4 ms·

While all that you said is true regarding the current situation, 2000s were a different story regarding economics. Putin's pocket oligarchs did not have the sam

While all that you said is true regarding the current situation, 2000s were a different story regarding economics. Putin's pocket oligarchs did not have the same amount of influence and in that period of time plenty of new independent businesses were created, some of which became large companies. Yes, some of those are now being taken over by state, but again, that's not what was happening in 2000s. In 2000s Russia observed significant reduction in poverty and median income has actually increased. Unemployment rate was very low. That decade is called "plentiful 2000s" (сытые нулевые) for that reason. If Putin was not obsessed by Ukrainian Maidan events in 2004 - a turning point for him, we could see very different Russia today.

obscurette 5y ago
Plentiful 2000s have nothing to do with Putin. These were plentiful regardless of Putin not because of him. It is normal for every society to take a time to adapt with completely new situation. The fact that it was the beginning of 2000s where things started to become much better after the mess of 1990s is true for almost every ex-USSR and Eastern Europe country. But Putin has always been the man he is now – the war in Chechnya began in 1999.
- ivan_gammel 5y ago
  >It is normal for every society to take a time to adapt with completely new situation. This is a very generic and abstract statement. If you think that the growth could happen without economic reforms that took place in early 2000s, please explain how exactly could that happen in the aftermath of second Chechen War and economic crisis of 1998.
  - obscurette 5y ago
    With collapse of eastern block life became objectively worse in all countries of it – old structures were destroyed, but new ones weren't in place yet. It took the whole decade to reform and to build these new structures. And most of these countries have some crisis in the end of 1990s, had to learn a little bit from it, but it was already fine tuning. What you saw in early 2000s in Russia was mostly caused by reforms in 1990s, but times were already turning to worse.
    - ivan_gammel 5y ago
      You are wrong. If you are truly interested in what's happened there, Internet has plenty of information about that period - just go and read it. During his first term Putin's government implemented a number of successful economic reforms that boosted growth and helped to reallocate profits from oil and gas to support the economy. Those reforms continued what has started in 1990s, but they had to happen to enable real growth (esp. tax reform). 1. Tax reform: flat income tax of 13%, reduction in total number of taxes by 70%, reduction in social security tax, introduction of severance tax (captured 84% of profits from oil and gas in state budget) 2. Zero budget deficit and significant reduction of foreign debt 3. Reform of land ownership: created free market of the land 4. New Labor code and pension reform 5. Reform of banking sector and new bankruptcy law
watwut 5y ago
The large ones were not independent in anything but the name long before being taken over by state. All the Oligarchs or larger businesses had to cooperate. Ukrainian Maidan was 2014. And it happened only after years of Russia trying to buy and influence Ukrainian politics. It was Orange revolution that happened in 2004. Putin became acting president in 1999 - that gives us like 5 years before 2004. Also, afaik, journalists writing against Putin were attacked (arrests, taking over of business) right as he got into power. The changes leading to contemporary ideology, effective rehabilitation of Stalin, the state murders were happening right away. The events around Russia apartment building, the ones suspect of being done by FSB and Chechnya war were in 1999.
- ivan_gammel 5y ago
  I'm glad that you know some history, but I'm not sure what are you arguing with. Economic growth of 2000s did happen and it was a pretty liberal time back then. >The large ones were not independent in anything but the name long before being taken over by state. Let's take a few concrete examples of really big companies: VKontakte, Wildberries and Magnit. How exactly Putin and his gang exercised the control over them before acquisition (Wildberries still belongs to the founder)?
  - nogenhat 5y ago
    lets see: 1. VK (Vkontakte) - Miralashvili, part of REK, friend of Sobchak and Putin :) 2. Wildberries - under patronage of Rosnef from the start. 3. Magnit - Galitskiy told from the beginning that he had to have a relationship with the government.
    - ivan_gammel 5y ago
      This is not what is called "control". Just some stories from the old times, something that could happen anywhere. 1. Father of one of the co-founders had a business in St.Petersburg in 1990s, but already in 2001 he was arrested for kidnapping charges. Doesn't sound like a "friend", does not prove Putin's control over VK at that moment. 2. Source? The only thing I know is that the founder is distant relative of a person, who became VP in Rosneft in 2016, long after the company was founded. Quite a stretch for "patronage", though they could use their connections to defend from raider attacks and extortion. 3. Every large company in every country has some relationship with the government. This is not the same as control, not the same as having political influence over the company and not the same as using the business for embezzling the funds for political purposes. I know some companies where their GR was basically a CSO playing tennis with an old friend from FSB, which kept them under the radar of the regime - I would not even call it corruption (how often can you see a DA in USA playing golf with some businessman?). You have to be more specific. The reason why government or affiliated oligarchs take over the businesses, is to gain control because they did not have it before.

