her accused murderers is set to conclude. The Central District Court of Mykolaiv has stated that legal debate, the final stage before a verdict is reached, will begin on October 30. Oksana Makar's life was troubled right from childhood, spending a significant part of her early years in an orphanage after both her father and stepfather were imprisoned for drug dealing, and her mother, Tetyana Surovitska, a prominent figure in the media since her daughter's death, was also serving a sentence on a robbery conviction. Oksana completed only six years of formal schooling, and by the age of 11 had run away from the orphanage, surviving at various locations in and around her hometown through petty theft and, reportedly, prostitution. On March 8th, Makar is said to have met two of her attackers, friends Yevhen Krasnoschek, 23, and Artem Pohocyana, 22, in the Rybka, a Mykolaiv pub. After some drinks there, the young men suggested going back to the nearby apartment of their friend, Maksym Prisyazhnyuk, 24. The naked Makar was discovered the next morning at a nearby construction site by a passing motorist. She had been wrapped in a blanket, which at the time of her discovery had been on fire for hours, causing irreparable lung damage, beaten, strangled with cable, and dumped. Makar's body sustained 55 percent burns, and a medical examination confirmed the girl's claims that she had been repeatedly, and forcefully, raped. Reports as to what happened in the apartment to cause such extreme, unfathomable brutality, have ranged from a planned, co-ordinated execution, to a rape, which saw Makar threaten to call the police and the gang attempting to subdue her through force, which escalated to the extent they believed she was dead when they left the apartment with her. The trial of the three accused, going on since May 24th, partly public and partly in closed sessions, has been eventful, insightful, and frequently disturbing, as new details have emerged of the International Women's Day attack. The three accused have changed their stories several times, at one time in proceedings even going so far as to petition an insanity plea, rejected by the panel of judges, led by Judge Elena Selivanov. The three defendants, Yevhen Krasnoschek, Artem Pohocyana, and Maksym Prisyazhnyuk, were all apprehended on March 11, after a still conscious Makar gave police information on her attackers. In a police operation which was to be the subject of fierce criticism, Pohocyana and Prisyazhnyuk were quickly released, and then swiftly re-arrested after a storm of protest broke out, and President Yanukovych intervened, while Krasnoschek has remained remanded in custody since March 11. Each has reported stated that they were in a state of extreme alcoholic intoxication on the night of the incident, which led to the immediate amputation of Makar's right arm and both her feet, to prevent gangrene. On March 29, Makar died in a Donetsk burn centre, even the expert intervention of a Swiss surgeon, paid for by Ukrainian billionaire and member of Verkhovna Rada, Rinat Akhmetov, insufficient to save her. Along with Akhmetov's funding, the Mykolaiv community also raised over 1 million hryvnia for the treatment of Makar, with hundreds additionally donating blood. Throughout the trial, defence lawyers have submitted a number of petitions aimed at mitigating or offsetting responsibility. The majority of these, including a call for a complete re-examination of proceedings (already examined by no less than 30 different experts) have been rejected. In a labyrinth to-and-fro, which saw the defence counsel described by the prosecutor as 'tricky', defence lawyers even went so far as to ask for a re-examination of the deceased girl's body, to confirm she had been raped. This request to exhume Makar, who was buried in a wedding dress in accordance with local tradition, was rejected on the grounds of irrefutable evidence already in existence, attesting to forceful sexual assault. Relations between the accused have also fractured, as the three have broken ranks, offering attempts at expiation and blame shifting. At the end of August Yevhen Krasnoschek (who is married with a young daughter), through his lawyer Larisa Zavadskaya, refuted his earlier, recorded, testimonials and gave the explanation that he had intentionally choked Makar not quite to death so the other two would think she was dead, thus leaving her (for dead) and giving the brutalised 18-year-old girl a chance to find help. His contention was that he was then offered money to implicate himself in her murder, and lessen the charges levelled against Pohocyana and Prisyazhnyuk. Coming at the advanced stage of the trial it did, commentators were quick to note that his statements, contradictory and confusing as they were, seemed to be playing to the idea that Prisyazhnyuk, son of the former head of the Yelanets District Administration in Mykolayiv Oblast, was the ringleader in the crime. Many had thought that Prisyazhnyuk, who worked as a lawyer and with his background of wealth and power, was best placed of the three accused, yet with all aware of the global interest in the case, the Ukrainian judicial system can ill afford any exoneration based on privilege. As the trial has progressed, Prisyazhnyuk, described by sources as having a forceful character, has increasingly found his wealth and connections used to paint a picture of an individual who thought he could do as he wished. Pohocyana was originally said to have senior connections, with his father having worked as a high-ranking official in the district prosecutor's office in Mykolaiv. However, police subsequently claimed his father was a manual labourer, who died in January 2012, and his mother a librarian. While Krasnoschek and Prisyazhnyuk are reported to have remained largely dispassionate during legal testimonials and evidence giving, Pohocyana has visibly buckled under the gravity of the situation, and earlier in October attempted to take his own life in his cell. All three