The St Petersburg government, Anatoly Sobchak, where on the first roles were Vladimir Putin and Alexei Kudrin, our interlocutor responsible for the management of state property. In the mid-90s in the status of the deputy chairman of the State Committee for State Property Management was responsible for the privatization process on the federal level. In 1996-97 he headed the State Property Committee, was deputy chairman of the Russian government was involved in the so-called "case of writers', because of what has resigned. At the beginning of the two thousandth - the general director of holding "Gazprom-Media", NTV Chairman of the Board. It was during this period left the NTV Evgeny Kiselev, Viktor Shenderovich, Mikhail Osokin, Marianne Maksimovskaya. Today, Alfred Koch - one of the most widely read political bloggers and publicists of the country. In 2013, co-authored with Peter Aven, he published a book, "Gaidar's Revolution", in which the memories made by Anatoly Chubais, Pavel Grachev, Andrei Kozyrev and other members of the Gaidar government. The address of Alfred Koch came dozens of questions of our readers, including the & quot;. popliteus "and even explicitly malevolent He answered them all.

- Mr. Alfred! My question - you would not believe - about Putin. Before you come to the White House and then in the Kremlin, he first appeared in Moscow. Appeared after brilliantly pro..ral elections Sobchak in St. Petersburg in the image of his chief of staff (I think, I do not confuse). And I brought him to Moscow across Russia on pleasure, as I believe, Chubais. At least, he has Putin was at work. You, too, were not far from the AB, and Putin could not know. Question 1: How it all so lohanulis? Question 2: After a few years ABChubais with no less brilliance pro..ral elections and pushed all of the ATP first Duma, and later in the life. Is it a coincidence? Nikolai.

- First. You did not think. His Moscow "brought" not Chubais and even Kudrin. His Moscow "dragged" Pavel Borodin. He and Putin worked as a deputy immediately upon his arrival in Moscow from St. Petersburg. Borodin while concerned, to put it mildly, without sympathy for our team, and therefore affect him in this sense, Chubais could not. So Putin's appearance in Moscow fully honoredand Pavel Borodin. As to him, Putin agreed on this - I do not know.

Second. Chubais is not pushed out of the ATP Duma. In the autumn of 2003 (when the PCA "about Ral ..." elections) we had a dilemma: to speak publicly in support of Khodorkovsky (who was arrested, as you know, at the end of October) and for it to be excommunicated from all the ethers and lose the election in early December or silent in a rag and get a dozen seats in the Duma. We chose the former, and on the day of the arrest of Khodorkovsky has publicly made to support it. For this the next day, Putin demanded from us "to stop a tantrum" and turned from the TV. At all. The result - we are gleaning 1%. By the way, "Apple", which chose exactly the opposite strategy (despite the fact that Khodorkovsky was their main sponsor, unlike ATP) - is not passed in the Duma. Despite Putin's congratulations.

- Alfred! Putin is capable of anti-corruption and human resources revolution from above? The fact that there is a class of professional, honest, patriotic modernizers, I have no doubt. But try to break through the current indifferent to countriese click. Can modernizers still hope for Putin? Or is it hopeless? Alexey

- In my opinion, Putin is not only a support for the modernization of Russia, but now it is - the main obstacle to it. Putin - is a person who believes deeply in the power of the administration, in the intrinsic value of the state, without reference to the people. He is convinced that the preservation of a single state - this is the task for which there is only the Russian people. In this it, the Russian people, the historical mission and the only thing any reasonable justification for its existence. And now, it seems to me, happens to him is the metamorphosis, which sooner or later always happens to a person who has been in power longer psychologically acceptable life: he develops a sense of their own indispensability. A certain "Savior Syndrome." The good environment (in order to completely clear) is trying to develop him this complex.

- You are in my blog (and not only) are often not predict a very bright future are now in power. Do you really believe that today "will appreciate the merits"?Duma and the recently endorsed plans to build new prison space. Well, not for themselves, not for "us"! And for whom? William

- Firstly, I do not have a blog. I have a wall in Facebook. This is a fundamental difference. Secondly, I strongly believe (this is faith), that all of us (not just the so-called "today", and - all of them), sooner or later will appreciate the merits. And even suspect - who. That so-called "today" - the very rich, it does not change anything. Believe me money does not give happiness. Money can (!) To give freedom. Happiness and Freedom - similar concepts, but not identical. But if you have money, but you are not free (a so-called "today" - is profoundly unfree people: they have an owner) - then you are doubly miserable. Third, build a prison for us. I think that you have not discovered America.

