There is, if not a tradition, then at least a steady tendency: every few hundred years, our state changes its capital. Will it continue and which cities can claim the title of the center of the country?
Trade routes are changing capitals
The change of the main city, as a rule, took place against the background of serious geopolitical changes. So, Veliky Novgorod can be considered the first capital of the Russian state - it was there that the Slavic tribes, according to legend, called for the rule of Rurik in 862. However, the city did not remain the center of Ancient Rus for long.
Already in 882, Rurik's successor, Prince Oleg, settled in Kiev. “Mother of Russian cities” suited the role of the capital in the best possible way: it was closer to Byzantium - the main partner of Russia, protected due to its convenient location on the banks of the Dnieper. In addition, across this river lay the "Way from the Varangians to the Greeks" - then the main trade corridor from North to South.
By the middle of the 11th century, after Kiev became the residence of the Russian metropolitan, the institution of the capital in its modern sense was formed in the city. An important role in this was played by the long period of autocracy of the Kiev princes. But with the onset of feudal fragmentation in Russia, and especially after falling under the Tatar-Mongol yoke, the formation of statehood stalled.
Under the rule of the Horde, Russia, in fact, was not a monolithic state and was rather a collection of isolated principalities. At this time, Vladimir began to be considered the nominal capital - it was the local princes who were recognized by the Tatar-Mongols as the oldest. However, the local table, as a rule, was transferred to one of the appanage princes of the North-East, and the "Varangians", having received the title "Grand Duke of All Russia" in the Golden Horde, did not consider it necessary to personally sit in the city. As a result, Vladimir gradually turned into a provincial town.
After that, Moscow gradually came to the fore. The local princes eventually managed to unite Russia, free the country from the Tatar-Mongols and make their hometown the capital of the newly formed state. It is believed that Moscow acquired the status of a center in 1389, when Vasily I came to reign.
New capital First of all, it was distinguished by an advantageous location - and not only geographic and military, but also commercial. Through the Moskva River it was possible to get into other large rivers - the Volga, Oka and Klyazma, and along them - further south. In addition, the city by the XIV century had become the cultural and spiritual center of Russia.
Moscow remained the center of the country for more than 300 years - until 1712, when, at the behest of Peter I, St. Petersburg became the main city of the state. Petersburg by the will of the sovereign was specially created in order to be the capital. And the decisive factors in choosing a place were the proximity to Europe and the location on the sea coast: this allowed guests from other countries "to sail to the king by sea, and not to overcome the dangerous road to Moscow." The swampy delta of the Neva was not the most successful place for the construction of the city, but almost the only one that made it possible to connect Russia and Europe by the shortest sea route. This connection, in the opinion of the first emperor, was more consistent with the development path that he saw for the Russian state.
The wind of change
However, as history shows, the choice of the capital directly depends on the leadership's ideas about the future of the country. Petersburg was the main city for only two centuries: in 1918, the Bolsheviks who came to power, apparently no longer really needing guests "sailing by sea", returned the central status to Moscow, which it still retains.
However, today voices are again heard suggesting, if not completely, then at least partially, to transfer management functions to another city. Most often among the successors, of course, St. Petersburg is mentioned - he has been wooed for this role since 1991. It is quite simple to explain this: on the threshold of the third millennium, there were strong pro-Western sentiments in Russia, whose supporters believed that moving the capital closer to the “partners” would have a positive effect on the development of the state. Over time, others have added to this argument. For example, about the high degree of workload in Moscow by all kinds of officials. And if the craving for the West gradually diminished, then the last contradiction remains unresolved to this day.
However, in the future, St. Petersburg is far from the only city that could compete with Moscow for the right to hold the title of the capital. So, one of the most dynamically growing settlements in Russia is Krasnodar. Its population for ten years - from 2006 to 2016 - increased by 20% - up to 853 thousand people. The total number of residents, of course, is not comparable to the 12 million in the capital, but the growth turned out to be more significant than the Moscow 13%.
In addition, Krasnodar is invariably one of the largest economic centers in Russia. In the industrial complex of the city there are about 130 large and medium-sized enterprises, which employ about 30% of all employees. Moreover, in this settlement, the minimum number of unemployed is recorded.
The local economy is highly diversified: there are also factories producing metalworking appliances, as well as sewing and furniture factories. The favorable business climate in Krasnodar attracts the attention of both domestic and foreign investors. Officials would probably be attracted by the opportunity to work in an actively developing city with a mild climate, just 100 kilometers from the Black Sea. And at the same time reliably guarded by the Russian fleet.
