Talk:Mikhail Khodorkovsky/archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I think this article is very interesting and pretty exhaustive in its level of detail. Not wanting to completely blanche it of its character, I do have one or two problems with it: in the section that essentially says, 'well, what goes around comes around' it says that the 'redistribution' going on is 'strictly within the law'. From what I can gather from following this story that is a pretty contentious comment. In fact hasn't Khodorkovsky's entire defence rested on the fact that the case against him is essentially illegal? ** "Well, he was tried in the court of law and convicted, so the defence has failed. When defenders of Khodarkovsky say 'the whole legal system is corrupt' they do not make any argument at all. The legal system is of course not perfect, but this is the only one that Russia has. It is much less corrupt than 10 years ago, when Khodorkovsky commited his fraud. Should Yukos be taken away from him because legal system was corrupt when he acquired assets? **

I also have a problem with the word 'redistribution' as it implies that somehow the destruction of Yukos will result in more people benefitting, or even owning a stake in it. Although, on the acquisition of the subsidiary Yukansneftgas the state effectively renationalised a large slice of the oil industry I think it important to emphasise that if any 'redistribution' is going, on rightly or wrongly, it is not going to 'the people'. Basically, in my mind, 'redistribution' is a word loaded with a socialist history, and I don't think the destruction of Yukos was done in the name of socialism. Anyway I am new to Wikipedia, impressed with it and wanted to test my thoughts on the 'talk' section, before launching into anything so bold as 'editing'.

I removed some of the arrest details; they were more tabloid than encylopedic. I hope you understand. As a rule, it is best to stick with the essential facts. Hope you agree with this. Looks like a fascinating story; I wonder how it will further unfold. -- Viajero 09:29, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

You're right, I totally agree. It flows much better with the changes, definitely. All your changes have been terrific. I initially left out all of the details of the arrest but they seem to have become important to the public perception of the events so I gave it a go. Karl Marx 13:06, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi again,

A couple of minor comments. Be careful of comments like this:

and prosecuting Russia's most prominent and successful oligarch is helpful to his political career and intended candidacy for the Duma.

It is speculative and not entirely neutral (I tweaked it). In a news article, it is ok, but not in an encyclopedia.

Also, dates usually don't have to be linked; only the most important (ie, DOB). See Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context.

Nice article; keep up the good work! -- Viajero 13:44, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Contents 1 Khodorkovsky: BLKSM?? 2 90 m barrels? 3 Vladimir Putin agreement with oligarchs 3.1 Guesswork removed 4 "Developed world" 5 prison sentence 6 NPOV dispute from anonymous user 7 support of the un-neutrality of the article

Khodorkovsky: BLKSM??

Graf 4: What is "BLKSM"?? The initial reference was to Communist Youth League. That was changed to Komsomol, and now it is an abbreviation that is not widely known. Could this be changed to something recognizable, or could a first reference be placed higher in the article? --Tim

The correct abbreviation is "VLKSM". This is the same as "Komsomol", which is the title of an article. Andres 00:06, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

90 m barrels?

No well in the world produces 90m barrels of oil per day. The whole world production is 80m barrels a day. Correct it please.

Vladimir Putin agreement with oligarchs

First, I must say great job on this article. It is a prime example of great work on wikipedia and I think it would be nominated as a featured article. But I see one possible problem currently that may need some tweaking throughout the article.

Russian president Vladimir Putin had made a tacit agreement with the oligarchs soon after he was elected in 2000 that he would not touch the huge wealth they had gained in crony dealings with state officials in the 1990s. In return, they were told to pay taxes and keep out of politics.

This statement seems logical and while I agree with it so, is there any actual way to prove this? If not, maybe the entry should be revised for a more neutral tone. Thoughts? --Dejitarob 20:44, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Guesswork removed

The disputed piece removed:

Russian president Vladimir Putin had made a tacit agreement with the oligarchs soon after he was elected in 2000 that he would not touch the huge wealth they had gained in crony dealings with state officials in the 1990s. In return, they were told to pay taxes and keep out of politics.

Most of the oligarchs have chosen to keep low profiles — but not Khodorkovsky.

It is hardly believable that this kind of deal was officially announced. Hence it is guesswork, even if correct. If it is an opinion of a serious political observer, please quote. Mikkalai 16:51, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Loan from the Red Army? Through a variety of circumstances I am familiar how people lived in the communist countries. When Khodorkovsky was arrested (first time I took any notice of him) I wondered, how he could have ammassed such a vast sum to buy the state owned oil company. I assumed, he might have gone to bed with big oil like elf or BP to get that money. Some months ago, I met a Russian couple here in Australia, who were very unhappy with Khodorkovsky's imprisonment and seemed to be emotionally (or otherwise) connected. They have not been here long; their English was quite poor. I asked (putting on a naive tone) how Khodorkovsky might have become so wealthy to buy the oil comp. They answered, 'he had a loan from the Army', meaning the Red Army of course. I was too perplexed to ask since when has the Red Army become a bank, not knowing then, that Khodorkovsky operated a bank. They did not mention that either (?). He must have promised the system something which he did not keep, it looks like. It is quite sad to see that a new and ruthless ruling class has developed again so quickly. I tend to speak of them as 'the Youssoupoffs of this world'. But that is beside the point, I just wanted to put on record what I heard from what I view as a credible source. Maybe someone can varify this and put it in the article. AllyH-G

This opinion is widely - if tacitly - shared within academic circles analysing the former Soviet Union -- it is based on the fact that a meeting between the Oligarchs and Putin DID take place in 2000: http://www.fas.org/news/russia/2000/000728-rus1.htm

However, this opinion IS pure speculation and should be considered educated guesswork. The article should include a reference of this kind, however.

