01 November 2011, 18:11 From the editor

“Let them talk” with Abramovich

In the Berezovsky vs. Abramovich trial, the unspoken rules of the Russian economy become historical facts

"Gazeta.Ru" close 100%

The showdown between the oligarchs could have become a hit on Channel One if such an action did not threaten Russian stability.

The London trial “Berezovsky vs. Abramovich” is a historical event. Not in the sense, of course, that its outcome will be fateful. Neither the dismissal of the disgraced oligarch’s claim against the incumbent, nor its full or partial satisfaction, nor, as lawyers say, the likely conclusion of a settlement agreement between the litigants, has any significance for the fate of Russia.

This event is significant only and precisely because during the proceedings in the British court, the features that determine the character of the Russian economy are recorded and become historical facts.

It's not that these facts are unknown. On the contrary, they (except perhaps for the details) are known very well. But nowhere and in no way have they been documented. Meanwhile, only such a fixation transfers our perception of Russian realities from the category of gossip and rumors, on the basis of which honest analysts can only enrich their works with vague hints, into the established truth. And you can’t get away from it.

In Russia in the 90s, large fortunes were created “according to concepts”, a “roof” was a prerequisite for the functioning of a business, and the rules and institutions of the capitalist market were nothing more than a cover for behind-the-scenes agreements with the obligatory participation of bandits and authorities. Just think, what news...

It is precisely on the basis of these ideas about the world order that our people deny legitimacy to domestic capital, drawing a clear line in their attitude between large - “unjustly acquired” - money and small business, which, according to VTsIOM , four-fifths of citizens have a good attitude towards. At the same time, both the initial and subsequent attitude of the overwhelming majority towards privatization comes down to the words “fraud” and “theft”. And respect for small business alone does not determine, unfortunately, either the general economic climate in Russia or the legal status of private property. On the contrary, it is the business “ethics” of large merchants, now demonstrated in all its glory to the whole world in a London court, that shapes both normative Russian business behavior and the general perception of key market institutions.

It is precisely such a process, not even pursuing the goal of destroying the “oligarchy” and its specific representatives, but limited to dragging out their squabbles among themselves in public and demonstrating their wretchedness, that would be entirely appropriate in Russia itself. And it could be turned into the most popular show on federal channels.

After all, this is a typical “Let Them Talk” by Malakhov, only on a scale unimaginable for housewives - and with just the obvious opportunity to draw moral lessons.

It is clear that our rich people will always prefer to conduct legal battles abroad, in British jurisdiction, for example, because in domestic courts it is difficult to count on normal proceedings (settling scores and destroying the opponent is another matter). But the main reason that such a process and its public coverage in Russia is impossible to imagine lies elsewhere.

And it’s not that Abramovich or Deripaska, already mentioned in London, or other figures who may yet emerge there are so untouchable for the Russian power establishment. Recent untouchables like Luzhkov are rinsed publicly, without hesitation... The reason why the Kremlin cannot allow Malakhov to deal with such issues is that

There is a direct and inextricable connection between the repeatedly cursed and supposedly buried 90s and the last decade. The methods of creating large fortunes have not changed at all; the need to provide “protection” has not been canceled.

And the fact that the “roof” should now consist not of bandits, but of security forces, is, firstly, little that changes from the point of view of the business climate, and secondly, it is even more destructive from the point of view of state institutions. Morals also remained practically the same, and this situation looks even more hopeless than before: then some still hoped that the “wild” capitalists in the second generation would “civilize”. This generally did not happen.

A showdown between model 2000 oligarchs, similar to the London one, had it been broadcast on federal television, from the point of view of the current government could not have been viewed differently than a provocation ordered by Russia’s enemies. So documenting the generally known realities of today’s economic life is not only a matter for the future, but also, most likely, a matter for another country. And if it is still called Russia, it will mean that something has changed very much.