Another frequenter of all kinds of ratings of Russian cities is Tyumen. This settlement, like Krasnodar, is one of the fastest growing: in ten years its population has increased by a third - from 542 to 721 thousand. In addition, Tyumen is the leader in the rating of cities in terms of living standards in 2017, which was compiled by the Department of Sociology of the Financial University under the Government. According to citizens' assessments, the level of education, utilities and road construction are recognized as the best here. The results show that Tyumen - the capital of the resource region - skillfully used the money received from oil and gas. And, of course, such experience would be useful for the whole country as a whole.
At the right time in the right place
However, getting into the ratings is far from the factor by which the capitals of states are selected. Both the historical role and the geographic location are decisive here. For the main city of the country, it is important that its place on the map is convenient not only for communication between regions, but also for interaction with major foreign partners. It is not for nothing that Kiev, Moscow and St. Petersburg took their place at different times.
But times are changing. Russia, once openly pro-European, is now turning eastward and betting on the Northern Sea Route, hoping to become a conduit between the Old World and Asia. And the ongoing changes in the future may well induce the authorities to change the capital.
One of the two Far Eastern cities - Vladivostok or Khabarovsk - is the best fit in this case. Already, both settlements are making good use of their border positions, establishing relationships with the "Asian tigers". And Vladivostok has made an infrastructure breakthrough thanks to the recent APEC summit held here. By the way, the event showed that the city can quite cope with representative functions.
Another contender for the title of the center is undoubtedly Krasnoyarsk. The city has already become the informal capital of Eastern Siberia - largely because of its powerful production base, transport and logistics capabilities. This settlement is located almost in the very heart of the country on one of its largest rivers - the Yenisei, which connects Krasnoyarsk with the northern territories. The city itself is located very close to the southern border of Russia.
If the forecasts, according to which the Northern Sea Route will become one of the world's main trade arteries, ready to compete with the Suez Canal in terms of the volume of cargo transported, then Murmansk, one of the largest ports in Russia, will inevitably claim the title of the capital. And the fact that this city is the largest in the world beyond the Arctic Circle should not scare off officials at all. The climate here is temperate, and if we take into account the widespread warming, then the weather conditions can be considered acceptable at all. So the cold is unlikely to become a hindrance, which cannot be said about the polar nights.
Delegate in parts
Russia, having moved the Constitutional Court from Moscow to St. Petersburg, has taken a step in a similar direction. For our country with its vast territory, the distribution of government bodies could even be the answer to many challenges. It is clear why, until recently, for example, the Ministry for the Affairs of the Far East or North Caucasus located in Moscow: to be closer to the center of decision-making. However, in the age of new technologies, this need is gradually disappearing.
So, in the near future, it is possible that management structures will be scattered throughout the state: the ministry in charge of the NSR is in Murmansk; department in charge of relations with Asian countries - in Vladivostok. And officials, perhaps, will be in charge of oil production from Tyumen.
The capital of Russia should be located in its geographical center, politicians and public figures have repeatedly stated. They cite Kazakhstan as an example of the successful transfer of the capital.
This time the idea to move the capital from Moscow to Yekaterinburg or Novosibirsk was put forward by the Senator of the Federation Council from the Republic of Buryatia, Arnold Tulokhonov.
« Novosibirsk, Yekaterinburg- any city. It is necessary to take the capital out of Moscow. This cannot be done in Moscow, it is becoming obsolete by itself. The capital should be in the middle, so that it is convenient not for officials, but for the population. Today, 75% of traffic is carried out through Moscow, and in order to get from Yakutsk to Chita, you have to go through Moscow, ”the senator said.
The main factor for the transfer of the capital is economic. According to Tulokhonov, "you cannot centralize the economy, you cannot centrally govern such a huge country." As a successful example of transferring the capital to another city, the senator cited Kazakhstan, where the capital moved from Almaty to Astana.
“Now from Astana in different directions for exactly three hours. How long do we have to fly from Chukotka to Moscow? " - said the senator.
Note that this is not the first such statement by government officials. So, the general director and co-owner of UC Rusal, Oleg Deripaska, proposed to move the capital to Siberia.
“The main decision is to move the capital to Siberia. Moscow is excessive centralization and corruption, ”Deripaska said.
