A blow to the back of the head or a sledgehammer to the forehead

Why the authorities attacked the NES rector - The New Times interviewed experts

1. What is the reason for the pressure on Sergei Guriev: (a) he was a member of the circle of advisers to the President, and then Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev; (b) publicly supported Alexei Navalny, participated in the examination of the Mikhail Khodorkovsky case?
2. Emigration of a well-known economist - what is the signal in this for society? And now who can be under attack?
   Dmitry Oreshkin, political scientist
3. Now the guys who are prone to simple political decisions are strengthening their positions: with a butt on the back of the head or a sledgehammer in the forehead. Accordingly, within the framework of this system of priorities, they are crowding out and oppressing Medvedev's people, and even more so those who support the Bolots. Therefore, it is difficult to say where Sergei Guriev is more to blame from the point of view of the authorities. Medvedev's team in itself does not pose a danger - it is already retreating a little. But when a respected person allows himself to speak in support of Navalny and Khodorkovsky, this is a problem for the authorities.
4. This is one of a series of signals. When in The New Times ( No. 7 of February 27, 2012 ) after the elections, Sergei Guriev and I had a discussion about where Russia would move, he was full of optimism: they say that there are restrictions that will require more rational decisions from the authorities, and therefore it will follow the path of easing the regime. I had a different logic: I said that the authorities in the coffin saw rational considerations on the subject of the economy or something else. She is worried about another rationalism - the preservation of herself in power, and for this she will go to tighten the screws. The mockery of fate lies precisely in the fact that it was Guriev, a person inclined to interact with the authorities and believing in their rationalism, who suffered from this authorities. The logic of power, Putin's logic, is that they destroy those who pose a danger in this particular situation. And now the most dangerous are not ordinary dissatisfied citizens or critics, but precisely those people in power who can become an alternative in a critical situation that is not far off. They rush to remove the alternative. As Comrade Stalin, he destroyed, first of all, his own, because, first of all, he was afraid of them.
   Gleb Pavlovsky, political strategist
5. I think Guriev's dissatisfaction was initially associated with Navalny's demonstrative transfer of a small amount of money to the Anti-Corruption Fund (10 thousand rubles. - The New Times) - he created a precedent. But then the Medvedev factor came to the fore: the Investigative Committee does not really distinguish between the Russian School of Economics, which was headed by Guriev, and the Skolkovo project - all this is a kind of Medvedev infection for them. In such cases, they begin to collect a fat daddy for the boss: Barack Obama's admission to the NES, expertise on the "YUKOS case", which at first did not cause any particular objections and suspicions, closeness to Medvedev ... Now they began to sum it all up.
6. The main impulse is not political, but psychological. The main feature of the new course that the authorities have taken is that it is anti-meritocratic, that is, aimed at ousting everything that is associated with a high reputation, intelligence, professionalism, and quality. And of course, Guriev and his school, who had previously been viewed as a group of harmless snobs doing something meaningless, now began to seem dangerous. For a long time, the authorities were not interested in these humanitarian elites: let them study science at their universities, they don’t go to Triumphalnaya. And now it is precisely this that causes more suspicion than going out to the square: what are they doing there? What do they think there? This is a new trend - a regimen aimed at brain blockade. In the same context, it is necessary to consider the pressure on the Levada Center and the intentions of the Accounts Chamber to check the scientific usefulness of certain innovative projects. All this is a front against the intellect. This is no longer a signal to keep a low profile, as it was in a managed democracy. Now the intelligentsia's signal is different: we need total loyalty.
   Sergey Markov, Vice-Rector of the Russian University of Economics Plekhanov
7. Why did he leave? The first version is household - I just wanted to move to my wife in France and was looking for an excuse to do it. Everything is working out very well: because of political repression, he is immediately given a residence permit and all that. But this version is contradicted by the fact that he had very status positions here. The second explanation: not only Skolkovo was used to finance the opposition with budgetary and oligarchic money, but also NES structures. Perhaps he saw that the UK was getting closer to these channels, through which Bolotnaya Square was financed by Putin's opponents from the state budget and oligarchic structures. This already smells of embezzlement and a criminal case. Another version: the departure is a conflict specially provoked by the liberal coalition in the government in order to be able to say to Putin: “Vladimir Vladimirovich, look, your security forces are completely insolent, give them the command “fu!” The purpose of the scandal is for the security forces to retreat from the status systemic liberals, to whom, without a doubt, Sergei Guriev belongs. To be honest, I think that he will be beaten off and he will return to his post.
8. The resignation of Surkov and Guriev adds up to a general picture: those people who could pose a threat to the president will be removed from the upper echelons of power. Sergei Guriev was one of the ideologists of the anti-Putin front. Surkov could have been invited as a political strategist and manager to implement the anti-Putin project.
   Irina Khakamada, politician, member of the Human Rights Council under the President of the Russian Federation

1. On May 31, a closed meeting of the Human Rights Council took place, at which lawyer Tamara Morshchakova* summarized information on the departure of Sergei Guriev. We came to the conclusion that his departure from the country is still connected with the Khodorkovsky case and the examination in which Guriev participated.
   Sergey Guriev is an expert in the international pool, and according to the laws of international law, to suspect him of doing his research for commissioned money is like suspecting a football team of playing for money at a certain account is an insult to personal dignity , Article 21 of the Constitution. Even in the absence of a threat to end up in prison, Guriev, as an economist with a big name, was outraged by this situation - for him it was a vote of no confidence as an expert, and he left the country with one goal: not to live, as he said, in fear. A person could not work normally because of this hassle.
2. When professionals leave the country, this is a significant event. Guriev's departure is a signal that even a non-politicized, non-radical and professional minority is still surviving from the country only because it honestly defends its position. There are two ways out here: either this is the end of everything and people should pack their bags, or, on the contrary, intensification of the struggle, going to rallies in order to defend the dignity of the minority.
   Oleg Vyugin, Chairman of the Board of Directors of MDM Bank
3. The facts are as follows: Sergei Guriev was summoned for interrogation, he had a search. After that, the man leaves and says that he will not return until he feels that nothing threatens his freedom. If these facts are compared, then we can say that he was frightened by forceful pressure. But I am not aware of the reasons for this pressure. Sergei is a constructive and loyal person. He allowed himself reasonable criticism, but never raised the issue of changing the political system. He worked in an absolutely legitimate constitutional field. And I'm amazed at what happened to him.
4. My opinion is not a “signal”, but pure carelessness and irresponsibility. Educated, intelligent people know who Guriev is, what his reputation is in the West, what he did here. But those who simply follow orders, who call for interrogations in the Investigative Committee and conduct searches, do not know this and do not think about the consequences of their actions.