DEGREES OF COMPARISON OF ADJECTIVES In English, as in Russian, ...
Here's what's interesting: practically no one argues with the fact that officials steal.
And with the fact that they steal a lot - in general, too. And how can you argue here, if almost everything is in plain sight? Expensive cars and country cottages of “servants of the people” against the backdrop of chronically broken roads, dilapidated and dilapidated housing in a pile of garbage dumps, regular accidents with fatal mass outcomes without punishment of the guilty, dissolute minor acne of the bourgeois elite, including personal friends of the president, and other problems , speak for themselves.
And the billions found in the possession of the governor of the Sakhalin Region, Khoroshavin, scattered throughout the house, right in the boxes - all confirm this. And not only Khoroshavin was caught on the outrageous theft. Yurchenko was suspended, Belykh was detained with a suitcase of cash. Zakharchenko's apartment, littered with banknotes. The Vasilyeva-Serdyukov case, again. Many other cases also confirm that officials are stealing and stealing colossal sums of people's budget money.
Even if we sum up only the cases brought to court with proven facts of theft, we will get tens and hundreds of billions of rubles stolen from the budget. This is the proven part. But there is also something unproven. According to the same Vasilyeva. According to the same Serdyukov. And how many of those who were not brought to trial at all, were not removed from their cases, and who still steal?
It is clear that the list of corrupt officials does not end with Khoroshavin, Vasilyeva and other detainees, but barely begins. And the total amount of theft is much more proven in the courts.
Some are still trying to stand up for the purity of the public procurement system or for the reasonableness of the cost of the Sochi Olympiad, but these are individual guardians. Their zeal can be attributed either to party discipline, or to simple dementia, when a person argues according to the principle “I liked it, then everything is fine.”
But in general, almost everyone agrees that theft is of a large-scale and systematic nature, that it has spread throughout the entire “vertical”. I will say more, their example infected a huge mass of people with kliptomania, primarily officials in power, who, seeing the impunity of this crime, involuntarily also wanted to live beautifully. Because it cannot be that Khoroshavin has been stealing billions for many years, and everyone around was clean. That doesn't happen. Unbeknownst to the rest, you can steal once or twice, you can quietly drain fuel from a state-owned car, squander travel allowances and forge a report. But it is impossible to steal billions for many years unnoticed, for this you need accomplices, many, in different departments, which will also have their accomplices ...
And since most of the theft is carried out within the framework of federal legislation, which is the same for all regions, it is very naive to think that Khoroshavin found ways to steal, while others did not find or did not want to use them. In all regions, officials have found ways to steal. It's just that not everyone has become as insolent as Khoroshavin. And not everyone was decided to be removed, because the vertical will collapse if everyone is removed in a row. And everyone understands this. Or almost everything.
But here's the phenomenon - with all the understanding of the above, half of the country continues to think that Putin is good, that he fights thieves, protects Russia, and so on and so forth. The king is good, the boyars are bad? Sometimes they say so directly - Putin is fighting the liberal environment, corrupt officials, crooks and thieves ...
Sometimes even in reports on corruption (for example, in Moment of Truth), after a frank gesture about large-scale theft is shown on the screen, the presenter makes a phenomenal conclusion like “But Putin is good, because ...” And why is he good? Because he created the ONF and regularly says the right words about the fight against corruption? So it's just words. These words are specifically said so that everyone thinks that Putin is fighting corruption at a time when he simply sits and watches what is happening. Looks after the law to steal.
Putin's speeches are just words for everything good against everything bad. Exactly the same words as about the need to stop the shelling of Donbass and implement the Minsk agreements. Words that do not change anything and do not make it easier for anyone. These words are “halva”, the repetition of which does not make anyone sweeter.
And if you look at it, then in fact this is the phrase “stop the thief”, which the thief himself says, so that no one thinks of him, and everyone catches others.
With words about the fight against corruption, Putin simply diverts suspicion from himself and removes responsibility. Like he knows everything, he is aware, he is against corruption. Yes, he does not really mind - he is part of it.
He is part of United Russia, about the creation of which he himself spoke, recently speaking at the congress. And he even said that he created this party at the beginning of the 2000s, although this is not true. But the main thing is that Putin has publicly recognized himself as part of United Russia.
And for several years he was the chairman of this party, although he was not a member. And most of the governors, heads of departments, Putin appointed from among United Russia. He surrounded himself with United Russia and liberals, crooks and thieves, with whom he allegedly fights. What does this mean?
If the commander-in-chief surrounds himself with an enemy, then he either surrenders, or this is not an enemy for him at all.
But if Putin wanted to give up, he probably wouldn't come back after the castling with Medvedev. And he returned.
So United Russia, liberals, crooks and thieves for Putin are not enemies, not strangers, but their own. And he is for them. It is no coincidence that Putin is so actively supported by all members of United Russia. Agree that crooks and thieves would not support the president who is actually fighting them. They support each other - Putin's United Russia, and Putin - United Russia. Support from the first day and until now, support publicly and essentially.
Putin calls the actions of the government correct, and the decisions of the Central Bank are correct, United Russia obediently votes for the laws that are written in the presidential administration (for example, the law on the National Guard). With Medvedev, Putin generally has complete mutual understanding, friendship and cooperation. Actually, Putin himself promoted it.
There is no Putin's fight against corruption. There is a struggle with individual representatives who have become insolent, stole and began to spoil the furrow. And there is also the sacrificing of individual corrupt officials to the public in order to calm the people, and the rest could safely steal further.
It's like a leader who sometimes kills weak, sick or disobedient wolves from the pack, and the rams rejoice and think that he represents their interests.
No, he simply strengthens his power in the pack, and maintains his authority among the rams, which allows him to keep the grouping of the herd without resorting to forceful methods.
However, it is not entirely correct to compare Putin and United Russia with wolves. Lots of honor. It's not wolves - it's shit.
Our so-called elite, post-Soviet and already even post-Teltsin, who jumped into Western liberal shoes and formed the United Russia party - this is real shit.
And all this shit came out of the same asshole that it turned into (or was turned into, here's how to look) late USSR. And since all this shit came out of one asshole and formed an even, decorated heap called United Russia, then where could a cherry appear at the very top of this heap? Where a dung beetle could appear on a pile of shit - I can understand. Where a fly can come from - I can understand. Where can a cherry stone come from - and I can understand it. And where a cherry, a rose or a bee can appear on a pile of shit - I can’t understand. This does not happen - it is unnatural, contrary to the laws of nature.
An attempt to prove that everyone steals and that Putin is good is actually a manifestation of the fear of losing faith in the good tsar. This is the subconscious fear of sheep to look at a leader without a mask and see a wolf. This is the fear of parting with the hope that everything will work out by itself, a kind and wise tsar will defeat the bad and thieving boyars and life will become beautiful. By her own. And for this you do not have to get up from the warm couch.
Those who believe in good Putin, they are simply afraid to face the truth, they are afraid of reality, they are afraid to see ahead, instead of Putin's great victory, his miserable and insignificant end, the deplorable outcome of his reign for Russia.
And the whole cunning plan is the same attempt to escape from reality, a passionate desire to believe that everything will work out by itself, and Russia will become great on its own, at the behest of the pike and the king’s will, and for this you don’t need to move, it’s enough to stay on couch, stick in Kiselev's box, believe in the cunning plan of his good leader Putin, listen to Svanidze's tales, and everything will be fine. No, it will not. Nothing will happen by itself.
