ZOMG! Mikhail Khodorkovsky is going on hunger strike! (Updated)
The world’s most famous political prisoner corrupt businessman and thief is going on hunger strike. This is critically important news totally banal and unimportant!
Khodorkovsky’s “hunger strike” was, of course, just as farcical as every other part of the trial: it lasted for two days* and was ended after he received “public assurances that the Supreme Court and the president himself were examining the matter.” Ahh yes, I’m totally sure that these examinations will be thorough, open, and honest!
The continuing Western fascination/obsession with Khodorkovsky is, to put it mildly, sickening. Here is a man who made his fortune in the midst of the most lawless and chaotic period of gangster capitalism the world has ever seen, a decade when even the most basic institutions of the state were essentially indistinguishable from criminal enterprises, and we have The Economist comparing him to Andrei Sakharov. I mean for Christ’s sake, really? How do you take yourself seriously, or even look yourself in the mirror, when you compare a two-bit swindler and thief to a titan of morality who was one of the people most responsible for ending the rancid system of Soviet communism?
I swear that there are days when a large part of me thinks that the Russophobe press (particularly the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page and The Economist’s always-wrong Moscow bureau) is actually packed to the gills with Kremlin double agents: the arguments are so crude, so palpably stupid, and made in such transcendent bad faith that they only seem to make sense when viewed as pro-Russian. The real goal of these articles is not the surface goal of castigating Moscow for the fact that bears crap in the woods, but getting the average reader to think to themselves: “well if this is the best that the anti-Putin lot can come up with then surely the old Russians aren’t so bad after all”.
I’d also like to point out a particularly delicious little bit of elitism from that Economist piece I linked to above (emphasis added):
The legacy of Mr Khodorkovsky’s oligarchic past is still evident in the ambivalent attitude revealed by opinion polls. Few Russians believe that their courts are objective or that the destruction of Yukos has benefited anyone other than a small group of Kremlin cronies. But only a quarter would like to see Mr Khodorkovsky set free. Even so, the respect he now commands among Russia’s intellectual and business elite is a tribute both to the strength of his personal convictions and to the progress he has made since being arrested at gunpoint on a Siberian airport runway seven years ago.
Ambivalent? Three quarters of the country wants him locked up and that’s ambivalent? What in the world, then, would a non-ambivalent response look like? Would you have to get every-single working-class Russian to sign a petition stating that they are in favor of Khodorkovsky’s immediate execution? Would that demonstrate a sufficient degree of certainty? The fact that twenty five percent of the population favors Khodorkovsky’s release isn’t very surprising when you consider that when added together “new Russians” (who obviously would like the state to stay as far away from their money as possible) and “liberals” (who have, as foolishly and shamelessly as usual, adopted Khodorkovsky as their savior) equal roughly 25% of the population.
The poll cited by in the Economist’s own story openly states that the great mass of the Russian public wants to see Khodorkovsky kept in jail. Flail your arms, call the Rusisans beasts, or, if you’re really feeling in the mood, ululate, but don’t be surprised that Putin and Medvedev are listening to 75% of the population (including their political base) instead of the 25% who are either hated for their ostentatious wealth (i.e. the business elite) or in opposition to the government anyway (i.e. the liberals).
It’s not in the least bit surprising that Khodorkovsky is still in jail, what would be truly shocking and bizarre would be if a politician as cold, calculating, and rational as Putin did something that flew in the face of the stated preferences of his political supporters and compromised the hard won image of someone who defends the interests of ordinary Russians. If you persist, like the Economist, in viewing all Russian businessmen as the recipients of fawning adulation and undying love, the decision to jail Khodorkovsky does look rather bizarre. However if you pull your head out of your ass and realize that, if not a majority, huge numbers of Russians were actually better off under communism and that the oligarchs were almost unanimously despised the whole Khodorkovsky farce becomes a question not of abstractions like “freedom” or “liberty” but a grubby political game in which an aspiring politician desperate for street cred and popularity gave a very public beat down to a pompous ass plagued by absurd delusions of grandeur.
Just for kicks, and to mock Russian liberalism’s nearly perfect tone-deafness and its unfortunate tendency to latch onto catastrophically unpopular policies and politicians, I have updated the famous poem “first they came” to properly honor the holy trinity of modern Russia: Gusinsky, Berezovsky, and Khodorkovsky.
