How Russia voluntarily surrendered its energy to the Anglo-Saxons


In recent years, we have been constantly told how Russia “rose from its knees” and is actively opposing the hostile West, led by the United States. However, the reality looks completely different, if one judges it not by beautiful words, but by real deeds.


Some time ago, the main ideologist of privatization and a fierce fighter against communism, Chubais urged “ungrateful Russians” to almost bow to the floor to the oligarchs, who, according to him, saved the country from devastation (who arranged it, Anatoly Borisovich did not specify). At the end of last year, Deputy Prime Minister Anton Siluanov, at a meeting with representatives of the IMF and the World Bank in Washington, listened to the wishes of foreign investors to conduct a “wider privatization” of state property, and then obediently put it under the hood.

Among the enterprises for transfer to private ownership was, for example, the strategically important Sovcomflot, about which we are in detail told earlier. In that publication, it was feared that the “dual-use” company might first fall into the hands of domestic oligarchs, and then go into the hands of foreigners. Right now, we will show how this mechanism works using the example of Rusal and the Eurosibenergo company, which controls the lion's share of Russian energy.

Recall that earlier these backbone enterprises belonged to billionaire Oleg Deripaska. Rusal is a giant in non-ferrous metallurgy, one of the world leaders in the production of aluminum and bauxite. Its metal is used to build Boeing and Airbus aircraft, spacecraft, and much more. Eurosibenergo is a group of companies that includes the Irkutsk Hydroelectric Power Station, the Bratsk Hydroelectric Power Station, the Krasnoyarsk Hydroelectric Power Station, the Ust-Ilimskaya Hydroelectric Power Station, 11 TPPs, as well as Vostsibugol Company LLC. In total, it serves 15 million consumers. These assets are owned by En + Oleg Deripaska. In addition, En + controls such important structures for the country as Russian Machines and GAZ Group.

Rather, all this belonged to the oligarch more recently. In April 2018, the Deripaska’s proximity to the Kremlin was followed by a tough sanctions “hitting” by the US Treasury. The shares of the metallurgical company on the stock exchange collapsed, the billionaire rushed for help to the state. Officials have demonstrated their “effectiveness” with such support measures as reasonable preferences in favor of the oligarch’s business at the expense of other market players.

Having “shugged” the businessman and not seeing any distinct support even from the Kremlin, the West proceeded to the second stage of “squeezing” his assets. According to the plan of the British Lord Barkley, a member of the board of directors of En +, Deripaska was to be deprived of control over the management of his structures. In order for Rusal to be able to continue working, the oligarch transferred control to individuals and structures that had to be coordinated with the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the US Treasury (OFAC). Judge for yourself whether it sounds like news from a country that "rose from its knees", or from a third-rate colony of the West.

Surprisingly, Oleg Deripaska made a deal, but the Kremlin did not react particularly to this in the spirit of "we are not giving up our own." Now of the 12 members of the En + board of directors, six are US and UK citizens. The investment bank Rothschild & Co. was very active in completing the deal. Lord Gregory Barker plays the first violin in the management of Russian aluminum and energy in Siberia.

But this, alas, did not end there. Now comes the third and final stage of the “squeeze”, and, in this, the US and the UK are actively helping the state-owned VTB and Sberbank. How is this possible?

The fact is that the remaining part of Deripaska’s assets in En + went to VTB Bank as collateral. And now the state bank is selling 21,37% of En + shares to "simplify the structure of shareholders":

VTB Group has successfully emerged from a long-term investment. The transaction reflects the commercial interests of all parties involved at the time of its conclusion.

And it sells them to a subsidiary of En + itself. Particular cynicism is that it is carried out on a loan from the state Sberbank, which amounts to 110,6 billion rubles (or 1,75 billion dollars), with repayment until 2026. Brilliant: our country is “shod” at our expense.

