Way to Russia Talk Lounge

vettra

Was there a justification for Khodorkovsky's arrest? From what I've read/heard, his arrest was arbitrary and had no legal basis. If so, one can infer that Putin is headed towards Stalinism: absolute control. A money grab. Khodorkovsky apparently wasn't the stereotypical mafia thug type, so the gov't had little to fear by way of reprisals. But didn't Putin used to be chasing auto-theft rings? Seems like he had a somewhat honorable background. All the equitable tax reform, overhauling the educational system, better police system - down the toilet with this mafia-like manuever.
Was Putin the person driving the arrest? Or is the picture painted to make like it was Putin's idea? Perhaps there are oligarchs Putin is battling, unseen to the public. Apparently all of Khodorkovsky's wealth was confiscated. One would expect a certain penalty proportional to a well-defined crime - neither appears to exist in this case. Of course, Khodorkovsky was no angelic businessman, having blatantly ripped off a big oil firm like Mobil or BP for 100's of millions. But we would have hoped such an arrest would have happened to some thug-like local oblast boss, not a relatively mild-mannered self-made billionaire.
The case sets huge precedent: anyone in Russia can be targeted; any crime can be charged (or not!); any punishment can be arbitrarily meted out. The implication is, there is no legal system in Russia.
How do Russians view this? a) indifferent; b) supporting Putin; c) mixed feelings; c) hearts with Khodorkovsky; d) outrage; e) fear?
Sorry I have little facts, but this seems to be a landmark in the Russian legal system that can have very long-term consequences. Just when people thought Russia was becoming more tame and structured, the ugly 90's appears to be alive and well. Anyone have expertise on this topic?

init6 · Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 8:59 am Post subject:

There's another thread about this already. But Khodorkovsky was hardly squeaky clean, he was a gangster to begin with and used crooked banks and offshore companies to buy what he did. I'm not saying he didn't turn Yukos around and become legitimate, nor am I saying there are no political implications to his arrest and sentencing, but he's not just some "poor oligarch, a good capitalist who had good business acumen."

e · VIP Joined: 23 Apr 2005 Posts: 654

There are actually 3 threads about this subject in this particular section alone. Might I suggest you contribute to those ones instead and have a mod close and/or delete this thread.

Camrade · Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 10:14 am Post subject:

2vettra

If you want to keep the power in Russia you have to take under control political situation around you... so Putin didn't return to stalinism and so on, moreover, Khodorkovsky was really guilty as many other oligarchs so the prosecution was 'quite' fair Smile

And the words about stalinism sound really stupid.

Vic · Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 4:53 pm Post subject:

mediashark · Moderator Joined: 04 Nov 2004 Posts: 1601

It's no fun having oligarchs at the top. Anyone who's lived in Moscow can tell you.

vettra · Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 6:53 pm Post subject:

Camrade · Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 7:08 pm Post subject:

vettra, it's very easy to judge about Russia from the U.S...
so I'd better stay out of this discussion

Mogsfan · WayToRussified Joined: 03 Nov 2004 Posts: 490

My post was deleted? Laughing

Okay...

e · VIP Joined: 23 Apr 2005 Posts: 654

Camrade · Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 10:46 pm Post subject:

2Mogsfan

as for me, I haven't deleted anything Smile

MrSpice · Lounge Wizard Joined: 14 Jul 2003 Posts: 3436

I don't think it's return to Stalinism, but it's return to something similar, albeit less sinister. During Stalin's times millions of people were killed or jailed without any reason. There was no freedom of speech whatsoever - no free newspapers, no free radio or TV. People could disappear in the night and no one knew where.

So, comparing 9-yr sentence for one person to Stalinism would be overkill. However, that was not a real trial. There are many oligarghs who have close ties to Putin and the ruling coalition who contiunue making monery and taking part in large business projects - from "Gasprom" to "Sibneft" to many other highly profitable business ventures. Khodorkovsky was clearly hand-picked to be jailed and his company nationalized because he stepped on the Ruller's toes. The free TV is non-existent in Russia today - all channels are controlled by the state one way or the other. The trial which led to Khodorkovsky being jailed was not trial by the jury. It was a group of judges that decided his fate. And even before trial had began, virtually everyone knew that he would be found guilty whether there would be enough evidence to convict him or not. This is certainly not a democracy. This was not a fair trial. There has been a serious rollback of many democratic institutions in Russia in the last 2 years. Khodorkovsky's company Yukos was nationalized in one day in a strange transaction that reminded many people of soviet times (some small unknown firm bought one of the largest companies in the world and then transferred its control to the government). I am surprised to see people like Vic screaming about American propaganda. I think he should open his eyes (and mind) and realize that Khodorkovsky's trial happened not because that businessman broke laws. In fact, some of the alligations are simply silly. He went top jail because he became too powerful for the ruling oligarhs who are making the same kind of money Khodorkovsky was making.

mediashark · Moderator Joined: 04 Nov 2004 Posts: 1601

vorteks · Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 5:06 pm Post subject:

I wont comment about redundancy, but if you check above the adds you ll find a menu with a search option

Vic · Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 12:33 pm Post subject:

MrSpice - ALL TV controlled by the government? Most local channels are privately owned and so is REN-TV (which is semi-national)
The thing you americans have to understand is:
NATIONAL TV is unprofitable in the RF. You have to transmit to remote, sparsely populated areas if the population is above 40,000 I think - it is the state policy. ALL NATIONAL CHANNELS ARE SUBSIDIESED because they do not come close to breaking even on the advertisements to cover the costs.
Now tell me - are you really suggesting that some oligarh get money out of the STATE BUDGET - tax money - to pay for some bullshit propaganda? Cmon, I do not believe that anyone is stupid enough to think that.

Khodorkovsky got a light sentance - he should have gotten over 15 for sure. That is what they do in your U.S., right? I do believe that the CEO of Enron is getting something along the lines of 60 years? But of course that is as much of a show as Khodorkovsky is - there are plenty of corrupt american companies that are 'overlooked', like for example your vice-president's? So please - think before you post?
Vic
P.S. Saying that Putin is "better than a drunk (yeltsin)" and comments like that really do point to them. Putin, unlike many other polititians, makes good on most of his promises. Can you say the same for Bush or Kerry?