“First they came” according to contemporary Russian liberalism:
They came first for the media magnates
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a media magnate
Then they came for the mafiosi
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a mafioso
Then they came for the oil barons
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t an oil baron
Then they came for me
and by that time there was no one left to speak up**
* Shouldn’t there be some agreed-upon minimum for what actually constitutes a hunger strike? If I skip lunch and dinner tomorrow can I get some kind of media recognition?
** Except for 99.999% of society
(Update):
The real question I have is when we are going to see more outraged media stories demanding the release of ponzi schemer and fraudster Allen Stanford:
“When Mr. Stanford surrendered to authorities, he was a healthy 59-year-old man,” Stanford’s Houston-based lawyer, Robert Bennett, wrote in a brief on which Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz consulted.
“Mr. Stanford’s pretrial incarceration has reduced him to a wreck of a man: he has suffered potentially life-impairing illnesses; he has been so savagely beaten that he has lost all feeling in the right side of his face and has lost near-field vision in his right eye,” Bennett said.
Can’t everyone see the parallels??? Get Robert Amsterdam on the case! Call the UN! Demand that the US government respect human rights and the rule of law by releasing Allen Stanford! 
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
That is why I always feel nothing but disgust, whenever I hear anyone speak about the “freedom” of the press.
There are thousands of good, honest and very decent people who suffered terribly because of Russian court system so why is it that all we hear about is this crook Khodorkovsky?
Unless we consider the Western media to be terminally STUPID, there could be only one explanation: that media here is anything but “free”, and like everywhere else its not the worthiness of ones case the size of ones pockets that makes all the difference.
Hello, Mark. I read all of your op/eds, in English or in the Russian (InoSmi) translation.
Just recently I was puzzled to learn about Conrad Black’s present condition. A lot of Russians remember that person from his Russia-bashing articles, but only a few are aware that since 2008 he is writing them from an American prison cell.
Previously I never endorsed the American liberals, despite their often pro-Russian position. I simply did not get what’s good in bashing the American “right” forces if the U.S. is not an enemy.
Now I start to see their point, opening for myself the case of Conrad Black. A British Canadian. The American patriot. A thief.
“If you persist, like the Economist, in viewing all Russian businessmen as the recipients of fawning adulation and undying love, the decision to jail Khodorkovsky does look rather bizarre. However if you pull your head out of your ass and realize that, if not a majority, huge numbers of Russians were actually better off under communism…”
They may know this, or they might not, but either way, they don’t care. What matters is that K was prevented by Putin from selling major pieces of the Soviet energy industry to Western investors at kopeks on the ruble:
““Based on discusions I had with US global investors durng the 1990s, I think I am in a good position to point out why many of them preferred to see major Russian companies pass into just a few corrupt hands. If a few Russian insiders could buy out Russian oil fields and other firms at only 1-2 cents on the dollar, they probably would be willing
to sell their takings to US and other international investors at 2-4 cents.”
Michael Hudson, president of the Institute for the Study of Long-term Economic Trends, writing in “The National Interest” Number 60, Summer 2000, pg 105, on one of the factors driving the USAID/HIID approach to Russian privatization.
By so doing, Putin earned their undying enmity, well-reflected in the Anglosphere media.
I completely agree with this, Mark.
Khodorkovsky is not a dissident. He is a skillful crook, probable murderer, and de facto traitor who made his own bed, and I’m certainly not going to shed any crocodile tears over him having to lie in it.
The western media’s obsession with Khodorkovsky is based on sour grapes that his evil master plan was foiled at the last second by Putin. As Maxwell Smart would say, Khodorkovsky came THIS CLOSE to selling off Russia’s natural resources and thus turning a 1000-year-old civilization into a banana-republic colony of British Petroleum. (Drill, baby, drill.) The western capitalists REALLY REALLY wanted to own Russian oil and gas, so they’re being sore losers about the whole affair. Who wouldn’t be? The real question for historians is this: Why did Putin, who emerged from that corrupt capitalistic oligarchic gangster milieu, suddenly turn on a dime and become Russia’s national hero and savior? It’s a true mystery. I’m not being sarcastic. Somebody really needs to figure this out.
Well, one could examine where the Yukos assets ended up.
In response to another comment. See in context »Relatively speaking, the assets are trivial. The key is the revenue. Taxing away the energy windfall was critical, since Russia built the financial reserves that are getting Russia through the global financial crisis and fund trivial details like a healthcare system. Only by breaking the power of the energy oligarchs could Putin have imposed those taxes.
