Corruption in Russia

[M.Helen]

yeah, it's because they got used to be ruled from one single point - Moscow! When USSR broke up, they didn't understand what to do with the governng, and it seems that still don't understand.

[Karl.in.eu]

yeah, it's because they got used to be ruled from one single point - Moscow! When USSR broke up, they didn't understand what to do with the governng, and it seems that still don't understand.

HAha, good point! so they are like a body with no head, yes?

[Faw_Peter]

Why are talking this way about CIS countries. Remember, they are very hard-working people, but need guidance, since CIS states are young states.

[Karl.in.eu]

I'm sure about this, but knowledge is important also.

[M.Helen]

I agree with Peter. They need less guidance, a good, solid one. It's too late for these countries to learn anything now. At the moment they must act in order not to lose the spirit of time.

[Steven]

First - learning is never too late. If they don't learn anything by themselves, their fate is doomed to be rulled by other states.

[Hakan G]

As Helen already mentioned, if too much time is in between, then a large population could become pessimistic about the chances of improvement. Timing is important. And I think assistance is too. I think such countries should be monitored by foreign organizations, which would not only conduct statistics but will act too. This will eliminate the fear to act democratically for regular people in a post-soviet country.

[Big_Becka]

You should read 'A Russian Diary' by Anna Politkovskaya (The Russian journalist for Novaya Gazeta, who was shot outside her appartment in 2006) - she was extremely critical of Putin's government, accusing him of corruption: rigging elections and milking the war in Chechnya, amoung other things.

WRT the CIS, she also implies Putin may have had a hand in the elections in the Ukraine in 2004 (Ok, I know they're not a ratified member...)

[Nicholas]

Too bad, the truth is only written on books and not in the real life.
It is interesting what is the attitude of the Russian people regarding this book, didn’t anybody take any actions?

[Terry]

Becka, you're saying Puting may have been implied in the 2004 elections in the Ukraine. I can't really see how could he. The Ukrainian government (Yuschenko) is not Russia's ally. So maybe you wanted to say he had a hand to the elections, but did not succeed?

[Big_Becka]

Terry, I'm not an expert on Ukranian politics, so I wanted to go home and get the book before I replied!

The book states that Ukraine was slow to implement free-market reforms, and was heavily dependent on Russia for energy supplies. Russia had attempted to exploit this for political advantage.

The entries for April 2004 state that Putin met with Kuchma in the Crimea, shortly after Yanukovych was appointed Kuchma's successor. At this point, Putin decided whether or not to support Yanukovych (it looked as though he would not). It does not say what form this support would take. Sadly, the book concentrates on Russia - there are only sparse references to Ukraine and the rest of the ex-Soviet bloc.

It does say that Russian TV "ranted" against Yushchenko every time he made a mistake (what mistakes has he made?) So, yes, I guess he came to power despite Russia!

[Newrussian town]

Yes we have corruption in every sphare of our life. But it less that was. And really, our life is not so bad as you think.

[M.Helen]

Yes we have corruption in every sphare of our life. But it less that was. And really, our life is not so bad as you think.

really? how is it then? We trust to figures that say facts. What can you say about that?

[Newrussian town]

I will not tell you about my wages ect. because you (Europeans and Americans) think that it is one of the measure of happiness . Facts? ok here you are- I am happy in common, sometimes I am sad, but I am satisfied whith our society structure, and my life at all. I am in safety, I have interresting job, good friends, I served in the army, and life seems to me rither bright that it was 7-8 years ago. So why my life can't be good if I am a young man at least?

[Nicholas]

Where did you serve the army?

[Faw_Peter]

good for you newrusiantown. I wouldn't manage to do so many things. Maybe you are right and maybe hapiness is not in money. But these are the rules of the modern world.

[Karl.in.eu]

Actually that is not a problem of money, but how they are distributed, and who have access to them in such a corrupted society....

[Faw_Peter]

I am sure there is no country which has no corrupted officials ruling it. It's just that in some countries these cases are revealed and in others not.

[Big_Becka]

I agree, Peter. I was horrified when I found that the news in the UK is sometimes 'given' to the broadcasters down a 'news feed' - and there was that business over the Iraq war: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9404E0D71038F933A05752C0A9629C8B63">http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... A9629C8B63</a><!-- m -->

Newrussian town - I am intrigued by your reply! I had heard that conditions were very bad in the Russian army? And that there were still problems in Russia (attacks by neo-Nazis, people not being paid for months, etc.)? Perhaps I have been the victim of some propaganda?

[romanu']

Russia has a very corrupt system.
If you don't believe that, ask Putin himself about his money! ;-)

[clearman]

Russia has a very corrupt system.
If you don't believe that, ask Putin himself about his money! ;-)

How rich is Vladimir Putin? It is an easy question to answer formally by looking at Mr Putin's declaration of assets as a candidate in this month's parliamentary elections (writes Tony Halpin, Moscow Correspondent of The Times).

