Watch the two videos and read the article, "Putin and the Oligarchs." By Monday, in the comment section, complete the following 3-2-1 flipped assignment:
3 - Pick three quotes from the article and roll an analysis of the quotes (like you do on your dialectical journals)
2 - Compare/Contrast two Oligarchs -- KHODORKOVSKY and any other -- like Mikhail Prokhorov (owner of the Brooklyn Nets).
1 - What is your one take away (summary paragraph) on Putin and the Oligarchs.
34 comments:
3-2-1
3a: Vladimir Putin announced plans for a radical overhaul of his country's political system, with the goal of centralizing power in the Kremlin- this is a clear breakaway from the democratization of Russia and represents what everyone dislikes about Putin's regime. he is leading Russia backwards politically, like we talked about in class
3b: After all, did the United States not once have its own robber barons, who, despite early roughhouse tactics, became the leaders of some of the country's most prominent corporations and the benefactors of its most respected charities and foundations?- a statement on the sudden wealth of many Russian businessmen and owners of companies. while there were some shady means by which these men and women achieved their wealth, some believed that they would put it to good use sometime or at the minimum, the government would enact some kind of legislation to curtail this money grabbing
3c: An oligarch's success, in other words, almost always depended on his connections to the government officials in charge of privatizing the country's rich energy and mineral deposits, as well as on his ability to outmaneuver or intimidate rivals.- oligarchs get their wealth and power through politics. this details some of the corruption within the Russian government that is running rampant and causing major problems for Russian civilians. it is almost like Russian oligarchs are politicians themselves.
2: Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Roman Abramovich (owner of Chelsea FC) are both Russian oligarchs who have/had connections with the Russian government. apparently, Abramovich and Putin are very close and Abramovich personally had a hand in choosing Medvedev as successor to Putin. Khordokovsky is not so close with Putin and clashed with him politically
1: my one takeaway from Putin and the oligarchs is that this is a system that Russia is deeply entrenched in. as long as Putin has his hands in the politics of Russia, the oligarchs will never go away. likewise, even if Putin randomly exiles himself from politics, i feel like the oligarchs would remain for some time because of their wealth and influence over the political system. many oligarchs have numerous political connections, not just nationally but regionally and that is not so easy to break. this system of corruption and power mongering will remain for quite some time until someone is brave, and lucky, enough to challenge Putin and the state.
3.
-"The difference in Russia is that the basic reforms and privatization of the 1990s were so flawed and unfair that they created an unstable business environment." After the fall of the controlled economy, Russia looked to privatize many of its corporations, as well as housing and land. Russia's elite became some of the wealthiest people in the world, but unlike the U.S., the Russian government would not intervene to correct the misbehavior of the oligarchs, thus leading to a flawed and disproportionate economy.
-"Putin told the oligarchs that he would not interfere with their businesses or renationalize state resources as long as they stayed out of politics-that is, as long as they did not challenge or criticize the president." Putin entered into power wanting to change how the oligarchs operated. But with this statement, he suggests he will do little to nothing to make sure the oligarchs are working with proper behavior. Putin is being very passive by allowing them to continue with their business, and he is also saving himself by removing them from politics. Although their removal is a good step forward, the president should take it upon himself to make sure his country is operating morally.
-"To prevent the transfer of Yukos' ownership to Western companies, state authorities ordered the seizure of 40 percent of Yukos' stock, along with Khodorkovsky's arrest. They also sought to force Khodorkovsky and his aides to transfer control of the company to the state or at least to a more sympathetic Russian owner." The Russian political state is obsessed with maintaining extreme amounts of power. They, especially Putin, do not want anyone or anything to interfere with their control. Putin could have put any of the oligarchs in prison for the same charges as Khodorkovsky, but they chose him because through his wealth he was able to gain enough power to speak out and be heard by Russia. To the state immoral behavior is fine as long as it doesn't threaten the governments political plans.
2. Like Khodorkovsky, Vladimir Gusinsky expanded his activities beyond business. As he amassed his wealth, he looked for other ways to insert himself as an important figure in Russia. Gusinsky and Khodorkovsky gained confidence as they gained wealth. Gusinksy created a media empire that attacked Putin and his politics. This was a gutsier move than Khodorkovsky's because it advertised to all of Russia his opposition, and he encouraged others to do the same. Khodorkovsky kept his opposition within the elite by attempting to bribe liberal parties to oppose Putin and by promoting legislation to benefit Yukos. Both oligarchs followed a similar pattern of obtaining wealth, finding confidence, speaking out, and they both suffered greatly for having a voice.
1. Russia is in an extremely difficult situation. The people want legitimacy, a free economy, free rights, and uncensored media, yet they adore Putin and his regime. After the fall of the USSR everyone was all for shock therapy and rapid democratization, but now that they are seeing the effects re-nationalization is much needed again. Although the people want it, they cannot speak out because Putin silences them (with fear, threats, censorship etc.). The nation moved forward a little with the start of privatization of corporations, but once again the government is trying to reassert itself. Dramatic change in leadership is necessary if Russia ever wants to be a free country.
3a. "After all, did the United States not once have its own robber barons, who, despite early roughhouse tactics, became the leaders of some of the country's most prominent corporations and the benefactors of its most respected charities and foundations?"- I like the comparison to the United States here. I think it is important to remember that the road to our current state of government was not without its bumps.
3b. "That Putin said this at a special meeting with the oligarchs and not with a group of bakers or cobblers is beside the point; the statement was taken as a signal that the tycoons would no longer be able to flout government regulations and count on special access to the Kremlin."- I think it is good that Putin put his foot down on this particular issue. He is just stepping into to power and there can be confusion on certain issues at the beginning of a presidents term. Putin makes it very clear here what his expectations are, and it is very effective.
3c. "By merging state-controlled Gazprom with state-owned Rosneft, he has signaled once again that the state will become a strong if not dominant voice in energy policy and economic planning."- This quote in particular reminds me of what we were talking about in class. Gorbachev and Yeltsin made progress in the way of Democracy in Russia, but then Putin comes along and does things like this. He is taking the Russian state closer to a totalitarian regime than anyone has since the collapse of the USSR.
2. Mikhail Khordokovsky and Roman Abramovich are Oligarchs who have differing opinions on the Russian regime, and on Vladimir Putin. Khordokovsky and Putin do not get along in any regard. In 2003, the two had a argument about corruption on TV in which Khordokovsky claimed many government officials were accepting millions of dollars in bribes. Putin denied this. Abramovich has a much better relationship with Putin. Today he is one of Putin's advisers and is a close friend. He actually recommended to Yeltsin that Putin should be his successor.
1. My takeaway from the oligarchs article is that Russia is in quite a poor situation right now. These "new oligarchs" have way to much power in the government. Many of them are friends with Putin and can easily get away with illegal activities. There is so much corruption in Russia right now. It makes the Russian state look illegitimate when other countries hear the stories of the horrible corruption that happens within the Russian regime.
3a."Yegor Gaidar and Anatoly Chubais, the chief Russian architects of the process, decided to accelerate[Privatization], selling off state resources and enterprises at little or no charge." This is the main reason why the oligarchs were able to gain so much power. Instead of a more gradual privatization of state industries the architects got rushed into shock therapy, leaving the more wealthy people in Russia to gain even more power for basically nothing.