If Russia has a chance of developing into a decent society, it is because Putin did that.
In response to another comment. See in context »I’m not sure I’d make things quite so simple, there are other issues at play besides sour grapes, but you’re certainly right that trusting “the market” to make Russia stable and prosperous was desperately naive and stupid. I also have a pretty hard time imaging how selling all of the country’s energy assets to BP, as the “liberals” so clearly wanted, would have benefited the country as a whole.
In response to another comment. See in context »If that revenue had not been taxed away, it would have been left in the hands of the oligarchs, who on past evidence would have leveraged it and lost it all in the 2008 crash. And in this case, there would be no Russian financial reserves to bail them out and sustain social spending.
Tens of millions of Russians would now be destitute, and prime energy assets would have been sold off to Western investors for a song.
The way I see it, Putin’s breaking of the energy oligarchs and taxing away the energy windfall allowed a much more benign outcome.
In response to another comment. See in context »The world seems to be divided into three parts: those who admire Khodorkovsky for his outstanding courage, honesty, genius and determination; those who seem to be of the Putin persuasion such as Mark Adomanis, agoodtreaty, and their latter-day fellow-travellers; and the vast majority of the world who of course have no interest in or knowledge of the Khodorkovsky case. The most remarkable thing about this division is that the party of the second part are (with few exceptions) pretty much all united by a fondness for vicious cynicism and/or obscenity. Why is this and what does it signify?
Mostly, I think, it signifies that you are a tool.
I’m cynical about things (and not just Russia, but the world as a whole) because cynicism is richly warrented and because most people are liars, cheats, or whores. I don’t know, or even really care, whether you’re mendacious or just plain stupid, but decribing a two-bit swidler and thief like Khodorkovsky, someone who profited richly as his country collapsed and millions of his fellow citizens died, as someone possessed of “honesty, genius, and determination” is just shameful. Do you really mean to call him those things, or was that some sort of meta-humor that totally escaped me?
There are literally billions of people on the planet more deserving of sympathy than Mikhail Khodorkovsky, and millions of crimes more deserving of moral condemnation than his farcical trial. I think it says quite a bit more about you than it does about me that you’re so obsessed with the man.
In response to another comment. See in context »To Mark Adomanis: Do you not realize that your personal verbal attacks just confirm jeremyputley´s words and disqualify you from any serious discussion?
In response to another comment. See in context »If the “serious discussion” means that I have to talk about a filthy kleptocrat like Khodorkovsky in servile and obsequious terms (“genius” etc. etc.) then I couldn’t be happier that I’m disqualified from it. Honest to God I don’t get it. Back in the day, Khodorkovsky made the “robber barons” look like sunday school teachers: he has to be on the list of the most ruthless business people in history. And after he runs up against someone bigger, badder, and nastier than himself, and gets his ass kicked, and then tries to convince the whole world that he’s a been a meek and misunderstood democrat the entire time, you just fall in line and believe him? Really?
For Christ’s sake people, find something better to do with your time than worry about Mikhail Khodorkovsky! There are millions of people around the world who go to bed hungry every night, or die of malaria, of AIDs, or any one of the horrible diseases that still plague large sections of humanity. Worry about them, not a egomaniacal oil baron who (absurdly) fancies himself some sort of political philosopher.
In response to another comment. See in context »“disqualify Mark from any serious discussion?” From those on the Putin’sRussiaToday TV-show (Mark’s money-for-job-giver) and beyond (TrueSlant, for instance)?! Never!
In response to another comment. See in context »That’s exactly those cynical marks are made for: depicting nowadays Russia rulers as “prisoners of fate” or something like that. The want want want to be better, but they can’t can’t can’t! Circumstances, you know. Another case, all those putinophobes: “liars, cheats, or whores”, “crooks, probable(!?) murderers, and de facto(?!) traitors”.
What about Putin himself, Mark? Is he “a politician as cold, calculating, and rational” as you mentioned? Or maybe he’s “both a thug and a robber” even worse than Khodorkovsky, how we all can see 10 years through? If Khodorkovsky is a thief it’s not a reason for putins to be gangsters. But they are.
1) I’ve never been paid, in any way by anyone, for my appearances on RT. They occaisonally ask me to come on and talk about things and sometimes, when my schedule permits, I do just that. You are free to disagree with things I’ve said, but painting me as a sellout is just really lame and embarrassing on your part. At least have some originality if you’re going to go ad-hominum.