And Russia will not become great by itself, because 86% are sitting on the couch, believing in a good Putin and his cunning plan, sticking into the minds of Kiselev, Solovyov, Svanidze and others.
Russia will become great, but the path to this will lie, as in the past - through mud and blood, through cleaning the Augean stables into which the government has turned, through raking the shit that the Russian elite represents together with United Russia, Putin and his entourage, through raking the manure they leave behind. And sitting on the couch is not going to work.
Moreover, the longer you sit and believe in a good Putin and a cunning plan, the stronger your bummer will be when Putin runs away or simply surrenders like Yeltsin, after which it suddenly turns out that there was no cunning plan, no fight against corruption was, there was no protection for Russia, but there was only a lie, a translation of arrows, nonsense for all the good against all the bad, and the consistent sale of Russia to internal enemies, which are much more dangerous than external ones.
But we will not change Putin - this is not in our power and it is not our business at all. Sooner or later it will be replaced without us. Perhaps he will even run away himself, although personally I am in Putin's ability to independent decisions I do not believe. But not the point.
I am not calling on anyone to change Putin. I just want you to let go of your illusions about his "goodness". Just so that you do not fall into a deep and protracted prostration when you see that the king, figuratively speaking, was naked all this time.
Because when THIS happens - it will not be possible to sit and lament about how bad everything is, how we were deceived, how we believed him, and how he really turned out - there will be no time for this. It will be necessary to roll up your sleeves to rake the shit piled up by Putin and United Russia ...
Well, finally, the long-awaited weakening of the ruble happened. Russian officials have publicly begged him for several months, like natives in the African desert - rain in the dry season. But the state itself is doing everything possible so that the weak ruble does not help anyone. Apparently, except for themselves.
June 21, the ruble, as some wrote Russian media, struck two psychological marks at once. Which, however, can be safely called "psychiatric" - for those who are forced to fix themselves on fluctuations in the exchange rate of the Russian currency, who seem to have calmed down more than a year ago.
“This has never happened before, and here again ». In general, the dollar for the first time in for a long time cost at the moment more than 60 rubles, and the euro - more than 67.
So, our officials competed in public statements about how good it is for the ruble to finally start to weaken, that it is overstrengthened by 10% (it was said at a rate of around 57-58 rubles per dollar), that a strong ruble slows down economic growth. The weakening of the ruble was conceived by the government as a way to significantly reduce the budget deficit and help exporting enterprises. And now, it seems, their secret and explicit desires began to come true.
It is clear that with a weaker ruble, even low inflation does not save the population from falling real incomes (by the way, according to the latest macroeconomic statistics, everything grew in May, except for our incomes). Maybe at least the budget will feel better from the fall of the ruble?
On June 21, in the State Duma, Tatyana Golikova, chairman of the Accounts Chamber, one of the best budget specialists in Russia, dispelled these naive hopes of ours. Neither the fall in oil and gas revenues, nor the long recession in the economy (last year there was no growth in our economy yet) could not only stop, but even slow down the outflow of money from the Russian budget at the federal and regional levels. According to the report of the Accounts Chamber, which was presented to the deputies by Golikova, in 2016 the treasury suffered a heavy and irreparable loss - 966 billion rubles. Nearly a trillion! From budgets of all levels different ways disappeared by 1.9 times more money than in 2015. That's where the real growth rates! Neither stagnation nor recession is known to the embezzlement of budget money. In the light of the report of the Accounts Chamber, the catchphrase of the prime minister to the Crimean pensioners (that is, state employees): “There is no money, you hold on” is filled with new meaning. It immediately becomes clear, thanks to whom, in fact, this money is not there.
Is it a lot or a little - 966 billion rubles that did not reach the goal from the budgets of all levels? Judge for yourself: this is 13 times more than all of Russia's annual government spending on housing and communal services and almost twice as much on healthcare. The budget deficit of the Russian Federation for 2016, according to official data, amounted to 2.97 trillion rubles. So without the theft of a trillion, it would be less than a third.
How this “little thing” comes up can be roughly understood from a recent publication by Kommersant, according to which the Moscow Department of the Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS), after a request from State Duma deputy from the Communist Party Valery Rashkin, revealed violations in the purchase of tiles worth more than 4 billion rubles as part of a program to improvement of Moscow "My street". “The capital's OFAS did not draw conclusions about the quality of the tiles, but revealed violations of the procedure for conducting competitive procedures for 4 billion 98 million rubles. The OFAS commission reviewed purchases for the improvement of Tverskaya Street, carried out under the 2015 competition, as well as purchases related to the laying of granite paving slabs and curbs as part of the My Street program in Moscow in 2017.
And if the OFAS also looked at the quality of the tiles - well, for the sake of interest, the mechanism of violations would become more understandable. It is imperative to do it expensively and poorly, so that later it can be done expensively and poorly - that's the whole simple business scheme (far from the only one) of free circulation of budgetary funds. The estimate is overestimated, part of the money ends up in the pockets of those involved. And then money is urgently needed to remake and finish the deed. And they are spent about the same as last time. (At this point, you can put off reading the text and google, for example, the history of the construction of the Krestovsky stadium, aka the St. Petersburg Arena in the city on the Neva.)
This is also why, with all the talk of officials about the resumption of growth in investment in Russia, as soon as oil began to rise in price at the beginning of the year, the outflow of capital immediately jumped (the reduction of which our officials were publicly proud of all last year). In January-April 2017, 21 billion dollars flowed from Russia against 9.8 billion in the same period last year.
What is the "moral of this fable"? Any economic reforms and government strategies are probably doomed if in Russia each year a trillion rubles is lost from the budgets of all levels. And finally, perhaps, it is worth saying that the entire expenditure part of the federal budget - 2016 amounted to about 16 trillion rubles ...
PRHVMYLPCHBOP 10.10.2016 BCFPTPN zTYZPTYK rPMHLFCH
h UFTBOE LTYYYU OILPNKh PVYASUOSFSH OE OBDP. oBTPD OYEBEF, YUYOPCHOYLY, DERHFBFSCH, PMYZBTIY OE OBAF LHDB DECHBFSH IBMSCHOSCHE NYMMYPOSHCH. LFP OE UZMBUEO U FBLIN ЪBSCHMEOYEN RPYUYFBKFE UVBFSHA h.DELFETYCHB "ZDE DEOSHZY, DYN?" CH ZBEFE "rTBChDB" No. 107 LFPZP ZPDB. ZMBCHOSCHK VPTEG U LPTTHRGYEK - NYOYUFT CHOKHFTEOOYI DEM, YUEMPCHEL BLTSCHFSHCHK DMS OBTPDB. EZP OEF OYZDE. th NPF ON GENERAL BEF OBYVPMEE LPTTTHNRITCHBOOSCHE UZHETCH DEFEMSHOPUFY H ZPUHDBTUFCHE. FP ZPUBLKHRLY, UFTPIFEMSHUFCHP, DDTBCHPPITBOOEOYE Y LHMSHFKhTB. LFP EZP RTPUYM PVP-OBYUYFSH ZMBCHOSHI LPTTHRGIPOETCH? According to RPRBM Ch NPMPLP. fBL PGEOYCHBAF RPMYGEKULPZP EUMY PO OE HNEEF UFTEMSFSH. b ZDE RPMYGYS, ZDE ZMBCHOSCHE VPTGSC U LPTTHRGYEK, LPFPTSHCHE CHPSF H UCHPYI BCHFPNPVYMSI NYMMMYBTDSCH? b ZDE UMEDUFCHEOOOSCHK LPNYFEF, UPFTKHDOILY LPFPTPZP PZTBVYMY 166 FSHCHUSYU UPVUFCHEOOILPCH. pV FFPN ЪBSCHYM ABOUT UPCHEEBOY RTEYIDEOF. ON OBCHBM GYZHTH CH RTPGEOFBI. LFP - FP YOYI UEM YMYY VSCHM HCHPMEO? oBPVPTPF RPMYFYLB ZPUHDBTUFCHB OBRTBCHMEOB ABOUT UPITBOEOYE CHPTCHULPK MYFSCH. 360 OBYM st. b NPTSEF CHETOHM NYMMMYBTDSCH, HLTBDEOOOSCHE VSCCHYN NYOYUFTPN ZHJOBOUPC nPULPCHULPK PVMBUFY? CHPTHAF DBCE CH LPUNYUEULPK PFTBUMY. th HERE ffp chptshy? RETEUBCEOP ABOUT TBCHOPOBYUOSCHE DPMTSOPUFY.