3b. "'It is asked, what then should be the relationship with the so-called oligarchs? The same as with anyone else.'" I like this quote because it shows how Putin did not want the oligarchs to gain more power in the government or to have any special privileges. However, this response in treating them like they were ordinary businesses was not a good idea because they had so much influence in the economy. Instead Putin should not have been willing to make a deal with them and broke up their companies to begin with.
3c. "77 percent of Russians feel that privatization should be either fully or partially revised. Only 18 percent oppose renationalization." This quote just shows how much of a failure this privatization process has been and how the new state takeover of the companies have not helped the people. Instead of the state absorbing all these companies it should have been distributed to the people.
2. Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Vladimir Gusinsky were the same in they both had immense power gained by the rigged bids and tried to affect politics to gain more wealth and prevent new legislation. They are different in the way they affected politics, Khodokovsky used bribery and murder to gain seats in the Duma and help his business, while Gusinsky used his media empire to attack Putin and his policies.
1. The biggest thing I took away from this article is the way Russia Privatized and how it failed. Russia's shock therapy and failing to encourage the startup of new businesses brought about those oligarchs and forced the state to take back the power. This example of failed privatization will be crucial to compare to the other State controlled countries like China to see how they are privatizing and how it is different from Russia.
3a. "Putin claimed that his power grab was necessary to help Russia win its own war on terrorism. Whatever his motivations, the move represents a major step backward for Russian democracy."- centralizing power in the Kremlin is breaking away from democratization. It is obvious that Putin's intentions are not solely about winning war on terrorism.
3b. "In May 2004, the Russian edition of Forbes identified 36 of these oligarchs as being worth at least $1 billion. Khodorkovsky topped the list with an estimated net worth of $15 billion."- these statistics show the imbalance of wealth in Russia.
3c. "Putin told the oligarchs that he would not interfere with their businesses or renationalize state resources as long as they stayed out of politics-that is, as long as they did not challenge or criticize the president."- Putin said he would stay out of the oligarchs way and he did not stay true to his word.
2. The difference between the 2 is that Khodorkovsky has issues with Putin whereas Abramovich is a big supporter of Putin and was even interviewed to be in his cabinet.
1. Putin will allow the oligarchs to do what they please as long as they don't interfere with what he wants to do. This makes all of Russia very corrupt.
3a." The largest of these corporations were producers of petroleum, natural gas, or metal that had previously been controlled by a Soviet industrial ministry. Their new executives became dazzlingly wealthy almost overnight. In May 2004, the Russian edition of Forbes identified 36 of these oligarchs as being worth at least $1 billion. Khodorkovsky topped the list with an estimated net worth of $15 billion." Personally, this is one of the most important part of the oligarch infrastructure that Russia establish. The lucky few who took over after Soviet control, took advantage of a HUGE industry. That may explain some of the hatred towards the rich.
3b. "To those who believe in the supremacy of the state-as most Russians do-Khodorkovsky's aggressive behavior was suspect on any number of counts. An even more basic question, however, was whether he has the right to claim for himself so much of the wealth that had until recently belonged to the state or, supposedly, to the people at large." There is an important social divide between the haves and the have-nots. Aggressive behavior then instigated to whom the state rightly belonged to.
3c. "That many of the oligarchs were Jewish also helped revive some old and ugly prejudices." Russia takes on many religious and cultural divides which also separates.
2. The difference between Khordokovsky and Roman Abramovich is that Abramovich invested out of the state, and in such way he was more set in England than in Russia, so there was no problems with tax evasion, while still being a high stake in the Russian investment spectrum.
3. Basically, Russia is starting to become a capitalist country needing strong capitalistic ventures, however a intricate rich poor gap, made it so people cannot make huge profits without angering the state. Oligarchs have humongous power, and legitimacy, however since they don't directly contribute to the state, they don't have the trust of the people and the government.
3a." The largest of these corporations were producers of petroleum, natural gas, or metal that had previously been controlled by a Soviet industrial ministry. Their new executives became dazzlingly wealthy almost overnight. In May 2004, the Russian edition of Forbes identified 36 of these oligarchs as being worth at least $1 billion. Khodorkovsky topped the list with an estimated net worth of $15 billion." Personally, this is one of the most important part of the oligarch infrastructure that Russia establish. The lucky few who took over after Soviet control, took advantage of a HUGE industry. That may explain some of the hatred towards the rich.
3b. "To those who believe in the supremacy of the state-as most Russians do-Khodorkovsky's aggressive behavior was suspect on any number of counts. An even more basic question, however, was whether he has the right to claim for himself so much of the wealth that had until recently belonged to the state or, supposedly, to the people at large." There is an important social divide between the haves and the have-nots. Aggressive behavior then instigated to whom the state rightly belonged to.
3c. "That many of the oligarchs were Jewish also helped revive some old and ugly prejudices." Russia takes on many religious and cultural divides which also separates.
2. The difference between Khordokovsky and Roman Abramovich is that Abramovich invested out of the state, and in such way he was more set in England than in Russia, so there was no problems with tax evasion, while still being a high stake in the Russian investment spectrum.
3. Basically, Russia is starting to become a capitalist country needing strong capitalistic ventures, however a intricate rich poor gap, made it so people cannot make huge profits without angering the state. Oligarchs have humongous power, and legitimacy, however since they don't directly contribute to the state, they don't have the trust of the people and the government.
3) a. "Putin's recent actions may be the most drastic of his tenure so far, but they were hardly the first signs of his willingness to deploy the power of the Russian state for his own purposes" Shows Putin's willingness to sacrifice Russian democracy for his own personal gains. Putin wants total control of Russia and it is because f this that Russia continues to regress away from democracy.
b."The Khodorkovsky affair has been a shock for those who had come to believe in the "new Russia."" Shows that there is hope inside of Russia for a new beginning. Not everyone supports Putin as he would like to portray to the rest of the world
c." After all, did the United States not once have its own robber barons, who, despite early roughhouse tactics, became the leaders of some of the country's most prominent corporations and the benefactors of its most respected charities and foundations?" Compares the US to Russia in a way that makes us seem very similar. I like this because I think it helps explain Russia's circumstances in a way that American's can understand.
2) Khodorkvosky was focused on making money and creating an empire. He would do anything to achieve these goals. Gusinsky focused on doing these things but also on using his media empire to attack Putin. They both were pretty much ruthless in their pursuit of money and power.
1) It seems to me that Putin has a complicated relationship with the oligarchs. On the one hand, if Putin can control them then they can be a huge help to his pursuit of control and power. On the other hand, it seems like Putin is struggling to do this. As a result of this, the oligarchs seem to have been becoming some of the biggest thorns in Putin's side.
3a)"Putin claimed that his power grab was necessary to help Russia win its own war on terrorism. Whatever his motivations, the move represents a major step backward for Russian democracy." Considering Putin is the source of most of the terror, this is a pretty poor excuse for his unclear intentions and his clear overstepping of authority.
3b)" The largest of these corporations were producers of petroleum, natural gas, or metal that had previously been controlled by a Soviet industrial ministry. Their new executives became dazzlingly wealthy almost overnight. In May 2004, the Russian edition of Forbes identified 36 of these oligarchs as being worth at least $1 billion. Khodorkovsky topped the list with an estimated net worth of $15 billion." In an almost winner-take-all scenario, the unstable Russian economy turned on itself in a very short amount of time, with only a few individuals reigning superior.