2) Putin, like all politicians, engages in all manners of mendacious, cruel, corrupt, cynical, and self-interested pursuits, and I have never said or insinuated otherwise. Nor have I ever said that Khodorkovsky’s thievery “justifies” Putin’s behavior. I have merely said, and will continue to say, that Putin astutely took advantage of the fact that the overwhelming majority of Russia’s inhabitants were possessed of nothing but limitless hatred and contempt towards the oligarchs, and administered a very public beat down to the highest profile, and least obedient, one.
In response to another comment. See in context »Putley is a regular contributor to La Russophobe. What more can one expect from him?
In response to another comment. See in context »Anatoly, thanks for noticing my past contributions to La Russophobe, the most recent being dated March 27, 2009. What did you think of my piece, actually – did you find that you were able to agree with what I wrote? The fact that it was published by LR doesn’t mean I’m russophobic, actually. For the record I love Russia and the Russian people, especially my wife, and I’m even ready to like you!
In response to another comment. See in context »I didn’t read it, I just remembered you from it. Pretty much the only things I read on LR are her “editorials”, for entertainment of course.
Maybe we can have a good chat on the finer points of existentialist philosophy or at least about what are the better beers, but on Russia our views are separated by a chasm and there is no bridging it.
Frankly, I marvel at how you manage such an obsequious, one-sided ode to robber baron Khodorkovsky (“outstanding courage, honesty, genius and determination”), while holding Putin to be a devil and all those who deny it to be “fellow travelers” (with all its negative connotations). You might think you are some kind of crusader to justice and liberalism, I think you are an extremist.
In response to another comment. See in context »Anatoly, if you have not read any of my submissions to LR’s blog, to which you have drawn this blog’s readers’ attention, you are relying on prejudice, speaking from a position of ignorance and disqualified from commenting on my position and in particular your description of me as an extremist is without justification, as is the reference to a chasm separating our views (since you remain wilfully ignorant of what my views are). The standard of debate on this blog is about as low as it is possible to get.
In response to another comment. See in context »Jeremy, sorry to disappoint you but I was never debating you. Your Khodorkovsky worship suggests it will be about as useful “debating” you, as it would be debating Russia’s putzriots who say, “Heil Putin! Slava Rossiji, bestest country evar! We are building 50 aircraft carriers and are going to rulez the world!” In other words, not at all, and a waste of both our time.
In response to another comment. See in context »How much did Khodorkovsky pay you?
It’s obvious that the case is politically motivated. However, there’s no reason to portray him as an angel. He is undoubtedly guilty of some very real crimes thanks to his activity during the 90s – you could say this of all the Russian billionaires of that period.
In response to another comment. See in context »Richard, nobody paid me.
In response to another comment. See in context »What are the specific crimes of which Khodorkovsky was guilty during the nineties? I am not aware of any – and MBK has been very specific in maintaining that he broke no laws. It’s only too easy to make these non-specific allegations, but your support for his persecutors whose motivations you are no doubt correct in impugning can only impede the course of justice. Your remark is merely irresponsible chat – I invite you to withdraw it.
The oligarchs as a whole were guilty of theft on a massive scale since the assets they “bought” at rigged auctions (usually with money loaned to them by corrupt officials in Yeltsin’s government) rightfully belonged to the Russian people. You don’t have to be a convinced socialist, I consider myself pretty far to the right economically, to believe that literally GIVING AWAY hundreds of billions of dollars worth of assets to random mid-level hacks is a pretty awful, and yes criminal, way to go about building capitalism.
The entire history mass privatization in 1990’s Russia is a deeply shameful and appalling one, perhaps history’s greatest example of organized plunder, and while Khodorkovsky was by no means alone in his guilt, that doesn’t make him any less reprehensible of a figure. I honestly don’t understand how supposedly “liberal” people such as yourself can not only not be embarrassed by your association with thugs and robbers like Khodorkovsky, but actually preen, babble vacuous crap about “morality,” and cast aspersions left and right.