b ULPMSHLP UMHYUBECH UPLTSCHFIS CHPTCHUFCHB VPMSHYNY YUYOPCHOYLBNY. p CHPTCHUFCHE H LPUNYUUEULPK PFTBUMY OBMY u.yCHBOPC Y t.ohtzbmyech. u.yChBOPC UBN PV LFPN TBUULBBM, LPZDB uYUЈFOBS RBMBFB HUFBOPCHYMB ZhBLF CHPTCHUFCHB. NOE RPLBMBMPUSH, UFP PO RPICBUFBMUS FBLIN BOBOYEN. tboshye b UPLTSCHFIE H hZPMPPCHOPN lPDELUE VSCHMB UFBFShS. rTEJIDEOF OBM, UFP YUYOPCHOYLY VHDHF RPLTSCHCHBFSH LPTTHRGYPOETCH, OE CHUI LPOEYUOP, RTEDMPTSYM DHNE HVTBFSH LFH UFBFSHA Y SING U TBDPUFSHA HVTBMY. u.yChBOPCH Y t.ohtzbmyech UFBMY ZETPSNY. pDIO RETECHEDIO RPD LTSCHMP RTEEYDEOFB, DTHZPK CH upChEF VEEPRPBUOPUFY UP MSHZPFBNY NYOYUFTTB. FERETSH RETCHSHCHK THLPCHPDYF LLPMPZYUEULYNY RTPELFBNY. OE TSJOSH, B NBMYOB. y FBLYI RTYNETCH UPFOY EUMY OE FSHCHUSYUY. ZTPNPCH TBCHE OE OBM, UFP EZP NYOYUFT CHPTHEF? OBM Y DPMTSEO VSCHM RPOEUFY OBLBBOYE. y RPOJU, PLBCHYUSH CH UPCHEFE ZHEDETBGYY.
lPMPLPMSHGECH CH UCHPЈN CHYDEOYY LPTTHRGYY PYYVUS ABOUT 100%. CHPF RPFPNKH LPTTHRGYS TBUFЈF Y RTPGCHEFBEF. d.bIBTYUEOLP H nchd PYO FBLPC? WHERE DEMP RTPLHTTPCH nPULPCHULPC PVMBUFY? CHPTCHUFCHP VADCEFOSHCHI UTEDUFCH VSHMP RTY UFTPIFEMSHUFCHE pMYNRYBDSC Y PV EFPN PDOBTDSCH CHSHCHULBMUS RTEYIDEOF OILFP OE UFBM IBCHPDYFSH DEM RP CHPTCHUFCHH RTY UFTPIFEMSHUFCHE OBVYAELFCH. RPYENH OE RTPCHETSAF, BEUMY RTPCHETSAF FP OE DPLMBDSCHCHBA OBTPDH P FEI YUYOPCHOYLBI, LPFPTSCHEOE RPDBAF DELMBTBGYY. u.yCHBOPC FBL Y ULBBM, LPZDB VSCHM THLPCHPDYFEMEN BDNYOYUFTBGYY RTEIDEOFB. ChPF LFP Y EUFSH YЪVYTBFEMSHOPE FPMLPCHBOYE BLPOCH. rTEJIDEOF, EZP LPOFTPMSHOBS UMHTsVB NPMYUBF. yuYOPCHOYL YUYOPCHOYLH ZMB OE CHSHCHLPMEF. chuЈ ffp y rptptsdbef lpttkhrgya.
rTPYMY CHSCHVPTSCH, NOPZYE PF OBTPDB CHPЪMBZBMY VPMSHYE OBDETSDSCH ABOUT PVOPCHMIOOSHCHK UPUFBCH DKhNSCH. and OBDETSDSCH PRTBCHDSCHCHBAFUS. OH PDOPZP "OYEEZP" CH DKHNKh OE RPRBMP. NYMMYPOETCH Y NYMMYBTDETSCH RTYYMY EBNEOYCH FBLYI CE. BYuEN RTYYMY CH BLPOPDBFEMSHOSHCHK PTZBO VPZBFSHCHE? uFPVShch 5 MEF YURPMSHЪPCHBFSH DMS HDCHPEOYS LBRYFBMB. dTHZPK RPFTEVOPUFY H OII OEF, B ZMBCHOPE OE NPCEF VSHCHFSh. dBCHBKFE RPDHNBEN, LBL Yuempchel Ch FEYEOOYE OEULPMSHLYI MEF ULPMPFIYM NYMMYBTDSCH. sing at OEVB OE RBDBAF. UPVUFCHEOOIL RMBFIM OIEEOULHA BTRMMBFKH TBVPYUYN, ChPNPTsOP HFBYCHBM OBMPZY. b CHUA RTYVSCHMSH LMBM CH LBTNBO. zPUHDBTUFCHH PF LFPZP LBLBS RPMShЪB? DETTSBM CH OYEEFE OEULPMSHLP UPF TBVPYYI Y RMBFIYM OYEEOULYK OBMPZ. rTYVSHCHMSH RETECHPDYM H DPMMBTSHCH Y ЪB VKhZPT. rPFPNKh UEKYUBU CH VADTSEFE OEF DEOEZ. "DEOES OEF, FETRYFE". h UPCHEFULPE CHTENS ABOUT RTYVSHCHMSH UFTPMY VEURMBFOSHCH LCHBTFYTSCH TBVPYUYN, UPDETSBMY DPNB LHMSHFHTSC, UBOBFPTYY, DPNB PFDSCHIB Y DBTSE RPMYLMYOYLY, Y VPMSHOYGSCH. WHERE IS THE FFP? h LBTNBOE UPVUFCHEOOILB. fBL LBLBS RPMShЪB PF LFPZP ZPUHDBTUFCHH? CHPF RPFPNKH YDЈF RTEUFHROBS PRFINYBGYS. h UPUEDOEN RPUЈMLE "nBYU" EUFSH BNVHMBFPTYS, TBURPMPTSOOOBS CH RTELTBUOPN LYTRYUOPN ЪDBOY. MILCHYDYTPCHBMY LTPCHBFY UHFPYUOPZP UPDETSBOYS, PUFBMYUSH OE CHPUFTEVPCHBOSH DOECHOSHCHE. uFBTYL OE NPTSEF HFTPN U LPUFSHCHMЈN RTPKFY 3 - 5 LIMPNEFTCH, RTYOSFSH RTPGEDKHTH Y HKFY PVTBFOP. th FBL OBDP OEULPMSHLP DOEK. 'DPTPCHSHCHK OE CHSHCHDETSYF. MYLCHYDYTPCHBMY MBVPTBFPTYA. UEKYUBU OBVTBMY RPUMEDOEZP CHTBYUB - FETBRECHFB. RETECHEMY CH OILPMSHULHA GEOFTTBMSHOHA VPMSHOYGH. FERETSCH DBTSE OBRTBCHMEOYE ABOUT BOBMYЪSCH OBDP VTBFSH CH OILPMSHULPK RPMYLMOYLE. b LFP 25 LYMPNEFTCH Y PYUETEDY Y CH TEZYUFTBFHTH, Y CH LBVYOEF CHTYUB. chMBUFSH RTPUFP Y'DECHBEFUS OBD OBTPPN, B NSCH MYVP ZPMPUKHEN b LFH CHMBUFSH, MYVP UYDYN DPNB. RPD METSBUYK LBNEOSH DBCE CHPDB OE FEYJF. OP PRFINYBGYS ABOUT LFPN OE BLPOYUMBUSH. h GEOFTBMSHOPK VPMSHOYGE OILPMSHULB BLTSCHMY OELPFPTSCHE PFDEMEOYS, UPLTBFYMY ULPTHA RPNPESH, RETEDBCH EЈ CH reOJH. b LFP 150 LYMPNEFTCH. bBLTSCHCHBAF UFBGIPOBT. at OPCHPZP ZPDB VPMSHOSHCHE VHDHF IPDYFSH MEYUYFSHUS CH ZPTD "ZPTPDYEE" OB 90 LYMPNEFTCH. FP OE CHMBUFSH, BRTEDBFEMY, DTHZYI UMPC OBKFY OECHPЪNPTSOP.