- Alfred, good afternoon. With all your negative attitude towards VV Putin should recognize that it behaves very well on the world stage, guessing, and sometimes anticipating the moves of opponents. At the same time he was not involved in the affairs of the country. Well, it is clear that it is not hisLevel of and he is not interested. In this situation, probably should be a strong prime minister. What do you think, who could lead the government and to work within the country? Thank you. Dmitriy

- I leave without comment the statement of the extraordinary effectiveness of Putin on the world stage. I will only note that the effectiveness of the policy is determined not by loud PR-shares, and the number of friends that becomes the country under his leadership and the country's level of security, which he provided. If the asker said that under Putin, the number of friends we have grown, and the Russian security increased, it means that he is right. Incidentally, I do not think so.

As prime minister, it seems to me that the Prime Minister was a good example, Chernomyrdin (I'm not talking about Gaidar). Still I mentioned Kasyanov. Who would lead the government in the future? These people are many. Here are some of them: Alexei Kudrin, Anatoly Chubais, Pyotr Aven and Mikhail Fridman, Viktor Vekselberg and Alexander Abramov, Vladimir Potanin, Roman Abramovich, Vagit Alekperov, etc. All people with outstanding management talanIt is broad-minded, vast connections and influence. This positive people, in fact, proven ability to solve the problem of the federal scale. Each of them could be a great prime minister. If I wanted to. And if this (of course) wanted to Putin. But if he wants a strong prime minister - the big question ...

- Alfred Reingoldovich! The country is rapidly degraded, already openly talking about the threat of disintegration. Why is silent the political elite? Chubais, Aven, Gref ... Who else is left? Or quietly preparing to blame? Sergei

- What are they, in your opinion, should be done? Douse himself with gasoline and set on fire? Addressed the nation? Well, in fact, that? Each of them has any idea about the nation's ability to resist this very degradation. Apparently, they believe that this ability is absent and there is no reason to risk his head. Judge for yourself: what good is not to be silent, and thus doom themselves to the position of an outcast, if as a result of its demarche you get a sluggish protest hundreds of human rights defenders? Now you, Sergey, require from the elites of some action. And why? Why do the rich and Samodeenough people have to risk my neck for you? For what reason? Do they like their current situation, then you owe? Yes, they are no longer obliged to Putin than you. However, it is you are offering them to oppose it for you. Why are you so sure that someone else, not you yourself should serve your defense? It reminds me of the famous paradox of Luzhkov, who built the city of the rich and the poor voted for him. And politicians advocating the poor, all the time demanded by the rich, so that they were against Luzhkov. But their own electorate with persistence voted for him.

- What do you think - Putin have enough brains to turn to real federalism and self-management - and in the powers and resources? After a bit of Putin's centralization - and the Far East and Siberia and the Urals with the Volga region just "put" on Moscow. And it will remain with the Tambov and Chechnya-Dagestan. Ilya

- No. On the contrary, he has enough brains to destroy all remnants of federalism and self-management. Apparently, he has a different view of the brain. Does not coincide with yours. Judging by what is happening now, nicknameon to Moscow is not "puts". Well, except that just Chechnya - Dagestan.

- Interested in your opinion about the North Caucasus. Is the Kremlin makes that feeds him and through his fingers looking at their ugliness, uchinyat across the country? Better that than to fight again? But even so we also get to the Civil War, and dispersed throughout Russia. What policies should be carried out? Kirill

- Listen, I least want to be in the role of know-all who has all the answers. I'm not electoral politics. I'm generally not a politician. I'm a writer and businessman. I just see that the way the coexistence of different ethnic groups such as Chechens and Russian, which is being implemented today. - It is no good. I would suggest an analogy: Here people get divorced. Many divorced. Putin, for example, divorced. Why? Probably because of their relationship have been exhausted. Because people are tired of each other. Because they have already crossed some invisible threshold of filth, they have said and done to each other. After all, surely such a threshold exists. And, steppingthis threshold, people will not be able to recover what they once were united. If they do anything at least once united. Do we have passed this threshold in relations with the North Caucasus? I do not know. Much speaks for the fact that we have passed. Two wars in a decade - this is no joke. But on the other hand, in the US Civil War it was also nothing - made it up ... However, we have been too. And I did not understand: red and white made up or not?