are accused of committing crimes under paragraphs 4, 10, 12, Part 2 of Article 115, and paragraph 4 of Article 152 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Krasnoschek further finds himself charged with Part 3 of Article 153 (satisfying sexual desire in perverted forms). Krasnoschek originally reported that Makar was wrapped in a blanket, and dropped in the pit, with the blanket catching fire when a pillow case was lit and tossed down. Afterwards, he reported, they went home and changed into new clothes, before buying vodka and eating at a local kiosk. "We sat down, had a smoke and then went our own ways." Whether the three will ever be able to go their own ways again will be determined soon, with a life sentence the maximum penalty for each of the men. However, it's not just the Ukrainian legal system about to be placed again at the fore of the international media. Ukraine's alarming record of domestic violence, and patchy record in past prosecutions, are about to be thrust into the global eye. Pressure is on the Mykolaiv court to reach a verdict which will show progress from 2011's Roman Landik case, a so-called 'bigwig crime'. In July of 2011, Landik, the 37-year-old son of a national parliamentary figure, and himself a prominent personage, was caught on CCTV repeatedly punching a girl, Maria Korshunov, grabbing her by the throat and dragging her across the floor of a restaurant by her hair. The argument began when the (recently married) Landik tried to flirt with Korshunov, who refused his advances and the drink he attempted to force on her. Landik's response was to rain down blows in a sustained assault lasting several minutes. One of the most disturbing factors of the incident was the passivity of the other diners, in what was a busy establishment - while Maria's friend called police, restaurant patrons looked on with a mixture of indifference and some irritation at having their dinner disturbed. The waitress, meanwhile, deposited the bill on Korshunov's table in the midst of the beating, and walked off. The battered Korshunov spent several days in the neurological department of the local Luhansk hospital, suffering from concussion, bruises and a nervous breakdown. Landik had probably thought that was the end of that, and it may ordinarily have been. However, the upload of the video onto YouTube provoked a wave of protest and a warrant was issued for his arrest. He initially fled to Russia, and before being sent back gave a series of statements indicating that he was the real victim, and that Korshunov and he would be friends in future. Landik returned to Ukraine to pay Korshunov an undisclosed sum, which was taken into account when the court handed down a three-year suspended sentence. Independent lawyer Natalya Petrova went so far as to claim this represented standard legal practice, "Speaking as a lawyer, it is clear there is a beating, there is a crime. But she (the victim) agreed to a sum of compensation... If she had not taken money, the decision would have been different." In developed legal systems, any such compensation would have been paid after a successful conviction, not as appears in this case, instead. Critics of the Ukrainian legal system viewed this as simply another example of a 'bigwig crime', whereby the rich can largely do as they please. As Makar lay in the burns centre in Donetsk, dying from her wounds, she was filmed by her mother, and the video posted on YouTube. Makar is clearly suffering, as her mother coaxes the girl to wave the stump that was her right arm to the camera, and persists in getting her to repeat, "I'll live while I'm alive." At around the same time, a video was posted of an 18th birthday party in Ukraine, in which a fight breaks out. In the fracas, the young men start indiscriminately and brutally beating up the young ladies. They do so in both a callous and casual manner, causing many commenting on the video to observe what seasoned hands they seemed at it. And on exactly the same day as the Makar attack, another teenage girl from the area, Aleksandra Popova, was also hospitalized after being beaten by a male perpetrator. Popova remained unconscious for weeks, before recovering. Male on female violence in Ukraine is far from an isolated incident, as statistics substantiate, with one in four murders in Ukraine a result of domestic violence, meaning over 1000 women in a given year die at the hands of their boyfriend or spouse. Statistics further record that a third of Ukrainian women have been faced with domestic violence in their adult lives. interviewed Liza Rai, of La Strada, a group in operation since 1997 working against human trafficking, domestic violence, gender inequality and children's rights violations. What are your thoughts on the Makar case? It's been a terrible and shocking incident, firstly for the girl and her family, but also for Ukrainian society. Some of the attitudes exposed by the case have been frightening, in terms of some thinking that in some way she was responsible for what happened to her, because of her lifestyle or behaviour. And of that contention? Any woman can, and should be able to dress as she likes without fear of reprisals. Any woman should be able to behave freely without threat of brutality. In this case, Oksana Makar was, and had been since her early life, a victim. She was in need of society's care and support to help her achieve some kind of normal adult life. What punishment should be given to the accused? The maximum sentence for the crime they are accused of is life imprisonment. If they are indeed convicted, then, given the extreme brutality of the crime, life imprisonment should certainly be passed down. What are the causes behind the problem of violence against women? The causes are deep-rooted and manifold. Firstly, if a child is either the victim of domestic violence or witness to it, there is a strong chance they will one day perpetrate themselves. There is also the issue that in Ukrainian society, we sometimes simply