In response to another comment. See in context »Yes, of course the assets rightly belonged to the Russian people, and yes, giving those assets away for tiny consideration was dreadfully wrong, but the guilty people were the politicians not the purchasers. There have been other examples in 20th century history of politicians irresponsibly parting with substantial amounts of their countries’ wealth. Just as an example, in the UK at the time of the collapse of the exchange rate mechanism the government went all-out to support the pound’s value against the speculators, and lost, and George Soros famously made a billion dollars betting against the pound. People do not say that what Soros did was criminal. If there was fault, it was the politicians’. Same story in Russia mutatis mutandis. Khodorkovsky is neither a thug nor a robber. Putin is both. This is a struggle of right against wrong, and the good guy is losing out, you are on the wrong side and so far you don’t seem to get it.
In response to another comment. See in context »What rubbish. I invite you to petition the Catholic Church to have him sainted.
In response to another comment. See in context »Abuse is not an argument and I note that you do not seem able to answer my question.
What are the specific crimes of which Khodorkovsky was guilty during the nineties? Which laws did he break?
You don’t answer because you have absolutely no idea. If you cannot support your irresponsible remark I suggest at least that you do not repeat it.
In response to another comment. See in context »I pity Khodorkovsky, Yukos case is clearly political and charges seem to be made up (and the whole affair is really damaging for Russia’s reputation), but this fallen oligarch is nowhere near the “voice of consciousness” or beacon of democracy, or whatever he’s been made out to be. It’s baffling how people can actually perceive Khodorkovsky this way.
Best way to avoid FDS (Forum Degeneration Syndrome) is to simply ignore idiots like Jeremy rather than attempt to reason with them. The good news is that his views are truly irrelevant. So everybody, please chill out, and let’s get back on topic!
@jeremyputley
“What are the specific crimes of which Khodorkovsky was guilty during the nineties? Which laws did he break?”
Khodorkovsky was sentenced to seven articles of the criminal code. Chief of security of his company was sentenced to 2 proved murder, two assassination attempts, and some other episodes. All materials are freely available, there is no problem to find them.
You read articles of Paul Klebnikov?
@residentofmordor
When you say Khodorkovsky was “sentenced to seven articles of the criminal code” you mean, I suppose, that he was found to have been guilty of offences under those articles, but you cannot be bothered to answer specifically the question I put. If the court was corrupt, was he guilty as charged, or is there room for some doubt?
The allegations against Alexei Pichugin may have been as you have indicated, but the court proceedings were held in secret, is that not so? Why was that? If a man is tried in secret, is the verdict one in which you can believe?
As to the articles of the late Paul Klebnikov why do you make cryptic reference to them? Are they much read in your country?
In response to another comment. See in context »I don’t want to speak for anyone, but I think he was making reference to the articles of Paul Klebnikov because those articles demonstrate quite effectively what reprehensible scumbags the sainted oligarchs (especially Berezovsky but also your beloved Misha) acually were. It’s easy to speak about “genius” and “democracy” in the abstract, but when you look into the nuts and bolts of how those guys operated, anyone with the barest shred of decency will be disgusted and recoil in horror.
In response to another comment. See in context »There are no secrets. All episodes are proved. The main arguments of the defenders in the selective application of law. Gusinsky and Berezovsky, Khodorkovsky and others involved in politics, so it is associated with it. Before his arrest, Khodorkovsky was the wealthiest man in Russia, he studied business in which the turnover is significant on a world capital. In this area there are many foreign ownership. Therefore, it becomes a resonance. Paul Klebnikov, a well-described the climate in which things to do. I mentioned it because he wrote in English.
In response to another comment. See in context »“Before Putin, the Oligarchs lived that principle to the full, to the detriment of tens of millions of Russians, who suffered years of unpaid wages and pensions, as well as slashed govrnment spending on public health measures. Russian death rates rose sharply as a result.” — Don’t confuse so called “the Oligarchs” and their master – the government which Putin was in as well (the Yeltsin’s Chief Comptroller and KGB-FSB Director and the Security Adviser to the President). Having something done?
“Now, I do not doubt that Putin and Medvedev live well(?). However, the money is spread much more widely in today’s Russia than it was ten years ago, when Mr. K had influence(?!). Pensions are paid, wages are paid, and government spending on health care has risen. As a result, yearly deaths have declined, and life expectancy in Russia has risen. When he had influence, Mr. K cared not how, or even whether, Russians lived. Mr. Putin does.” — Mr. K had been the president or the prime minister that time? What are you talking about?
Mr. Putin does – make big businesses in Switzerland? Or merely let someone do, exactly like it used to be done in the 90s? But, yes, “the money is spread much more widely in today’s Russia than it was”. Out from Russia even more much more…
“Don’t confuse so called “the Oligarchs” and their master – the government which Putin was in as well (the Yeltsin’s Chief Comptroller and KGB-FSB Director and the Security Adviser to the President). Having something done?”
