Only the lack 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 unrealistic the "initiative" is a priori, 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 never existed. 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 overpopulation, 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 the current policy. Russia was and is being built as a centralized state, therefore 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 the vertical of power has not been canceled, it was not for that so many years that it was built. 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 sign of efficiency in relation to the regions taken away from the region. Another imitation - the transfer of a 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 how the government will get out further is not clear. 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 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 metropolitan 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 there are the majority of them 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.
History does not tolerate the subjunctive mood? She still suffers. Especially here - in Russia. We list the cities that could be the capital of our Motherland (and even those who have tasted the informal capital status). If not for the circumstances ...
Velikiy Novgorod
Of course, this is the first thing that comes to mind. The richest Russian city-state until the 16th century, the place of Rurik's vocation. It was here that “the Russians, the Chud, the Slovenes, the Krivichi and the whole said:“ Our land is great and abundant, but there is no order in it. Come to reign and rule over us. " Actually, this would be more than enough to claim the all-Russian capital status. However, Veliky Novgorod had other plans: the city bathed in its own self-sufficiency and independence and shunned any geopolitical games aimed at dominating the territory of the former Kievan Rus. As a result, in 1478, John III came and closed the "feudal republic". From that moment on, the city began to dive down: from a subject of world politics, Veliky Novgorod turned into a regional center and a city-museum, where there is something to show foreigners.
In terms of age, this city could well compete with Novgorod the Great. Rurik also ruled here, the inhabitants of the city actively participated in Oleg's campaigns against Constantinople, and it was here that the seed of the future of Moscow Russia was sown. For a long time Rostov was the main city in North-Eastern Russia and the largest spiritual center. However, he could not withstand the pressure of Moscow and the Danilovich dynasty. First, Rostov at the beginning of the XIV century was divided into two parts: Borisoglebskaya and Sretenskaya (which turned out to be under the Moscow protectorate). The entire disloyal elite was expelled from the Moscow unit. The author of "The Life of Sergius of Radonezh", who, incidentally, was a native of the Rostov boyar family, laments: "Alas for Rostov and his princes, they took power, reign, estate and glory from them." And already John III in 1474 finally bought out the second, Borisoglebsk, half of the city. And Rostov began his descent unhindered to the state of a quiet provincial town.
Vladimir
Founded at the end of the 10th century on the site of a small settlement of the Merya tribe, Vladimir received the status of the capital city of North-Eastern Russia in a century and a half. Thanks to Prince Andrei Bogolyubsky, who in 1157 moved the capital of "the entire Suzdal land" here. But the Mongol-Tatar invasion undermined the promising development of Vladimir. Despite the conditional status of the capital, the city quickly lost its primacy. The last prince to reign directly in Vladimir was Alexander Nevsky.
At the dawn of Russian statehood, Suzdal was a very influential city. Despite the adoption of Orthodoxy, it remained one of the centers of paganism until the 12th century. It was here that the famous uprising of the Magi broke out in 1024. A little over 100 years have passed; the Magi cooled down a little and scattered across the nearest thickets, and Yuri Dolgoruky made Suzdal the center of the North-Eastern land. But not for long. And already in 1392 the Grand Duchy of Moscow, having absorbed this city, finally buried the "capital" ambitions of Suzdal. But in the 16th century the city became one of the spiritual centers of the country. But also not for long. At first, Suzdal resigned himself to the status of a provincial county town, well, but already in our era he took on the burden of "historic Disneyland".
Many lovers of antiquity dream of the status of the capital of these cities (today, in fact, villages). However, Ladoga parted with the claim to the capital city even before the Baptism of Rus. This city was founded by the Varangians. It was from here that the Norman colonization of the future territory of Russia began. According to one version, it was here (and not in Novgorod) that Rurik sat down to rule. In those days, Ladoga was a port city, where merchant caravans gathered, trade in furs, jewelry, weapons and slaves was brisk. Actually, that's all the claims to the status of the capital. Already in the 10th century Ladoga fell into complete dependence on Veliky Novgorod, and in 1703 the “ancient capital of Northern Russia” lost its status as a city.
Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda
This small town breathed the life of the capital under Ivan the Terrible, who made it the center of his oprichnina. For more than a decade and a half, life was in full swing here: the most important political decisions were made in Sloboda, the embassies of the most influential states of that time were opened, and negotiations were held at the highest level. The best icon painters and architects worked in Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda; the first conservatory in Russia was founded, where the best musicians and singers were brought from all over the country by the decree of the tsar. The first provincial printing house in the country was also opened here, and in 1576 the "Slobodskaya Psalter" printed by Andronicus Nevezhy was published. It is in Sloboda that traces of the legendary library of Grozny are lost.
But one day it all ended at once. In 1581, the tsar left for Moscow and never returned. And the city fell asleep for several centuries.
City of Kitezh
According to legend, the city was founded by Prince Vladimir Yuri Vsevolodovich on the shores of Lake Svetloyar. The city stood for 75 years before the invasion of Khan Batu. When Batu's troops approached him, then, according to the prayers of the inhabitants, Kitezh disappeared. According to one version, he disappeared under the water of the lake, according to another, he simply became invisible. In the Russian tradition, it was believed that the city would become visible again only with the second coming of Christ. True, there are legends that the city can still be seen (and even lived there!) By the true righteous. For them, it is already the capital ...