The transfer of the capital from Moscow will contribute, in particular, to the integration of Russia with the Asia-Pacific region, and this, in his words, is "a matter of the survival of the entire country." The new Russian capital could be Krasnoyarsk and Irkutsk Deripaska suggested.
There are, of course, those who are against the transfer of the capital of Russia to any city. For example, activists of the Arkhnadzor movement, which is engaged in the protection of architectural monuments in Moscow.
“The transfer of capital functions from the historical capital of a great country is an unprecedented action that humanity has not yet known. Moscow took the position of the capital for historical reasons. The transfer of the capital's functions to another city will be a strong blow to the national identity of all residents of Russia, ”said Natalya Samover, coordinator of Arkhnadzor.
Only the absence of really significant political news and events in the season can explain the attention received by the news about the proposal to move the capital from Moscow to the Urals. Even Sergei Sobyanin himself responded to this idea. But no matter how a priori unrealistic the “initiative” is, the very fact of its hitting the headlines and active exaggeration shows that the topic has under it - no, not a foundation, but a certain breeding ground.
Although, according to the constitution, Russia is formally a "federation", everyone understands perfectly well that in fact our country is a highly centralized state. And not just centralized, but monocentric. We will not provide data on how much money passes through Moscow, percent of GDP is created and taxes are paid - everyone knows this very well. The main thing is that the gap in the standard of living between the capital and the province is indecently large and this creates a reason for dissatisfaction. The current reaction is a reflection of these frustrations.
In the developed world, such a difference in the standard of living has long been gone, and in many cases it was not. A person living in St. Louis or Portland is not deprived of anything compared to a person living in Washington or New York. The same goes for Munich and Berlin or Lyon and Paris. In our country, even St. Petersburg is an order of magnitude lower than Moscow in all respects. By the way, before 1917 there were actually two capitals in Russia and Muscovites were in no way inferior to Petersburgers. Chekhov, Tolstoy or Tchaikovsky did not suffer from their secondary nature or limited access to anything. It is curious that the market reforms after 1991 did not help in the least to bridge this gap between Moscow and the periphery, but only increased it.
Of course, having come to power, Vladimir Putin could not help but pay attention to this clearly acute problem. But it was impossible to solve it radically, so they resorted to profanity, like the transfer of the Constitutional Court to St. Petersburg. Whether this somehow raised the status of Northern Palmyra is a rhetorical question.
Foreign experience is of little use here. Yes, a number of large states have gone through the transfer of their capital from overcrowded metropolitan areas - for various reasons. In Nigeria (the most recent example), the capital was moved from Lagos to the very center of the country, not only due to overcrowding, but also to create a balance between the Christian-pagan South and the Muslim North.
In Brazil, the government left Rio de Janeiro to explore the country's hinterland. For about the same reasons, they did the same in Burma. In Turkey, moving to Ankara symbolized a break with the former Ottoman Turkey, the beginning of a new stage in history. In Kazakhstan, Astana instead of Alma-Ata meant the assertion of ethnic domination in the Russified lands.
But at the same time, the Mexican government is not leaving anywhere from suffocating Mexico City, and the Egyptian government is not leaving Cairo. In Argentina, a thirty-year-old decision to remove capital functions from Buenos Aires is being successfully sabotaged.
It should be understood that Russian history and geography differ from the history of the aforementioned countries, as well as the requirements of current policy. Russia was and is being built as a centralized state, so no one will allow to weaken the power in it. And the relocation of the capital means the inevitable, even if only for a limited period, its weakening. At the same time, this will mean leaving Moscow without a "lookout", and it is clear that Belokamennaya in any scenario will remain the richest and most populated city. Plus, the trend for the construction of a vertical of power has not been canceled, it was not for that it was erected for so many years. Even Skolkovo was afraid to build further than on the other side of the Moscow Ring Road. Moreover, at a time of economic crisis, when they cannot even build the notorious parliamentary center, where will the funds for the transfer of the capital come from?
The implementation of such an unpopular idea, which has no popular support, will not add additional PR points to the authorities, but will only add anger, create conflicts from scratch. Refusal from Moscow would run counter to the existing tradition. After all, Russia is not a Lego set that can be assembled and disassembled as you want. They are unlikely to risk giving up such metropolitan symbols as the Kremlin, Red Square, etc., and what's the point? This symbolism constitutes a tangible cultural and historical capital.
