Putin critic Khodorkovsky in Germany after pardon

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/20/us-russia-khodorkovsky-idUSBRE9BJ09020131220

by wslh • 13 years ago

50 51 13 years ago

perlpimp• 13 years ago

Guantanamo detainees sent to their homes. Putin declares amnesty after olympic delegates of US olympic committee to be staffed by homosexuals. Is this some sort of geopolitical game foreshadowing chilling of relations?

lobotryas2• 13 years ago

Game? Of course.

Chilling? That's bad for business.

CamperBob2• 13 years ago

I can't believe Putin turned him loose, honestly. That guy has got to be dangerous. He has had nothing to do for several years but sit around stewing about how to put one over on Putin. Should be interesting to see what happens next.

hedgie13• 13 years ago

Dangerous or not dangerous, 10 years of life spent in prison is a lot.

Let's see what happens next.

smsm422• 13 years ago

That assumes he actually wants to put one over on Putin. But there are other ways to have a good life, especially if one is a very capable entrepreneur.

adventured2• 13 years ago

I'm surprised they let him go too. I guess we'll see if he dies of some form of aggressive cancer a year from now.

alan_cx• 13 years ago

Yeah, it is surprising. Must be a reason for it. Clearly he's lost most if not all of his money, but Im sure he has some public appeal which would be dangerous for Putin. Or maybe he just agreed to come to Europe, buy a football club and shut up.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

lobster_johnson2• 13 years ago

This, together with the release of Pussy Riot and the Greenpeace activists, has been speculated as being Russia's attempt to clean up its image for the 2014 Olympic Games. Given the timing, it's not surprising.

bonemachine2• 13 years ago

Let's hope that similar "principles of humanity" will be applied to Chelsea Manning, some day.

pekk• 13 years ago

Either don't join the military, or don't violate military law. Because it's not the same as civilian law and never was.

rz2k• 13 years ago

When you put it that way, the situations begin to sound more parallel than I would have thought. There are rules to being an oligarch, though the payoff is a lot better, and Khodorkovsky should have had a more sophisticated understanding of the terms of the deal.

bonemachine2• 13 years ago

General humanitarian principles (specifically against torture -- as Ms. Manning was indisputably subjected to) have far greater precedence over any country's military justice code.

nisa2• 13 years ago

He is likely a criminal[1] and I'm really baffled how positive he is portrayed in the media here in Germany.

1: http://books.google.de/books?id=q1F4otnSovMC&lpg=PA59&pg=PA5... and the following pages

lobotryas2• 13 years ago

Simple: "enemy of my enemy...".

zavulon• 13 years ago

I wouldn't use a blanket statement like that, it's actually a lot more complicated. First of all, the tax system in Russia is set up that it's impossible to run a business without violating one tax law or the other. That setup is intentional, put in place specifically so anybody who's in Putin's way can be put away for tax crimes. That's exactly what happened here, and tax charges are bogus.

Having said that, you couldn't become a billionaire "new Russian" in the early 90's without doing something horrible, which I'm sure Khodorkovskiy has done at some point. So he probably is a criminal. However, the ONLY reason he was put in jail is that he dared to defy Putin. Everything else was bogus - charges were fabricated, judges had direct orders to convict him, etc.

nisa2• 13 years ago

Yes. I did not intent to defend Putin. I've edited my post. The reason for posting here in the first place was that I was baffled about the media reaction here. No mention of his past action anywhere.

lobster_johnson2• 13 years ago

Having said that, you couldn't become a billionaire "new Russian" in the early 90's without doing something horrible

That necessarily includes Putin himself, who is alleged to have amassed a fortune that's in the billions.

TrainedMonkey• 13 years ago

I am sure Khodorkovsky did not make his fortune by legal means. Simply because legality was a murky concept during the time when he built his empire. On the other hand, Putin is a warlord, there is no doubt and if Khodorkovsky supported Putin instead of opposed him things would be very different for him.

Some random thoughts on political situation in Russia:

Dictatorships are more efficient in handling some issues, and less efficient in handling others (lower to mid level official corruption). Are his methods correct in terms of Russian mentality? History will tell.

One thing is certain, empires of warlords often were in turmoil when they passed on [1]. I think Russia is in for interesting times when Putin will be stepping away (And taking rest of the world along with them for a ride due to Russia's status as a nuclear superpower).

