Stats
-
-
Dec
23
Putin’s Wealth: The Next Episode?
December 23, 2007 |
I first learned from Andy over at Siberian Light about the press brouhaha over Putin’s alleged $40 billion tucked away in banks in Switzerland and Lichtenstein. Intrigued, I set my sights on said press accounts for the story.
Claims of Putin’s hidden money bags comes from an interview Stanislav Belkovsky recently gave to Die Welt. There Belkovsky perhaps spells out the true nature of “Putinism,” a nature that harks back to Andrei Pointkovsky’s claim that Putinism is “the highest stage of robber capitalism.” Indeed, except Russian capitalism is more like collective thievery. Under Putin’s tenure, says Belkovsky, “all the interest groups are represented in the Kremlin. The people who sit there are the direct advocates and co-owners of large enterprises.” Nothing new here. What is new is the claim that Putin himself has reaped the spoils of Russia’s economic might. “Putin is a big businessman. He control 37 percent of Surgutneftegaz stock, which has a market value of $20 billion. In addition, he contols 4.5 percent of Grazprom stock. In the oil firm Gunvor Putin holds 50 percent more than its founder Gennady Timchenko.” In an interview with the Guardian, Belkovsky claims that Putin’s stake in Gunvor is as high as 75 percent. However, the numbers are mostly speculation since the paper trail confirming Putin’s stash has yet to be found.
If the estimates of Putin’s wealth are believed, the $40 billion he has tucked away would instantly make him Europe’s wealthiest man. Moreover, if true, then the comparisons between Mexico under the PRI and Russia under United Russia might gain whole new resonance. Putin’s fortune simply makes him a Slavic caudillo equipped with all the benefits the office bestows. As Robin Leach used to say in his signature accent, “With champagne wishes and caviar dreams, these are the lifestyles of the rich and famous!”
The real question is why now? Why is Putin’s wealth not only being revealed, but also discussed? For this we have to turn to Luke Harding’s take on the matter. According to him, the reason for why what was once taboo is now suddenly out in the open has to do with the machinations of those damn siloviki. Harding explains,
Discussion of Putin’s wealth has previously been taboo. But the claims have leaked out against the backdrop of a fight inside the Kremlin between a group led by Igor Sechin, Putin’s influential deputy chief of staff, and a “liberal” clan that includes Medvedev.
. . .
Insiders say the struggle has little to do with ideology. They characterize it as a war between business competitors. Putin’s decision to endorse as president Medvedev - who has no links with the secret services - dealt a severe blow to the hardline Sechin clan, they add.
. . .
Critics say the wave of renationalisations under Putin has transformed Putin’s associates into multimillionaires. The dilemma now facing the Kremlin’s elite is how to hang on to its wealth if Putin leaves power, experts say. Most of its money is located in the west, they add. The pressing problem is how to protect these funds from any future administration that may seek to reclaim them.
True. Multimillionaires they be. Sechin, as Chairman of Rosneft, might be the next carcass for the Kremlin vultures to feast from. He’s been hit, and hit hard over the past several weeks. So does this mean that a battered and beleaguered Sechin is going to the mattresses? Is the leak of Putin’s alleged wealth simply a black PR hit against the Don? Stay tuned, dear reader. Stay tuned. Because the siloviki war might have just been ratcheted up a notch.
Popularity: 7% [?]
Comments
77 Comments so far
-
Subscribe
RIA Novosti- Global Voices: Russia
-
-
If you approach this news lynching with the eye of a lawyer or a historian what do you actually “know”? Answer - nothing. So it may be true, partly true or totally untrue.
To the suggestion that the dirt is coming from within the Russian ruling class I would suggest that it is coming from much further West. Careful watching of the Western media indicates that there is a steady campaign of denigration aimed at the embarrassingly popular and uncooperative Putin. We know that one third of the CIA budget goes to influence the media, they have admitted as much. We are talking about billions of dollars.
However it is perfectly possible that both theories are correct and that there is an unholy alliance between a disaffected lobby in Moscow and elements in the West.
Finally I do not expect Putin to die a pauper but I do not think he is motivated by cash whatever his theoretical wealth.