Khrushchev at one time tried to bring part of science to Novosibirsk, remove Timiryazevka from Moscow, and transferred the ministries of agriculture of the USSR and the RSFSR to state farms near Moscow. This was a gross tyranny that discredited such undertakings. Many times during the Soviet era, resolutions were adopted prohibiting the opening of new factories, research institutes, etc. in Moscow, but they were all sabotaged - the power of tradition and momentary convenience triumphed every time.
The fact that Beijing and Delhi are not the largest cities in China and India has developed historically, and not artificially, by a decision from above. And the fact that in the USA, Canada and Australia the capitals are located in small cities is explained by the fact that these countries were built from scratch, in the absence of external enemies, and such a decision was precisely the original and conscious.
On the other hand, the authorities now have no recipes for overcoming the civilizational gap between the center and the outskirts. All sorts of palliatives are used, like the annexation of entire districts of the Moscow region (the so-called "New Moscow") to Moscow - without any intelligible and public discussion, without taking into account the opinion of residents, by a willful decision from the Kremlin. But you cannot add the whole country to the capital, and there is still no evidence of efficiency in relation to the districts taken away from the region. Another imitation - the transfer of part of the capital's functions - has already been mentioned above.
Therefore, nothing threatens Moscow in the foreseeable future. But the problem of differences in living standards, inequality of access to educational, cultural and other benefits will remain. And it is not clear how the authorities will continue to twist themselves. After all, what explains such a gap? First of all, the weakness of the general economic development of the country. The point is not that less hardworking and enterprising people live in the provinces, but that the cream is being skimmed in Moscow - it closes the raw material chain, and therefore money from export-import operations settles here.
It is not the "advancement" of Muscovites and guests of the capital that creates capital, but the financial flows available here give rise to a pseudo-Western culture - with its office jargon stuffed with Anglicisms. All these clubs, cafes, etc., the entertainment industry "a la West", financial institutions (as well as the capital's level in the social sphere and housing and communal services) exist only and exclusively due to effective demand based on the comprador nature of the economy.
As far as tax policy is concerned, back in the early 2000s, the stake was made on the maximum redistribution of income through the federal budget. On the one hand, this gives some guarantees of survival for the poor and depressed regions (and they are in the majority in the country), on the other hand, it deprives the subjects of the federation of initiative, since no matter how much you earn, almost everything will go to Moscow.
A hypothetical transfer of the capital even to Siberia (which will never happen for the above political and cultural-historical reasons) would not correct this situation, because it would not change anything in the structure of the economy. In Saudi Arabia or in the Emirates, a uniform "smearing" of living standards is possible - a small population, a much smaller territory, there is no such spending on defense. In Russia, a certain town of officials would simply appear - nothing more.
The only solution to this issue in the long term is to move away from dependence on raw materials. But even then, many questions remain. Due to demographics, it is doubtful that Peter will become something like Shanghai and Sochi will become something like Mumbai. Roughly speaking, in India or Vietnam there is someone to work, but we do not. It seems that in the foreseeable future the civilizational split between Moscow and the rest of Russia will remain. And what should be thought about is how to prevent it from increasing.
It is difficult to count how many times deputies, oligarchs, scientists, cultural workers or ordinary citizens have proposed to take away the capital status from Moscow. In recent years, the dominance among cities - along with overcrowding, traffic jams and other problems - many newsmakers aloud dreamed of being dragged to the east. The most recent statement was made on his Facebook page by a member of the Supreme Council of the United Russia party, director of the Agency for Political and Economic Communications Dmitry Orlov - he proposed to move the capital to Yekaterinburg, which he considers "the best option."
And now Orlov's statement is being seriously discussed in the media, politicians and experts are arguing about this. With a feeling of undisguised envy, the editorial staff of NGS.NOVOSTI decided to remind that apart from Yekaterinburg there are others that are more suitable for transferring the capital of the city. For example, Novosibirsk. Judge for yourself.
1. Capital ambitions haunt us since the beginning of the XX century
About the status of the capital Russian Empire Novonikolaevsk did not have time to think, but he was able to declare himself the capital of the region already in 1907. The corresponding document, the act on the transfer of the then Novonikolaevsk lands of the Altai District, the imperial officials signed on December 9 in a building on Obskaya Street, 4 - from that moment Novonikolaevsk became an independent city, and later the capital of the region.
2. Novosibirsk has already tried on the metropolitan gloss
Novosibirsk first felt like the capital in 1942, when, during the war, not only factories from the European part of Russia, but also theater groups, an exposition and storage rooms of the Tretyakov Gallery were transferred to the city.