ULPMSHLP TB RTEYDEOF ZPCHPTYM ABOUT UPCHEEBOYSI, UFP UEMSHULHA NEDYGYOH OE OBDP UPLTBEBFSH, OBPVPTPF HER OBDP UPCHETYEOUFCHPCHBFSH. b UFP CH DEKUFCHYFEMSHOPUFY? PRFINYJBHYS RTPPDPMTSBEFUS. UPDBЈFUS FCHETDPE HVETSDEOYE CH FPN, UFP YUYOPCHOYLY DEMBAF CHUЈ OBPVPTPF. nPCEF X OII FBLBS DPZPCHPTJOOPUFSH. UEZPDOS CHUE LFP DPRHEEO L uny ZPCHPTSF P RTEJIDEOFE U VPMSHYPK VHLCHSCH, EZP RPTFTEF CHSHCHEYCHBAF DBTSE X OBYI CHTBZCH. rTY LFPN tPUUYS LBFIFUS CH RTPRBUFSH. CHMBUFSH Y CHUS YUYOPCHOYUSHS UCHPTTB LFP OE PEKHEBEF. sing TSYCHHF RTYRECHBAYUY, B OBTPD OYEBEF. ABOUT UEZPDOS H tPUYY DCHE RTPVMENSCH. lPTTHRGYS Y VEUFPMLCHPE RTBCHYFEMSHUFCHP. RP LFYN RTYYUYOBN ABOUT DOSI THLPCHPDYFEMSH BDNYOYUFTBGYY RTEYDEOFB b.chPKOP RTCHPDYF BUEDBOYE RTEYDYHNB UPCHEFB RP RTPFYCHPDEKUFCHYA LPTTHRGYY. h FFPN UPCHEFE TBCHE OE LPTTHRGIPOETSC BUEDBAF? DMS OBTPDB FFP FINOSHCHK MEU. RP NETSDHOBTPDOPNKH TEKFYOZH tPUUYS OB 119 NEUFE. OYLBLPZP RTPFYCHPDEKUFCHYS OEF. pDOB WPMFP.
vschchyyk ZMBChB lpny fptprch RPD DPNBYOYIN BTEUFPN. хЧЈМ 3 NYMMYBTDB THVMEK. ABOUT DBMSHOEN chPUFPLE CHPEOOSHCH BLHRBAF DTCHB X BOZMYKULPK ZHITNSCH ABOUT 1 NYMMYBTD THVMEK. y ULPMSHLP CE MEF FFPF VBTDBL RTPDPMTSBEFUS? ZPTSF NYMMMYPOSH ZELFBTCH, FBN NPTsOP ЪBZPFBCHMYCHBFSH ZPTEMSHOYL ABOUT DEUSFLY MEF Y VEURMBFOP, PUCHPPVPTSDBS FETTYFPTYA DMS OPCHSHCHI RPUBDPL NPMPDOSLB. rPYENH FBL RPMHYUBEFUS? pF VPMSHYPZP HNB CH RTBCHYFEMSHUFCHE.
mHTSLPC, PFUFTBOJOOSHK PF NTTUFCHB Y LTYFYLPCHBCHYK UFTPIFEMSHUFCHP pMYNRYBDSHCH, RPMKHYUYCHYK OBZTBDKH Y THL RTEYDEOFB, TEELP RPNEOSM UCHPЈ NOOEOYE. "ChSh Yuempchel DMS LPFPTPZP Yueufsh Y UPCHEUFSH SCHMSEFUS ZMBCHOSCHN H UCHPEK DEFEMSHOPUFY. with OE UFBM REOUYPOETPN, CHSHTBEYCHBA ZTEYUYYH DMS UOBVTSEOIS CHPEOOSHCHI". OEKHTSEMY Y PF REOUY PFLBBMUS?
tBCHPTCHBO vBMFYKULYK ZHMPF. UPMDBFSCH, NBFTPUSHCHOE DPEDBAF, YI LBYUBEF PF CHEFTB. PDETSDB CHYDBCHYBS CHYDSCH, RBUFEMSHOPE VEMSHJ U LMEKNPN ZHMPFB RTPDBЈFUS ABOUT VBBTE. fBLPE CE RPMPTSEOIE CH CHPYOULYI YUBUFSI iBVBTPCHULPZP LTBS. uppmdbfshch rtpdbchbmy ptkhtsye, vpertyrbushch yufpvshch rtypvteufy ryfboye. i OILFP OE RPUBTSEO. pV LFPN ABOUT FEMECHIDEOYY TBUULBJSCHCHBEF VPTYU TEKOIL - DERHFBF DHNSCH YEUFPZP UPSCHCHB. tPUUYA CHETOHMY H DECHSOPUFSHCHE ZPDSH, LPZDB UPMDBFSCH ABOUT PUFTPCHE "THUULPN" HNYTBMY PF ZPMPDB.