Personally, I think the story is complete bullshit, and I’m kind of surprised you seem to be buying it. Belkovky’s evidence is, like, none. I could on such basis accuse Sean Guillory of being the richest man in America (and I’ll do it. too, if you don’t fork over my cut).
Onread, maybe you;re not buying it after all. I still want my cut though.
If I had $40 billion, you would all get your cut. I don’t know what to buy nowadays when it concerns Putin. I would assume that he has some kind of fortune tucked away somewhere. I couldn’t imagine that he is the only honest man among thieves. That said, $40 billion without a single bank statement is pretty outrageous.
When I was writing the post, I had a line suggesting that Belkovsky was a shill for Sechin. He is a former Kremlin spinman after all. But I couldn’t find any evidence suggesting that though I did find stuff about him possibily being one for Berezovsky. On second glance, I should have added this as a probable possibility. So maybe Robert is on to something.
I think it quite possible that VVP has loot squirrelled away somewhere. Given Russian conditions and expectations, it is entirely rational behavior. Heck, I would probably do it in his position. But $40 BILLION????? This is just black PR.
I think he would also be the first case of a politician “stealing” $40 billion while leaving his country with over $150 billion in financial reserves (and growing).
I think the story is likely bullshit and seems to be a response to the October news stories where Putin was discussed prior to the EU summits as being the poorest of the leaders there.
I got similar information from a Russian economist last November in Moscow. At that time, her sources told her that Putin’s personal wealth is between 30-50 billion dollars.
I don’t like Putin, but I don’t believe he is worth 40 billion dollars. This reminds me that through the years many unsavory Latin American presidents were accused of having amassed billions of dollars. Once they were out of power, the truth proved to be much less spectacular. Yes, they were corrupt leaders that enriched themselves, but the true extent of their riches turned out to be grossly exaggerated.
Frankly, I’m finding the reactions, here and elsewhere, more interesting than the allegations. And the non-reactions are even more fascinating. Gunvor has denied the story, as has Putin’s press secretary. But where were their denials after these disclosures were initially made, last year in Russia and a few weeks ago in Die Welt? And where are the denials from Gazprom and Surgutneftegaz, which as listed companies have some disclosure obligations concerning ultimate beneficial ownership?
The belated denials and non-denials are further indications how insulated from public opinion Putin and his people are. They live in a vacuum. What’s normal to them is not normal to anyone else. Anything’s possible.
“But where were their denials after these disclosures were initially made, last year in Russia and a few weeks ago in Die Welt?”
Did anybody ask them?
I’d be awfully surprised if Die Welt hadn’t asked. Journalistically, this is risky stuff — hearsay, one source, no documentation. Certainly, the Guardian made that effort. But even if Die Welt failed to do that, one would normally expect a knock-down subsequently, formal or otherwise, if only to state that the charges aren’t worth dignifying with a denial (or some similar formulation). Just imagine how the press spokesmen for Bush, Brown or Sarkozy would react if an ex-insider claimed they’d skimmed assets on this scale.
fh, what I find interesting is that most people assume that that Putin has indeed enriched himself through nontransparent and extra-legal methods (i.e., through corruption). The 40 billion dollar claim, though, seems over the top to me. I would not be surprised if Putin has amassed several million dollars or even a few hundred million dollars. I’m by no means condoning such behavior, but, frankly, I would be pleasantly surprised if Putin is not corrupt. The claim made by Belkovsky, though, seems too unbelievable.
Kolya, I agree with you in a way, and with Chrisius on the same point — that it would be unsurprising if Putin had something stashed away for his future.
But at some point it’s no longer a matter of money. It’s about power. Imagine for a moment that Belkovsky’s claims are correct. Then we would have to wonder what Putin did in exchange for his stakes in Gazprom, Gunvor, Surgut. We would need to imagine specific “transactions” — principals in these companies or those close to them taking personal responsibility for holding shares in trust, and setting up fiduciaries and other mechanisms to administer them. And then we would have to imagine the other side of these arrangements, presumably with Putin or someone close to him committing his authority to the benefit of these companies. The implications are enormous. But as long as we’re not now talking about Putin personally siphoning off billions, isn’t this actually at least a little more believable? “You can tell the President that arrangements have been made to secure his interest in the company in question.”