obscurette 5y ago

Plentiful 2000s have nothing to do with Putin. These were plentiful regardless of Putin not because of him. It is normal for every society to take a time to adapt with completely new situation. The fact that it was the beginning of 2000s where things started to become much better after the mess of 1990s is true for almost every ex-USSR and Eastern Europe country. But Putin has always been the man he is now – the war in Chechnya began in 1999.

ivan_gammel 5y ago
>It is normal for every society to take a time to adapt with completely new situation. This is a very generic and abstract statement. If you think that the growth could happen without economic reforms that took place in early 2000s, please explain how exactly could that happen in the aftermath of second Chechen War and economic crisis of 1998.
- obscurette 5y ago
  With collapse of eastern block life became objectively worse in all countries of it – old structures were destroyed, but new ones weren't in place yet. It took the whole decade to reform and to build these new structures. And most of these countries have some crisis in the end of 1990s, had to learn a little bit from it, but it was already fine tuning. What you saw in early 2000s in Russia was mostly caused by reforms in 1990s, but times were already turning to worse.
  - ivan_gammel 5y ago
    You are wrong. If you are truly interested in what's happened there, Internet has plenty of information about that period - just go and read it. During his first term Putin's government implemented a number of successful economic reforms that boosted growth and helped to reallocate profits from oil and gas to support the economy. Those reforms continued what has started in 1990s, but they had to happen to enable real growth (esp. tax reform). 1. Tax reform: flat income tax of 13%, reduction in total number of taxes by 70%, reduction in social security tax, introduction of severance tax (captured 84% of profits from oil and gas in state budget) 2. Zero budget deficit and significant reduction of foreign debt 3. Reform of land ownership: created free market of the land 4. New Labor code and pension reform 5. Reform of banking sector and new bankruptcy law

watwut 5y ago

The large ones were not independent in anything but the name long before being taken over by state. All the Oligarchs or larger businesses had to cooperate. Ukrainian Maidan was 2014. And it happened only after years of Russia trying to buy and influence Ukrainian politics. It was Orange revolution that happened in 2004. Putin became acting president in 1999 - that gives us like 5 years before 2004. Also, afaik, journalists writing against Putin were attacked (arrests, taking over of business) right as he got into power. The changes leading to contemporary ideology, effective rehabilitation of Stalin, the state murders were happening right away. The events around Russia apartment building, the ones suspect of being done by FSB and Chechnya war were in 1999.

ivan_gammel 5y ago
I'm glad that you know some history, but I'm not sure what are you arguing with. Economic growth of 2000s did happen and it was a pretty liberal time back then. >The large ones were not independent in anything but the name long before being taken over by state. Let's take a few concrete examples of really big companies: VKontakte, Wildberries and Magnit. How exactly Putin and his gang exercised the control over them before acquisition (Wildberries still belongs to the founder)?
- nogenhat 5y ago
  lets see: 1. VK (Vkontakte) - Miralashvili, part of REK, friend of Sobchak and Putin :) 2. Wildberries - under patronage of Rosnef from the start. 3. Magnit - Galitskiy told from the beginning that he had to have a relationship with the government.
  - ivan_gammel 5y ago
    This is not what is called "control". Just some stories from the old times, something that could happen anywhere. 1. Father of one of the co-founders had a business in St.Petersburg in 1990s, but already in 2001 he was arrested for kidnapping charges. Doesn't sound like a "friend", does not prove Putin's control over VK at that moment. 2. Source? The only thing I know is that the founder is distant relative of a person, who became VP in Rosneft in 2016, long after the company was founded. Quite a stretch for "patronage", though they could use their connections to defend from raider attacks and extortion. 3. Every large company in every country has some relationship with the government. This is not the same as control, not the same as having political influence over the company and not the same as using the business for embezzling the funds for political purposes. I know some companies where their GR was basically a CSO playing tennis with an old friend from FSB, which kept them under the radar of the regime - I would not even call it corruption (how often can you see a DA in USA playing golf with some businessman?). You have to be more specific. The reason why government or affiliated oligarchs take over the businesses, is to gain control because they did not have it before.