don't care enough about each other. We have a proverb here, "my house is at the end of the city, and I don't want to know anything about my neighbours", which gives you an idea of the mentality. When people see a woman being beaten, their first reaction is often not to intervene, but ignore. On top of this, you have the hard economic realities of Ukraine. That of low salaries, and of salaries not being paid on time. Tensions over money can swiftly escalate into violence - especially when alcohol is involved. Now, in addition to this, women are becoming stronger and more independent in society, something some men see as a threat for which violence should be used to suppress. And the laws dealing with the issue? There is a law, the 2001 law "On the Prevention of Violence in the Family" (The Advocates for Human Rights 17 July 2009; OSI 2007, 21), which was amended in 2008. Before the 2008 amendment, police had been allowed to shift blame from perpetrator to victim. The 2008 act also gave additional powers in terms of detention of accused, and the rights of non-married victims. It furthermore eliminated what had been a common mitigating plea, that of "provocative behaviour" of the defendant, and increased punishments. So, we have the law in place - its application, though, is another story. Many times, even now, the woman is simply told to 'sort it out within her own family'. Judges similarly don't really want to get involved, and tend to rush these cases through with a fine. The tragic irony is that the man who beats his wife pays the fine, but of course that money comes out of the family budget. So, the woman who has been beaten now has less money to feed her family. Now, Ukraine has signed, and is soon to ratify, EU Convention #210 on the elimination of all forms of violence against women. What can be done to solve the problem? Firstly, it comes down to education. It must be instilled in children from an early age that violence against women is morally abhorrent. Secondly, there needs to be acknowledgement in Ukrainian society of both the scale of the situation and how unacceptable it is, in any sphere or setting, against any victim. Men need to know that they will be punished for what they do, and before they do anything, they need to stop for a moment, and think that the person they are about to hurt is a human being, weaker than them. Alcohol doesn't excuse anything.

Russian billionaire builds spaceship-like house for Naomi Campbell in Moscow

Russian billionaire, the chairman of Board of Directors of Capital Group, Vladislav Doronin, has built a futuristic mansion for his girlfriend Naomi Campbell in Moscow's suburban area known as Rublyovka. The house for the supermodel looks like a spaceship. The unusual house was designed by famous British architect of Arab origin Zaha Hadid. The Russian entrepreneur plans to present the house to the famous British model when they become husband and wife. The house of 2,500 square meters is called Capital Hill Residence. The building consists of two 22-meter-high towers and is designed in ecostyle - a mixture of modern technologies and natural forms. The white mansion stands aloof amidst pine trees. the planning of the house is impressive. The basement will house a Finnish sauna, a hamam (Turkish bath) and a Russian bath. A huge gym is next door. The basement also houses a guest room. On the upper level, there is a reception hall, an indoor swimming pool, a dining room and a kitchen. The house has two children's rooms. The interior of the house is designed in Eco-style. The designer was inspired by the work of legendary Barcelona architect Antonio Gaudi, who did not accept straight lines and liked to use wood and glass in interior decoration. Interestingly, Zaha Hadid does not specialize in private housing. The futuristic mansion for the Russian businessman is a first for her. Hadid has several high-profile projects in her experience: the opera house in Guangzhou, Roca Gallery, the Aquatics Center in London and many other iconic buildings. According to chief architect of "Moscow City" business complex Gennady Sirota, "it is clear that Doronin wants to stand out, while the architect can not resist the proposed fee." It goes about a fee of six zeros, Sirota believes. However, other experts believe that the price of the futuristic project may vary within thousands of dollars, rather than millions. The official website of Zaha Hadid displays sketches and photos of the building on Rublyovka, as well as its interior. According to the designer, she cooperates with Vladislav Doronin on the project. In addition to the mansion for Naomi, she designed "Picturesque Tower" residential complex in Moscow in 2005 on the order from Capital Group. Zaha Hadid is a frequent guest in Moscow. In May 2004, she arrived in St. Petersburg for Pritzker Prize ceremony, which took place in the Hermitage Theater. Zaha was the first woman in the world to receive this award. In 2004, Zaha lectured at the Central House of Architect in Moscow. In 2005, she gave a master class during ARCH Moscow exhibition. Zaha Hadid is a member of the International Advisory Committee for the establishment of Melnikov House museum in Moscow. In the summer of 2008, she brought her unusual work to the Russian capital - Mobile Art Pavilion. The pavilion was a publicity stunt by Chanel fashion house. It was reminiscent of quilted Chanel handbag, but used as a mobile gallery. The pavilion can be used as a mini-museum or gallery to showcase art. As for real estate, which Vladislav Doronin gives to his girlfriend, Naomi Campbell already has a penthouse in Brazil, not far from Sao Paulo. Doronin bought it for $18.5 million. In 2011, Doronin financed the construction of the Eye of Horus villa in Turkey for Naomi. The building was built in the form of the right eye of the Egyptian deity. The building, designed by young architect from Spain, Luis de Garrido, became a birthday present for Naomi. In Moscow, Naomi owns an apartment that Doronin bought her.