Incidentally, I should just say that I personally don’t regard Belkovsky as a sufficiently credible source for these claims to have been published without further corroboration.
$40bn seems a little on the high side to me. I guess somebody is making a calculation based on his percentage share in an oil company somewhere.
Incidentally, I have had a few meetings recently with Rosneft and Gazprom, and I am under increasing doubt that their enormous market valuation is justified. The single word which underpins everything is “potential”, but when has Russia ever been short of that?
The only valid point in the whole belkovsky shit
“fh on December 24, 2007 10:17 am
Frankly, I’m finding the reactions, here and elsewhere, more interesting than the allegations.”
No one will remember belkovsky & Co. but many will remember 40 billions as FACT.
PS. Frankly, I’m finding all these kind of claims to be a psychiatric doctor’s dairy.
The 40B figure sounds more like bragging. Kolya’s comparison with LA dictators is the most sound I believe. I have very little doubt that Putin is corrupt. If he received cash envelopes from joint venture applicants while a deputy mayor in St Pete (and I know people that told me they passed these envelopes through intermediary bureaucrats) what would change him now. After all Putin also worked for the Kremlin custodian what’s-his-name. Then add the Yukos affair with his personal secretary and a “денщик” Sechin as the main beneficiary. Plus Leonid Reinman and Ludmila’s holdings in Megafon - I would be very surprised if Putin is poor, but 40B is way too high.
Sean,
I’ve heard rumors about Belkovsky’s connection to Sechin but never seen anything concrete to back it up.
A few random thoughts on Putin:
1. Even if it’s not $40 billion, but, say, $1 billion. Does that make everything fine? Especially when his reported income is less than $200,000 (if my memory serves me correctly). And to think Americans were busting Abramoff’s balls over a few $50,000 golf junkets.
2. Any Russian will tell you that someone in a position of power who doesn’t line his pockets is a fool. It’s an honor/shame — not guilt — system. If they don’t catch you, you didn’t do anything wrong.
Carl
“Any Russian will tell you that someone in a position of power who doesn’t line his pockets is a fool.”
I really hate global statements like this.
C’mon Chris, you’ve lived here long enough to see how things work.
C’mon Carl, I’ve known enough Russians who don’t tell you that to know that the statement is false. It’s like saying “all Germans like order,” “all French people like wine,” or “all Americans are ignorant jackasses.” No, they don’t and aren’t. “All” = 100%.
You got me. I confess. “All” was too categorical. How about “many Russians”?
All Germans do like order, however.
My uncle Friedrich does not like order. Or rather he does but is too lazy to do it himself.
You guys keep focusing on the alleged $40 B figure, like tabloid reporters, even though you say you don’t believe it. What counts are the underlying assets. Each one mentioned by Belkovsky suggests a different story, with its own political implications.
If true, a Putin stake in Gunvor could represent his financial stake in the renationalization of Yukos, as Gunvor inherited much of Yukos’s international oil trading business.
If true, a Putin stake in Surgutneftegaz could explain why Russia’s regulators and courts have done nothing to unravel the company’s matroshka-style ownership structure, which critics like Bill Browder have claimed are a cover for massive profit diversion. (It might also shed new light on Browder’s strange visa problem in 2006.)
If true, a Putin stake in Gazprom might explain his almost obsessive personal interest in the company’s welfare, as reported in the Russian media in the past.
We don’t know whether these claims are true and there may be good reasons to be sceptical about them. But rejecting them because “40B is way too high” or “over the top” is as naïve as accepting them at face value.
Forget the numbers. They are almost certainly just Belkovsky’s back-of-an-envelop current-value guesstimates and designed to attract headlines, something he’s quite good at. Based on Belkovsky’s logic, these values could be expected to shrink if Putin lost power, because these are assets which have gained hugely from decisions he has made. Isn’t that what we should be focusing on?
fn, I assume that by saying this
“You guys keep focusing on the alleged $40 B figure, like tabloid reporters, even though you say you don’t believe it.”
you agree that $40 billions are just a b-shit.
