NG: On the degree of confidence in the opposition

NG published a polemic article by Pavel Voloshin " The opposition in the system ." We give the text of the article completely

"The violent discussion of the bill on non-profit organizations receiving from abroad has clearly demonstrated to Russian society that the issue of financing the current political opposition is by no means tracked. For many Russians, the degree of their trust in the opposition’s trust depends on this question.

It is no secret that individual representatives of the opposition, as well as public political and human rights organizations do not disdain to take money to combat the political regime abroad. At the same time, the proposal to call recipients of foreign grants “foreign agents” caused them for some reason a stormy protest. Even though this term is taken from the legislative practice of the United States, many Russian NPOs, including human rights, considered that the word "agent" is equivalent to the word "spy". And one of the opposition leaders Boris Nemtsov directly called the bill "odious and repressive."

Nemtsova, of course, is difficult to classify as “new Slavophiles”. It’s just that he, like many of his other colleagues, obviously does not see the threat of the country's national security in the participation of foreign capital in non -profit organizations.

It is much more important when it comes to the opposition, the issue of internal sources of its financing. During the period of perestroika, Russian society split money, tightly connected in the national mind the origins of welfare with corruption. If the opposition earn a good money, then they are inscribed in the system and in fact do not really want to change it, a significant part of the population considers it not without reason. Indeed, many representatives of the opposition can not be called unconsumed. For example, a member of the Fair Russia faction Ilya Ponomarev - an entrepreneur with experience, has a business in the capital -intensive field of high technology.

His one -party members, the deputies of the Gudkovs, father and son, receive dividends from the activities of the security company. The same Nemtsov does not hide what is the shareholder of Alfa Bank and plays on the stock exchange.

The sources of income of Ksenia Sobchak from show business are difficult to list. And the main fighter with corruption Alexei Navalny is a non -poor person: he is engaged in lawyer practice and business.

Recently, Navalny fell into an extremely unpleasant story, connected just with corruption. This refers to the released correspondence of the Navalny and Governor of the Kirov Region Nikita Belykh, who may be interested in law enforcement agencies for possible violations of the law and theft from the regional budget. In relation to the opposition, a criminal case was already initiated under the article “causing property damage by deception or abuse of trust in the absence of signs of theft”, which was also associated with his activities in the Kirov region. Recently, the head of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation, Alexander Bastrykin, demanded that his subordinates resume the investigation on him.

A separate story is the support of the anti -corruption project of Alexei Navalny Rospil by representatives of various financial groups, which also does not add to it the trust of Russians.

It is known, for example, that the former top manager of Alfa-Group Vladimir Ashurkov and the son of the founder of Vimpelcom Dmitry Zimin-Boris have already donated several million rubles. The question arises: is this their personal funds or do they act as operators of large money transfers?

The new milestone in the life of the opposition of Navalny began recently, when he, a well-known fighter for the rights of minority shareholders, entered the Board of Directors of Aeroflot and even, according to him, received the “Aeroflot-Bonus” special diamond card, delighted with the efficiency of the carrier courier service.

The blogger explained his appearance in the Council of Directors of the Company by the desire to have his representative there. It is not yet clear whether the owners of the Small Aeroflot shares are needed in such protection, but it is obvious that the company itself, leading several corporate wars, is unlikely to refuse the services of such a specialist. In particular, Aeroflot fights for the air transportation market with Transaero, its main competitor. The media have already written about the possible participation of Navalny in this corporate war. By the way, the opposition leader did not confirm his involvement, but did not refute.

This story is connected with the case of the former transaero minority of Eskerkhan Mutalibov. The media called him a "pseudominoritarium", aiming to correct their financial situation. However, the aggressive methods that the former co -co -owner of Transaero operate, and the distinctly visible signs of Greenmail suggested that this is not an ordinary internal corporate conflict, but a war for the redistribution of the market, which is conducted by Aeroflot. And only then did the information appeared at the political news agency that Alexei Navalny could be involved in this war and obviously the blogger will be hired “Aeroflot” disornsively.

Mutalibov filed a lawsuit in court and demanded to recover 1.6 billion rubles from the airline and military holders. For allegedly illegally written off 5% of Transaero shares. Mutalibov became the owner of this package of securities in 2000. According to one version, he received this package from his father Magomed Mutalibov, the owner of the Magma publishing house, who published Penthouse magazine in Russia. Mutalibov was accused of illegally using this brand in Russia. It is possible that the courts with the copyright holder influenced the decision of the Mutalibov family to leave the country.

Mutalibov Sr., according to the Internet publication "century" (see number on 06/27/12), was also known for his criminal connections, once headed one of the Moscow Chechen groups and had a rather close relationship with Boris Berezovsky in those days. Having left the country, the Mutalibovs did not recall for the shares of Transaero for a long time. They grabbed them only in 2011.

The ambiguity of this case is that the plaintiff does not require the return to him, but is limited exclusively by their money equivalent. In addition, the dominance of publicity was the correspondence of the lawyer Eskerkhan Mutalibov Andrei Tyukalov with former colleague Oleg Gubinsky.

In it, Tyukalov claims that Mutalibov on March 22, 2004 sold shares of Khamzatu Dudurgaev, who was the general director of structures, apparently related to the lag of Boris Berezovsky. At the same time, Tyukalov, who does not deny the authenticity of correspondence with Gubinsky, is convinced that it cannot be considered by the court as material evidence. A strange statement, given the hype around the correspondence of the same Navalny and whites, according to which they want to initiate a check. Will it become a stumbling block of Aeroflot in the corporate war and additional evidence that the air carrier uses any means for its selfish purposes?

The situation is complicated by the fact that Aeroflot is a state company. Financing the opposition represented by its leader, which can be used as a pressure tool on competitors, to put it mildly, is conflicting with the interests of the state. Thanks to the support of the air carrier, a simple street stand acquires a certain gloss and increases its status, pretty much soaked in the Kirovles affair. But Aeroflot, who did not prevent the entry into the board of directors of a prominent Russian opposition, in fact, provides support to those who are fighting against the state. "