Further, this opinion is also widely believed among Russians outside Russia (I do not know about Russians in Russia). There is a danger of sliding into conspiracy theories with this, which should be avoided. Considering the role of the oligarchs prior to the ascent of Putin, and their initial support of Putin, followed by Putin's crackdown on some - but not all - of these, there appears to be merit in the claim, paritucalarly since the only oligarchs Putin cracked down on were those who had become involved in politics.

--62.153.157.219 09:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

"Developed world"

Hi, I read this very interesting topic, however in the "Foreign business partners complain" paragraph, you mention that certain behaviours would not be accepted in the "developed world". I would rather it be compared to the "western world" since I believe Russia to be well developed although a bit rusty and heavy.

prison sentence

I updated the prison sentence from seven to nine years according to a Spiegel online article (sorry it's german). If there are conflicting reports please state the source. Cheers --Jpkoester1 21:03, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV dispute from anonymous user

As to the obvious, which is that the article as found was a typical up-to-the-line and sometimes-well-across piece of Khodorkovsky propaganda, and which truly needed a needle to pop that odious balloon, the reaction time proved it's pop was heard by the watchdogs. No surprise there. That you think your particular obfuscations and smokescreens (or do you prefer, "maskirovka") are effective with the masses, of course, you are partly correct... at least those Western masses who never set foot in country. EASY to fool them.

I have removed everything, you won the argument by example, that is not good, but it worked anyway, emotional distress is natural.

You had one valid point, so did I - look at this banner.

{{cleanup-tone}} Gnomz007 18:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I know you have read my apology - my heart was in it, I should not have used those words, but if I had half an IQ point more, I should not have wrote you in the first place, personal attacks are inapropriate, replying them is wrong, in some sense I did both, I quit, I know I'm a loose cannon, from now on no politics, I've had just two articles, and I've had enough.Gnomz007 20:13, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

support of the un-neutrality of the article

Here are some fact for you propaganda loving monkeys to make things closer to truth :)

Step 1 - 1963 Khodorkovsky was born from Moisey Khodorkovkoy, in an average Russian familiy. Step 2 - 1987 Khodorkovsky organizes center Minatep Step 3 - 1995 Dec. Khodorkovoy recieves 78% of Ukus. 2nd largest in Russia and 4th largest in the world Oil company. Step 4 - at present: It's a fact that about 900 000 people are incarcerated in Russia. But for some reason only one of them excites the world opinions. The nine hundred thousand first. Say, The Colonel GRU. Anatoly Kvachkov is sitting in jail accused of assassination attempt on Chubais, awaiting his verdict. What happened, how it happened? No one cares. But Khodorkovky! Now that’s a “much” different subject matter. Because of him, there has already been talk of excluding Russia from the big 8. It's quite interesting. What exactly do people see so much better from across the ocean? Where does Bush get his vivid notions? Even Yuliya Timoshenko announced that she it's impossible for her to comment on the trials verdict. What's really nice, is that Khodorkovky's best friend and business partner Leonid Nevzlin has not forgotten about him. From a safe place in Israel he speaks serenely at a press conference: "This is not the end. This is a beginning. And we didn't lose the whole fight. The loss was that of a battle on the enemy territory" Well then, the fight is going on the territory of the enemy. So, but what about the Russian oil? Why not harvest your oil on the friendly territory of the Palestinian Autonomy? Right after the publication of the verdict, many prognosis' came about. Such as that first meaningless and then merciless revolts of enraged with the act of stomping the democracy citizenry followed by a collapse of the mighty Russian economy. Instead... a paradox! According to WCIOM (http://www.wciom.ru/?pt=46&article=1321), here is how Russian people reacted to the 10 year verdict. 28% found the question hard to answer 26% consider it a fair punishment for his actions 25% haven't followed the trial 11% consider it to be too soft 8% too strict and only 4% consider the oligarch innocent. Khodorkovky considered himself innocent. What is interesting is that only 3% consider themselves innocent in Russian jails. The rest 97% are obviously serving their sentences for absolutely nothing. So of those, there are about a million in Russia, including the freshly incarcerated oligarchs. During the trial of the Yukos, Russian oil companies have increased their tax payments minimum by three or four times. While Khodorkovky resided in jail, the number of Russian billionaires has increased from 15 to 27. And so on. (c)Goblin