But if this is b-shit - why the hell we should talk about the rest of pile?
I’m not saying that Putin or whoever are angels or whatever.
But I see NO POINT to discuss b-shit from “well informed” political tabloids…
There are real problems and real things going around.
Sure, I think the number is probably nonsense, or at best a wild guess. But the rest may not be. It depends on Belkovsky’s logic. I’m speculating that he feels he knows enough about the inner workings at the Kremlin to be able to claim confidently that there are certain assets which have been pledged to Putin. The rest represents his extrapolation from that claim.
If Belkovsky is right, then some of the real problems are attributable to this situation.
But I acknowledge that it’s also possible that Belkovsky’s “logic” doesn’t start from direct knowledge about specific stakes in assets, but begins with what he knows to have been important issues to Putin. (Eg, Putin keys a close eye on Gazprom, therefore he must own a chunk of it.) If so, that means his claims are guesswork or worse, from start to finish.
Decades ago, when North American newspapers were printed using hot lead, there was always a need for “filler” material, to even up the columns. There were syndication services that sold these tiny stories. A lot of the stuff in them was simply made up. The standing headline used by one such service was “Important if True”. That’s what I think we’re dealing with here.
Based on Belkovsky’s logic, these values could be expected to shrink if Putin lost power, because these are assets which have gained hugely from decisions he has made. Isn’t that what we should be focusing on?
I think so. This is why I think Harding asks a good question in his Guardian article on the matter. Why is Putin’s alleged fortune being discussed now? Is it part of the larger clan struggle going on? And if the Latin American example is apt, then is it possible that Putin has been forced to remain tied to the state not only to protect his own interests, but also the interests of others?
To go with the Mexican example, I wonder if Putin sees these calls for investigating the origins of Vicente Fox’s wealth and says to himself, “Not gonna be me.”
The “$40 billion” revelation could mean a few things.
1) It gives a reason why Putin appoints a protege and becomes PM to ensure he and his clan’s future prosperity.
2) It’s a “black PR” hit by Sechin or someone else and someone is gathering evidence to make Putin the next Vicente Fox or Carlos Salinas.
3) It’s a black PR hit by someone within the Russia elite saying we’re all in this boat together. Putin too is a chekist who’s become a trader, so stop playing the pot and calling the kettle black and making things worse for all of us.
These are the possibilities I’m able to divine from the chicken bones from my Christmas eve dinner.
Your chicken bones sound very sensible. To be safe, I’ll consult my turkey bones a bit later today.
“1) It gives a reason why Putin appoints a protege and becomes PM to ensure he and his clan’s future prosperity.
2) It’s a “black PR” hit by Sechin or someone else and someone is gathering evidence to make Putin the next Vicente Fox or Carlos Salinas.
3) It’s a black PR hit by someone within the Russia elite saying we’re all in this boat together. Putin too is a chekist who’s become a trader, so stop playing the pot and calling the kettle black and making things worse for all of us.”
Or it could just be the latest in a long series of anti-Putin PR moves. The timing may be more a sign of desperation (”nothing’s worked yet — we might as well try this!”) than something with content.
If true, a Putin stake in Surgutneftegaz could explain why Russia’s regulators and courts have done nothing to unravel the company’s matroshka-style ownership structure, which critics like Bill Browder have claimed are a cover for massive profit diversion. (It might also shed new light on Browder’s strange visa problem in 2006.)
See, this is the problem that I see with supposed secret ownership of businesses. How do you ever prove it or obtain money and value from it?
If the supposed “real” owners decide to cut you out, how do you ever prove your ownership stake? How do you explain to stockholders and other minority owners that you are taking your fair share of the profits?
All this secret ownership stuff makes it sound like business accounting in Russia is conducted by armed gunmen with three and four sets of books. Some lack of transparency might be expected, some kick-backs or shares of stocks handed over for “favors” and the like. But at some point, proof has to be available or else the ownership doesn’t exist at all - it’s a ghost or phantom.
People have mentioned the Latin American examples - in those cases, most often money was transferred out of the country to secret bank accounts, etc. This would appear to be the most liquid method for government leaders to gain wealth.
Guys.