UEZPDOS FEMECHIDEOYE RTERPDOEUMP OCHSHCHE CHEUFY PF LPFPTSCHI CHPMPU VSHCHUFBM DSHVPN EUMY VSHCH ON VSHCHM. with TBOSHIE RYUBM P FPN, UFP VPMSHIE RTYDKHNBFSH OYUEZP OEMSHЪS DMS RPVPTPCH U OBTPDB RPUME CHCHEDEOYS OBMPZB RP VBBTOPK GEOOE ABOUT OECHYTSYNPUFSH Y TSYMSHЈ. plbshchchbefus RHFY RTBCHYFEMSHUFCHB OEYURPCHEDYNSCH. RTEDMBZBEF OBMPZ ABOUT CHEDOSCHE RTPDHLFSCH. yuyfbfemsh, chshch rpoinbefe yufp rtpyuipdjf h UFTBOE? bB CHEDOSCHE RTPDHLFSCH OBDP UHDYFSH RTPY'CHPDYFEMS Y YUYOPCHOYLB, LPFPTSHCHK TBTEYM LFY RTPDHLFSCH. OBMPZ OE RTPYЈM, B YUYOPCHOYL GEM Y OCHTEDYN. chTEDOSHCH RTPDHLFSCH PVPTPFE. YEEF DTHZYE URPUPVSHCH PVPZBEEOIS. ChMBUFSH PFLBBMBUSH TEZHMYTPCHBFSH GEOSCH ABOUT MELBTUFCHB. eUFEUFCHEOOP OELPFPTSCHE CHMEFSF ABOUT 100%. FP HCE TEEKHMSHFBF RTPYEDYI CHSHCHVPTPCH. th FFP FPMSHLP OBUBMP.
RETEDP NOK ZBEFB "BYzh" No. 40 ЪB FFPF ZPD. GEOSCH CHSHCHTPUMY U OBYUBMB ZPDB OB 17.2%. rP PZHYGYBMSHOSHCHN DBOOSCHN ABOUT 4.1%. DMS LPZP ZBEFB REYUBFBEF TPUF GEO ECENEUSYUOP? uFPVSCH CHMBUFSH PVTBEBMB CHOYNBOYE Y RTYOYNBMB NETSHCH. eUMY DP CHSHCHVPTPCH CHMBUFSH OE PVTBEBMB CHOYNBOYE, FP FERETSHI Y RPDBCHOP. rPYUENKh CHMBUFSH DPMTSOB ЪOBLPNYFSHUS U FEN, UFP REYUBFBEF ZBEFB? x OEI UCHPY YUFPUOYLY YOZHPTNBGYY. h DHNH RTYYMP VPMEE 200 OPCHYULPC. LFP SING? obrtynet b.rbmlyo U RPMHFPTBNY NYMMYBTDPCH THVMEK, 59 LCHBTFYTBNY, FTY YL LPFPTSCHI H rPDNPULPCHSHHE Y VPMEE 200 BCHFPNPVIMEK. ON VKHDEF ЪBOINBFSHUS RTPVMENBNY OBTPDB, UFTBOSHCH? m. pDOBLP YNEEF CH nPULCHE 859 LCHBDTBFOSHCHI NEFTCH TSYMPK RMPEBDY, CH yFBMYY - 176 NEFTCH, CH u.refETVKhZTE - 433 LCHBDTBFOSHCHI NEFTTB. OYEYI YMY PVSCHYUOSCHI U FPYULY ЪTEOYS ЪBTVBVPFLB CH OPCHPK DHNE OEF. NPS ENMSYULB Y fPNULB f.uPMPNBFYOB CH 2015 ZPDKh ЪBTVVPFBMB 26.5 NYMMMYPOCH THVMEK, CH 2014 - 95.4 NYMMMYPOCH. th FBLYI VPMSHYOUFCHP. h UFTBOE FBLPCHB UYUFENB, UFP CH BLPOPDBFEMSHOSH PTZBOSHCH VE DEOEZ RPRBUFSH OECHP'NPTSOP. LBRYFBMYЪN ABOUT LFPN Y UFPYF.
rTPDHLFSCH RPDPTPTSBMY ABOUT 17.2% - FPP Y EUFSH YOZHMSGYS. eUMY UTBCHOYFSH GEOSCH ABOUT MELBTUFCHB, FP LBTFYOB EEI HTSBUOEEE. and WOPCHB FYYOB. OYLPZP LFP OE YOFETEUKHEF, B ZMBCHOPE PRRPYGYA CH DHNE. b BYuEN OBTPDH FBLBS PRRPYGYS Y TBDEFEMY IB OBTPD LPNNHOYUFSHCH FPCE NPMYUBF. CHPF RPFPNKh SING Y RTPMEFEMY.
VEUFPMLCHPUFSH RTBCHYFEMSHUFCHB RPDFCHETDYM FEMECHEDHEIK LBOBMB "gBTSHZTBD" rTPOSHLP. About the RTIP RTYUKHFFFCHBM RTEDBUE D. Mavpnchdtpch, LPFPTSHK Ulbbm: "Uyufenoschk UKVPFBC Nybmypchbfsh RPTHYUEOS RTIIDEOFB. fBLYE BSCHMEOYS DPMTSOSCH VSHCHFSH TBUUMEDPCHBOSHCH, B UBVPFBTSOILY EUMY FBLPCHSCHE OBKDHFUS DPMTSOSCH RPOEUFY HZPMPCHOPE OBBLBBOYE. chTSD MY X OBU FBLPE CHPNPTsOP. fEMECHYDEOYE OEUJF OPCHPUFSH P FPN, UFP RTEJIDEOF ABOUT UPCHEEBOYY U RTBCHYFEMSHUFCHPN HCE UFHYUYF RP UFPMKh. tsBMSh OBDP UFKHYUBFSH RP MVH UBVPFBTSOILPCH, B MKHYUYE CHSCZPOSFSH RPZBOPK NEFMK, B NPTCEF Y ChPЪVKhTSDBFSH DEMB. fPMSHLP FPZDB YuFP - FP YЪNEOYFUS. bB 16 CHEDSH OILPZP OE HCHPMYMY YOE RPUBDYMY, IPFS UFTBOB CHBMYFUS CH RTPRBUFSH RP LPOPNYUEULYN RTYUYOBN. YuEN FERETSCH VHDHF BOINBFSHUS DERHFBFSCH PF lrtzh? tbche OE RPCHPD TBUULBBFSH OBTPDH P UBVPFBTS NYOYUFTCH, LPFPTSCHE OE CHSHCHRPMOSAF RPTHYUEOYS RTEYDEOFB. NPTSEF DEKUFCHYFEMSHOP X YI FBLPK DPZCHPT.
oBTPD RTCHSHCHL L MYIEOYSN RPFPNKH NPMYUYF. vPMEE FPZP X OEP OEF RPDDETTSLY UP UFPTPOSCH DERHFBFPCH. VSCHMP VSCHOE PVIDOP, EUMY VSCH CHUE TSYMY RP BLBLOBN RP LPFPTSCHN BUFBCHYMY TSYFSH OBTPD. oEEEOULBS ЪBTRMBFB, YЪDECHBFEMSHUFCHP TBVPFPDBFEMEK Y RPDDETSLB YI UP UFPTPOSCH CHMBUFY. lPZDB TBVPYUYE PYASCHMSAF ЪBVBUFPCHLY YMY CHSHCHIPDSF ABOUT NYFYOZY CHMBUFSH TSEUFPLP TBZPOSEF.
rTBCHYFEMSHUFCHP UOPCHB TBDHEF REOUYPOETCHP. pLBSCCHCHBEFUUS U VHDHEEZP ZPDB REOUYY VHDHF YODELUITPCHBFSH FTY ZPDB ABOUT OBNPTPTSEOOSCHK RTPGEOF. vHDEF ON UPPFCHEFUFCHPCHBFSH YOZHMSGYY YMY OEF OBTPDH OE Y'CHEUFOP. OE OBEF PV FFPN Y NYOYUFT ZHYOBOUCH. vPMEE FPZP PZHYGYBMSHOBS YOZHMSHYS OILPZDB bb 16 MEF OE UPPFCHEFUFCHPCHBMB DEKUFCHYFEMSHOPK YOZHMSGYY. UNPFTYFE ZBEFKH "BYZH", LPFPTBS ETSEZPDOP UTBCHOYCHBEF PZHYGYBMSHOHA YOZHMSGYA U TEBMSHOPC.
