“He is not ready to work with the State. On the contrary, he tries to fight against it,” replies to Vlast weekly

A selection of replies to Vlast weekly, Monday 25 August 2008

The Kommersant publishing house weekly asked a wide variety of politicians, businessmen and other public figures (some did not reply, see end): “Would you have released Mikhail Khodorkovsky?”

Sergei Alexashenko, deputy chair of Central Bank (1995-1998): “As a citizen I believe that his formal conviction has nothing to do with why they imprisoned him. Justice should triumph in the end. Yes, and he’s been in prison long enough, he poses no further danger.”

Vladimir Bryntsalov, businessman and one-time presidential candidate: “No. [I would not have freed him].”

Alexei Chadayev, member of the Public Chamber, author of Putin: His Ideology: “If you’re going to release people, then you certainly shouldn’t start with him. Thousands are in prison for much less clear reasons. Why pay so much attention to him?”

Vasily Duma, deputy chairman of the Federation Council committee on natural resources, president of Slavneft company (1998-2000): “I think that Khodorkovsky has served his time. Well, I can’t see any need to keep him in such harsh conditions. I feel sorry for him, he was imprisoned for activities that every businessman was engaged in at the time.”

Vitaly Ginsburg, Nobel laureate, Russian Academy of Sciences: “I would release him. My impression is that he has been in prison awfully long. How much longer?”

Sergei Ivanenko, deputy chairman of Yabloko party: “Even if the charges were found to be legitimate, they do not provide grounds for arrest. Khodorkovsky should not have been deprived of his freedom then, let alone now.”

Vladimir Kashin, deputy chairman of the Russian Communist Party’s Central Committee presidium: “The money he earned has been confiscated, he poses no danger to society. Nevertheless, I would release him on certain conditions: for example, I would forbid him from engaging in big business.”

Mikhail Kasyanov, Prime Minister (2000-2004), chairman of the People’s Democratic Union movement: “I don’t think his release will be possible in the near future. If the authorities were to free Khodorkovsky, it would be a glaring signal of thaw to everybody.”

Alexander Lebedev, founder of the National Reserve Corporation, co-owner of Novaya gazeta: “I would have asked for his release.”

Lubov Sliska, Duma deputy speaker (United Russia): “If there are no legal obstacles to his early release, then why not? I don’t know all the juridical aspects of the case, it’s true.”

Oleg Sysuyev, first deputy chairman of Alfa Bank: “Yes, without any hesitation. Khodorkovsky is in prison for crimes which any Russian businessman might be accused of committing. By releasing Khodorkovsky, Russia will show that it is a tolerant state.”

Boris Titov, chairman of the Delovaya Rossiya non-governmental organisation: “In matters relating to punishment, it is better to under-do than over-do things. I am in favour of the least harsh of options.”

Vadim Varshavsky, Duma deputy (United Russia), co-owner of the Russian coal (Russky ugol) and Estar companies: “Yes. [I would have freed him].”

Andrei Vorobyov, deputy leader, United Russia faction in the Duma: “I think this decision is a very difficult one.”

Among those who did not reply to Vlast’s question were: Roman Abramovich, Vagit Alekperov (Lukoil), Vladimir Bogdanov (Surgutneftegaz), Sergei Bogdanchikov (Rosneft), Simeon Vainshtok (Transneft), Victor Vekselberg (Renova), Vladimir Yevtushenkov (Sistema), Oleg Kiselyov, Vladimir Lisin (Novolipetsk Steel), Vladimir Potanin (Interros), Mikhail Fridman (Alfa Bank) and Yevgeny Shvidler (Millhouse llc).

Politicians, businessmen and others comment

Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Monday 25 August 2008

WHY KHODORKOVSKY HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED

Mikhail Vinogradov, president, Russian Political Conjuncture Center:

We have recently seen the early release of opposition activist Kozulin in Belarus - interpreted as a pro-European gesture by Minsk. Given the recent war in South Ossetia, releasing Khodorkovsky could have been interpreted as a concession on Russia's part - an undesirable move during a confrontation with the West. However, the possibility of parole for Khodorkovsky is by no means a closed topic.

Gleb Pavlovsky, president, Effective Policy Foundation:

This is a serious political error, caused by the strange uncertainty among our political authorities about the moment our country is experiencing: their profound lack of understanding of the state of our society and the immediate long-term tasks we face. Some of our political generals are still fighting far to the rear of their own policies - they're still fighting an old war which has long been won. National modernization tasks are extremely different from the tasks of re-establishing statehood; new enemies and new problems arise on this path, far more complicated and substantial.

Dmitri Oreshkin, independent political analyst:

Releasing Khodorkovsky would be a challenge to the value system established during the Putin era. It would mean that the Putin era is drawing to a close, and some sort of new era is dawning. Putin established a special kind of language for intra-elite communication, and it's very simple: might is right. In some other language, releasing Khodorkovsky might mean compassion, humane treatment, a kingly gesture, or whatever - but in Putin's language it could only mean one thing: weakness. Implying that if Putin releases Khodorkovsky, someone must have put pressure on Putin - Bush or someone else. In this value system, any talk of releasing Khodorkovsky can only annoy Putin, since he perceives this as a form of pressure on himself.

Gazeta.ru website, Friday 22 August 2008

Vladimir Ryzhkov, chairman of the unregistered Republican Party of Russia: “I was 99% sure that Khodorkovsky would be denied parole. Nothing has changed in the country’s leadership, especially among the siloviki.”

Sergei Markov, Duma deputy (United Russia): “In the 1990s all our oligarchs broke the law, but Khodorkovsky went further: he threw down the gauntlet to the Russian government and the Russian state system. And he was convicted for crimes which were indeed committed. Moreover, I am sure that if the Yukos affair were investigated exhaustively, then a thousand-year sentence could have been given. The law was applied in respect of Khodorkovsky, and now, according to the law, he is guilty.”

Nikita Belykh, leader of the party Union of Right Forces: “Even if the court had ruled in Mr Khodorkovsky’s favour, it would have changed nothing for him. It would by no means have meant that he would have been freed; after all a new criminal case has been brought against him, and the pre-trial measures include his arrest.”

Alexei Makarkin, deputy director of the Centre for Political Studies: “A very serious influence of the law enforcement agencies directly involved in the Yukos affair remains among the people who are now spinning a new case against its former head. For them Khodorkovsky’s release could be a serious political blow. What’s more, it could change the existing balance of power.”

Vadim Klyuvgant, lawyer for the former head of Yukos: “The ruling is a blatant example of legal nihilism. The reasons for the rejection are mere formalities, entirely shallow. This ruling has been caused by intense pressure from people who are simply scared, personally scared that Khodorkovsky could end up freed.”

Sergei Kovalyov, human rights activist, member of Yabloko party: “Yes, they could have agreed to release him on parole, left the second criminal case and imprisoned him again. But what for? Did they imprison him in order to release him? No, they have shown us and Khodorkovsky that there’s no need to get all excited: nothing will change, and there’s no need to pin hopes on a liberal president.”

Genry Reznik, lawyer, member of the Public Chamber: “Did this court ruling depend on President Medvedev’s will? I take great exception to the raising of such a question, although I am entirely in agreement with it (laughs long and infectiously – Gazeta.ru). As a distinguished law expert, I am offended and choke with indignation at such a lack of faith in our most independent judge in the world.”