And after that, someone will talk about the "struggle with the West" and "rising from his knees"?
56 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.
I have an account? Sign in
  1. Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 8 February 2020 11: 52
    +5
    And here, many wrote that this is a great change, oh, a breakthrough of the Kremlin, well, very beneficial to Russia ...
    But in fact, for example, Nornickel is also offshore, and shares argue for it - in London ... Yandex, Rostec, Rusnano ...
  2. gorenina91 Offline gorenina91
    gorenina91 (Irina) 8 February 2020 12: 12
    +4
    - Well, yes, it’s so ... - but it’s all passed already ... - And all this can be returned to Russia only through revolutionary actions; about the same as in Russia in the last century, in 17-18 years ...
    - The complete expropriation, absolute nationalization and liquidation of the oligarchs and financial tycoons ... as a class ... and the transition to the socialist path of development ... - Only in this way ...
    - Well, and today, if we discuss something ... then ... then ... then ... then it's time to leave Gazprom to discuss; it's time to start discussing "NOVATEK" ... - who still heads it there today ??? - Aaaa - Leonid Viktorovich Mikhelson ... - Well, everything is clear ... - And what kind of things are already happening there ... - Yes, Gazprom has never dreamed of this ... - But this ... I personally ... - so in short ... - for the overall development of the site public ...
    1. Natan bruk Offline Natan bruk
      Natan bruk (Natan Bruk) 8 February 2020 12: 27
      -9
      You are constantly writing as if you are in a state of permanent foolishness.
    2. goncharov.62 Offline goncharov.62
      goncharov.62 (Andrei) 8 February 2020 15: 08
      +4
      Alas, it seems. Or until another way (and a leader capable of doing this) is not visible ...
    3. businessv Offline businessv
      businessv (Vadim) 10 February 2020 00: 25
      +6
      Quote: gorenina91
      But this ... personally I ... so briefly ... for the overall development of the site public ...

      What exactly do you want to offer for our development, colleague ?! Apart from the many dots, nothing definite! Novatek is a private company that has gradually come to its current state, Gazprom is a state-owned company, so why do we need to know what is going on in Novatek? Gazprom is much more interesting to us! The article is interesting and correct; for a long time it is necessary to review the results of privatization and send the main privatizers led by Chubais to kitsch, and return the bowels to the country!
    4. Bulanov Offline Bulanov
      Bulanov (Vladimir) 10 February 2020 08: 57
      +1
      You can return in another way, for example, by increasing taxes from enterprises with foreign owners. And if they don’t pay taxes, then take it in favor of the state.
  3. Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 8 February 2020 13: 22
    +4
    Quote: Sergey Latyshev
    And here, many wrote that this is a great change, oh, a breakthrough of the Kremlin, well, very beneficial to Russia ...
    But in fact, for example, Nornickel is also offshore, and shares argue for it - in London ... Yandex, Rostec, Rusnano ...

    Offshore registration is one thing. It is simply a matter of transferring strategic assets to foreign owners with the active assistance of state banks.
    1. DPN Offline DPN
      DPN (DPN) 9 February 2020 11: 30
      +3
      Offshore registration is one thing. It is simply a matter of transferring strategic assets to foreign owners with the active assistance of state banks.
      We celebrate the VICTORY, and industry is at the mercy of foreigners. Are we very tricky or very dumb?
    2. businessv Offline businessv
      businessv (Vadim) 10 February 2020 00: 32
      +4
      Quote: Marzhetsky
      It is simply a matter of transferring strategic assets to foreign owners with the active assistance of state banks.

      I completely agree with you, thanks for the article, as always, concrete and balanced! The mess is expanding, money is being withdrawn abroad uncontrollably, the budget is shamelessly being sawn, and besides, welfare to unfortunate oligarchs is being carried out from it!
  4. steelmaker Offline steelmaker
    steelmaker 8 February 2020 13: 45
    +3
    The article is correct! In a simple form, explains that no matter how much they build, Russia will NEVER be rich. Some are YES, and people NEVER. And they won’t allow it! There will NOT be facts to refute the article, there remains anger at the truth and rudeness.
    1. 123 Offline 123
      123 (123) 8 February 2020 15: 55
      +4
      steelmaker
      Sorry for the curiosity, and when the people in Russia were rich?
      PS I sincerely hope that the question will not be perceived as rudeness. hi
  5. Igor Pavlovich Offline Igor Pavlovich
    Igor Pavlovich (Igor Pavlovich) 8 February 2020 14: 44
    -3
    A new world order will be built against Russia, on the ruins of Russia and at the expense of Russia. We have destroyed the Soviet Union, we will destroy Russia. You have no chances.

    Zbigniew Brzezinski. The Great Chessboard. 1997 year
    1. goncharov.62 Offline goncharov.62
      goncharov.62 (Andrei) 8 February 2020 15: 11
      +2
      We have the Russian "maybe" and the gesture of Comrade. Stalin comrade Sir W. Churchill with the most important finger at the head ...
    2. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
      Oleg Rambover (Oleg Rambover) 9 February 2020 12: 58
      -1
      Do not tell me where you can find this quote. I could not find in the book.

      http://lib.ru/POLITOLOG/AMERICA/bzhezinskij.txt

      Only such:

      Russia, which hardly requires a reminder, remains a major geostrategic actor, despite weakened statehood and, possibly, protracted ill health. Its very presence has a tangible effect on the newly independent states within the wide Eurasian space of the former Soviet Union. She cherishes the ambitious geopolitical goals that she is increasingly proclaiming openly. As soon as it regains its power, it will also begin to exert a significant influence on its western and eastern neighbors. In addition, Russia has yet to make its fundamental geostrategic choice in terms of relations with America: is it a friend or an enemy? She, perhaps, perfectly feels that in this respect she has serious choices on the Eurasian continent. Much depends on the development of domestic
      provisions and especially on whether Russia will become a European democracy or -
      again - by the Eurasian empire. In any case, she undoubtedly remains
      the protagonist, even though she lost several of her
      "chunks", as well as some of the key positions on the Eurasian chess
      blackboard.