- With regard to the "national question." Why Russian liberals middle and older generation share the opinion of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin to the effect that any nationalism, with the exception of Russian nationalism, good? Here is a fresh proof: many members of the liberal intelligentsia today applauded mass protests in Kiev, fully impregnated with Ukrainian nationalism, the core idea is to move away from Russia and integration with Europe. And yet the same representatives of the liberal intelligentsia ostracized those who speak of the need to introduce visas with Central Asia and the formulation of a national referendummillet on the expediency of the North Caucasian republics of the Russian Federation. Why liberal intelligentsia denies the right of Russian national self-determination? After all, it's pure discrimination on ethnic grounds. Thank you. Kirill

- And I'm a liberal generation? I hope that at least average. I may be a bad Liberal, but I'm not against Russian nationalism. I am in favor of visa with Central Asia. I'm for a referendum. What should I do? Grabbing gun and go to war? What? Organize a referendum - I have him come and vote. Organize Maidan - I, too, it will come. What do the Liberals trailer? They are all over the country - not more than a hundred. Organize powerful Russian national movement. Demand from the power of change. What? Beginner? All you have only Liberals shpynyat ...

- In an interview of 1998, you suggested that in 10-15 years Russia will fall apart into a dozen small states. Have you changed your opinion on this? Boris

- It is not true. In the interview, I did not say that Russia will collapse. And I do not call dates. I said that there is a high risk of collapse. I still believe,it is still high. Something like this…

- Hello! Alfred Reyndgoldovich, since the coming to power of the current ruler of the country have already passed 13 years. Not only lawyers, like me, a graduate of the Law Faculty of Leningrad State University, but also ordinary people to understand that this is the absurd political theater under the guise of "multi-party system." Question: do you have an inner feeling that sooner or later Russia will come to a two-party system? And did you see the outline of such parties? Thank you. Andrei

- No. I have no such feeling. It seems to me that the two-party system does not take root in Russia. It seems to me that in the case of construction in the Russian real democracy, capable of parties in Russia is becoming more and political life will be multidimensional than in the US. Actually, the way it was in the 90s.

"Conversion option into a dragon have anyone. At Navalny this chance any more than you or me. It's quite sane, and adequate man"

- Alfred, thank you for your beautiful FEYSBUK - this is one of the most popular visiting places! How do you see the political future of our Lancelot Navalny? Is it possible toOption of its transformation into a dragon? Catherine

- Thank you for your appreciation of my modest work. And about Lesha Navalny what can I say? I wish him success. He is a brave and honest man. And to make forecasts - a thankless thing. Option transformation into a dragon have anyone. Navalny have the chance, in my opinion, no more than you or me. As far as I know it - it is quite adequate and sane people.

- Good afternoon! With our power and the economic situation in the country is clear. But please tell me, what do you think, is there any chance to change after our future? Or point of no return is passed, except the hell have nothing more to expect from Putin and his clique will be forever? Thank you. Elena

- Eternal nothing. "All will pass" - was written on the ring of King Solomon. Oh, how much has been around forever, Stalin, and in general - the USSR. And he went. It will take Putin. I have nearly 53 year. During this time we had eight governors (including Medvedev). Approximately 6.5 years each. Not so much.

- If not Putin, then who? Jury

- Only fair elections can answer thisquestion. Without fair elections with a real election campaign, and equal access to the media to make predictions - frivolous and useless. I believe that 140 million people are able to put forward five or six quite prominent personalities.

- When perestroika began, more precisely when was the euphoria of change, in 1989, my father in law told me that something really changes no earlier than 2.5 generation. I was then, of course, thought that he was very wrong in a big way. And now I think that he made a mistake in the smaller. What do you think? Dmitriy

- To educate new people need 40 years. This biblical figure has not been canceled. So everything will be clear only in 2031. Then we learn - there are new people or not.

- Alfred Reingoldovich! This year "pugalki" about shale and tanker "revolution", about the failure of Europe, and later in China from our hydrocarbons sounded seem louder than before. Do you share this assessment? Ruslan

- I'm not ready to give any predictions on the timing, but it is clear even to the child, such that high energy prices are a brake on economic growth for thecountries that they consume more than is mined. Among these countries, there are those who have sufficient scientific and technical potential, to make a new technological transition, and to drastically reduce the consumption of conventional energy sources and to develop new methods for their production of hard-to-deposits. First of all, Japan, China and the EU. Thus, it is clear that in the medium-term economic policy, the foundation of which is a firm belief in the permanence of higher prices for hydrocarbons, - it is doomed to failure. Moreover, the failure will be more deeply than the atrophied (at the time of the fall in energy prices) will be the part of the economy, the basis of which is the work and not the export of raw materials.