Yeltsin wasPresident, and Boris had the habit of firing his whole government on a drunken whim.
Yes, tsander is exposed as a factually-impaired, clueless buffoon.
[...] Mark Adomanis пишет: This is critically important news totally banal and unimportant! Khodorkovsky’s «hunger strike» was, of course, just as farcical as every other part of the trial: it lasted for two days* and was ended after he received [...] … Just as an example, in the UK at the time of the collapse of the exchange rate mechanism the government went all-out to support the pound’s value against the speculators, and lost, and George Soros famously made a billion dollars betting against … [...]
This is just pitiful. Supporting a currency peg is equivalent to (literally!) giving away the basic industrial assets of the state for nothing? What? Do you really think that?
Khodorkovsky is, of course, both a thug and a robber and if you can’t see that you are both desperately naive and deeply stupid.
I did not say that they were equivalent. I was making a comparison. In both cases politicians “gave away” assets over which they had control and had a duty to conserve.
Your description of Khodorkovsky as a thug and a robber without any attempt at justification strikes me as pretty contemptible. Which brings me to my question in my first post: why is it that supporters of what Putin has done and is doing to Russia, like you and your fan club, are united by a liking for vicious cynicism? The answer appears to be that you share Vladimir Vladimrovich’s personal qualities including malicious vindictiveness, aggressive cynicism and no liking for the truth.
Jeremy, can you read Russian?
Here is a set of interesting articles about Khodorkovsky: http://www.compromat.ru/page_22956.htm.
A short summary: besides the number of crimes such as fraud, bribery and tax evasion, Khodorkovsky is also responsible for several assasinations.
For example, hi is linked to murder of building owner that refused to sell it to “Menatep”, Khodorkovsky’s firm. Or rather notorious murder of Nefteyugansk major, a city where primary assets of Yukos are located. The poor bastard had balls to demand that Yukos payed taxes. There much more. But Khodorkovsky was brought down for a tax evasion only basicly. I know, you can say that nothing of that was proven and all that is Putin’s lies. This facts are well-know in russian bussiness circles. But, hey! Al Capone was is similar position. Maybe he isn’t a notorious gangster, but a martyr and dissident.
Khodorkovsky was one of the most successful businessmen in Russia during the most depraved, wild, savage, and completely lawless period of gangster capitalism the world has ever seen. In that system it was (literally) kill or be killed, and Khodorkovsky climed the greasy pole of crony capitalism better than almost anyone else. How the hell do you think he did this, because he lowered his marginal production costs more effectively than the next guy in line? Because his marketing department functioned more effectively? There was NO FUNCTIONING MARKET in 1990’s Russia (particulalry while Khodorkovsky was laying the groundwork to buy Yukos), so as a simple matter of fact his rise HAD to have something behind it besides pure business acument.
In an environment such as the 1990’s it was LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE to succeed as a businessman, or even stay alive, without being a “thug and a robber.” Because the state collapsed, and because the judicial and law-enforcement apparatuses were paralyzed, business disputes, contract disagreements, and any other arguments that in a normal country would be handled in a courtroom were handled with knives, guns, bombs, and large squads of old chekists. That’s just the way things were in the 1990’s and I find it hard to believe that even someone as obtuse as you doesn’t recognize this.
Further, you surely understand that it is impossible to name the specific laws that Khodorkovsky broke because THERE WAS NO AGREED UPON FRAMEWORK OF LAWS. The legal system of the time was a totally chaotic and nonsenical mishmash of, conflicting and contradictory, Soviet and post-Soviet legistlation, with no clear delineation between the responsibilities of the Federal center and those of the regions. Many regions passed, and attempted to enforce, laws which explicitly contravened the constitution, and nothing happened! In such an environment it was literally anyone’s guess as to what the law actually said, and even in the miraculous instance that the law was clear the responsibility for enforcing it was almost certainly not.
So, no, Jeremy I cannot point to the section of the criminal code that Khodorkovsky broke. But, over the period of just a few years and with no relevant experience or expertise, he becamse one of the richest men on the planet. He accomplished this while living in a coutry with no effective government whose GDP was shrinking by 50% and whose citizens were dying like flies. Given the circumstances of his rise to power, I see no other descriptions that can be more appropriate that “thug and robber.”