      To what extent should economic assistance be provided to Russia, which will inevitably lead to the strengthening of Russia both politically and militarily, and to what extent should the newly independent states be helped in their efforts to protect and strengthen their independence? Can Russia be
      powerful and at the same time democratic state? If she regains
      power, if she wants to regain her lost imperial possessions and can
      Does it then be both an empire and a democracy?
      The US policy towards important geopolitical centers such as Ukraine and Azerbaijan does not allow to get around this issue, and America, therefore, faces a difficult dilemma regarding the tactical alignment of forces and strategic goals. The internal recovery of Russia is necessary for the democratization of Russia and, ultimately, for Europeanization. However, any restoration of its imperial power can harm both of these goals. Moreover, it is precisely on this issue that disagreements may arise between America and some European states, especially in the case of the enlargement of the EU and NATO. Should Russia be considered a candidate for possible members of both of these structures? And then what to do about Ukraine?
      The costs associated with preventing Russia from entering these structures can be extremely
      high - the idea of ​​one’s own will be realized in the Russian consciousness
      Russia's special destiny, however, the consequences of a weakening EU and NATO
      can also be destabilizing.
  6. Kostyar Offline Kostyar
    Kostyar 8 February 2020 15: 17
    0
    Here sv ... and, really there is nobody to stop them ???????
  7. 123 Offline 123
    123 (123) 8 February 2020 15: 50
    +2
    It is a strange manner - to translate any redistribution of business into the plane of "getting up from your knees." This site recently had information -

    Russia has become one of the largest suppliers of oil and petroleum products in the USA

    This is after all the sanctions imposed against Rosneft, which spits from a high bell tower on all these restrictions, the United States will not dare to impose sanctions and buys Venezuelan oil from it. Does this mean that the United States is in the "Alexander Grigorievich hydrocarbon pose"? Yes, it seems not, but here, yes, they are wringing out, but what has it got to do with "getting up from her knees"?
    As for Sberbank, it can be called a state-owned bank at a stretch, a controlling stake is held by the Central Bank, which, in fact, is not controlled by the state. In my imagination, the phrases "citizen of Nabiullina" and "s ... naya rag" more and more often add up into one sentence with several indefinite articles.

    https://vbulahtin.livejournal.com/3314118.html

    Brilliant: our country is “shod” at our expense.

    If you consider these funds yours, you can, as a preoccupied taxpayer, make personal claims to German Oskarovich and Elvira Sakhipzadovna.
    1. NordUral Offline NordUral
      NordUral (Eugene) 9 February 2020 10: 01
      +1
      This is our former, 123. And this is not a redistribution of business, but weaning.
      1. 123 Offline 123
        123 (123) 9 February 2020 10: 48
        0
        This is our former, 123. And this is not a redistribution of business, but weaning.

        It was conditionally ours, in fact we did not have the opportunity to dispose of before. Even in Soviet times, the rights of citizens to possess and dispose of mineral resources were purely declarative.

        Everything around is folk, everything around is yours.

        fellow In reality, they decided for us how and where to get it, where to sell or donate, how to dispose of the money received from the sale. The same can be said for banks. Ordinary people could not influence this in any way. It's like with children, like at home and everything of their own, but mom and dad are in charge of everything, well, or as it is now accepted in "Europe", parent # 1 and # 2. laughing
        As for weaning, in order to carry out a redistribution, it is necessary to take away some part from someone, otherwise the redistribution will not work. In essence, we are talking about the same thing. If I am not mistaken, I mentioned the word "squeeze". hi
        1. NordUral Offline NordUral
          NordUral (Eugene) 10 February 2020 10: 37
          +1
          123, the main thing is not possession, but that who benefits from the national treasure — for the whole people, as in the USSR (albeit with slight reservations) or a tiny number of thieves who are foreign.
          In my opinion, a process is being activated with a final solution to the issue called Russia.
          1. 123 Offline 123
            123 (123) 10 February 2020 11: 21
            +2
            ... the main thing is not possession, but that who benefits from the national treasure - for the whole people, as in the USSR (albeit with a few reservations) or a negligible bunch of thieves who are foreign.