Many times I already come across the fact that exculpatory comments are written to posts about theft, such as "this has not been proven", "this is his right" and so on, depending on the content.
About Peskov's watch they wrote "let him wear it if he can afford it."
No, don't let it. Even if we imagine that the watch was presented to him (by the way, in other countries there are laws that an official cannot accept expensive gifts, or must hand them over to the state) - he should not be shown with them in public, because he is like a press secretary the president is being followed by officials across the country. And if at least one official in the country, seeing the watch on Peskov’s hand, wants the same and gets into the budget to provide himself expensive thing- this means that Peskov should be held as the organizer of the theft, because he set a bad example.
In all the expensive watches that officials bought with stolen money after Peskov appeared with his watch in public, there is Peskov's participation.
The prosecutor's office should have immediately become interested in the origin of Peskov's watch, and the president should have publicly reprimanded his press secretary, without waiting for the results of the investigation, and sternly warned for the future - so that all officials understand that there is no need to follow an example. And even better - to dismiss due to the loss of confidence, as Ulyukaev was dismissed, although his guilt has not yet been proven by the court.
That is why Ulyukaev was fired, but Peskov was not fired?
From the point of view of the law, they are both innocent, because their guilt has not been proven in court.
Why is a case initiated against Ulyukaev, but not against Peskov?
By the way, Ulyukaev could well have been set up by slipping a case, the contents of which he did not know in advance. This is quite likely. And Peskov certainly put on his watch deliberately. And I repeat that even if the watch was donated, the very fact that an official wears expensive things in public can be considered as an incitement to corruption, as a detrimental influence on other officials. And certainly the origin of expensive things from an official should be investigated in every known case.
However, for some reason, Ulyukaev was detained and fired immediately, and no one reasoned that the case with money flew into his office by accident or was donated by friends, and some began to actively justify the watch on Peskov’s hand.
Double standarts? Haven't heard...
Whites were also justified by some.
It seems like it was not a bribe, but money for the development of the region or something like that.
And why does the governor personally pick up a case with cash for the development of the region?
If a businessman decides to help the region, let him make a money transfer or directly finance some project that the governor indicates.
What kind of a regional project is this, for the financing of which money can only be transferred in cash and only to the governor in the hands?
Even if we assume that this money was not intended for Belykh personally, then this money was transferred to him for some not very official project, to put it mildly. For a project that cannot be openly funded. And this means that this project is not entirely legal and is not connected with the development of the region, but with something else.
If White money is not a bribe, then it is something like money "for the development of democracy", that is, illegal funding political activity and NCOs, which does not make Whites white and fluffy.
At one time, Serdyukov was also justified that his guilt had not been proven.
Indeed, Serdyukov's guilt in embezzlement has not been proven. Like Ulyukaev's fault at this particular moment. However, even if we imagine that Serdyukov was an ordinary henpecked man, whom Vasilveva twirled as she wanted, this does not relieve him of responsibility, because the boss must be responsible for the actions of a subordinate related to his work.
And the fact that our bosses are not responsible for their subordinates according to the law is very big disadvantage our laws, which gives rise to a huge amount of abuse.
In the vast majority of cases, the authorities either know or suspect the violations committed by their subordinates, but turn a blind eye to this, because they are interested in it. Often, the bosses deliberately shift dirty and illegal activities to their subordinates so that they themselves do not answer if something happens.
That's when the authorities will be responsible for their subordinates - then there will be order.
If the boss does not know about the abuses of the subordinate - this indicates that he is a bad boss, his control is poorly organized, he does not monitor the actions of his subordinates, then he must also answer - for having created a situation in which systematic uncontrolled abuse. If the boss did not himself discover and stopped violations in the work of subordinates, but brought the situation to the intervention of the investigating authorities, this is already a basis for holding such a boss accountable.
Therefore, Serdyukov also does not need to be justified. The fact that he was not convicted does not mean that he is innocent, but that we have imperfect laws and double standards, under which Ulyukaev was immediately fired and detained, and Serdyukov was transferred to a non-dusty job and pretended that so be it. And Peskov was not even reprimanded.
But Vasilyeva was convicted. But how condemned!
For embezzlement on an especially large scale (several hundred million only in proven episodes), she got off with house arrest in a 13-room apartment among luxury. And some other strange 3-month conclusion, which was most likely fictitious.
It turns out interesting, right?
For stealing a mobile phone on the street, you can get a real term with a real prison term, for a bribe in the amount of hundreds of thousands - too, but for proven theft of hundreds of millions - practically nothing.
In essence, this means that the more you steal, the shorter the term. At least in terms of days spent in prison for every million stolen.
I think that the dependence of the term on the amount stolen should still be direct, not reverse.
For example, like this: take the square root of the amount stolen and the resulting number will be the duration of imprisonment in days. For 10,000 rubles - 100 days of imprisonment. For a million, a thousand. For 100 million - ten thousand days, that is, almost 30 years. With good behavior - parole in 15.
If more than a billion are stolen, you get a life sentence. But if you share it with the boss who allowed the theft and accomplices who helped steal - then you can someday get out.
This is how it will be fair.
However, this is not about justice, but about justifications for theft.
To justify theft is to promote it.
Just like a boss who closes his eyes to the abuses of his subordinates indulges them, and Peskov, who publicly puts on expensive watch(or any other official who publicly uses an expensive car that does not match his income) sets a bad example - someone who justifies theft is an implicit accomplice.
And just as the boss closes his eyes to the abuses of his subordinates based on his own interests, because it is beneficial to him, because they steal for him, or he steals and allows others to do it - in the same way, the one who justifies theft does this is because he either steals himself, or is ready to steal, being in the place of the one whom he justifies and most likely hopes to be there.
The justification of theft is an aid to theft, albeit an implicit one.
The one who justifies Peskov most likely received expensive gifts for some services related to his official position.
The one who justifies Belykh most likely himself participated in financial transactions that could not be carried out officially.
The one who justifies Serdyukov - most likely he himself witnessed the theft, but did nothing to prevent them, because he had certain weaknesses towards those who stole.
And the one who justified Makhlai yesterday most likely received a piece of state property as a result of privatization and believes that now he can dispose of it as he pleases, while he considers tax evasion not a violation, but a sign of business dexterity.
Regarding Makhlai:
Anyone who, following the results of privatization, received an enterprise as their property and invests a little less than 99% of the profit in its development is already a thief in its essence, a thief and bourgeois scum that needs to be fought uncompromisingly.