The description that applies (unless you are deluded by some irrational phobia) is extraordinary business acumen and it was, of course, this attribute which justifies my choice of the word genius. Btw I didn’t say he’s a genius, I said his genius.
I note your acknowledgement that he didn’t break any specific laws. My question, though, was addressed to Richard1990 who has not replied.
“Further, you surely understand that it is impossible to name the specific laws that Khodorkovsky broke because THERE WAS NO AGREED UPON FRAMEWORK OF LAWS.” — Really?! Mark, you must be joking! If you “cannot point to the section of the criminal code that Khodorkovsky broke”, it doesn’t mean a total absence of the criminal code itself. And after all, there was – and still is – something “agreed upon framework of laws”: didi, ut dares. Get broken by Khodorkovsky?
Extraordinary business acumen…you know what Jeremy, just keep doing what you do. As long as there are people as delusional as you supporting the Russian opposition and Khodorkovsky, Putin and Medvedev have ABSOLUTELY nothing to worry about in terms of public opinion switching to the other side.
What a disgusting, servile, cringing, obseqious mentality. You’d have made an excellent peasant before the revolution. “Look at the bounty of the master’s farm! Sure he stole the land, and yes he beats us every day, and yes we go hungry, but look at how the orchard blooms! He must be a genius, that landlord!”
“The standard of debate on this blog is about as low as it is possible to get”
I couldn’t agree more, Jeremy. You have utterly destroyed the level of debate on this blog with your obsequious and delusional defense of the thuggish Mikhail Khodorkovsky.
“I’m cynical about things (and not just Russia, but the world as a whole) because cynicism is richly warranted” — just imagine “thuggish Mikhail Khodorkovsky” talking like this… and find a difference.
There absolutely was not an “agreed upon framework of laws” in 1990’s Russia. Everything was (and to a certain extent still is) negotiable. Everything.
Hi Kovane
I regret that I cannot read Russian, but I can read English and I recently read a book called “Putin’s Oil” by Martin Sixsmith – my review of that book can be read here: http://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/jeremy-putley/rise-and-fall-of-mikhail-khodorkovsky
In my review if you care to read it there is reference to the murder of the mayor of Nefteyugansk, one theory attributing the deed to an FSB agent, although another attributes the deed to the local crime syndicate when the unlucky mayor did not pay money when due – in neither case was Khodorkovsky involved.
There were, as you say, other allegations of assassinations, usually and falsely attributed to Leonid Nevzlin.
But the character in modern Russia who most closely resembles a gangster is, without doubt, V V Putin.
“But the character in modern Russia who most closely resembles a gangster is, without doubt, V V Putin.”
This is of course why in 2009 Russia had her first population growth since 1992. While your idol K had political influence, it was dropping by ~800,000 per year.
Fact is, your idol K, and others like him, manipulated Russian politics, for personal profit, in ways that were deeply destructive to the Russian people. Putin put a stop to that, but your idol K just couldn’t have things any but his own way. He’s precisely where he belongs.
Do you have a thought how to be given UKOS or Nornikel for free? Tell us, Mark!
“This is of course why in 2009 Russia had her first population growth since 1992. While your idol K had political influence, it was dropping by ~800,000 per year.” — Don’t know why? Just because it’s time now for “Gorbachev’s grandchildren” to join us here. Next time we’ll have “Yelzin’s grandchildren” to come – and it’ll certainly be a downfall.
“Fact(?) is, your(?!) idol(?!?) K, and others like him, manipulated Russian politics, for personal profit, in ways that were deeply destructive to the Russian people. Putin put a stop to that” — Sheesh! Putin put himself in place to “manipulate Russian politics, for personal profit”. Don’t have noticed yet?
“Don’t know why? Just because it’s time now for “Gorbachev’s grandchildren” to join us here. Next time we’ll have “Yelzin’s grandchildren” to come – and it’ll certainly be a downfall.”
Um, deaths in Russia have declined, by a couple hundred thousand per year, since Putin took over.
“Putin put himself in place to “manipulate Russian politics, for personal profit”. Don’t have noticed yet?”
One of the most insightful things Adam Smith ever wrote was “All for ourselves and nothing for other people has in every age of man been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.” Before Putin, the Oligarchs lived that principle to the full, to the detriment of tens of millions of Russians, who suffered years of unpaid wages and pensions, as well as slashed govrnment spending on public health measures. Russian death rates rose sharply as a result.