- The question - the economic priorities. President Vladimir Putin in his annual address to actually proclaimed the militarization of the country, at least for the next 10 years. As far as this is feasible in the current state of the Russian economy? And then, you once said that "Russia does not need anyone." Then how relevant this thesis GDP? Or is it just ocheednoy bluff necessary for people? Or another "feeder" for the elite? Leonid

- In my opinion, the excessive militarization of Russia does not need. Today's military preparations of the Kremlin - it is not the desire to increase the defense capability of Russia (in reality, Russia now there is no serious threat), and the desire of our leaders to be global players, people whose position forms the main trend of world politics. Is there a problem in the country as a whole or is it just the ambitions of its rulers? Depending on the answer to that question is the answer to the question of whether Russia needs this ambitious rearmament program. In my opinion - no. Russia has too many internal problems in the field of economic reforms, and in the area of ​​human potential in international relations, in demography, in improving the quality of the state, with large-scale problems so that attempts to look "big boy" on the world stage look ridiculous. Russia looks like a sick-core in preinfarction condition, which came to the Olympic hundred meters. However, our rulers, in all inidimosti, another point of view: they believe that the country is all right, that there are no serious problems in the country and there is time for a serious transformation of the entire world strand. They turned the size of the head of our foreign exchange reserves? In vain. I would remind them the biblical parable about the seven fat years and seven lean years ...

Another conversation that large-scale investments in the defense industry (in theory - the focus of our innovation potential) may become a new driver of economic growth, the alternative growth based on high commodity prices. But, in my opinion, this will not happen. Because the massive investment in this sector of the economy - it is only part of the program of modernization and economic growth, which will work only if they are implemented, and other parts of it. And above all, the program increased competition as the main cause of scientific and technological progress. But Putin's economic model of competition fear like the plague. However, fair and open competition, apparently, all his psycho sickened. His ideal - it is centralization and nersonalnoe distribution of any resource on opaque criteria.

- Recently I met a peer review: if the end of the decade we create scientific schools, in other words, not educated and do not attract young scientists, do not jump on the next technological wave. Alfred Reingoldovich, first of all, is it possible to still have time to create favorable conditions for young scientists and entrepreneurs? Secondly, know whether you some competitive technological backlog of domestic origin? Eugene

- Again. I am not a great specialist in the innovation economy. Let me just quote what I said above: a source of innovation is the competition. Investment plays an important, but still a secondary role to stimulate scientific and technological progress. In the absence of competition (and it is a fact for most of our industry, and above all - the public sector), the massive investment in the industry - a waste of money. They will either be stolen or simply lead to an increase in product prices.

Here's a look, as competition has beneficial effect on ourin the sphere of public catering. I responsibly declare: it is now quite world class. For some twenty years one of the most underdeveloped areas of the Soviet economy has turned into an industry that already sets the trends at the global level. By the way, no public investment was not in this industry.

- Although some market in Russia is, in your view, growing in the coming years? The issue with the aim to try to make it: the money is needed. Elena

- Even more so, I am not an investment guru. I (unfortunately) not Warren Buffett. Where to invest? It all depends on the economic policies to be carried out by the authorities and world trends. If all goes as talking - is stagnating and, accordingly, will have nowhere to invest.

- Respect, read with pleasure. As an economist and man, please tell me, when do you think, "lyaznetsya" our economy? Is there a limit degradation, followed by the collapse of the whole system, the whole state? And when we get to this limit? Or the economy will roll down endlessly? Thank you. Marina

- I do not know what - "lyaznetsmiling. " A degradation there is no limit, there is no limit to progress. I was recently in Ethiopia, in the city of Axum. There in the 3rd century BC It was a great civilization - the Axumite Kingdom. There were huge obelisks, elegant frescoes, impressive artifacts. Now there are skinny goats grazing on the grassy picturesque ruins ...