The best way to predict something in Russia are not bones but кисель that gives the clear picture of what’s going on under surface :))
My grandma always used it in case of doubts.
Wally, Putin has had it all converted into precious stones and gold dubloons, buried in a chest somewhere on a deserted island surrounded by deathtraps. Only if you find the secret treasure map do you stand a chance of finding the fabled Putin Gold.
Either that, or it’s in the Tomb of Horrors (triple points to anyone who gets the geek reference).
I’m checking the jelly for the secret treasure map then. Good tips all round. Thanks.
The jelly may have plutonium in it. Nothing is to wiley for Vladimir Bluebeard. Be careful. Arrr.
Nothing is to wiley for Vladimir Bluebeard. Be careful. Arrr.
Hmmm . . . Putin as a reincarnate 15th century French child killer. It’s only a matter of time. Which reminds me, MSMBC played this horrible yet entertaining documentary last week called Who Killed Alexander Litvinenko? - The Last Days of a Secret Agent. In it was this tidbit from the transcript:
In his new London home, [Litvinenko] wrote inflammatory books and articles accusing the Russian government of mass murder, of war-mongering, and he wrote personal attacks against President Putin, who was videotaped lifting the shirt of a boy and kissing him.
Curry: He wrote that Putin was a pedophile. He wrote that Putin provided cover for drug trafficking. He wrote that the Kremlin staged the apartment bombing that killed 300 people in Russia to justify—what turned into the second war on Chechnya.
WTF!? He kissed that boy and the belly and now he’s a pedophile?
I love how they keep calling Litvinenko a secret agent, even though, like, he wasn’t.
I hope that if someone makes a documentary about me, they say I was a cowboy.
‘”a nature that harks back to Andrei Pointkovsky’s claim that Putinism is “the highest stage of robber capitalism.”’
For what it’s worth, Piontkovsky wrote this back when he thought Putin would be a puppet of the oligarchs.
I am about 99% sure that I edited the column you are quoting back when it was published, by the way.
It’s funny going back through Piontkovsky’s ouevre since 1999. He started off talking about how Putin was a tool of the oligarchs, Yeltsinism ascendant. Then 9/11 happened, Putin made his phone call, and suddenly Piontovsky switched gears and started claiming that Putin was the greatest thing ever, steering a reluctant Russian elite (which is always getting its backside paddled in Piontkovsky’s writings — weird stuff) on a pro-US course. Then the Affaire Khodorkovsky took place and Piontkovsky did a 180 degree shift yet again.
Whoops. Posted in the wrong place.
good post anyway as many writers here have short memory
Where was it supposed to be posted? I’m interested in Piontkovsky, if that’s what the discussion was about.
In the Putinism thread. I used to work at the Russia Journal, so I have lots of Piontkovsky stories. Not all of which I will discuss here.
I made a 1% mistake — that column precedes my time at RJ by about a year.
Well, this isn’t such a bad thread for it either really, given the role of a self-publicizing think tanker in the $40B story.
So what’s your take? Just another rent-a-wonk writing whatever brings in the funding? Or someone with a serious agenda?
I really don’t know. It’s hard to tell a rent-a-wonk who writes for a think-tank for mercenary reasons from a committed wonk who writes for a think-tank because he agrees with it.
Behold Piontkovsky’s buttocks obsession. He is indeed an ass-man. This is some scary stuff:
Those who only yesterday were so happy they were ready to jubilantly lick the president’s poodle’s backside on live TV, now ask themselves audaciously “Wasn’t our philosophy nothing so much as shameful subservience before power?” or disrespectfully comment on the president’s “bad week.”
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/5086.html##2
Moscow no longer sees Saddam Hussein’s backside as Russia’s national asset
http://www.cdi.org/russia/210-10.cfm
As if submitting to a desire born out of historical memory, this political
elite, ruthlessly whipped by Ivan the Terrible, Peter the Great and Stalin
the Bloody, obediently bent over and lowered their trousers to reveal their guilty buttocks to the president, mistaking him for the long-awaited night porter.
They expected a spanking at the very least, and maybe something more decisive, a more Caligula-style affirmation of his status and role.