3. The vice-president of the Russian Federation spoke for the Novosibirsk capital
The ideologist of the transfer of part of the capital's powers to Novosibirsk in 1991 was the vice-president of the Russian Federation, Alexander Rutskoi. In 2012, he told the NGS.NOVOSTI correspondent that back in 1991 he proposed to move the government to Novosibirsk, leaving the presidential administration in Moscow: “The Russian government should sit in Novosibirsk. If we look at the prospects for the development of our country, this should have been done 20 years ago. Investments would go not to China, but to Russia. " According to Rutskoi, all the residents of Novosibirsk whom he met during perestroika business trips rejoiced and "applauded standing up" when they heard the idea of moving the capital Novosibirsk. But the plans were thwarted by Gennady Burbulis and Yegor Gaidar, who were opponents of this idea in Moscow.
4. Oligarchs dreamed of moving the capital to Siberia
The head of RUSAL, oligarch Oleg Deripaska, has repeatedly spoken out in favor of transferring the capital from Moscow, for example, to Novosibirsk. He spoke about this in 2008 and 2009. “To fight corruption, the capital must be moved to Yekaterinburg or Novosibirsk. Peter I was forced to flee Moscow, because bureaucratic costs, even in his era, were a burden for development, ”he said in an interview with the Spanish newspaper El Pais.
5.Novosibirsk was supported by neighbors from the Far East
In 2010, the Far East news agency Vostok-Media conducted a survey on the topic “Where should the capital of the state be located?”, In which 2079 residents of the region took part. Novosibirsk was supported by 34% of them, in second place was Moscow (21%), in third - St. Petersburg (10%). The editor-in-chief of RIA Vostok-Media, Nikolai Kutenkikh, then supported the readers' choice: "This choice only confirms that sane people live in the Far East." However, at the same time, he admitted that the inhabitants of the Far East do not have much love for Novosibirsk, and that it was simply the geographical criteria and the location of the city that were to blame.
6. Intellectuals wanted to see a scientific center in the role of the capital
Novosibirsk won the rating of alternative capitals in 2012, it got every fourth vote taken into account in a poll conducted on the RBC.Rating portal. The rating consisted of 15 alternative capitals, Novosibirsk got 24.03% of the votes, while it was significantly ahead of its competitors: Yekaterinburg was in second place (17.5% of the votes), Vladivostok was in third (about 10%). At the same time, St. Petersburg was even lower with 9.09% of the votes. Roman Mogilevsky, scientific director of the Agency for Social Information St. Petersburg, suggested at the time that it was not Novosibirsk at all. “There is a factor of a special critical-thinking audience of the RBC portal here. These are educated people who have become hostages of their own image of Novosibirsk. In the generally accepted view, your city is a large scientific and educational center with a highly developed innovative industry, a quiet political haven, a spacious, developed, tolerant city. Taking into account that there are businessmen in the audience of RBC, answering the question, they took into account that the risk of losing a business in Novosibirsk is lower than in Moscow or St. Petersburg, ”the sociologist said.
7. The idea was also supported by influential Siberians
They began to talk about the transfer of the capital from Moscow to Siberia again after Sergei Shoigu announced that the capital of Russia should be located in Siberia. His remark was happily supported by Vladimir Gorodetsky, who was then the mayor of Novosibirsk. “I think when great politicians consider where the capital should be, Novosibirsk has the right to claim this mission,” he said. Gorodetsky, on the other hand, became the author of a local meme about the "metropolitan gloss", which was supposed to appear in Novosibirsk after the next snow removal.
8. MPs from the Liberal Democratic Party tried to make Novosibirsk a city of federal significance
The corresponding draft federal constitutional law was submitted to the State Duma by the LDPR deputy Dmitry Savelyev. He offered to form in the composition Russian Federation a new subject - the city of federal significance Novosibirsk, and to place two ministries in it - the Ministry of Regional Development and the Ministry of Eastern Development. “Now everything is packed into one capital - Moscow. Outside the Moscow Ring Road, by and large, there is no life, as it were. So, at least, the inhabitants of the province joke bitterly. As a result, Russia was placed in the province, in the so-called castle, ”Dmitry Savelyev explained his initiative.