            Under socialism, as under capitalism, the right to dispose of this very national property belonged to the ruling elite, they also received more privileges and material goods. I also cannot say that under the USSR the "national property" was used more effectively. Generally. it is necessary to delve into this question and compare in detail. Under socialism, the "party nomenklatura" ruled the economy as it wanted, to say that the result (in the form of material goods) for ordinary citizens was brilliant, my language does not turn. How much was spent on supporting "friendly" regimes or communist parties in "non-friendly" and how many are now being taken away by "an insignificant bunch of thieves", still need to be counted and compared. I doubt that the difference will be big. However, the topic is vast, the field for discussion is huge.
            The conditional "elite" in the USSR and modern Russia was not very different, there more, the current one is largely composed of former party and Komsomol members. These are the same people, the conditions have simply changed. "Natural selection" to the "elite" works independently of the social system. As a result, approximately the same people with similar moral qualities get there. It's hard to change human nature.
            In fact, the difference is in a much greater stratification of society, and this is very striking. I also don't like it and in this regard I need to do something. It is difficult to say what exactly, but in my opinion, a new redistribution of property (complete nationalization of the economy) will not lead to anything good, the "directors" will be in charge of the economy and, as a result, typical representatives of that very "handful of thieves" will get to these positions. We must look for another way. hi
            1. NordUral Offline NordUral
              NordUral (Eugene) 11 February 2020 10: 59
              +1
              Only nationalization and socialization, the return of planning (on new computational capabilities) with tight control. And the consumer market is also tightly controlled by pricing and product quality.
              Other is not given.
              1. 123 Offline 123
                123 (123) 11 February 2020 13: 27
                +2
                Only nationalization and socialization, the return of planning (on new computing capabilities) with tight control ...

                I'm not sure that these measures will prevent cunning "Komsomol capitalists" from penetrating into the leadership. In my opinion, you are talking about the unified management of the country by a supercomputer. The regulation of everything, including production, consumption, will come to personal life. In essence, this is a new social experiment. The prospects are tempting, the only confusion is that the experiments should be carried out again over Russia. In my opinion, we have already been a "world laboratory" enough. Maybe first try on someone else, and then, taking into account other people's mistakes .... Similar measures are partially being introduced in China, maybe we will wait and see?
                1. NordUral Offline NordUral
                  NordUral (Eugene) 12 February 2020 14: 01
                  +1
                  123rd! Super-duper computers are only a tool that can and should be used for the benefit that Glushkov was not allowed to do in the USSR, but can be used as a means of turning the world into a digital concentration camp, which even shines for Russia with these scammers country.
                  A new scam with the "purchase and sale" of Sberbank has arrived.
                  1. 123 Offline 123
                    123 (123) 12 February 2020 16: 08
                    +1
                    123rd! Super-duper computers are only a tool that can and should be used for the benefit that Glushkov was not allowed to do in the USSR, but can be used as a means of turning the world into a digital concentration camp, which even shines for Russia with these scammers country.

                    I completely agree with you, and therefore I propose to look at the Chinese experience from the side.

                    A new scam with the "purchase and sale" of Sberbank has arrived.

                    I'm not sure if this is a scam, but rather a clear indicator that the Central Bank does not belong to the country, a separate office, like the Fed in the United States. A regular sale and purchase transaction. From here, the following configuration emerges, the gold reserve is "pledged", we have it just in safe custody, so to speak, a contribution to participate in the "world financial system", like chips in a casino, how much they contributed, for that amount and money in circulation we have ... Payment for Sberbank will go to the "noble cause" of saving the world financial system from the impending crisis. We are getting close to the topic of the existence of a "shadow world government".
                    There is, however, a little good in this news, in fact, there are two parallel financing systems in the country and now the second one (controlled by the government) "expands the business", which means that they have accumulated money and plans to use the asset, before it was VTB, apparently it is not enough. This means that there is hope for development.
                    1. NordUral Offline NordUral
                      NordUral (Eugene) 12 February 2020 17: 54
                      +1
                      I completely agree on the Central Bank, but as for the plans, they are doubting something, or rather, I do not believe in development plans with them at all. This is not the nature of these. Jackals and hyenas cannot fly, 123rd.
                      1. 123 Offline 123
                        123 (123) 12 February 2020 17: 57
                        0
                        We wait, see, if they buy, they plan to use it. Look at it from a business point of view, as a business expansion.
                      2. NordUral Offline NordUral
                        NordUral (Eugene) 12 February 2020 18: 01
                        0
                        I’ll try, although you can also look from a different angle - bribing the population.
                      3. 123 Offline 123
                        123 (123) 12 February 2020 18: 12
                        +2
                        You can look at it this way, but I doubt it’s not very similar to a bribe. Decent money leaves the fund, but for the population there is no direct benefit.
                      4. NordUral Offline NordUral
                        NordUral (Eugene) April 16 2020 21: 49
                        +1
                        So this is the whole trick.
      2. GRF Offline GRF
        GRF 12 February 2020 10: 19
        +2
        It is necessary to establish by law a bar to which one can grow rich (and to encourage it), but beyond which it is easy to nationalize surpluses (for the same rewards, for example).