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/6251.htm
At some point this dwarf kissed the president’s poodle’s ass on prime time,
and became his favorite journalist.
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/7152.htm
Ha ha! Great collection, thanks. He’s a political proctologist then.
If the supposed “real” owners decide to cut you out, how do you ever prove your ownership stake? How do you explain to stockholders and other minority owners that you are taking your fair share of the profits?
At least one of companies mentioned has had to explain the diversion of dividends in court.
Into whatever place, no matter how dark and smelly, his political nose may guide him — there, the intrepid Piontkovsky will go.
Hee-hee:
In Brief December 26, 2007
Guardian Correspondent Reveals Reading Disorder
MOSCOW (element) – Luke Harding, the Moscow bureau chief for the Guardian newspaper, revealed that he suffers from a reading disorder which causes him to break stories one month after they appear in other media outlets.
“I suffer from Felcher-Magoo Disorder, and I am tired of trying to hide it,” Harding said while guest-lecturing at a Moscow kindergarten. “It is a reading disorder that only causes you to report on stories you’ve read four weeks earlier. I hope that by my example, others suffering from FMD will come forward as well.”
Last week, Harding published a story about Putin’s hidden wealth which was first reported a month earlier in Die Welt. According to the article, “[T]he Guardian has learned…that the president presides over a secret multibillion-dollar fortune….The claims surfaced last month when the Russian political expert Stanislav Belkovsky gave an interview to the German newspaper Die Welt. They have since been repeated in the Washington Post and the Moscow Times.”
“That article was a cry for help,” said a colleague who asked not to be named.
On Wednesday, Harding called his admission that he suffers from FMD “a relief,” and said he planned to raise awareness by serving as the UN’s “Felcher-Magoo Disorder” ambassador-at-large.
The United Nations has made 2008 “Felcher-Magoo Disorder Year” to raise money to fight the disease, about which doctors still know little.
Harding also revealed plans to enroll in a speed-reading course, with the hope of breaking stories that are only three weeks old by the end of 2009.
“I’ve got news for Moscow’s foreign press corps: you better watch out,” he joked.
Felcher-Magoo Disorder affects nearly one in three Western journalists worldwide.
http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=15637&IBLOCK_ID=35
In fairness … well, ok, who cares about that really? I was going to say Luke was probably under lots of pressure to verify and corroborate an unverifiable story, and then there would have been grand old debate about whether to proceed anyway. But never mind. The more important issue is the fact that Felcher-Magoo Disorder appears to be contagious, and is picking off other Brit correspondents. Blomfield has it too: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=Y0OF2M2MCWK0HQFIQMFCFGGAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2007/12/21/wputin121.xml
Does anyone else get a little dizzy reading trying to read this comment thread?
I am mostly surprised by the media’s reluctance to dig into Gennady Timchenko with respect to this story. In fact, no one here has even mentioned his name.
At least one of companies mentioned has had to explain the diversion of dividends in court.
Right - does that mean that someday Putin is going to have to sue to prove his ownership in one of these companies - and thereby incriminating himself for tax evasion?
It does say something about the state of Russia when we can plausibly discuss the President being the biggest thief and tax-criminal in the country, and hardly anyone bats an eye about it.
“It does say something about the state of Russia when we can plausibly discuss the President being the biggest thief and tax-criminal in the country, and hardly anyone bats an eye about it.”
I think most of us posting here are batting our eyes about it. As far as I can tell nobody believes the accusation.
Right - does that mean that someday Putin is going to have to sue to prove his ownership in one of these companies - and thereby incriminating himself for tax evasion?
That wasn’t exactly my point, but in answer to your question, I doubt it. The issue arose with SNG because it is publicly traded and has large US investors who exercise their legal options when they think they are being cut out of their fair share. The same cannot be said of “Guvnor.”
By the way, in case anyone is interested in doing a bit of reading about Timchenko, here is anticompromat’s collection of links and stories about him. And here’s the collection on Belkovsky.
As far as I can tell nobody believes the accusation.
Not entirely true. I wouldn’t have run with the story as it stands, but I’m not convinced it’s totally wrong.