3c) "Putin's recent actions may be the most drastic of his tenure so far, but they were hardly the first signs of his willingness to deploy the power of the Russian state for his own purposes" This sums up the Putin regime in one sentence, with every action becoming more drastic and more selfish on his part.
2)Khodorkovsky is a Russian businessman, oligarch, philanthropist, public figure and author. He was named the wealthiest man in Russia in 2004, yet was then charged with fraud and sent to jail for nine years. Alisher Usmanov is an Uzbek-born Russian business magnate. According to March 2013 Forbes website data, the oligarch Usmanov is Russia's richest man, with a fortune estimated at $17.6 billion, and the world's 34th richest person.Unlike Khodorkovsky, Usmanov has not been jailed by Putin as of yet, yet has been accused of delivering political favors.
1) These oligarchs aren't helping with Russia's shady and illegitimate reputation. They have created a small circle of immense power and and causing widespread corruption. It is getting to be increasingly hard to associate Russia with any kind of democracy.
3a. "What has happened to Khodorkovsky and nine of his now-jailed or exiled senior associates is, in short, more than the dramatic saga of a rich man's fall from grace or a despot's capricious revenge: it is a window onto the cracks that run through Russia's post-Soviet political economy." I think this was extremely important to state in the article because it shows that the issue isn't with how these oligarchs achieved the wealth and influence they have but the bigger issue is the impact the economy has had on politics and vice versa since the fall of the USSR.
b. "When it came to dealing with the oligarchs, the government was generally unable to exercise much control. Since the state was very weak, these "new Russians" paid little or no taxes on their purchases. And if most American robber barons had at least created something out of nothing, the Russian oligarchs added nothing to what already was something. Virtually all their wealth came from the seizure of Russia's raw material assets, which until 1992 had been owned and managed by the state." This quote talks about how the success of an oligarch is almost completely dependent on the connections he has with government officials in charge of privatizing the country's resources and also on his ability to scare off rivals. Russian oligarchs aren't only businessmen but are politicians in disguise.
c. "Limiting the oligarchs' political involvement proved difficult. As more people grew richer, some were inevitably tempted to expand their activities beyond business. Several, including Vladimir Gusinsky and Berezovsky, created media empires of television stations, newspapers, and magazines and used these outlets to attack not only each other, but also Putin, particularly for his policies in Chechnya and his inept response to the 2000 sinking of a nuclear-powered submarine in the Barents Sea." The more rich the oligarchs got and the more powerful their influence became, the more politically involved they became. By growing their influence beyond business, these oligarchs had the power to victimize political and economic authorities. This immense power which scared these officials enabled them to continue their wrongdoings.
2. Khodorkovsky and Gusinsky followed a similar pattern to success as they both expanded their actions beyond business. While they both went out of their ways to achieve the power they wanted, the difference was that Gusinsky used his media empire to attack Putin.
1. My takeaway is that as long as Putin is in power, the system of oligarchs are their power will never diminish. The political connections many of these oligarchs have and their influence has kept all of Russia under their say and therefore the corruption in both political and economic affairs will remain.
3:
*Arresting rich businessmen, even billionaires, is no longer a novelty in Russia or elsewhere. But in Russia they are arrested by masked men armed with machine guns, and they are denied bail. Those who are not jailed are increasingly pressured to accept siloviki as partners or return ownership to the state, lest their corporations be stripped of their value. (This statement proves how corrupt Russia's government is. Businessmen might get arrested sometimes but not for no reason other than the fact that why spoke their minds about the ruling in their own country.)
*In mid-September, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced plans for a radical overhaul of his country's political system, with the goal of centralizing power in the Kremlin. (Russia had been trying to push for democracy after the collapse of the USSR but under Putin's rule, almost all the reforms have been reversed.)
*In July of that year, Putin told the oligarchs that he would not interfere with their businesses or renationalize state resources as long as they stayed out of politics-that is, as long as they did not challenge or criticize the president. Although the promise provided some reassurance, it also displayed a warped concept of how markets, businesses, and the state are supposed to function in a democracy. (The fact that Putin basically told the oligarchs to stay out of politics and they would be able to do whatever shows how authoritative he is in his tenure. It also shows corruption in his "democracy" since his businessmen couldn't even speak out against him without having to fear for their lives.)
2:
Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Vladimir Gusinsky are two Russian oligarchs who spoke out against Putin. They both used media empires to attack each other, Putin and other oligarchs. They both don't agree with Putin so they're similar in that sense. The only difference is that when they were both sent to prison by Putin they dealt with the threat differently. Gusinsky was only in the prison for a few days before he gave in the Putin's rule and signed over his business to Gazprom, and therefore, the state. Khodorkovsky lasted a whole decade in jail and refused to give in to Putin which suggests that he disagreed with Putin's rule more than Gusinsky.
1:
My takeaway on Putin and the oligarchs is that both sides have a lot of corruption that goes hand in hand with them. Putin lives under the guise of a democracy but his totalitarian rule shows otherwise. The oligarchs only got their fortune because of the poor privatization process. They use their luck to gain even more money than they had and it's obviously increasing the wealth gap. Both sides are corrupted and the only way the corruption will come to an end is when Putin leaves power and Russia redrafts their reforms.
1. “To the applause of most of the outside world, Russian and foreign economic advisers drew up an elaborate program for the privatization of industry, housing, and land. In an attempt at "people's capitalism," virtually every Russian was issued a voucher good for shares in a soon-to-be-private enterprise.” This displays the inevitability of Russia’s current economic situation. Everyone was simply happy that the USSR was dissolved. It looked good on paper, but was poorly executed.
2.“Not long into the process, ownership of some of Russia's most valuable resources was auctioned off by oligarch-owned banks under a scheme called "Loans for Shares." Although they were supposedly acting on behalf of the state, the bank auctioneers rigged the process-and in almost every case ended up as the successful bidders.” Corruption to the max. This programs benefits the rich only and widens the rich/poor gap. The oligarchs gained too much control of the economy after privatization and are looking out for personal gain only.
3. “As a few private individuals seized state property, a third of Russia's population was thrust below the poverty line, exacerbating public resentment over such radical redistribution of wealth. According to a recent poll, 77 percent of Russians feel that privatization should be either fully or partially revised.” The oligarchs do nothing to actually help Russia as a whole despite their exorbitant amount of wealth. Yeltsin’s idea was awful because was completely unregulated. The effects are still apparent today.
4.- Khordovsky and Berezovsky were Russian oligarchs that exercised major political, economic, and social control. They are two men who expanded their wealth during Yeltsin’s presidency. Berezovksy did not play as big of a role in the oil industry, but through automobiles, gas, airlines, and especially media. Since Berezovsky controlled the media, its coverage was extremely biased and massive support was given to Yeltsin. Khordovsky did not exercise the extensive political influence of Khordovsky, however his arrest did increase Putin’s approval ratings.