9.In 2015, a convicted State Duma deputy spoke out in favor of the Siberian capital, straight from the colony
State Duma deputy from the Communist Party of the Russian Federation Konstantin Shirshov, who was sentenced to 5 years for trying to sell his mandate, wrote the corresponding bill in the Matrosskaya Tishina colony, Gazeta.ru reported. He was not deprived of his deputy status, so he could make any proposals. He called the bill "a testament from Matrosski", the deputy proposed to move the capital to Novosibirsk to "create a more stable structure of the territorial-political structure with the center in Western Siberia." The capital had to be relocated due to high housing prices, infrastructure problems, corruption, social mobility and justice, he wrote. The total number of arguments in favor of Novosibirsk was 17 pages. Among them was the frequently mentioned statement that "today Novosibirsk is the fastest growing city in the world, included in this regard in the Guinness Book of Records."
10. In the end, Novosibirsk supported Buryatia
Last winter, a member of the Federation Council from Buryatia, Arnold Tulokhonov, spoke out in favor of the transfer of the capital, stating that Moscow was becoming obsolete, as reported by the Baikal Daily portal. When asked by a journalist about where to move the capital of Russia, the senator replied that there was no difference. “Novosibirsk, Sverdlovsk. No difference. It can be any city. This cannot be done in Moscow. Moscow is becoming obsolete by itself, ”Tulokhonov quoted Baikal Daily. He also said that the capital should be located in a more convenient location. “It is necessary to" take out "the capital from Moscow: it should be in the middle, so that it is convenient not for officials, but for the population. Today, 75% of all traffic is carried out through Moscow. And to get from Yakutsk to Chita, you have to go through Moscow, "- quoted Tulokhonov" InformPolis online ".
Poll of the Week: Does Russia Need a “New” Capital in the East?
This week Sergei Shoigu said that in the Russian Federation it is necessary to create a large financial and industrial center beyond the Urals, a kind of new eastern capital of the country. Do you need a similar project? Is it possible to solve the problem of population and development of Siberian territories in this way? And can such a project be advisable in a difficult economic and foreign policy environment? “BUSINESS Online” is answered by Maxim Kalashnikov, Vladislav Zhukovsky, Fatih Sibagatullin, Eduard Limonov, Marat Galeev and others.
Photo: Kirill Kallinikov, RIA Novosti
"WE CAN'T LEAVE THE FAR EAST, IT WILL BE PICKED UP IF IT WILL BE DESIRED"
Maxim Kalashnikov- writer, futurologist:
- As they say, less than 20 years have passed. We wrote with Yuri Krupnov in 2002-2003 that the country needs a large center and the creation of a new capital in the Far East or Siberia. It really is, it is really necessary. And this can only be done within the framework of the country's industrialization course, I believe, the course of protectionism. Because Moscow is everything - it does not play its role. It plays a clearly expressed role of a swamp, where everything goes out, we need to "mosquito" the country. Everything there is so permeated with corruption, with this clannishness, that nothing can be done. If we start a policy of new industrialization, if we do not spend money on nonsense, on the same senseless war in Syria, if we start to do our own thing (Novorossia is ours, it is not even discussed here), then we will completely pull the creation of a new industrial, innovation center. Finances are attached to this.
I think we need to think about Novosibirsk, for example. This is a huge promising territory, our land. And the capital should be there now. Moreover, it should be in the middle so that there is no such difference between Vladivostok and Kaliningrad. This project can only be part of the general policy of new industrialization, which, I repeat, is impossible without protectionism. This is how Trump is doing. When the industry develops everywhere, where, in fact, we live.
Pavel Klachkov- political analyst (Krasnoyarsk):
- I think that now it is most expedient, especially in the context of the transformation of the current geopolitical situation, when we really feel that our partners from the West do not understand us, and the Western orientation, which we have inherited since the 90s, shows more and more its inferiority. Now a balanced policy, taking into account what our Minister of Defense is proposing, is more timely than ever. Perhaps today it is one of the most effective ways solutions, including problems that arise due to the disproportionate territorial development of our large country. We need some kind of balance, we also need a center that will provide us with stability, stability as a single organism.
Is it possible with the help of such a project to solve the problem of population and industrial development of Siberian territories? Of course, the world experience, and just common sense, and the scientific approach tell us about this, because people are drawn to where there is some kind of movement - social, economic, financial movement. In the event of the emergence and worthy organization of this center, this will undoubtedly help to solve the demographic problem and increase the stability of our political and economic system.