Hey Guys,
sorry I havent been on line lately, on holidays in my parents village at the moment! I just want to say Happy Christmas and s Novum Godom to ye all - Sean, Tim, Chris, Mike, Lyndon, Kolya, ivanov, everyone!
Thanks Ger! I wll be celebrating the holidays by — doing work! Which I will be forced to continue to do, like a character in a Dickens novel, untl Sean pays me my cut.
I just had a bizarre image in my mind of Putin starring in Leprechaun XV: “Where is me gold?!?”
Or perhaps Putin has found the evil Leprechaun’s pot of treasure, this being the source of his billions. How will the former KGB-man escape the Leprechaun’s wrath? Watch and see.
Which I will be forced to continue to do, like a character in a Dickens novel, untl Sean pays me my cut.
I’m expecting my fortune to arrive the day after never, so expect your cut the day after that.
Thanks Ger! Merry Christmas! S novym godom! To all you too!
I’m coming after me gold, Sean.
ps. did you see Perry Anderson’s new piece in New Left Review? I thought it was truly awful.
Hey, you’re in the eXile! Cool.
I’ve been waiting to get my hard copy pf NLR in the mail instead of reading it on the web. I’ve only started reading Piterberg’s article on Arendt, but that is because he’s a friend. I’ll let you know what I think of Anderson’s piece when I get to it. I hope its not as awful as you say. But I didn’t like his last one he did in NLR on Rawls, Habermas and Bobbio in 2005.
Oh the eXile article is out. Now I can announce it. Thanks.
I am really not a fan of Arendt. My dissertation was partially on her, but that was a “gotta get the grant money” kind of thing.
Practically every sentence Anderson writes about Russia in his NLR jottings is factually wrong (Russia has high levels of social spending?). It is embarrassing to read.
С Новым Годом!
And if you don’t have anything to drink - read this good piece (in Russian only)
http://www.expert.ru/printissues/expert/2007/01/obval_russkoy_istorii/
I think most of us posting here are batting our eyes about it. As far as I can tell nobody believes the accusation.
I had the impression that people were only debating the scale of deception, and not whether or if he had been taking from the till, as it were.
“I think most of us posting here are batting our eyes about it. As far as I can tell nobody believes the accusation.
I had the impression that people were only debating the scale of deception, and not whether or if he had been taking from the till, as it were.”
This has been an interesting little debate but I would repeat the concept that is difficult for the normally well informed to accept “…what do you actually “know”? Answer – nothing”. Since having the honour to make the opening comment here I found Naomi Klein’s ‘Shock’ in my stocking and have read it through a bout of the flu’ brought to me by my city dwelling visitors. It is not necessary to accept all her conclusions to be startled by the assembled carefully sourced facts, as she goes about her demolition job on the Chicago Monetarist School and their undoubted mistakes and misdeeds. All of which makes me wonder what on earth we are all doing worrying about Putin’s alleged take amongst the hundreds or thousands of billions of misappropriated cash washing about in the West. The answer is that our attention is being drawn to it precisely to distract us from, and make routine, what is going on here at home. This I have noticed is a regular NATO/US/EU/Western technique. If we bully some small country, we like to muddy the waters by accusing Russia of doing the same thing. Why Russia especially, because it is Putin’s Russia that has taken on the leading role of providing a counter balance to untrammelled (and in my view largely disastrous) Western influence and action. The Chinese clearly believe that it is in their interests to take a back seat for the moment.
Happy New Year and may 2007 be as interesting as 2008 – but not too interesting.
“I had the impression that people were only debating the scale of deception, and not whether or if he had been taking from the till, as it were.”
I don’t know if he has or not. But it is a rare politician (nay, human being) who will pass up the opportunity.
But it is a rare politician (nay, human being) who will pass up the opportunity.
I have (so far) passed up many an opportunity to line my own pocket whilst conducting my affairs in Russia. $40bn might make me cross the line though.
See you all on my yacht for drinks!
So you claim, so you claim…
“But it is a rare politician (nay, human being) who will pass up the opportunity.”
Perhaps from the world perspective such politicians are rare, but in certain countries such politicians are not rare at all. As to human beings, once again it depends on the country, but I don’t think such individuals are as rare as you imply.