5. Overall, Putin and the Oligarchs was eye opening to Russia’s lack of separation between politics and big business. It also was interesting to see how Shock Therapy and privatization are issues from Yeltsin’s era that are still coming up today. What is mind-blowing to me is that such a huge proportion of Russian citizens are in poverty, yet the oligarchs and the government don’t see the disparity. That may be naive, however I would think that if a welfare state is established it would secure the political power of the leader. Because of the corruption, Russia seems to be at a point of no return.
3. "The difference in Russia is that the basic reforms and privatization of the 1990s were so flawed and unfair that they created an unstable business environment."
- This quote is important because it emphasizes why the reforms that people expected to work did not. The business environment didn't thrive as expected because of a great deal of corruption and the government not stepping in to stop it as was done when a similar problem was present in the US with the beginning of big business.
"When it came to dealing with the oligarchs, the government was generally unable to exercise much control."
- This quote is important because it focuses on the main reason the oligarchs became so rich; they were powerful and the state was weak and thus they were able to manipulate it.
"One of Putin's first steps was to declare a change in the rules of the game."
-When Putin came in there were major issues, so in order to fix them, he had to do something drastic.
2. Khodorkovsky and Abramovich are similar in the fact that both had immense amounts of money, but while Khodorkovsky chose to spend his money on Russian oil companies and try to become prominent in the Russian government, Abramovich decided to invest elsewhere by buying Chelsea, a London soccer team.
1. My one take away is that Putin has tried to reverse the disastrous privatization plans by exerting control over the oligarchs, but it is taking the government back towards a state controlled economy and is still full of corruption and favoritism.
3a. "Putin claimed that his power grab was necessary to help Russia win its own war on terrorism". Putin makes a politically regressive move, and justifies it through the war on terrorism, because he knows no one will oppose that.
3b. "In short, the oligarchs were an easy target. After Khodorkovsky's arrest, Putin's poll ratings rose from an already high 70 percent to an impressive 80 percent." There is clearly a resentment of the rich by the poor, like we discussed in class. It's obvious that the rich are less widely liked in Russia than in the U.S., so targeting them made Putin's approval ratings shoot up.
3c. "But the direction Putin is taking is disappointing. By merging state-controlled Gazprom with state-owned Rosneft, he has signaled once again that the state will become a strong if not dominant voice in energy policy and economic planning". Perhaps the world had hoped that Russia was moving towards a more capitalistic, laissez-faire system, but evidently the opposite is the case as the government becomes more heavily involved in economic matters.
2. Khodorkovsky's main goal was to acquire more money. Beyond this, he had no real further agenda. Gusinsky, however, used his wealth and power to attack Putin via his media empire and use his position to put out a political stance.
1. My biggest takeaway on Putin and the Oligarchs is that their economic success showed the possibilities of what could occur if laissez-faire economics are allowed and tycoons are allowed to do business as they pleased. But Putin didn't like the results, and seeing them as a challenge to his authority,seems to be using them as a "lesson" to others to show them that capitalism and free trade will not be good for Russia, and will use this as justification for his future actions regarding economic control.
Three:
A. "In May 2004, the Russian edition of Forbes identified 36 of these oligarchs as being worth at least $1 billion." I honestly love this quote because it shows the great amount of growth that came in the russian economy after the fall of the soviet union in 1991. When Russia began to privatize land, industry, and housing, a majority of the capital was being made by many of Putin's oligarchs.
B. "An oligarch's success, in other words, almost always depended on his connections to the government officials in charge of privatizing the country's rich energy and mineral deposits, as well as on his ability to outmaneuver or intimidate rivals." Stay close to Putin, make billions. This statement just proves how each industry is involved in government corruption.
C. "As more people grew richer, some were inevitably tempted to expand their activities beyond business." At this point, I found the actions of the Oligarchs hard to believe. With so much money, I would do as much as I could to leave my restrictive country. However, some created media outlets to attack Putin. Risky.
Two:
Abramovich is the current owner of the Chelsea football club in england. Khodorkovsky is a businessman and political figure in Russia. Abramovich seems to be tied to Putin more than Khodorkovsky politically, however I believe it is smart of Abramovich to leave Russia and invest in foreign markets such as GB. However, I respect Khodorkovsky's voice against the Putin regime.
One:
Failed Privatization. It's been noted that 20% of the Russian GDP is known corruption.
3a."In an attempt at "people's capitalism," virtually every Russian was issued a voucher good for shares in a soon-to-be-private enterprise." I find this quote interesting because it shows how Putin is killing two birds with one stone. Not only does he gets rid of private businesses that may threaten his power, but it also helps him appease the people. It makes him out to be a generous benefactor for Russians.
3b."Limiting the oligarchs' political involvement proved difficult. As more people grew richer, some were inevitably tempted to expand their activities beyond business" The hierarchy of Russia is one that promotes the gain of a select elite. It seems to mirror America a lot, however, the chance for corruption is greater. This desire to venture out of just business is what causes the oligarchy to abuse the people and government.
3c."Russia will undoubtedly survive the flawed process of privatization, just as it has survived more serious crises." That is the beauty of Russia. They have gone through some of the most extreme political shifts. Their economy and global status as rollercostered throughout their existence. Still, Russia keeps going. They may face disdain from the world, but they continue to go with whatever situation their government has created. Even though this article provides very little hope for improvement, the character of Russian society is too unpredictable to make a permanent diagnosis of where the country will be in a year.
2. Mikhail Khodorkovsky and James Mulva, the CEO of ConocoPhillips both are businessmen that have faced the attacks of Putin. The Russian state desires to have a firm control on power. It just so happens that industry and the rise of wealthy, prominent business owners are gaining the strongest influence in Russia. Although both men fall on Putin's bad list, Mulva still has a chance. Khodorkovsky has already been punished and destroyed by Putin's government, Mulva is just getting threats to cooperate. He has seen what can come of his fortune and livelihood if he chooses to go against to government.
1. Russia and all other rising economic nations of the world face the same issue-- corruption. Businesses want to make as much money as they can with whatever means it may take. However, the way different governments deal with their industrial tycoons is a whole other topic. Russia is really striking down on privatization. The government abhors the use of money for anything other than their agenda. In addition, business have been using their economic status and power to manipulate the government and the people. They have turned the tables and the government does not like being used to someone else's advantage. What is happening here is a classic power battle. It just happens that government has more force and what will most likely happen is that privatization may be drawn to a close or severely regulated. However, who knows what will truly happen?
3a. "The difference in Russia is that basic reforms and privatization of the 1990's were so flawed and unfair that they created an unstable business environment." The quote basically shows that it is key to understand that the fall of the Soviet regime was not the end all be all solution to Russian improvement. That transition period was a key moment and in this aspect, some mistakes were made. This is unfortunate, considering that business is a key component to a democratic system.
3b. "Virtually all their wealth came from the seizure of Russia's raw materials assets, which until 1992 had been owned and managed by the state." This is basically a description of how an oligarch is developed. They control such a significant amount of the nation's economy that they obtain power within that nation. In Russia, they rely almost entirely on a single raw material, so these oligarch can establish impressive amounts of control in Russia. This power proves a threat to the Kremlin, so a conflict arises.
3c. "Khodorkovsky also actively promoted legislation that would benefit Yukos. It was said that, to ensure such support, he bought control of as much as 100 seats in the Duma." This shows how Oligarchs become involved politically. As businessmen, they will often go to great lengths to benefit their corporation. The more corrupt of the bunch will do similar to what khodorkovsky has done here. He is taking power from the Kremlin. Money is power.