        Well, a person likes to build factories, please, but if your fortune is on an over rich border, then give it yourself, distribute the extra, or the state will take it on its own.

        But for this, the tax should work ideally, considering incomes and fortunes both domestically and abroad.
        1. 123 Offline 123
          123 (123) 12 February 2020 11: 47
          +1
          It is necessary to establish by law a bar to which one can grow rich (and to encourage it), but beyond which it is easy to nationalize surpluses (for the same rewards, for example).

          Firstly, it is almost impossible to implement it in practice, there are ways - how to get around the law, in Russia the severity of laws is mitigated by the non-obligation of their implementation. Secondly, who and how will determine the very "bar"? This creates a breeding ground for corruption. Third, how to reward? Certificate of honor?

          Well, a person likes to build factories, please, but if your fortune is on an over rich border, then give it yourself, distribute the extra, or the state will take it on its own.

          The amount a person can spend on himself has a limit. Further, several reasons become an incentive to get rich. First, money becomes just a tool, a carpenter needs it like a plane. Taking away the surplus, you make it impossible to develop further, to build the same factories or a spaceship. The second reason is power and social status. If there is such a limitation, both are limited. And people are mostly disobedient and proactive. The ban will be bypassed or ignored. The incentive to get rich will disappear. As a result, we come to "new socialism", only for a part of society a bottle of vodka for three in the park is replaced by a bottle of cognac in a luxurious villa in the society of the same "limited". Why try further if everything is just taken away? Well, finally, another reason is banal greed. A person just rowing under himself and cannot stop. Try to control this and regularly select the excess ...

          But for this, the tax should work ideally, considering incomes and fortunes both domestically and abroad.

          Without creating a system of total control, none of the above can be implemented. We come to the need for globalization, a world government, or a new iron curtain and construction in a single country. This we have already passed. Social justice is good, but maybe, let the neighbors do this experiment, and we will see first?
          In theory, you can try to partially solve the problem by introducing electronic money. Two completely isolated, non-communicating systems, one money for real consumption, the other for business, equipment, factories, investments, and so on. You have two accounts, on one, "production" money, on the other for personal consumption in a certain proportion. But this is, rather, a utopia, in practice it is almost impossible to implement. Let us rest against the same reasons mentioned above.
          1. GRF Offline GRF
            GRF 12 February 2020 12: 42
            +1
            If money works, it’s good, but many people simply gather dust in garages, safes, and azure shores (as a reserve for a rainy day).
            Who defines the bar? Well, the minimum wage is determined, multiplied by x and here is the max bar.
            The tax is somehow collected, it’s just 13%, and then bam and 100.
            How to promote? Well, philanthropy has always been held in high esteem, the hospital named after the merchant Kalashnikov should stand for centuries and be guarded by the state, people who work not for the sake of money, questions, such as - why don't they ask if they will take everything away? Besides, who is talking about everything here? There are 6 yachts and well done, but without the seventh somehow somehow, or you get a billion a month - get it, but no more. Is there really a little incentive for development? Not enough money for a spaceship? Unite, and the state is obliged to help such, because this is his interest. Which curtain? How much has withdrawn, how much has entered - everything is already considered, there are simply no limits for withdrawal today, but they should be, or there is a good reason for what.
            A person cannot physically work more efficiently than lards once others, capital works (i.e. other people give their labor (the source of their wild efficiency) for renting this capital and a salary sufficient for survival), and if this capital will work not only often successfully born heir or nimble Ostap, but also the society that helped him put together this capital (well, now no man can build a factory with his own hands without the help of others), this is capitalism with a certain degree of social justice.

            We’ll look at the neighbors ... it seems to me that we are looking at them too much, it’s time, probably, to live our own life ...
            1. 123 Offline 123
              123 (123) 12 February 2020 15: 43
              +1
              Who defines the bar? Well, the minimum wage is determined, multiplied by x and here is the max bar. The tax is somehow collected, it’s just 13%, and then bam and 100.

              Remember why Depardieu moved to Russia? Introduce such an innovation and the caravan will reach for the "hillock". Everyone will run away.

              How to promote? Well, philanthropy has always been held in high esteem, the hospital named after the merchant Kalashnikov should stand for centuries and be protected by the state, people who work not for the sake of money, questions such as - why don't they ask why they work if they take everything away.