In any event, when people ask me why, despite all my criticism, I like to live in the US, I often reply that it is because it is easy to be honest here. It is not too hard to live a comfortable life while staying honest and not involving oneself in corruption–even petty corruption such as paying off a traffic cop or feeling the necessity to give a “gift” to some bureaucrat for one reason or another. This does not mean that there is no corruption in the US, but a normal human being can get by without it with little difficulty.
Clinton, Bush and Cheney of course would never ever use their positions for personal gain!
That’s right, let’s beat hearsay with more hearsay!
Chris, even if Clinton, Bush and Cheney are as corrupt as you imply they are, you did not refute my point at all.
Actually I think the difference between the US and Western countries more generally on the one hand and most of the rest of the world on the other is that in the former corruption is mostly a high-level affair. The average person will rarely encounter it, if ever, in his or her daily life.
It is also true that many practices in the US and Western countries more generally have been legalized and systematized and so are no longer considered corruption (financing of political campaigns in return for favorable legislation, pork politics, etc.), even though effectively they are.
“Actually I think the difference between the US and Western countries more generally on the one hand and most of the rest of the world on the other is that in the former corruption is mostly a high-level affair. The average person will rarely encounter it, if ever, in his or her daily life.”
Not true. Right now, the average person in Iowa encounters plenty of ‘corruption in real life’, being personally courted by dozens of Presidential hopefuls, lavished upon with little gifts like free DVDs and such, free food, free kids care centers on election day and so on.
Come to think of it, Russians might benefit from such ‘corruption’, with higher-ups trying to curry favor with regular folks. Unfortunately they mostly encounter the reverse kind.
When that kind of stuff occurs in the non-Western world, it’s usually called corruption. Or rather bribing the electorate.
Man I wish I lived in Iowa. In my entire 25 years of life in the US, I was never offered free food or goodies by a politician. Must not have been in the right demographic.
Chris wrote: “The average person will rarely encounter [corruption], if ever, in his or her daily life.”
In the US it probably happens a bit more often than that, but the point (for me) is that one can easily get by without getting involved in it. I found this very liberating after living in places where you could not lead a normal life without unwillingly involving yourself in petty corruption–bribing traffic cops to not get a ticket for a violation you did not commit, giving a “gift” to a bureaucrat to ensure that documents you need from them don’t languish in limbo or somehow get lost, and so on.
Some Americans often respond to such statements by saying that there is indeed plenty of corruption in the US. Yes, there may be too much corruption in the US (any corruption is too much, isn’t it?), but it simply does not compare to how pervasive it is (at all levels of society) in many other countries.
“If the supposed “real” owners decide to cut you out, how do you ever prove your ownership stake? How do you explain to stockholders and other minority owners that you are taking your fair share of the profits?”
This is the key: it is exactly how Russian business has worked for some time. Doing business there over many years the hardest thing has always been to understand exactly who is the real owner. A long time ago I learned that the real owner had little to do with what you read on title deeds etc., and that ownership was often held by a crony to help out Mr. Big. This is one cause of the various business ‘disputes’ that can’t be resolved in court. Also, wasn’t there something about a Gazprom trading company that was registered to 2 bomzhiki in a village in Romania a few years ago? This is how it works.
There was a stage a few years ago when people started to go legit - remember Yukos publishing its full ownership structure online? - but then after Khordokovsky went down most went running for the shadows.
It doesn’t seem so unlikely to me that he ‘owns’ these shareholdings, that the value of them now is far larger than when he first obtained them 5 - 10 years ago (given the asset price boom), and that “yes” they are held in just the opaque manner this implies. I’d be willing to bet he has always taken advantage of all the usual perks of any high level Russian bureaucrat (property abroad, elite foreign schooling for the kids, etc.), just he got lucky and now does it at the mega level of President.
However, based on this way of working, the exact %ages are impossible to know, so the published number is probably rubbish, so I wouldn’t pay much attention to the headline of 40bln.
Tommo is exactly right in describing how a lot of Russian businesses are owned. Proof of ownership is unnecessary when it is possible to guarantee that a court will rule ownership in your favour if the need arises.