Valery Anashvili. YUKOS and RSUH

YUKOS and RSUH
Introduction to the series of interviews

Valery Anashvili

Publication date: December 24, 2003

Financial and managerial entry of YUKOS into the Russian State University for the Humanities - what was it? Objectively: the first example of real, large-scale, effective assistance to Russian higher education, which is on the verge of poverty and disgrace, from big business, is salutary for the country. Subjectively: a series of ridiculous, impossible, childish mistakes in every, literally every, step.

If this experiment were successful, in five years we would have a galaxy of powerful, wealthy, capable universities throughout the country, where all-Russian and regional businesses, in fulfillment of their “social responsibility,” vying with each other to offer them money, personnel, and participation. Higher education in the country would be saved, inevitably and for a long time (about the catastrophic negative trends here, see, for example, Logunov’s interview). If this experience fails - and this particular scenario is obvious - higher education will be deprived of private support from outside for many years, the Ministry of Education continues to finance universities at the subsistence level, the outflow of personnel from this area continues, twenty years later in Russia there will be a national project called " public higher education" ceases to exist. At all. Well, he won't be in the country. And they know about this in universities, they know about it in the ministry, I admit, they also knew about it in YUKOS.

That is, regardless of the personal motives of Khodorkovsky, Filippov and Afanasyev, these three could set an example and give a chance. Did not work out. We'd really like to figure out why. We did several interviews about this. We studied all the printed speeches of the participants in these events. Unfortunately, there are no answers . Representatives of YUKOS endlessly repeat about their good intentions and the evil will of the authorities, the leadership of the Russian State University for the Humanities claims that they acted correctly and everything will be fine, the ministry persistently refuses to comment, but in this insistence there is a barely discernible melody, quietly, echoing, something like “well I couldn't." Sincere sympathy for all participants in the events does not eliminate bewilderment and questions.

So, questions. (Let’s leave aside the ethical and legal assessment of the actions of the authorities - for the senselessness of repetitions. Hunchback, as we know, only the grave will correct.)

How could the Minister of Education propose Leonid Borisovich Nevzlin, a representative of YUKOS, for the post of Rector of the Russian State University for the Humanities, in June, just a few weeks before the arrest of Platon Lebedev, when on the sidelines of the Kremlin it had long been clear that pressure on YUKOS was growing and if Khodorkovsky did not agree to reconciliation and will not become peaceful (in tax contributions, student grants for future judges and prosecutors, support for opposition parties, etc.), the consequences for him and the company will be the most negative? Why, knowing (yes, knowing) about the impending attack, did YUKOS undertake this noisy, defiant, demonstrative act? Did the minister simply have no idea what was going on in the Kremlin? So ignorant is the minister? Was YUKOS trying to protect itself with the scale of social assistance and public outcry? But why didn't it work? Did you think it was bad? And further. Why was Nevzlin proposed for the post of rector, an amazing, wonderful top manager, with incredible charm and a lively mind, but a man without a scientific degree and alien to the influential and aggressive community of rectors? None of the participants in the deal guessed that the rectors would be indignant? And they, in turn, will put pressure on the minister. And generally speaking - Why was it necessary to make Nevzlin rector ? Why not simply create a board of trustees, which (as in the rest of the world), while providing funds, controls the financial activities of the university under its care, and at the same time introduce its own financial director? Well, okay, they were afraid that the money would simply be stolen, or, to put it mildly, that it would be used in a way that was not intended. (However, this raises the question of why they chose a university about which such suspicions arose. Why cooperate with an institution whose leadership you do n’t trust so much ? Did you want to come in and replace all the vice-rectors and financial managers in a year or two?) Okay, “advice” has too little current management authority. But why was it necessary to appoint Afanasyev, honorary president of the Russian State University for the Humanities, to a new position, and not leave Yuri Nikolaevich as rector and make Nevzlin president?! After all, the position was still new and its functionality was written for a specific person. This would take the ministry out of the game, i.e. state, removing a significant percentage of state irritation. In the end, given all the aggravating circumstances of the political context, what did the Russian State University for the Humanities count on? Take the money and lie low? Did you hope that Khodorkovsky would fence the Kremlin? Did Afanasyev simply take an honest, open, courageous position as a truly democratic nonconformist? Did you want to ignore the power of the authorities and go against it? And again. What Khodorkovsky hoped for in the midst of attacks on him from outside law enforcement agencies acquiring a university that has semi-FSB faculties? That the president will turn a blind eye to this and not gain a new portion of irritation? Why was this particular choice of university made, which in this regard was most inadequate to the political moment? Advised by Yukos's advisers? And what is their fate? Does Mikhail Khodorkovsky say hello to them from his cell? And after all, why couldn't they just create a new private university ? And gradually make it exemplary. No one's interests would be affected. Neither the rectors (we have a private university, we appoint whoever we want as rector), nor the state (from which they tried to “steal” one of the most tasty morsels - a powerful, promising university, endowed with a name, personnel and premises), nor “law enforcement agencies” . The ministry would not be at risk, the Russian State University for the Humanities would not be at risk. The future would not be at risk. If YUKOS really cared about Russia, why couldn’t it have been calculated, at least yet? one step - what will happen to education in the country if the experiment fails ? Just one step! And now... The minister will apparently be removed. RSUH will elect a new rector today, in an atmosphere of despondency, inferiority, and decline. Without Yuri Nikolaevich Afanasyev, without moral and material prospects. Everyone else learned a lesson: don’t!

Damn it! There are no words.

PS 1. Of course, I know that was a “board of trustees” created at the Russian State University for the Humanities. But why doesn't it work the way it should? Why is it so ineffective that, in parallel with its creation, they had to appoint “their own” rector? 2. My phrase that the Russian State University for the Humanities remains “without Afanasyev” is, of course, only a weakly artistic exaggeration. And it means simple things: elections of the rector are held in the absence of Yuri Nikolaevich (question: by whom? And how can this be in a university created by this man?), who remains only the “president” of the Russian State University for the Humanities, with, according to rumors, somewhat expanded powers.

Previous texts on the topic: