«Oil of Russia», 28.07.16, Moscow, 00:34 The arrests of the security forces against the background of the preparation of the largest privatization transactions – an indication that the system of checks and balances in Russian politics began to move. In 1997, similar events have become one of the prerequisites for large-scale financial crisis
Igor Sechin, is often compared to Mikhail Khodorkovsky. By lobbying assertiveness President of “Rosneft” in no way inferior equidistant he himself oligarch. Fortunately Khodorkovsky, even at the best of times for him, there was no such administrative resource, which is available at Sechin.
But the main Russian state capitalists are not limited to only one repetition of facial features of the “dashing 90′s.” New faces hardline Sechin talent revealed, thanks to the “privatization 2.0.” A more precise – in the persistence with which “Rosneft” is trying to get out of the flags set for the participants once the sale of state assets, and the fight is still over control of “Bashneft”. Despite the ban to take part in the privatization of state companies.
About the same in 1997, Vladimir Potanin admitted that, contrary to initial agreements with Boris Berezovsky and Vladimir Gusinsky, was involved in the battle for a blocking “Svyazinvest”. However, Potanin’s move violated the oligarchic “concepts”, but in fact turned out to be on hand the state -. The emergence of a new contender increased chances to gain more money for telecom asset
Today, the fiscal and institutional benefit from buying “Rosneft” ” Bashneft “is not so obvious. Therefore, by the way, the ban state-owned companies to participate in the new privatization looks much more logical than “non-aggression pacts”, concludes the oligarchs a little less than 20 years ago. If state-owned companies have “extra” money – it’s better to swell the coffers, increasing the size of dividends. And do not interfere with the private players to support the budget, but for one thing – to minimize conflicts of interest, koi inevitably arise when the State acts as both owner and regulator. However, rather than play the role of a kind of inoculation, “privatization 2.0″ in fact in danger of becoming a victim of the very state capitalism “split personality.” And it’s not the biggest cost, given the passions flare up around the “Bashneft».
Just look at the change in rhetoric, Dmitry Peskov. “The understanding is that the public companies can not directly take part, there really is and really in this regard was to discuss, and this understanding has been recorded in the government and in the administration,” – so Friday the presidential press secretary said information indication of Vladimir Putin not to allow “Rosneft” to the privatization of “Bashneft”. And on Tuesday, the Sands was much more reserved in the estimates: “From a formal point of view, [" Rosneft "] is not a state-owned company, it is possible to say for sure. But, of course, there are different points of view on this matter »
Earlier the same pluralism has demonstrated the first Deputy Prime Minister Igor Shuvalov.” Do Well, when the state company buys private? In general, bad. But if you look, how it should be take the company and how it will position itself to other players for the oil market and a place in this global oil market – we need to talk like that. We can not just talk schematically: just state, and there is nothing to climb, and if private, is very good. We should be studied all the circumstances. ” Ironically, by the time these statements Shuvalov, first deputy prime minister was the “hero” of another loud “apartment” scandal initiated by Alexey Navalny. – Head of the Fund’s fight against corruption has found that under Shuvalov released an impressive living space in one of the “Stalin skyscrapers”. A week later, the same with the filing of Navalny, network public learned what amounts Olga Shuvalov family spends on transportation collection dogs.
Of course, it would be too hasty to link antishuvalovskie investigation Navalny exclusively with battles around “Bashneft” and the role that first Deputy Prime Minister in these plays, being the curator of the current government privatization. But rarely whistleblowers predict how its word resound. As if in the end the dog and apartments Shuvalov did not play the same role in the fall of 1997 played thousands of fees received by Anatoly Chubais and his associates for not yet written the book “The history of Russian privatization».
Moreover, that this “case writers” untwisted media Gusinsky and Berezovsky, disgruntled chubaysovtsev for the fiasco with the “Svyazinvest».
today, the Internet allows you to quickly and without too much financial trouble to achieve such results, which did not dream of any one the most effective and generous oligarchic media holding 20-year-old. However, the pace of development of state institutions is much more modest. “Vertical of power” has replaced the “seven bankers” and oligarchic war were in the distant past Yeltsin. But this does not mean that now the redistribution of state property can not be a system for regular and very serious test of strength. If only because it (the system) stability largely depends on players such as Sechin, whose influence as a result of full privatization should just come loose.
In other words, the choice is not rich and disappointing. The first option involves the rejection of “sketchy” (in terms of Shuvalov) approaches and allow “Rosneft” to implement its long-standing plans against “Bashneft”. Its advantages – the promotion of hardline Sechin state companies up in global oil ranking, increasing its own capital and, as a consequence, increase government revenues by as planned sale of 19% of “Rosneft”. Cons – the further monopolization of the national fuel market with a highly probable increase in domestic prices of petroleum products, the futility of any attempt to increase taxes for the “oil industry” (as the slogan ‘what is good for “Rosneft” – good for Russia “will become an axiom) and, ultimately, expansion of the practice of patching budget holes by people
The second option -. a steady adherence to the letter and spirit of the rules “privatization 2.0″ – less economically burdensome. Benefit claimants to “Bashneft” and in addition to the lack of “Rosneft”. But does it actually mean – adjusted for all “but”, defined Putin’s state capitalist model – the repetition of conflicts with “Svyazinvest”. When the state’s interests intersect with the interests of the largest and backbone of this state interest groups. A conflict erupted so split the ruling elite that it has been unable to respond adequately to the new challenges, and as a result 1998 turned a full-scale economic and political disaster for the country. It is not obvious that Sechin follow the example of Gusinsky and Berezovsky, and enter into an open confrontation with his opponents – government and, more importantly, the Kremlin. But in today’s Russia, with its solidly’s hidden under carpets hardware life is only two or three surgical strikes “to those who are in the tank,” grasped the message of and realized that “started».
In this regard, it is curious “self-cleaning” security forces that passes by means of the FSB on the background of the preparation of major privatization deals. Most likely, a direct connection between these events there. But the fact that even such agencies as the Investigative Committee and the Federal Customs Service, have ceased to be untouchable, despite the proximity of their leaders to the head of state, says a lot. The system was set in motion. The contradictions between its various elements are exacerbated, not allowing to find a compromise or do a little blood.
And now a prerequisite for such a “shocking foundations” just might be the “privatization 2.0.” After all, the interdependence of national state capitalism and the power of the oligarchy is difficult to deny
Alexander Birman Learn more at http:. //www.oilru. com / news / 525978 /
Source: Forbes.ru
No comments:
Post a Comment