2. As was an example in the article, Vladimir Gusinsky is an oligarch that has had conflict with Putin, just as Khodordovsky has. However, in Gusinsky's case, he went out of his way to attack Putin and his policies through media. Khodordovsky threatened Putin indirectly by obtaining power within the government. Both became involved politically, but with different methods.
1. Basically what I'm seeing in Russia is an extreme case of conflict between government and business that needs to be changed in order to better the nation. These are powerful men that are using Russia and its people as pawns in order to satisfy their hunger for even more power. There will always be an interaction between business and government and there will likely be conflict between the two in a democratic society. This conflict can often be a useful tool for a nation that continuously strives to improve life for its people. However, this case has become far too unstable.
3a) "The difference in Russia is that the basic reforms and privatization of the 1990s were so flawed and unfair that they created an unstable business environment." Stunning because that wasn't very long ago.
3b) "Limiting the oligarchs' political involvement proved difficult. As more people grew richer, some were inevitably tempted to expand their activities beyond business." The rich seemed to have such a strong influence in politics. It's like the rich are also unofficial politicians.
3c) "As a few private individuals seized state property, a third of Russia's population was thrust below the poverty line, exacerbating public resentment over such radical redistribution of wealth. According to a recent poll, 77 percent of Russians feel that privatization should be either fully or partially revised. Only 18 percent oppose renationalization." The people were given no choice but to submit to the rich.
2) Both Khodorkovsky and Michael Prokhorov seem to have greatly benefited from the Russian rigged system of government. I think Khodorkovsky seems to be more of a businessman who just wants to make money while Prokhorov seems to have an interest in the actual political aspect of government.
1) I think the oligarchs are benefiting so well off of Putin. I mean, some of them are friends of Putin so don't you think they'll be able to get away with things. I personally feel that the government is far too rigged beyond fixing.
3a:"In July of that year, Putin told the oligarchs that he would not interfere with their businesses or renationalize state resources as long as they stayed out of politics-that is, as long as they did not challenge or criticize the president. Although the promise provided some reassurance, it also displayed a warped concept of how markets, businesses, and the state are supposed to function in a democracy"- This quote shows right off the bat that Putin was willing to play hardball with the oligarchs. He was not going to back down and he did not care if it was democratic or not. He wanted the power and it was a clear power move to try and remove influence from the oligarchs. It set up the battle with Khodorkovsky.
3b."More and more, it appeared that, with his immense wealth, control over what was about to become the world's fourth-largest oil company, and considerable influence in the Duma, Khodorkovsky saw himself as beyond the control of the Kremlin. No businessman had ever reached that point before, neither under the tsar nor under Yeltsin, and Putin was determined not to let it happen on his watch either"- The idea expressed in this quote is pivotal in determining the future of post-communist Russia. Will Putin step aside and let the businessmen control and keep government intervention limited, or will he take control. Of course Putin steps in and jails Khodorkovsky. Putin was not to be made a fool of, especially when the Russian people wanted a strong leader.
3c."But by moving so quickly to privatize state resources while failing to encourage the startup of new businesses, the reformers inadvertently paved the way for the rise of the oligarchs-and for the state's counterattack"-This is the result of shock therapy. The rapid privatization of state resources and companies led to the situation that Putin and the oligarchs faced. Clearly in hindsight shock therapy was a bad idea.
2. Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Mikhail Prokhorov are similar in that they both became business tycoons by controlling natural resources in Russia, oil and minerals respectively. They both have had their share of political intervention. Prokorov stated that he would run as an independent candidate for president in 2012 and Khodorkovsky tried to use his money to gain political power and it got him jailed.
1. My takeaway from the article is that the battle between Putin and the oligarchs is an ongoing fight with both sides digging in. Similar to America with the robber barons, the state and business are trying to figure out who will reign supreme. As long as Putin is in power, it looks like he will be in charge. However, the oligarchs will continue to use their massive amounts of wealth to be a powerful force. And while this happens democracy will continue to suffer.
3a. "77 percent of Russians feel that privatization should be either fully or partially revised. Only 18 percent oppose renationalization." This quote just shows how much of a failure this privatization process has been and how the new state takeover of the companies have not helped the people. Instead of the state absorbing all these companies it should have been distributed to the people.
3b."Putin claimed that his power grab was necessary to help Russia win its own war on terrorism". Putin makes a politically regressive move, and justifies it through the war on terrorism, because he knows no one will oppose that.
3c."As a few private individuals seized state property, a third of Russia's population was thrust below the poverty line, exacerbating public resentment over such radical redistribution of wealth. According to a recent poll, 77 percent of Russians feel that privatization should be either fully or partially revised. Only 18 percent oppose renationalization." The people were given no choice but to submit to the rich.
2. Khodorkovsky and Gusinsky followed a similar pattern to success as they both expanded their actions beyond business. While they both went out of their ways to achieve the power they wanted, the difference was that Gusinsky used his media empire to attack Putin.
1. My takeaway on Putin and the oligarchs is that both sides have a lot of corruption that goes hand in hand with them. Putin lives under the guise of a democracy but his totalitarian rule shows otherwise. The oligarchs only got their fortune because of the poor privatization process. They use their luck to gain even more money than they had and it's obviously increasing the wealth gap. Both sides are corrupted and the only way the corruption will come to an end is when Putin leaves power and Russia redrafts their reforms
3.a. "And if most American robber barons had at least created something out of nothing, the Russian oligarchs added nothing to what already was something." The fundamental problem with the oligarchs is that they got wealthy without contributing anything to the economy or Russian society. The robber barons in the U.S. got tremendously wealthy, but they made contributions to society. For example, they helped with the industrial revolution. But the oligarchs just took Russia's natural resources, like oil, and contributed nothing. That type of a system is doomed to failure because people were bound to see it as corrupt.
3.b. "Most Russians feel, with good reason, that if the country's economic reforms in general, and privatization in particular, had been carried out more honestly and equitably, the economic results would have been better, the country's income disparities less pronounced and control over its resources more widely dispersed." Privatization was a good idea. A market economy would produce better results and would be more competitive than an economy where the State owned everything. The problem was not in the idea. The problem was in how the idea got put in place. The oligarchs did not earn their wealth. They took it through corruption and intimidation. If privatization had happened fairly, it would have worked and there would have been no excuse for the backlash from Putin.
3.a. "Arresting rich businessmen, even billionaires is no longer a novelty in Russia or elsewhere. But in Russia, they are arrested by masked men armed with machine guns, and they are denied bail." We take for granted the protections that we have because of our constitution. This type of thing could not happen in the U.S. But in Russia, the government can do as it wants. Putin has used the oligarchs and their corruption as an excuse to roll back some of the progress that was made toward opening the government and the society. Now, he had a reason to take away people's freedom.
2. Kohorkovsky was a corrupt businessman and someone who profited unfairly from privatization. He was a bully who made a lot of money without contributing anything to its society. Prokhorov is trying to become a political force in Russia. He is a force for social change. He says that he wants to promote free press and other western ideas. So far, because of his popularity and his expansion to interests in the U.S., like the Nets, he has become too large a figure for Putin to simply jail. He is a real threat to Putin, while Khodorkovsky, who is corrupt and whose profile is very different is not.