And the fact that the law allows you to freely dispose of the profits of privatized enterprises is a lack of legislation. And this shortcoming is not an accident, but a deliberate loophole created by thieves in order to make it easier and more convenient to steal.
If the legislation allows stealing, this does not mean that theft should be justified, it means that the legislation should be corrected, including by paying attention to it.
A privatized enterprise must either develop or be returned to the state, everything else is theft, even if it is legalized.
You can freely dispose only of what is created with your own hands from scratch. Yes, and with care environment and compliance with other safety standards.
And when two people in the course of privatization (which in itself was thieves) appropriated the enterprise and are now pumping profit out of it - this is theft.
This is twice theft.
The first theft was privatization, and the second theft is the extortion of profits, 99% of which should go to the development of the enterprise.
And tax evasion is the third theft.
Therefore, Makhlai, whom some rushed to defend yesterday, is three times a thief.
And the fact that he changed his Russian citizenship to American and left the country also speaks volumes.
And the one who justifies such people justifies not only theft on an especially large scale and in various forms (including with offshore companies, fictitious contracts, one-day and bank fraud, tax evasion), but also the denationalization of the Russian economy.
The privatization of a Russian (Soviet) enterprise, which is accompanied by a change of citizenship of the owner and his departure from the country, is precisely the denationalization of the economy, in other words, the plunder of Russia.
And you have to be an exceptional bastard to justify this.
And as for legality - I repeat that theft, which was not suppressed by law, does not cease to be theft in its essence. It's just legalized theft. And this is an occasion to think about the quality of our laws and about who adopts them.
The laws under which thousands of enterprises were privatized were passed by the Yeltsin team - a team of traitors and thieves who created the thieves' system.
And the results of the implementation of these laws over the past 17 years have not been corrected, because the successors of the Yeltsin team, the guardians of the results of the thieves' privatization and a new generation of thieves are in power.
Therefore, Vasilyeva got off with house arrest in her luxurious apartment.
Therefore, Serdyukov was left alone.
Therefore, no one even made comments to Peskov.
And Ulyukaev, Belykh and Khoroshavin were removed only because they began to interfere with someone. Dropped out of the loop. Or allowed themselves too much.
Those who justify them either steal themselves, or want to steal, or their close relatives do it.
And anyone who believes that it is normal to pump profits out of an enterprise instead of investing in its development is just a hopeless idiot. Any normal owner invests maximum funds in the development of the enterprise, most of them also attract investors or take loans for this. Pumping money out of the enterprise is either a thief or a pest who acts in the interests of competitors.
Pumping money out of your own business is a particularly sophisticated form of theft.
This form of theft originated in post-Soviet space, because many enterprises were given at their disposal by degenerates who did not build them, did not invest their forces and means in them, who treat them simply as gifts of fate and do not appreciate them at all. Their thieves' mentality simply does not allow them to treat these enterprises differently - they perceive them as stolen things that should be pushed to resellers or siphoned off profits while there is such an opportunity.
These thieves-owners are afraid that at any moment the government will change, new laws will be adopted and it will become impossible to steal, so they try to steal more, resell and pump out while there is an opportunity. Because they are unable to develop and build because of their thieves' mentality, because they are not entrepreneurs or builders, but degenerate hedonists who live for their own pleasure.
And the one who justifies them is most likely the same in his mentality.
But the most important thing is the justification of theft, any, even implicit, the justification of connivance that makes theft possible, the justification of what pushes others to theft, like Peskov with his watch - all this gives rise to new theft.
Justifying theft makes it acceptable in society.
And as long as theft is considered acceptable - we will always have laws that allow stealing and this vicious circle will never break - justifiers will refer to the fact that "everything is according to the law", and the law will allow thieves' schemes, because they are all justified with reference to law.
And only when society ceases to justify theft, in any, the most implicit, and even more so in legalized forms, the situation will begin to improve.
And in order for society to stop justifying theft as soon as possible, it is necessary to introduce responsibility for this, by analogy with responsibility for justifying terrorism.
Because the one who justifies terrorism is an accomplice of terrorists, and the one who justifies theft is an accomplice of thieves.
And if Vasilyev by " square root stolen" had to serve at least 15 years, sharing part of the term with Sedryukov, who allowed her theft, then everyone who justifies them can help them in this and take on 10-15 days from the term.
I’m ready to argue that as soon as the one who justifies the thieves receives at least a small part of their term - the number of those who want to write “it’s their right”, “let them wear it if they can afford it”, “there is nothing to envy successful people” - will quickly rush to zero.
Seven points that the worker should understand
"People have always been and always will be stupid victims of deception and self-deception in politics until they learn to look for the interests of certain classes behind any moral, religious, political, social phrases, statements, promises."
IN AND. Lenin
1. The arrest of the minister has nothing to do with the fight against corruption. The entire power vertical in Russia rests on the private appropriation of state budget funds. Private appropriation is carried out by officials and managers of public corporations. The means for this are both multimillion-dollar bonuses that management pays to itself, and for "kickbacks", the transfer of state orders to controlled commercial organizations. The arrest of even the most thieving official cannot change this system of relations. By definition, neither the state machine nor its first/second/third person can fight against those mechanisms that ensure the operation of the state machine. Let us recall, for example, the case of Oboronservis and Anatoly Serdyukov, who did not suffer any punishment and now controls the Rostec corporation.
2. Anyone can be imprisoned. Story modern Russia knows many examples when objectionable people were imprisoned for committing crimes that they obviously did not commit. Two examples from trade union practice come to mind. The initiator of the creation of a trade union at the mining and processing plant of the Alrosa diamond mining company, Valentin Urusov, was arrested on charges of drug possession. Valentin spent more than 4 years in prison, from 2008 to 2013, now he works in the Confederation of Labor of Russia. The leaders of the Sheremetyevo Pilot Union (SHPLS) A. Shlyapnikov, V. Pimoshenko and S. Knyshov were arrested in October 2013 on charges of accepting a bribe. The real reason for the arrest was that the activists, through appeals to the supervisory authorities, forced Aeroflot to pay the pilots underpaid salaries totaling about a billion rubles. On June 1, 2016, all the defendants were found guilty, but released from custody, since the court credited them with the term of being in a pre-trial detention center and under house arrest. These examples are known because the trade union leaders interacted with the central bodies of the trade unions and informed the public about their activities. In reality, there are many more such examples. Since it is possible to fabricate cases against trade union and social activists, there are no obstacles to doing the same with your former partners.
3. An honest person cannot get into a high position. Since being in the position of a major official allows you to control financial flows and derive income from it in the ways indicated above, this position itself acquires a certain monetary expression. To occupy it and gain access to the distribution of financial flows, you must already have a solid financial or administrative resource. Therefore, a person from the people can get into a state post, except for show, and even then as someone's puppet.
4. Why should a minister take bribes? Sometimes people wonder why a minister with a legal income of 60 million a year would take bribes and risk his position. Since just then, to reduce the risk of his dismissal or arrest. The more financial resources a person or his clan has, the more influence he enjoys. The more he has connections in the so-called law enforcement agencies. The larger and more influential the offender, the more difficult it is to bring him to justice. The richer and more influential an official or businessman, the more opportunities he has to maintain and increase his influence. Did I take a bribe?
Did I take a bribe?