              Most of them will not appreciate this innovation, exchanging a few billion for an encouraging pat on the shoulder and renaming the street (which usually happens posthumously) is far from a joyful prospect. People working not for money, a scissor minority, maybe a dozen will be typed, the rest (see paragraph above).

              There are 6 yachts and well done, but without the seventh somehow somehow, or you get a billion a month - get it, but no more. Is there really a little incentive for development?

              And why then to fence the garden? Say that Chubais will now have only six yachts and not one more. Public opinion will not change. In this case, they will again withdraw money abroad.

              Not enough money for a spaceship? Unite, and the state is obliged to help such, because this is his interest.

              Co-financing has long been applied.

              Which curtain? How much has withdrawn, how much has entered - everything is already considered, there are simply no limits for withdrawal today, but they should be, or there is a good reason for what.

              If you limit the withdrawal of capital, no one will enter. Sense, if taken away? We also need to create a new service that will evaluate whether there are good circumstances or not, because there are different cases, you can’t write down everyone in the law.

              A person cannot physically work more efficiently than lards once others, capital works (i.e. other people give their labor (the source of their wild efficiency) for renting this capital and a salary sufficient for survival), and if this capital will work not only often successfully born heir or nimble Ostap, but also the society that helped him put together this capital (well, now no man can build a factory with his own hands without the help of others), this is capitalism with a certain degree of social justice.

              Forgive me, but in real life there is usually no justice and, most likely, will not. I understand that these people did not earn money with bloody calluses, but no matter how hard they try to share everything in fairness, all this will lead to a bloody redistribution. In addition, people are more annoyed not by the fact that Vekselberg has exactly 7 yachts, but by the fact that they will never be able to afford at least a distant standard of living in their life. If a miracle happens and, for example, all citizens decide to raise their wages by a million. Presented? It seems that life immediately succeeded, but prices will skyrocket, industry will rise, because production costs will rise incredibly and try to send something for export.

              We’ll look at the neighbors ... it seems to me that we are looking at them too much, it’s time, probably, to live our own life ...

              Forgive me, but I started to live 100 years ago for "looking" my stormy life. As for me, it is better to experiment with someone else. I am not against social justice, but I just don't see how to achieve this without drowning in blood.
  • Mrozov Yuri Offline Mrozov Yuri
    Mrozov Yuri (Yuri Mrozov) 8 February 2020 15: 59
    +3
    And such mongrels as the waiter from Vinnitsa on the Rogers clique, sing to us about how cleverly Russia regained control of Rusal! It was because of such small towns that I sang along, which were first sold by the USSR, then Ukraine, and now Russia, we will always go bent into an arc!
    1. 123 Offline 123
      123 (123) 10 February 2020 11: 39
      +1
      And such mongrels as the waiter from Vinnitsa on the Rogers clique, sing to us about how cleverly Russia regained control of Rusal! It was because of such small towns that I sang along, which were first sold by the USSR, then Ukraine, and now Russia, we will always go bent into an arc!

      Yuri, I have little idea what exactly Rogers writes, just a surname, but to think that everything is happening because of some "waiter from Vinnitsa" and his publications, in my opinion, is overkill. It also seems to me that you are overly emotional about this, because the conclusion that we "will forever walk bent in an arc" is made on the basis of publications, specifically this one and the like. The authors may have different views on events, moreover, they cannot possess complete information. Tomorrow they will publish an article of the conditional "new Rogers", where he will write in detail that in fact it was such a plan and now we have bypassed the sanctions and captured the American aluminum market or something like that, after that we should finally straighten up, straighten chest with a wheel and take a watermelon under your arms?
      All these limits, squeezes, seizures, acquisitions, bankruptcies continue throughout human history. Do not translate this into the plane "bent-unbent". Take care of your spine. hi
  • Sapsan136 Offline Sapsan136
    Sapsan136 (Sapsan136) 8 February 2020 22: 55
    +6
    This once again suggests that those who erect monuments to Yeltsin are not patriots of the Russian Federation!
    1. Monster_Fat Offline Monster_Fat
      Monster_Fat (What's the difference) 9 February 2020 07: 23
      +3
      Again, so funny, those who piously believed in the HSP. Probably, they will never ask themselves a simple question - as in the times of Yeltsin, when the United States "kicked open the doors" to any Kremlin offices, it was possible to present a presidential candidacy not controlled and not approved by the United States ... yes
  • Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 9 February 2020 07: 21
    +5
    Quote: 123
    steelmaker
    Sorry for the curiosity, and when the people in Russia were rich?
    PS I sincerely hope that the question will not be perceived as rudeness. hi

    Until 1991, all the riches of the USSR belonged to the people, were in its ownership.
    1. 123 Offline 123
      123 (123) 10 February 2020 12: 09
      +1
      Until 1991, all the riches of the USSR belonged to the people, were in its ownership.