1. My major takeaway is that the oligarchs provide a convenient excuse for Putin to roll back reforms that took place under Gorbachev and Yeltsin. Putin, who grew up in the Soviet secret police, has consolidated power. He has increased pressure on political opposition and made it much harder for people to protest. He has created more of a Cold War culture. Because the oligarchs took so much wealth without contributing anything, and so many people became impoverished, Putin had the public and political cover to do what he wanted to do -- go back to a repressive government. It is too bad because privatization was a good idea. It was poorly done and as a result, it led to a huge step backward for hope for an open democracy and a free market economy in Russia.
3A. "Putin told the oligarchs that he would not interfere with their businesses or renationalize state resources as long as they stayed out of politics-that is, as long as they did not challenge or criticize the president." This shows how Putin does not stay true to his word.
3B. "Arresting rich businessmen, even billionaires, is no longer a novelty in Russia or elsewhere. But in Russia they are arrested by masked men armed with machine guns, and they are denied bail. Those who are not jailed are increasingly pressured to accept siloviki as partners or return ownership to the state, lest their corporations be stripped of their value." This quote proves what we all know, which is that Russia's government is corrupt. Businessmen might get arrested sometimes but not for no reason other than the fact that why spoke their minds about the ruling in their own country.
3C. "Putin claimed that his power grab was necessary to help Russia win its own war on terrorism. Whatever his motivations, the move represents a major step backward for Russian democracy." Centralizing power in the Kremlin is breaking away from democratization. It is obvious that Putin's intentions are not solely about winning war on terrorism.
2. Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Vladimir Gusinsky were the same in they both had immense power gained by the rigged bids and tried to affect politics to gain more wealth and prevent new legislation. They are different in the way they affected politics, Khodokovsky used bribery and murder to gain seats in the Duma and help his business, while Gusinsky used his media empire to attack Putin and his policies.
1. These oligarchs aren't helping Russia at all with their poor and illegitimate reputation. They are the cause for the widespread corruption throughout the country. Which is making it increasingly hard to help the people of Russia.
3a) "Putin claimed that his power grab was necessary to help Russia win its own war on terrorism. Whatever his motivations, the move represents a major step backward for Russian democracy." This is a great example of how Putin is gradually destroying the little democracy Russia had.
3b) "In May 2004, the Russian edition of Forbes identified 36 of these oligarchs as being worth at least $1 billion. Khodorkovsky topped the list with an estimated net worth of $15 billion." This shows the damage the oligarchs do to the Russian economy. They cause a massive imbalance of wealth.
3c)"The difference in Russia is that basic reforms and privatization of the 1990's were so flawed and unfair that they created an unstable business environment." This quote helps to explain the current businesses problem in Russia. When the government shifted to democracy, businesses took advantage of the confusion and profited.
2) Mikhail Khordokovsky and Roman Abramovich are Oligarchs who have vastly dirrent opinions on the russian government. In 2003, Putin and Khordokovsky had argued about government corruption on TV. Khordokovsky claimed many government officials where accepting bribes, Putin, however, denied this being true. On the other hand, Abramovich gets along very well with Putin. He is a close friend and advisor of Putin`s to this day.
1- Oligarchs do nothing but hurt the country as a whole. We learned this in class with the video we watched on friday, but this article only helped clarify the massive corruption that the oligarchs spread across Russia.
3a. "It means that, under Putin, Russia is reversing some of the most important economic and political reforms it adopted after freeing itself from the yoke of communism." - This isn't shocking at all. Putin wants full control of Russia, and the oligarchs are giving him an excuse to. He's "protecting" his people.
3b. "Several, including Vladimir Gusinsky and Berezovsky, created media empires of television stations, newspapers, and magazines and used these outlets to attack not only each other, but also Putin." - The oligarchs were not afraid to voice their opinions. However, this only ends badly for them when they get arrested and exiled. You can only be rich and powerful in Russia if you work for Putin.
3c."The siloviki, the law-and-order types from the KGB, the police, and the army that Putin had been bringing into the government, felt the same way. Khodorkovsky's methods were a fundamental challenge to their control of the country-or, as one noted, "a danger and threat to the Russian state.""- Again, Putin justifies his actions by saying it is to "protect" his people, when in reality he is doing it to get ahead.
2. Khordokovsky and Gusinksy both voiced their opinions against Putin. However, Gusinksy made an entire media empire in order to bash Putin. Khordokovsky supported liberal parties in opposition of Putin, and even hinted that he would run for President when Putin was done. In the end, both were arrested for their actions.
1. My takeaway is that there is absolutely no way you can have a successful career in Russia unless you support Putin. As soon as some oligarchs started to oppose him, Putin started locking them all up. This just shows the corruption and lack of freedom Russia has. And those who work for him have way to much power and wealth. Putin is destroying all the progress that Russia had made in becoming a democratic society.
3 Quotes:
a. "The difference in Russia is that the basic reforms ad privatization of the 1990;s were so flawed and unfair that they created an unstable business environment. A radical resettling of existing ownership arrangements was thus all but inevitable. And given Putin's authoritarian tendencies, it is hardly surprising that when the move came it was equally flawed and unfair- perhaps equally destabilizing."
This quote highlights the Deja Vu theme we have been discussing with Russia. Their past seems to repeat itself often, and it will again here. Any steps toward capitalism will be reversed when Putin reclaims corporations back to state control.
b. "Still, it was less Khodorkovsky's financial skulduggery than it was his interference in political matters that upset Putin"
The oligarchs are in trouble in Russia for the wrong things. Putin and the Kremlin are not at all concerned with the financial integrity of Russian businessmen, but rather if they are supporting the regime.
c. "Arresting rich businessmen, even billionaires, is no longer a novelty in Russia or elsewhere. But in Russia they are arrested by masked men armed with machine guns, and they are denied bail."
This shows that Russia has experienced the same trouble with capitalism as many other countries, but that the government reaction is entirely different. In Russia both sides commit foul play; the relationship between the Kremlin and the Oligarchs resembles enemy gangs, or the mafia, and is overwhelmed with schemes and force.
Compare/Contrast 2 Oligarchs:
Mikhail Khodorkovsky as well as Vladimir Gusinsky acquired their enterprises from the state following the fall of communism; Khodorkovsky obtained energy, while Gusinsky a large chink of the media industry, and became very rich. Both oligarchs were arrested for financial foul play, but only after politically betraying President Putin. Gusinsky freed himself quickly by cooperating with the Kremlin, and returning much of his corporation to the state. Khodorkovsky was more stubborn about his ownership, and has spent the last 10 years in prison. Both however were released somewhat due to international pressures. Gusinsky was arrested in Greece, and released upon intense pressure from the US. Khodorkovsky was pardoned by Putin this December, mysteriously preceding Russia's Winter Olympics.
Summary:
Both the oligarchs and the Kremlin have played dirty, but the government is not after the oligarchs for financial fraud; it's all about politics. The oligarchs reflect some successes of capitalism and democracy: they are very wealthy, they are active in the global sphere, and they feel free to criticize their government. Putin's Regime inches back to the Autocracy of Russia's communist days. The treatment of the Oligarchs is Putin's effort to rid Russia of opposition and return Russia's enterprises to state control.