Now, I do not doubt that Putin and Medvedev live well. However, the money is spread much more widely in today’s Russia than it was ten years ago, when Mr. K had influence. Pensions are paid, wages are paid, and government spending on health care has risen. As a result, yearly deaths have declined, and life expectancy in Russia has risen.
When he had influence, Mr. K cared not how, or even whether, Russians lived. Mr. Putin does.
- Дмитрий Анатольевич, благодаря вашим усилиям рождаемость в стране усиленно растет! – обратилась к президенту единоросска. В зале захохотали. Поняв неаккуратность своего высказывания, Марина рассмеялась вместе с присутствующими, а потом попросила президента позаботиться о детсадах, которых в стране катастрофически не хватает.
“Before Putin, the Oligarchs lived that principle to the full, to the detriment of tens of millions of Russians, who suffered years of unpaid wages and pensions, as well as slashed govrnment spending on public health measures. Russian death rates rose sharply as a result.” — Don’t confuse so called “the Oligarchs” and their master – the government which Putin was in as well (the Yeltsin’s Chief Comptroller and KGB-FSB Director and the Security Adviser to the President). Having something done?
“Now, I do not doubt that Putin and Medvedev live well(?). However, the money is spread much more widely in today’s Russia than it was ten years ago, when Mr. K had influence(?!). Pensions are paid, wages are paid, and government spending on health care has risen. As a result, yearly deaths have declined, and life expectancy in Russia has risen. When he had influence, Mr. K cared not how, or even whether, Russians lived. Mr. Putin does.” — Mr. K had been the president or the prime minister that time? What are you talking about?
Mr. Putin does – make big businesses in Switzerland? Or merely let someone do, exactly like it used to be done in the 90s? But, yes, “the money is spread much more widely in today’s Russia than it was”. Out from Russia even more much more…
Sorry for making a double post.
Putin has regained full power after the arrest of Khodorkovsky. You should clarify the definition of the word “oligarch”. Above I mentioned Paul Klebnikov, however I myself read his book just now. It is fully described in the newest history of Russia and particularly Putin’s career. He “сгущает краски” and subjective, but this is the best description of the events from the fact that I saw.
“Mr. K had been the president or the prime minister that time?
Learn to read.
“What are you talking about?”
The way oligarchs like Mr. K used their power, derived from their ill-gotten money, to the grave detriment of Russians.
“But, yes, the money is spread much more widely in today’s Russia than it was. Out from Russia even more much more”
The fact that ordinary Russians can now afford foreign vacations, to such an extent that restauarant menus from Stockholm to Istanbul are printed in Russian, is a Good Thing, and strong evidence that ordinary Russians now benefit from Russia’s wealth, unlike the time Mr. K and his ilk had influence.
“The fact that ordinary Russians can now afford foreign vacations…” *** Ordinary Russians can now afford foreign vacations?! Bad joke? A mockery?
google agrees with tsandr:)
In 2007 34 million were overseas.
http://www.russiatourism.ru/rubriki/-1124140466/
and some else
http://www.euromonitor.com/factfile.aspx?country=RU
misprint
“google agrees with rkka”
It does, and notice that the truth about the present distribution of income in Russia is simply beyond tsandr’s comprehension. He simply cannot get his mind around the fact that about a quarter of Russia’s total population had the disposable income to take a foreign vacation in 2007. And returned! What kind of repressive police state lets a quarter of the population out for a vacation, and they come back without FSB agents having to point guns at their heads?? It indicates that he cares so little for Russians that he does not bother to find out the simplest facts about them.
And “Russian liberals” and their Western supporters wonder why they have trivial political support among actual Russians. Keep doing what you’re doing, bozos, and Dima and Vlad can rest easy in the Kremlin.
“It does, and notice that the truth about the present distribution of income in Russia is simply beyond tsandr’s comprehension. He simply cannot get his mind around the fact that about a quarter of Russia’s total population had the disposable income to take a foreign vacation in 2007.” *** Oh God! What are you talking about?! There’s no “about a quarter of Russia’s total population had the disposable income to take a foreign vacation”, and you know it perfectly well. It’s laughable after all! Someone goes abroad every week, someone – never. “Cannot get your mind around”?
So, you can see: 10 mn tourists “had the disposable income to take a foreign vacation”.
10 from 140 of all Russians. 20 mn were NOT tourists’ trips. High to your Putin!