Several cities at once claim to bear the honorary title of the third capital of Russia. It is not clear, frankly, what exactly is honorable or profitable in this, because the city automatically recognizes the primacy of Moscow and St. Petersburg in all directions. Yes, the reality is exactly that, but our cities could not reach for two capitals, but immediately adopt, say, the European experience.
Maybe for foreign tourists coming to Russia there is some charm in this label, and it's all about their wallets? We do not have any special deductions from the federal budget for this title ... Be that as it may, there was a serious struggle for the status of the third capital some time ago, and disputes do not subside to this day.
Now the brand "Third Capital" belongs to Kazan. The city squeezed him out of Nizhny Novgorod and other less successful competitors. But times are changing. In recent years, proposals have often been heard to move the capital of Russia somewhere to the Urals or Siberia, so that soon the struggle for the right to carry the banner of the third capital may again become relevant.
What do you think about this? Let's vote, because we have so many cool applicants!
Kazan
Everything is clear with Kazan. The capital of Tatarstan, an ancient but modern city, which Putin himself called the third capital! True, sometimes there is such a thing ...
Novosibirsk
The third largest city in Russia, the capital of Siberia (although here Krasnoyarsk would argue), which in 100 years has turned from a provincial town into a metropolis. True, in 1993 Rutskoy and Khasbulatov wanted to establish their temporary capital here, but Novosibirsk residents are not to blame for this!
Yekaterinburg
The capital of the Urals with rich history, a permanent contender for the title of the third capital, the city in which the first president of Russia matured!
Nizhny Novgorod
The capital of the Volga region ... True, this is the only million-plus city in Russia that is losing population, but Nizhny Novgorod will still never recognize the primacy of Kazan!
Velikiy Novgorod
One of the oldest cities in Russia, once a rich center of international trade, which remained independent even during the Horde occupation of Russia, has now turned into a backwater (although it is the capital of the region). Nikita Mikhalkov himself proposed to assign the status of the third capital to Veliky Novgorod.
Samara
Samara during the years of great upheavals was already (in fact) the temporary capital of Russia and the USSR. Another city, whose inhabitants could not help but be jarred by the fact that Kazan overtook them.
Omsk
Ah, Omsk! Once Kolchak sat here, but now Dvorakovsky was barely kicked out ... But maybe the status of the third capital will help this beautiful Siberian city to revive?
Sevastopol
The city-brace, which after the annexation of the Crimea to Russia, received a unique status: along with Moscow and St. Petersburg, Sevastopol, from the point of view of legislation, is an independent region - a city of federal significance.
Grozny
Another city that the center is willing to spend money on. A city that rose from the ashes after the Chechen wars and acquired great political importance, each time guaranteeing the incumbent president and the ruling party an excellent election result.
Great, but we need some more option for the fans of the Soviet Union!
Maybe Ruzayevka in Mordovia? 
Or Naberezhnye Chelny in Tatarstan? But then it will bomb all over Kazan ... 
Let it be better Volgograd! Moreover, I have not been there yet and cannot judge with a biased view. And especially for fans of the USSR, we will also rename it Stalingrad, it's not a pity!
So let's practice choosing!
UPD: There will still be a second round. Kazan residents, with the active support of the Tatarstan media, tried very hard and forced, but still did not make it before midnight, and the voting results turned into a pumpkin!
At 0:05 Moscow time it was like this:
Kazan and Yekaterinburg will reach the final, as you might have guessed! I hope that by the second round the Yekaterinburg residents will also wake up, and an exciting struggle awaits us.
Which city is worthy of the title of the third capital of Russia? Velikiy Novgorod 83
(2.5
%
)
Volgograd
79 (2.4 % )
70 (2.1 % )
Yekaterinburg
688 (20.6 % )
1576 (47.3 % )
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. The fact that the country needs a large center and the creation new capital it was in the Far East or Siberia that we wrote with Yuri Krupnov in 2002-2003. This is really so, it is really necessary. And this can be done only within the framework of the country's industrialization course, I believe, the course of protectionism. Because Moscow is all - its role does not pull. It plays a clearly defined role of a swamp, where everything goes out, we need to "unmake" the country. Everything there is so permeated with corruption, 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 doing our own business (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 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 their inferiority. A balanced policy, taking into account what our Minister of Defense is proposing, is now more timely than ever. Perhaps, at the moment, this is one of the most effective ways of solving, including the 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 geographic 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, 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 it is necessary to carry out the decisions 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. It is necessary to move industrial production to the Far East, 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 the whole 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:
- As far as I understand, the appetites of all sorts of Kremlin towers are growing and representatives of large oligarchic clans do not lose hope of snatching some pieces for themselves. And since these clans somehow 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, then in relation to representatives of a large oligarchic 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 makes no sense 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 outright 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. Nothing needs to be divided, 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 remains geographically 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 they 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 per month. Where will the boy from the 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. It is artificial to 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 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, because 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:
- Such centers should be 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, the region should have a center that will monitor the economic development of its region, 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.
There is, if not a tradition, then at least a stable 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, the first capital of the Russian state can be considered Veliky Novgorod - 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, the “Way from the Varangians to the Greeks” lay across this river - 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.
The new capital was primarily distinguished by its advantageous location - 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.
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 particularly 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. To explain this is quite simple: 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 not 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 increase was 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 geographical 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. Not for nothing, Kiev, Moscow and St. Petersburg at different times took their place.
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. By the way, the event showed that the city can 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, 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 understandable why until recently, for example, the ministries for the affairs of the Far East or the North Caucasus were located in Moscow: in order 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.