3a. "After all, did the United States not once have its own robber barons, who, despite early roughhouse tactics, became the leaders of some of the country's most prominent corporations and the benefactors of its most respected charities and foundations?"-It points out that yes, these people didn't necessarily obtain their wealth legitimately but America needs to be less hypocritical.
3b. "The difference in Russia is that the basic reforms and privatization of the 1990s were so flawed and unfair that they created an unstable business environment."- This basically explains how the "robber barons" were able to rise to power.
3c. "An oligarch's success, in other words, almost always depended on his connections to the government officials in charge of privatizing the country's rich energy and mineral deposits, as well as on his ability to outmaneuver or intimidate rivals"- Showing Putin's tie to the various Oligarchs and how that allows their reign.
2. Mikhal Khodorkovsky and
Vladimir Gusinsky are similar in the fact that they both try to oppose Putin,but through different means. Khodorkovsky funded opposition parties to run against Putin, whereas Vladmir Gusinsky directly opposed Putin, which went much worse in the long run.
1. To be entirely fair, I think Russia is entirely screwed up. It's like a bunch of paradoxes crammed into a box. Like how Russians hate the limitations he puts on their freedom, yet they generally like Putin. It boggles my mind. Then for the Oligarchs it's become almost quasi-governmental, and they seem like they are tied directly to Putin.
“The difference in Russia is that the basic reforms and privatization of the 1990s were so flawed and unfair that they created an unstable business environment” Russia tries justify their political and economic unfairness by saying every nation has had their own robber barons that have taken over and become the most powerful and richest men. However, this article points out that Russia did not even give people equal opportunity for such change; it was basically predetermined by the government who would have power and money, and who would not.
“An oligarch's success, in other words, almost always depended on his connections to the government officials in charge of privatizing the country's rich energy and mineral deposits, as well as on his ability to outmaneuver or intimidate rivals.” This quote proves my previous point about how the corrupt government is really in charge. They are actually deciding who has power and who does not. Therefore, were there any real reforms in Russia in 1990? No, they just made you believe in something they would never let exist.
“According to a recent poll, 77 percent of Russians feel that privatization should be either fully or partially revised. Only 18 percent oppose renationalization. Many of those interviewed were also unhappy with the market system in general and sought to discredit the whole privatization process.” The population of Russia does not even believe in their government’s ability to solve the economic crises. How can reforms be successful without support? There is no way for that to happen. The government does not have the support of the people and the people do not have support from the government. It is clearly a failing relationship.
Mikhail Khodorkovsky and Vladimir Gusinsky were both oligarchs that gained immense power through the corrupt economic situation, and continued to try to gain power and wealth. However, Khodokovsky bribed in order to gain seats in the Duma and achieve his goals in politics, while Gusinsky utilized the media to criticize the government in order to change politics.
The system of the oligarchs and Putin will not be solved easily. Neither party is willing to give up power, in a sense, both are trying to gain even more power and wealth day by day. They will continue to use corrupt politics and methods to get what they want, which will only cause a continued centralization of power and economic crises. Without some serious reform, the people will soon be fed up such poor leadership and hopefully do something about the situation.
3a. "After all, did the United States not once have its own robber barons, who, despite early roughhouse tactics, became the leaders of some of the country's most prominent corporations and the benefactors of its most respected charities and foundations?"- I think this comparison to the U.S is a bit wrong, the so called robber barons of the gilded age gained their wealth not through connections and corruption, but through innovation and hard work.
3b. "To those who believe in the supremacy of the state-as most Russians do-Khodorkovsky's aggressive behavior was suspect on any number of counts. An even more basic question, however, was whether he has the right to claim for himself so much of the wealth that had until recently belonged to the state or, supposedly, to the people at large." - This quote shows that the Russian state is indeed trying to undo the privatization of the 1990s.
3c. "Limiting the oligarchs' political involvement proved difficult. As more people grew richer, some were inevitably tempted to expand their activities beyond business. Several, including Vladimir Gusinsky and Berezovsky, created media empires of television stations, newspapers, and magazines and used these outlets to attack not only each other, but also Putin, particularly for his policies in Chechnya and his inept response to the 2000 sinking of a nuclear-powered submarine in the Barents Sea." - This explains how many of the oligarchs came to be at odds with the current regime; through their desire to exercise their influence.
2. The difference between Khordokovsky and Roman Abramovich is that Abramovich invested out of the state, and in such way he was more set in England than in Russia, so there was no problems with tax evasion. Whereas Khordokovsky invested in Russia and found himself at odds witht the Putin regime.
1. My takeaway is that the Russian culture has always had a select group of oligarchs, and this tradition will make it difficult for Putin to completely dismantle the system. However, I believe Putin can do quit a bit to lessen the political and economic influence of the oligarchs.
3.
-"A key question now is whether Khodorkovsky's arrest is the forerunner of what will happen to many of his business colleagues." This questions whether or not the oligarchs are safe to continue doing business in Russia. After this incident, Putin got all the oligarchs on their toes and they are all stressed out on what could potentially happen to them if they decided to go against Putin's regime.
-"In July of that year, Putin told the oligarchs that he would not interfere with their businesses or renationalize state resources as long as they stayed out of politics-that is, as long as they did not challenge or criticize the president." Putin here contradicts himself because he always said that he wanted to change up the rules of the game for the oligarchs, but instead he ended up kind of working with them than against them. He didn't want the power of the oligarchs to clash with his own political power, but as their businesses' grew it was harder for Putin to keep the oligarchs out of Russian politics.
-"Many of those interviewed were also unhappy with the market system in general and sought to discredit the whole privatization process." This is because one-third of the Russian population is under the poverty line. When the basic reforms and privatization of the 1990s took place, they were so flawed and unfair that they created an unstable business environment which lead to many people resenting the rich and upset with the Russian economy overall.
2.Khordokovsky and Gusinksy are two oligarchs that continued to become richer and richer over a great period of time. They both also voiced their opinions about Putin. Gusinksy created media empires where he bashed Putin, especially for his policies in Chechnya. But it was Khordokovsky political interference that bothered Putin the most. He bribed two political parties to join together to run against Putin and his political party. He also hinted to possibly running for president once Putin's term expired.
1. Putin and the oligarchs have a ruff relationship. Putin made sure to let everyone know that if any oligarch tries to go against Putin and/or his regime that things won't end very well for that person and/or their business. Unless if you are good friends with Putin, then you can benefit and get away with a lot. Also, even though Putin tried to reverse the privatization plans by having more control over the oligarchs, it is taking the government back towards a state controlled economy.
"A key question now is whether Khodorkovsky's arrest is the forerunner of what will happen to many of his business colleagues." Many of the arrests and charges brought against the oligarchs and wealthy businessmen in Russia were politically motivated, because those people weren't supporting Vladimir Putin and his regime.
"Besides, many argued, it was only a matter of time before the Russian government would intervene to correct the most flagrant misbehavior, much as Theodore Roosevelt did with the passage of the Sherman Antitrust Act" I would argue that this is an unfair comparison to make because Roosevelt dealt with the problem of monopolies by getting legislation passed in a fair and just manner. Putin's corrupt method is to throw any rich political opponent in jail, and he gets away with it because the general populace has grievances with the wealthy.