Alexey Mazur- political scientist (Novosibirsk):
- I agree with Sergei Kuzhugetovich, because we have a huge geographical imbalance. Roughly speaking, about 80 percent of Russia's export potential, what the Russian Federation earns, is mined beyond the Urals. At the same time, about 20 percent of the population lives beyond the Urals. And the living standard of the inhabitants of Siberia is lower than in other regions. There is also a geographic problem. That is, getting from Siberia to any place where it is warm and sea is five times more expensive than from Moscow, for example. For many, this is simply not available. And if nothing is done, then all the money will be pumped into Moscow, the European capital of the world level, so to speak, with an appropriate standard of living. At the same time, Siberia is degrading, people are leaving here, and, of course, strategically this can lead to very sad consequences, because empty lands with fossils will be developed by someone else. Actually, we already see how the Chinese are developing the Siberian forest, ore, deposits in Transbaikalia, and not only there. And if this policy is not changed, then the long-term consequences can be very sad. Unfortunately, our state knows how to think only in large objects, they say, let's make a new center, although, of course, it would be more reasonable to develop the regional eastern policy in a different way. But at least so.
Shamil Ageev- Chairman of the Board of the CCI RT:
- I think that at one time it was not entirely correct when Skolkovo was developing at a time when it was possible to develop academic cities in Novosibirsk and so on. This topic was discussed during the life of Yevgeny Primakov during a meeting of the "Mercury Club", about 8 years ago. And I think that now we need to implement the decisions that were made by the president and the government on the development of the Far East. And the creation of such new cities, which you are talking about, will do nothing. Need to move to Far East industrial production, create jobs there, conditions for attracting investors. Maybe create a city of some kind, if it attracts more attention, improves the infrastructure. We in Russia suffer from the fact that we have a very weak infrastructure. And all of China is covered with a network of high-speed railways. If there is such a point of view in Shoigu's ideas, then it must be supported precisely from the point of view of infrastructure development. There will be infrastructure - everything else will be pulled up there, because we cannot leave the Far East, it will be picked up if it is ownerless.
"ALREADY IS PROBABLY 100 YEARS AS IT IS TIME TO MOVE THE CAPITAL TO THE LAKE BAIKAL REGION"
Vladislav Zhukovsky- economist:
- I understand that appetites different kinds Kremlin towers are growing and representatives of large oligarchic clans do not lose hope of snatching some pieces for themselves. And since these clans, one way or another, have to be constantly fed so that they do not arrange a palace coup and turmoil, they are allowed to cut the money allocated for the Winter Olympics in Sochi, someone is enriched by holding the World Cup, someone is construction of a bridge, roads, someone on defense orders, in general, who is where. It is quite obvious that if you and I can save and earn money, for example, by raising the retirement age, increasing VAT, excise taxes on fuel, increasing communal services, introducing Platon and carrying out other anti-social measures, capital such a number will not work. In such a situation, of course, the security officials also want to live well, eat tasty food - and why don't we arrange such another PR, implement some extravagant idea? For example, to organize first an all-Russian, then an all-planetary, and then an intergalactic chess tournament with the aim of money laundering. Quite a great initiative.
You need to understand that it is impossible to build some kind of financial and industrial cluster in one place in order to somehow revive something and bring it out of the crisis. When the entire financial and economic, budgetary, tax, customs, tariff, pricing policy is aimed at suppressing growth points, at destroying small and medium-sized businesses, at destroying a resource-based economy, at marginalizing the population, one or two trillion cannot be pumped into some territory. If the population is poor, poor, if there is no structural policy on territorial distribution, if there are no necessary tax incentives, and so on, then it is pointless in Yekaterinburg or Tomsk, Tyumen, in Birobidzhan to try to create, I don’t know, Silicon Valley or something else. This does not solve the problem. From my point of view, this is PR in its purest form, a desire to remind about oneself and create some kind of positive information agenda against the background of outright failures, or this is open lobbying of the security forces to allocate some kind of superpowers and natural resources to them.
Eduard Limonov- writer, politician:
- It seems to me that Shoigu did not fully think through everything when he separates some new financial capital from the old capital. When there are two capitals, there can always be some kind of separatism, the threat of secession. And then no transport problem and infrastructure problem can be solved that way. This is a half-hearted measure, akin to the one used in the case of New Moscow, which started unsuccessfully and continues unsuccessfully.