This showed that he earned £40,000 last year and had £74,000 in savings as well as two vintage Volga cars, an apartment in St Petersburg inherited from his parents and 230 shares in a local bank, worth about £400.
Informally, however, some staggering numbers are circulating as gossip among political analysts in Russia.

Stanislav Belkovsky, head of the Institute of National Strategy, a Moscow think-tank, claims that Mr Putin has at least $41 billion tucked away in shares and offshore trusts based in Switzerland and Lichtenstein.

That would make Mr Putin not only Russia's, but Europe's richest man, far eclipsing the wealth of oligarchs such as Roman Abramovich, the Chelsea owner, and Boris Berezovsky, one of the President's strongest critics.

Mr Belkovsky is a former Kremlin insider and one-time supporter of Mr Putin who has now turned strongly against the President. In an interview with Germany's Die Welt newspaper last month he named companies in which he alleges the Russian President holds a secret stake.

He claims Mr Putin holds 37 per cent of Surgutneftegaz, Russia's fourth largest oil company, 4.5 per cent in the state-controlled gas monopoly Gazprom, and 50 per cent of a mysterious oil trading company Gunvor. He raised the stake in Gunvor to 75 per cent in an interview with The Guardian today.

Gunvor’s headquarters are in Switzerland and run by Gennady Timchenko, a former judo partner and KGB colleague of Mr Putin. It is estimated to have made $8 billion profit last year on a turnover of $40 billion by handling up to a quarter of Russia's oil exports.

It must be said that Mr Belkovsky, who initiated the Kremlin's war on the Yukos oil company owned by Mikhail Khordorkovsky, then Russia's richest man, produces no evidence to support his allegations.

However, a former presidential candidate and state Duma deputy, Ivan Rybkin, also claimed in Nezavisimaya Gazeta in 2004 that Mr Putin was Russia's biggest oligarch and that Mr Timchenko was one of three businessmen responsible for managing his affairs.

Anders Aslund, an economist at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington, repeated Mr Belkovsky's claims in the Moscow Times last month and concluded: "If these numbers contain any truth, Putin would be the most corrupt political leader in world history, easily surpassing Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines and Zaire's Mobutu."

In another article in the Washington Post last week, Mr Aslund raised further questions about the extent of Mr Putin's wealth and the private fortunes amassed by public officials linked to the Kremlin.

The Kremlin has not reacted to any of the accusations. Mr Putin himself slapped down claims of corruption in his inner circle during an interview he gave to Time magazine for naming him its Person of the Year on Wednesday .

Questioned whether "some of the people closest to you are getting rich", Mr Putin replied: "Then you know who and how. Write to us, to the foreign ministry, if you are so confident. I presume you know the names, you know the systems and the tools. "I can assure you and everyone who would listen to us, watch us and read us, that the reaction would be swift, immediate, [and] within the prevailing law."

The question mark over Mr Putin's wealth is matched by another over why this is suddenly emerging into the public glare. His decision to back Dmitri Medvedev as his presidential successor has not gone down well with the "siloviki", the security service and military wing in the Kremlin whose favoured candidate was the hardline former Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov.

A struggle between rival clans in the siloviki is already under way as they battle to mark out their territory ahead of the transfer of power in the presidential election next March. Some analysts regard Mr Putin's decision to stay on as prime minister as a sign of his concern that the siloviki may seek to undermine Mr Medvedev, a lawyer with no background in either the secret services or the military.

Winston Churchill once compared Kremlin politics to watching "dogs fighting under a carpet" because it was only clear who had won once the growling had died away. It may be that details about Mr Putin's alleged fortune are being leaked out to discredit him in the power struggle over the succession. Whether more emerges or the whole issue gets swept back under the carpet depends on Mr Putin's ability to control the in-fighting raging in the Kremlin.

Posted by Times Online Newsdesk on December 21, 2007 at 03:01 PM in From the newsdesk | Permalink

[LION]

Maybe these numbers are exaggerated a little,but still,it proves that mr. Putin is far more richer then he says he is :lol:

[M.Helen]

Now that's too much exaggerated - 40 billion dollars :lol:
I believe Putin is, more or less, a fair guy. By the way, I know that Putin's wife is the head of the leading Russian mobile service operator. His wife might be earning more than he does, it's a transnational business you know.

[Panda]

What is really dangerous is that corruption persists in the medical area. Can you imagine how many people depend on some students who simply gave bribe for obtining the doctor diploma.

And that is, unfortunately, just part of a problem. What is really sad, that the society itself doesn't fight against corruption, quite the contrary, corruption was...how to put it correctly, integrated in the day-to-day life of every single individual. Idioms reflect the history of every nation, and there is one, "Не подмажешь - не поедешь" (ne podmazesh - ne pojedesh, which can be vaguely translated like "no pay - no ride"). Still, it seems that Medvedev has made a fight against corruption one of the prior national projects.

[M.Helen]

I think what he did is just changed the level of the money destined for bribing. What will happen now is that higher officials will have all the money, while ordinary people will be controlled upon that. The rich will become richer.