[1] It could be argued that fall of USSR was catalyzed by a string of weak leaders after some of more prominent warlords passed away.

strlen• 13 years ago

As someone from former USSR, here's my take: the reason Khodorkovsky went to jail is because he violated the law of thieves, he stood up to Putin's bullying. If there was an across-the-board principled anti-corruption effort it would be a different matter, but there wasn't. I am tired of hearing Western's justify Putin's thuggery.

I personally come from Belarus, where a president that was democratically elected on anti-corruption charges assumed the role of a dictator. This was well expected by most of the intelligentsia: on the day of the run off election where Lukashenko's win (against another shitbird, of course, who ended up siding with Lukashenko afterwards) was confirmed my brother called us and told us to lookup 'Sulla' (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulla) in a history book. The practice of using "crusade against corruption" to assume dictatorial role is as old as democracy itself.

That said Putin is far more pernicious than Lukashenko: with Lukashenko there is no longer any more of a pretense of democracy than there was under, e.g., Saddam in Iraq (there are elections with mythical sounding figures and no campaigns). Putin is far more cunning: he's able to maintain the facade of democracy while having unchecked and unelected power. With recent revelations about "enhanced interrogations", NSA and FISA kangaroo courts, US -- while light years far from turning into a Russia or Belarus -- is starting to show some of these very same dangerous signs of police state(1) tactics via plausible deniability.

I'll leave this quote out there on the topic of rule by robber barrons (which the oligarchs were plain and simple) vs. rule by thugs on a moral crusade:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

- C.S. Lewis

(1) Here I am using the historical definition of police state: while today it's equated with totalitarianism (and neither Russia nor Belarus -- much less United States even under the worse scenario -- are totalitarian states, as anyone living in those countries who has also lived under Soviet rule can attest), the original meaning contrasted a 'polizeistaat' (rule by decree without any constitutional limitations) with a 'rechtstaat' (rights state -- constitutionally limited rule of law).

As a side note, it is unfortunate that the privatization process was botched enormously in USSR and its successor states. I always thought that the right approach to privatization should have been to follow the old Leninist slogan _literally_: factories to workers, farms to peasants, i.e., give the employees non-trivial amounts of shares/options in their workplace. Instead it became "factories and farms to corrupt middle managers and old Soviet elite".

adventured2• 13 years ago

Interestingly had Russia not seized and broken up Yukos, Khodorkovsky might very well be the richest man on earth today (and most certainly in the top 10). He was worth an estimated $15 billion in 2003 according to Forbes. The price of oil was about 30% what it is now, and it's very plausible Yukos' fortunes would have climbed with the recovery in Russia's economy (and assuming general business expansion).

rsp1984• 13 years ago

What is not clear from all the reports: Has his partner Platon Lebedev been pardoned as well or is he still imprisoned? As far as I know they were facing much the same charges.

znowi• 13 years ago

I thought they're about to canonize him at the end of the article :)

I really feel for the guy. He took the stand, went to jail - but he's far from a "prisoner of conscience".

Many high profile criminals use dislike of Mr Putin in the west as a safe getaway from Russia. They commonly claim that Putin is after them and they're the opposition.

One case in point is Andrey Borodin - former president of a major bank in Russia. He made multiple billion dollar loans to himself through affiliated fly-by-night firms in the offshore. When he was caught, he fled to the UK and suddenly turned opposition overnight. Eventually granted an asylum and lives happily in Oxfordshire in his newly acquired 140 million pounds mansion.

This happened in 2011. In the 90s, when Khodorkovsky operated, things were a lot less clean. He got nabbed. Many others found a way to avoid imprisonment. A lot of them now are "respectable" businessmen ranked high up in the Forbes list.

dfkf2• 13 years ago

Yes, Borodin is an excellent example. Never participated in politics in any form or shape. Set a new record for the most expensive house ever sold in Britain. Verdict? Victim of political persecution by evil Putin the mobster/warlord/thug/KayGeBee/whatever...

mc32• 13 years ago

The thing is in the 90s everyone (oligarchs) was playing below board. But Putin only targeted (for prosecution) people who opposed him (or were potential threats). People who were willing to subjugate to him, of course, didn't face charges. I'd rather you not try to compare Borodin with Khodorkovsky. It diverts from the discussion the strongarming politics in Russia.

menato• 13 years ago

Khodorkovsky was prosecuted partly for his ambitions to move to politics.

bostik• 13 years ago

But Putin only targeted (for prosecution) people who opposed him (or were potential threats).