I agree that we sat out in Moscow a long time ago. After all, Moscow is still the capital of the medieval Moscow principality, which was located on the territory of Northern Europe. And it’s probably already 100 years since it’s time to move the capital to the area of Lake Baikal. I have spoken about this countless times, if I am not mistaken - since 1994. There is no need to divide anything, the idiot understands that there should be only one capital. I remember that the deputy from the Novosibirsk region at the same time proposed to move the capital to Novosibirsk. But this is nonsense, because the city should be completely new, in a new place, with new architecture. You can compare it with anything, with the city of Brasilia in Brazil, but it is better not to compare, but to do what is necessary. In the meantime, Moscow geographically remains the capital of a medieval principality, just like our Kremlin, for no purpose, except for show-off, does not serve.
Fatih Sibagatullin- Deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation:
- I think that there will be no harm if such a center is created beyond the Urals, let them open it. After all, Lomonosov said that the wealth of Russia will grow in Siberia. We have about 27 million people there, and such a large territory. As for such programs, they have already been created, but have not come true. They gave him a hectare of land in the Far East, but what to do with it? In order to just get there, you need 15 thousand rubles, to pay for accommodation 10 thousand a month. Where will a guy from Drozhzhanovsky district get such funds, for example, if he wants to go? Now we do not need a center, but a program where everything is detailed.
Marat Galeev- Deputy of the State Council of the Republic of Tatarstan:
- This is not the first time such thoughts have been expressed. In different centuries of the existence of the Russian state, many have come up with similar ideas, but it seems to me that this proposal is not entirely adequate for the current state of the country and the economy. To artificially create something, especially in the form of a financial center ... Now the logistics are all built differently, communications are all built differently, and this should grow naturally. The idea of developing the East should go through the development of productive forces, which has never been done. And it's so easy to start creating is a costly path. Not profitable, but costly.
"IT IS POSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND SHOYGU'S CONCERN, THEY WANT TO STRENGTHEN THE RUSSIAN WORLD"
Robert Nigmatullin- Scientific director of the Institute of Oceanology. Shirshov RAS, Academician of RAS:
“You can't tell anything from Shoigu’s words alone, but the fact that Siberia and the Far East need to be developed is no doubt about it. Because now, while things are going so that we will lose the Far East in a few decades, since there is no one there, there are no people. But this is a consequence of the lack of development of the Far East and Siberia, a consequence of the erroneous economic strategy that the government and the president are pursuing in our country. With the current strategy, nothing will happen - these are just words that have been in the past two decades. The global strategy is about 25 percent of investments, and we have 17 percent of our GDP going to investments, that is, we need to raise the investment potential by about 10 percent. But we cannot do this, we will invest there, the other leg will get stuck - this is the whole point.
Our economic ship needs to change its course, and the course is associated with an increase in wages, the development of oligarchic flows that go abroad for super-wealth. This money should be turned over and go to the development of productive forces. For example, our research fleet is now suffering, while a large number of yachts are owned by billionaires. We solve all economic problems at the expense of the poor class: here we need to raise the pension - let's at the expense of it, but we do not want to start with the funds of the rich, which are transferred abroad, used for palaces. These are all words, for 20 years now we have been saying that Siberia and the Far East need to be developed, but apart from beautiful gestures, conferences ... Well, at least a bridge was built to the Russky Island ...
Rkail Zaydulla- playwright:
- Their concern is understandable, because the territory is huge, and there are few people, there is a quiet occupation by the Chinese. But where do they want to create such a center? Is Novosibirsk not the capital of the region? Or Krasnoyarsk, for example? Unclear. They have already tried to implement some projects - like they gave one hectare of land ... There are not so many people who want to relocate from the central regions of Russia. Well, who will move there ?! Now is not the Stalinist era, people cannot be dispossessed and resettled. I do not believe that now it is possible to create any centers and move people there. You can understand Shoigu's concern, they want to strengthen the Russian world, stop the Chinese expansion, but I do not believe that the project will be implemented now.
Mikhail Skoblionok- businessman, president of the Jewish national-cultural autonomy of the Republic of Tatarstan:
- There should be such centers in every large city, I do not think that the Ural center should be created or the Volga one ... In the capital of each republic, region there should be a center that will monitor the economic development of its region and project financing. And so, just to create ... Yes, create what you want, you need to create for it all to work. Here we have created Innopolis: no matter how they talk about it, no matter what they talk about, you need to go there and see if it works or not. There they invested a lot of money in medical equipment, made a huge building, but it doesn't work. Well, who will go there for treatment? What kind of grandmother will go 40 kilometers there and 40 kilometers back? But we do it all for show, not for people.
Damir Iskhakov- Doctor of Historical Sciences.