      Bravo! Wonderful slogan. good And people like him so much, it’s very nice when they tell you - it's all yours. yes Apparently, it started from here - everything around is collective farm, everything around is yours. fellow
      But this is a superficial view. Owned means is in someone's property, which implies the realization of the rights and possibilities of ownership, appropriation, distribution and use of property objects. Can you tell us what mechanisms for the realization of these rights and opportunities did the people have, or you personally, as a representative of the people, or, if you like, a "taxpayer"? In my opinion, none. request Based on the foregoing, the ownership of all the wealth of the USSR to the people was purely declarative and had nothing to do with reality. The party nomenklatura ruled the "national property" on behalf of the people, now they do not hide behind the name of the people. In some ways it is even more honest. Another issue is the "fairness" of the distribution of wealth, but this is a slightly different topic. hi
      PS Dear editors, I still do not receive, or receive, with a long delay, notifications about the comments of this author. request
      1. NordUral Offline NordUral
        NordUral (Eugene) 11 February 2020 11: 02
        +1
        Based on the foregoing, the ownership of all the wealth of the USSR to the people was purely declarative and had nothing to do with reality. The party nomenklatura ruled the "national property" on behalf of the people, now they do not hide behind the name of the people. In some ways it is even more honest. Another issue is the "fairness" of the distribution of material wealth, but this is a slightly different topic..

        And for me, so highlighted in bold, this is the main question, 123.
        I recently read some interesting information about Henry Ford. And I think that such a capitalist would be very useful in our country, but the time is over in the States too, and "ours", I don't know who they are, that you can work, decently paying for the labor of workers and engineers, even do not suspect. It was Ford who understood that the poor man would not buy his products, and these people were not going to create anything.
        1. 123 Offline 123
          123 (123) 11 February 2020 13: 30
          +1
          NordUral (Eugene)
          I am not against the appearance of "good and kind" capitalists in our country, but hoping for their appearance is like planning where we will spend money in anticipation of the lottery draw.
          1. NordUral Offline NordUral
            NordUral (Eugene) 12 February 2020 13: 43
            +1
            123rd! I do not hope so, I myself was a micro-capitalist, it is difficult to combine fair distribution and profit.
            I just compared Ford and "our" capitalists ", although what can we compare the giant and the thieves.
            1. 123 Offline 123
              123 (123) 12 February 2020 15: 46
              0
              So I’m talking about the same thing, there is no reason to count on the consciousness and disinterestedness of the capitalists. Rather, the opposite.
  • Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 9 February 2020 07: 23
    +4
    Quote: 123
    Brilliant: our country is “shod” at our expense.
    If you consider these funds yours, you can, as a preoccupied taxpayer, make personal claims to German Oskarovich and Elvira Sakhipzadovna.

    Yes, these funds are mine too. But there is no reason for Gref and Nabiullina to make a claim, they are only performers. It makes sense to those who appointed them to these posts and do not remove, apparently, everything suits.
    1. 123 Offline 123
      123 (123) 10 February 2020 12: 31
      +1
      Yes, these funds are mine too. But there is no reason for Gref and Nabiullina to make a claim, they are only performers. It makes sense to those who appointed them to these posts and do not remove, apparently, everything suits.

      A bit strange logic, claims are usually made at the location (in this case, money). If you have a complaint about the purchased product, contact the store, not the Ministry of Commerce, if the essence of the complaint is to dispose of the money you consider yours, but directly to the bank, in extreme cases, to a higher-level (or supervisory) organization or to the bank owner. True, there is one caveat; you will have to confirm the ownership of funds specifically for you. winked I'm afraid there will be some difficulties with this, all that you have in this case is "mustache, paws and tail."



      Apparently, in this particular case, we have dissatisfaction with the prevailing system of property distribution and management, simply making claims "to those who appointed them to these positions and do not remove them" has no practical meaning. Another way is possible, to advance to the place of this very "who appointed them to positions", but I am afraid that you have little chance here too, just in case, ask about the rating beforehand. I'm afraid there are a few more people who are satisfied with everything to one degree or another.hi
    2. NordUral Offline NordUral
      NordUral (Eugene) 12 February 2020 17: 48
      +1
      I never voted for him. And I hope that nevertheless it will be possible to vote for the person who will be president not for a tiny handful of thieves and their hangers-on, but for the majority of the people of Russia.
  • Marzhecki Offline Marzhecki
    Marzhecki (Sergei) 9 February 2020 07: 25
    +3
    Quote: 123
    It is a strange manner - to translate any redistribution of business into the plane of "getting up from your knees."