Which is why I express my cynicism at the timing of Khodorkovsky's pardon. There must be a reason for letting him out now, so I can not help but think that Putin wanted to remind someone (or many someones) what he can do to politically inconvenient opponents.

The beauty, if one can use such a word in this context, is that the reminder comes in a form of letting a person out of the prison. So much more convenient.

1gor3• 13 years ago

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that Mikhail Khodorkovsky's trial was not politically motivated. (http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-european-court-khodorkov...).

This means Khodorkovsky was jailed for his economic crimes, not because of his anti-Putin stance.

Why Western media keeps referring to him as a 'political prisoner' and 'freed dissident' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25472250)?

vasilipupkin• 13 years ago

Because he did not receive a fair trial. It's quite obvious that he was jailed for reasons that have little to do with serving justice

1gor3• 13 years ago

The European Court of Human Rights said there was no violation of the defendants' right to a fair trial.

This is from the linked article on Radio Free Europe site.

dfkf2• 13 years ago

Of course he did receive a fair trial. The only unjust thing here is that all other oligarchs went away free. It is understandable why this had to be that way, every country has to go through the period of original accumulation of capital.

yarou• 13 years ago

Why Western media keeps referring to him as a 'political prisoner' and 'freed dissident' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25472250)?

Could it be that our journalists have zero integrity?

beaker2• 13 years ago

Copy & paste from a friend who called this over 2 weeks ago: "12/3/13 >Free pussy riot! >But I hear he's giving them amnesty. Khordokovsky too. All hail Putin!"

Look for Pussy Riot to be the next to be released...

beaker2• 13 years ago

I hadn't seen this yet...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/music/2013/12/19/pussy-ri...

VladRussian27• 13 years ago

One can only wonder how fast Germany issued a visa to a criminal convicted of economic crime ( when anybody just half-knowledgeable about USSR/Russia 198x-199x history has no doubts about the crimes) .

Calling him a "prisoner of conscience" is total disrespect and offense to real prisoners of conscience who stand up and suffer for their principles (like Pussy Riot girls for example). He stood up for his wealth and power refusing to accept the reality that the new rising thief at the time - Putin and Co. - become stronger than him. He challenged Putin and lost. Will Putin be called a "prisoner of conscience" when/if some new guy send Putin to a Siberia camp?

Mikeb855• 13 years ago

Pussy Riot, really? They would have been thrown in jail in most western countries for what they did too. Hell, in Canada they may have even been charged with a hate crime...

The only reason anyone cares about them is because they also happened to criticise Putin...

VladRussian27• 13 years ago

nobody said that western countries don't have prisoners of conscience or laws which would make them. Aaron Swartz. Chelsea Manning. Or look at Animal and Ecological Terrorism Act laws. ...

sentenza• 13 years ago

His trial was a farce and highly publicized in Germany at the time. Germany is also trying to get Timochenko out of Ukraine, even though (from the point of view of some Ukranians I spoke to) she cheated the country in negotiating some contracts.

I'd rather say this goes with the Zeitgeist, so your question should probably be rephrased from "why him" to "why not also Snowden".

VladRussian27• 13 years ago

His trial was a farce

As if there is any other kind of trial in Russia. Quick introduction on Russia trials : http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Tribunal_%28episode%29

Germany is also trying to get Timochenko out of Ukraine

yep, one more "prisoner of conscience" of Khodorkovsky type

so your question should probably be rephrased from "why him" to "why not also Snowden".

as i already said, there is nothing in common between Khodorkovsky and people like Snowden. Snowden challenged the State, the Order of Things on the right/wrong principles, whereis Khodorkovsky being at the time among largest beneficiaries of the Order of Things challenged a specific person for personal [beneficial] position in that Order of Things.

Uchikoma• 13 years ago

What comes to mind, again, in the discussion if he is a criminal or not:

"“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. [...] One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."

drill_sarge• 13 years ago

I don't know why media is circle jerking about this. I am not a fan of Putin and I can see that he wanted simply to get rid of Chodorkowski and that he may or may not got a real fair trial. But in the end Chodorkowski is a criminal who tried to illegally sell/exploit property of the Russian state. I am not saying the other oligarchs surrounding Putin didn't do or tried the same, but Chodorkowski isn't a "Putin critic" for political reasons or somekind of activist. He was part of this whole game of corruption and mob crimes and he lost.

Putin critic Khodorkovsky in Germany after pardon

Related Stories