"Not long into the process, ownership of some of Russia's most valuable resources was auctioned off by oligarch-owned banks under a scheme called "Loans for Shares." Although they were supposedly acting on behalf of the state, the bank auctioneers rigged the process-and in almost every case ended up as the successful bidders." Although a free-economy and democracy are better than Communism, the way in which this transition was handled during Yeltsin's era was a bit of a failure. People were grabbing hold of the the formerly state owned businesses in unethical manners.
Roman Abramovich and Mikhail Khodorkovsky, two very wealthy oligarchs who both made made money from oil companies. Likewise, both men acquired their oil companies for much cheaper than what they were actually worth through the Yelsin's controversial loans-for-shares program. However, Abramovich has always been a close ally of Vladimir Putin, and actually recommended him to Yeltsin. Khodorkovsky, however, was thrown in jail under Putin's regime and some have called it a politically motivated sentencing.
My takeaway from Putin and the Oligarchs is that the wealthiest and most powerful people in society got to their positions through corrupt, unfair, or unethical means. The oligarchs all took advantage of post-Soviet Russia and obtained their investments for significantly less than what they were worth. They played dirty, and gained a lot of money as a result. The corruption stemming from Putin's regime is immense and shows that he's willing to do whatever necessary to stay in control. If that means throwing his enemies in jail and changing the constitution, then so be it.
3a. "An oligarch's success, in other words, almost always depended on his connections to the government officials in charge of privatizing the country's rich energy and mineral deposits, as well as on his ability to outmaneuver or intimidate rivals"- Oligarchs seem to be getting their power from the Russian government. This is one of the main reasons why the Russian government is so corrupt. The Russian government just likes to "sweep it under the rug."
3b. "Putin claimed that his power grab was necessary to help Russia win its own war on terrorism. Whatever his motivations, the move represents a major step backward for Russian democracy."-Putin does not only want to win his war on terror. He is also trying to break away from democratization.
3c. “As a few private individuals seized state property, a third of Russia's population was thrust below the poverty line, exacerbating public resentment over such radical redistribution of wealth. According to a recent poll, 77 percent of Russians feel that privatization should be either fully or partially revised.”-The Russian people are feeling hurt as well as threatened that the Russian government would do these things. And that is the reason why the Russian people have no hope on the rich.
2. The difference between Khordokovsky and Roman Abramovich is that Abramovich invested out of the state such as England. So there was no problems with tax evasion, while still being a stake in Russian investment.
1.My take away form this would be that Putin needs to put a hold on the oligarchs. And that Putin should stay away from politics.
3a) "Putin claimed that his power grab was necessary to help Russia win its own war on terrorism. Whatever his motivations, the move represents a major step backward for Russian democracy." Similar to the political cartoon with Gorbachev and Yeltsin we discussed in class, this suggests that Putin is attempting to go back on the revolutionary democratic reforms of these past leaders. Gorbachev and Yeltsin dismantled the Soviet regime with new economic and political reforms that decentralized the communist state. Putin, however, has already taken control of the media to create his own cult of personality, centralized power in the kremlin and increased corruption of the state in a movement towards less democracy. The increase in the central government’s ability to maintain political power and pass political agendas with little opposition or votes of the people, under Putin, is a reminder of what Russia had attempted to move away from in post-Soviet Russia.
3b) "When it came to dealing with the oligarchs, the government was generally unable to exercise much control." This quote is important in understanding the growth of wealth and power of oligarchs in post-Soviet Russia because it demonstrates that the increase in economic opportunities outpaced the formation of a suitable judicial and regulation committee. Therefore, corruption ran rampant as businesses could use corruption, receive money from fraudulent taxes and manipulate the system in their favor. The lack of a strong overseer meant that multi-million or even billion dollar businesses could continue to grow and avoid punishments.
3c) “But the direction Putin is taking is disappointing. By merging state-controlled Gazprom with state-owned Rosneft, he has signaled once again that the state will become a strong if not dominant voice in energy policy and economic planning…. 25 percent of the country's energy production”. This is shocking and rather alarming because the growth of government monopolization under Putin is just a part of his larger attempt to consolidate all power to the central government. In addition to the economic centralization Putin has also cracked down on the media and terminated the direct election of members of the Duma. These revisions could be a foreshadowing of a greater loss of democracy and slowing of the movement to the “new Russia” in the future.
2) Similar to Khodorkovsky, Gusinsky’s expansion of wealth led to open conflicts with Putin. Khodorokovsky attempted to gain political power within the government in order to attack Putin, while Gusinsky utilized the media in a more direct approach against Putin’s agenda. Also, Khordokovsky supported liberal parties in opposition of Putin, and even hinted that he would run for President when Putin was done. This is different than Gusinsky whose media empire sought entirely to dethrone the Russian leader.
3) My takeaway pertaining to Putin and the oligarchs is that it is a conflicting relationship that does not appear to be solvable anytime soon. The corruption that exists between the government and business favors the oligarchs, who have gained power and consolidated money in the government, as well as Putin, who is able to greatly centralize the state in their shadows. Putin desires to pull Russia into the past which is conflicting with the Oligarchs, but the successes of these business men demonstrate some successes in economic reform. Without substantial reforms it appears that both sides will be able to maintain power and control due to the other’s support. The corruption and growing wealth of the politicians/oligarchs is detrimental to the citizens of Russia due to the widening economic inequality.
3.
"And given Putin's authoritarian tendencies, it is hardly surprising that when the move came it was equally flawed and unfair-and perhaps equally destabilizing." This quote refers to Putin's ruthlessness and the unstable shifting to the power of the oligarchs. Putin's takeover just like the oligarch takeover was abrupt and slightly corrupt. Two wrongs don't make a right.
"Although the promise provided some reassurance, it also displayed a warped concept of how markets, businesses, and the state are supposed to function in a democracy." From this quote, one can question whether Putin cared more about a functioning government that is good for the people, or his absolute own power and control. It seems as if Putin was felt a more personal threat to his own control than anything else.
"And to deter anyone who might be tempted to come to Khodorkovsky's defense, Kolesnikov warned, "Let those who are not yet in jail think hard about what they are doing." From this quote, it is apparent that siding with any organization or even the oligarchs too strongly is a move against the government punishable by, well who knows. I remember the documentary we watched mentioned disappearances and random murders of those who stood up for the oligarchs or opposed Putin's regime.
2
Like Kohdorkovsky, Boris Berezovsky acquired an oil giant. The latter acquired Sibneft at a discount 100 million, when it was worth 3 billion. The former got a 78% ownership of Yukos, for 310 million while it was worth 5 billion. They acquired these in the Loans for Shares scam run by other oligarchy owned banks. Berezovsky also expanded his empire through media and used his outlets to speak out against Putin and his ideals.
1
The biggest takeaway from this whole thing is how flawed Russia's system is. If i were a Russian citizen, I would not know who to side with. Both Putin and the Oligarchs run corrupt systems of rule. While one centralizes the wealth in the hands of few, the other side seeks to solely control every part of Russia for as long as possible through a personality cult. Russia often attempts to swiftly shift the direction of their economy and it never works out. Currently their economy, is extremely vulnerable-centered on the volatile oil industry. The people just want stability, a voice, and the ability to trust their leaders and law enforcers. I fear that this day may never come for the people of Russia.
Post a Comment