    That is, now it's just a "business redistribution"? By God, it would be better to refrain from commenting and just keep silent.
    And about getting up from your knees, answer: the country, which the US Treasury dictates, who should manage its metallurgy and energy, is entitled to be considered sovereign?
    1. 123 Offline 123
      123 (123) 10 February 2020 13: 00
      +1
      That is, now it's just a "business redistribution"? By God, it would be better to refrain from commenting and just keep silent.

      With all due respect, this expression can be fully attributed to your account. hi

      And about getting up from your knees, answer: the country, which the US Treasury dictates, who should manage its metallurgy and energy, is entitled to be considered sovereign?

      Firstly, complete sovereignty does not exist, to one degree or another, all countries depend on anyone. As far as I imagine, you consider the only sovereign state of the United States, they at least depend on the Fed, which drove this state into astronomical debts, to one degree or another depend on the position of other states. In the same Venezuela, the oil industry used to belong to the United States, they can’t do anything, they are trying, but, despite all the efforts, nothing comes of it. Venezuelan oil is bought from Rosneft and nothing. You may ask who owns the US auto industry. How do you think this means that the United States is in a knee-elbow position?
      We do not have complete information on this particular transaction, on the basis of which certain decisions were made, we cannot objectively judge.
      As for the sovereignty proper, recently I came across the following definition:

      It is the ability of the national elite to make the decisions it wants, without unacceptable damage to itself and its country.

      In my opinion, not one country falls under this definition of a completely sovereign state.
      The criteria by which you determine who is "closer to the floor" are arbitrary and do not have a clear rationale. This is just your subjective opinion. And you are promoting it for specific practical purposes, creating public opinion in a certain direction. hi
  • Marat gum Offline Marat gum
    Marat gum (Marat Gum) 9 February 2020 09: 40
    0
    For the average consumer, it’s absolutely violet who cuts ...
  • Potapov Offline Potapov
    Potapov (Valery) 9 February 2020 10: 09
    +2
    Rejoice that the Gauleiters of children do not pass on the spare parts to the owners. There is no affectionate occupation ...
    1. Monster_Fat Offline Monster_Fat
      Monster_Fat (What's the difference) 9 February 2020 10: 57
      0
      Rejoice that the Gauleiters of children do not pass on the spare parts to the owners. There is no affectionate occupation ...

      Already. The Duma is developing (as if it has not passed the first reading there) a law "On the presumption of consent to posthumous donation." So, dear Russians, you are not only "second oil", as one gentleman put it, but also "spare parts". Therefore: drink less alcohol, lead a healthy lifestyle ... to the delight of future buyers of your organs. yes
  • Pavel Fedorov Offline Pavel Fedorov
    Pavel Fedorov (Pavel Fedorov) 10 February 2020 01: 30
    0
    The whole industry in the Jewish war ...
  • Anatoly shmel Offline Anatoly shmel
    Anatoly shmel (Anatoly Shmel) 10 February 2020 02: 08
    -3
    Quote: Marzhetsky
    Quote: 123
    steelmaker
    Sorry for the curiosity, and when the people in Russia were rich?
    PS I sincerely hope that the question will not be perceived as rudeness. hi

    Until 1991, all the riches of the USSR belonged to the people, were in its ownership.

    And better to live in the USSR? I doubt it.
  • Anatoly shmel Offline Anatoly shmel
    Anatoly shmel (Anatoly Shmel) 10 February 2020 02: 11
    -5
    I noticed that the loudest shouting about how they were "robbed" by rogue, who never had a damn thing. Yes, and under the USSR, what did you have ??? Wardrobe, TV, or even two, radio, Volga, dacha? Nostalgic, jealous, angry, cry in the comments while others make money.
  • Dedok Offline Dedok
    Dedok (Sergei) 10 February 2020 08: 12
    +2
    Today there was a comment on coronavirus on the Internet: China used the situation (I think, it was unintentionally formed) to return the shares of its companies. Those. because of the virus, the capitalization of the Chinese began to fall, the yuan - to fall, like, everything is bad: and then the state at one point bought them all - at a low price.
    Now the Chinese have no foreigners in their companies ...
    But this does not work for us: the private interests of officials are around ....
    1. 123 Offline 123
      123 (123) 10 February 2020 13: 08
      +1
      Dedok (Sergey)
      We don’t need a coronavirus, the shares of Russian companies are underestimated so much.
      Well, the behavior of the Chinese is quite reasonable, there is enough finance, they are buying up at a low price, part of it will then be sold at a higher price.