5. The redistribution of spheres of influence is caused by a change in the income structure of the ruling class. The arrests of senior officials in the Investigative Committee, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and, now, the Minister of Economic Development are due to the redistribution of spheres of influence between different clans of the ruling class. As a result of the decline in oil prices, the profitability of various sectors of the economy has changed significantly. And since different industries are controlled by different clans, their strength in relation to each other has also changed. Just as the uneven development of states gave rise to two world wars, the change in the strength of clans gives rise to war between clans.
6. From the lordly showdowns, ordinary people will not get better. Many simple people hope that the patriotic clan can win in the inter-clan struggle. However, such hopes are unfounded. First, it is not the clans' interest that is determined by their ideology, but, on the contrary, the propagandized ideology is determined by the clan's objective interests. Sberbank benefits from the transfer of Crimea to Ukraine, because otherwise it suffers losses on the world stage. The military-industrial complex obviously has the opposite interest. No matter how oil prices change, Sberbank will not disappear in Russia, and its interests will not change. Secondly, the interests of all clans of the bourgeoisie are opposed to the interests of the working people. A couple of years ago, employees of IzhMash (supervised by Mr. Rogozin, who pretends to be a great patriot) held a meeting demanding that their minimum wage be raised to 10,000 rubles. So patriotism is patriotism, but they will still feast at our expense.
7. Propaganda effect. The fight against corruption is only a legal cover for the redistribution of property and spheres of influence between clans. However, the appearance of fighting corruption creates the impression that some politicians have finally taken up the solution of one of the key “problems” (as the media portrays it) of the Russian state.
As for whether the minister really took the two million dollar bribe that he is accused of, we will never know about it, and it does not matter at all.
PhD in Economics, Scientific Supervisor of the Modernization Research Center of the European University at St. Petersburg
Recently, a smart and well-versed foreigner asked me why many Russians are not shy about displaying their luxurious lifestyle, which clearly does not correspond to their legitimate income. After all, it is obvious that this luxury is a consequence of corruption. It would seem that if you are already stealing from the state, then live modestly, like citizen Koreiko from the Golden Calf. Otherwise, everyone will despise you. Is it really not despised in Russia?
I replied that the contempt of people from the "lower social strata" (including journalists or professors like me) hardly bothers these nouveau riches. But in their own circle, the situation is exactly the opposite. There it is a shame to be poor, but it is important to be successful. And at any cost. Of course, behind the eyes and there they can be outraged by illegal sources of wealth. But at the same time, they will take any corrupt official as their own, deal with him, rotate with him in the same society. A professor or a journalist in this society will be shown only occasionally, as a curiosity - when they suddenly manage to become famous for something.
I discovered all this a long time ago, but what are the reasons for the formation of such a situation, it was difficult to say. Perhaps, for the first time I managed to get closer to understanding the problem after reading the section on corruption in the new book by the St. Petersburg professor Boris Mironov “ Russian empire: from tradition to modernity. This is perhaps the most fundamental study of the Russian history of the imperial period to date. Three volumes of large format and incredible depth - both in direct and in figuratively the words. Each volume contains almost a thousand pages of text with illustrations and a lot of interesting information about how Russia existed for more than two centuries.
In fact, it is a socio-political encyclopedia of our country. The emphasis in it is not on the now popular biographies of endless princes, kings and heroes (although there are such sections), but on the biography of the people. On how he worked and rested, prayed to God and worshiped the sovereign, colonized the outskirts and modernized in large cities. "Corruption" is only a small but very informative section of the second volume.
“In the 17th - first half of the 18th centuries,” notes Mironov, “offerings to officials were integral part their content. The law pursued only those offerings that provoked the official to violate the law. Such illegal offerings were called "promises", while legal offerings, contributing to a quick and favorable consideration of the case in accordance with law and custom, were called "honours". “Honor” symbolized the respect and desire of the petitioner to fall under the patronage of an official, “promise” - a proposal to break the law. From a modern point of view, the line between an “honor” or a gift and a “promise” is unsteady, but the population and officials were aware of it, therefore the “promise” was many times greater than the “honor”. An official who made an illegal decision was always in danger - a complaint from the injured party and punishment. Meanwhile, the acceptance of the gift did not threaten anything. Apparently, the lion's share of the gifts was aimed at hastening the decision of the case in a favorable way, and comparatively rarely gifts led to a violation of the law.
In today's Russia, this picture looks something like this. “Promise” is a clear abuse of power, when, for example, an official finances a project to create a road, a stadium or a military facility with costs deliberately inflated two or three times, and receives part of this amount as a kickback (the rest he puts in his pocket construction firm). “Honour” is when an official does not waste budget money on purpose, but when placing some kind of state order, he favors one of the contenders to the detriment of another equally worthy one. The official does not cause any damage to the state, since the budget money will be spent in any case (and, perhaps, even with benefit), but the company that receives the order receives significant benefits. And for this she is ready to pay an influential person who is favorably disposed towards her.
In such "honours" there is often no violation of the law at all. Even in the case when government orders are distributed by competition. You can always find many legitimate ways to generally weed out the applications of competitors who do not resort to "honors", or at least find convincing arguments in favor of the protected company as the best and most worthy. And if people who receive "honours" for this kind of operation buy themselves "Mercedes" or houses on Rublyovka, will they be embarrassed by their ostentatious luxury? Even the historical term itself leads successful officials to the idea that this is a reward for their managerial talent, for their high position, for their ability to build a complex system of relations, thanks to which the state is not harmed, and business receives profitable orders.
In other words, officials consider the additional remuneration they receive from business as a fair part of their salary, since the state (as they believe) greatly underpays them. Having left their post in business, such officials can often receive much higher salaries than the state gives them. So they compare the official salary with the managerial remuneration potentially available to them, and then they themselves get the difference between them.
As Boris Mironov convincingly demonstrates, the whole system of "honours" grew out of state "underpayments". In the XV-XVI centuries. there was no budget for the maintenance of the apparatus at all. “Representatives of the princely administration for the performance of their duties received“ food ”from the ruled population, usually 3 times a year - at Christmas, Easter and St. Peter's Day (June 29, old style). When they took office, the population paid them “entry feed”.<…>In the 17th century the system of payment has changed: the most significant and regular offerings were received by the clerks for doing business, and the festive feeding and other “honours” were preserved as an additional voluntary surcharge.” All this was apparently explained by the fact that, with an undeveloped fiscal system, it is much easier to feed an official on the spot at the expense of the population than to collect taxes, form a huge budget in Moscow, and then pay everyone the salary prescribed by law.
Naturally, as a state of the modern type was formed in Russia, officials began to receive salaries from the budget, but even in the 19th century it often did not cover the basic needs of Akaki Akakievich for the purchase of overcoats. “Without bribes,” notes Mironov, “officials, especially in lower ranks and clerical servants, would simply die out. Therefore, the supreme power and the government<…>take bribes for granted." Nicholas I used to say that in all of Russia he was the only one who did not take bribes, and although this was clearly an exaggeration, the words of the emperor can be interpreted in such a way that only those who did not need them did not take bribes.
The current bureaucracy, of course, makes money for its overcoat. But the general logic of receiving "honors" continues to apply, as they are considered a fair reward. At the same time, those who take billions of "promises" are often treated by the recipients of "honours" as dishonorable destroyers of the country. Not according to rank, not according to conscience and not according to concepts.
Dmitry Travin, professor at the European University in St. Petersburg