- Yeltsin's privatization was carried out in such a way that the property stratification in Russia, one of the highest in the world. Yeltsin put an end to the privatization of social justice, national unity and popular support for liberalism. By and large, the results of privatization programmed Putin came to power. If the privatization of the 90 carried out again, what would you have changed it? Vadim

- I do not agree with the preamble. Should I answer the question? According to the laws of the genre - is unlikely. But I'll try. Real stratification nobody knows in Russia as the dimensions are unknown states of so-called "sovereign people": managers of large state-owned corporations, governors, police and large feesbeshnyh generals, ministers and vice-premiers.their real income can be judged only indirectly: the houses on the French Riviera, which they own, their aircrafts, on yachts, Diamond wives, etc. I do not exclude that if we knew the real numbers, then our understanding of the top-100 list of "Forbes" much would have changed. But (I think you will agree) - privatization is not to blame.

Further. Take, nevertheless, the current list of "Forbes". Highlight it people whose condition has arisen as a result of privatization or at least based on it. I assure you of this list of no more than 10%. So again here, privatization is actually innocent.

If we talk about justice, private property - even unfair thing. Incidentally, I am afraid most of all talk of justice, because experience shows that the most heinous atrocities in human history, it is carried out under the banner of the struggle for justice. There are no universal concepts of justice. One thinks that the fact that his father left a legacy of a plant that has built with his own hands - holds. A friend who works at the same time forwater the night shift - no. Therefore, speaking about justice, one must be aware that this is a very subjective category. One girl is born beautiful, and the other - no. Beautiful marries and becomes a tycoon bogachki and ugly - crams formula to get an education and to feed themselves. This is true? No! But then oligarch throws beauty and she returns to her town, and the ugly girl becomes a valuable professional and earns enough to nothing need. It would seem that justice is done? Not at all! After all, what happened to the beauty, - there is no blame her! After all, it's not my fault that I was born beautiful! So, it is also - is unfair.

Privatization, in fact, carried out for the creation of wealth inequality. What is it surprising that egalitarian educated people perceive it as unfair? The privatization was carried out openly, publicly, all announcements about auctions and tenders were published in the press, journalists were present at the debriefing. As herst questions? Oh, I do not know why he did not explain? And you want to know? If you'd like to - learned. And then he sold his first voucher for a bottle of vodka, and only then began to find out what's what.

National unity privatization is not destroyed because it has never been. It existed only in the fevered imagination of Soviet propagandists. And those who believe their word, without bothering to find out the real state of affairs in this area.

As for the fact that the privatization of predetermined Putin parish, so this is - nonsense. If he had been the fruit of the privatization, he would have never started that creeping nationalization, which has been going on for nearly ten years, since the expropriation of "YUKOS" and the purchase of "Sibneft".

- Do not you think that a moral point of view there is no difference in enrichment during privatization wave (including loans auctions) and the proceeds of corruption of officials? That bureaucracy was corrupted by corruption (ie business) back then, during the mass privatization and mortgage auctions? The essence of our privatization process - in informationSecond blockade of ordinary people: taking advantage of their ignorance and under the guise of power for pennies to buy assets from the workforce, taking Freestuff credit. Is it very different from the meanness of a "sawing" the budget? Our unscrupulous in business tax and other schemes, in fact, stealing budget money to match our same officials engaged in similar business, but "on the other side of the fence", is not it? Dmitriy

- No not like this. No information blockade was not. All were aware of the privatization of those who went on to become an oligarch, it was known to all. All of this was available and public information. I am ready to prove it. There was not a single act of privatization, which would have been hidden from the public. Everything was available to the press, everything published, etc. Even our enemies we can not show this reproach.

Here you write: "a penny to buy assets in the workforce." And how these assets were in the workforce? And I'll tell you: the privatization! Benefits for which the plant got the shares to the labor collective for free or for pennies. And only then to "dark" slaveChii sold them. What for? It's his decision, it was not forced. But first, he got them!

And here I come to the main point. Privatization - this was the only case in the country's history, when the state is not selected, and smacked. Let the little, even a little bit - but to give. And compare this process with the theft of the budget, when the people were taken, at least - is dishonest. But by and large - mean. This banal speculation and dishonesty. Generally, this is a very narrow-minded attitude: if people were more successful than me, they are all thieves. This is an attempt to find an excuse for their own laziness and apathy.

- Alfred, good afternoon! Do you think a mistake that during the privatization of all the most profitable state property (primarily fuel and energy) has been transferred to private hands? Why could not leave at least 50% of the state or transferred to the collateral property? After all, this "bag" we could cool useful. Michael

- Nothing like this. It was not useful to us. As we do not come in handy Sovereign Wealth Fund: our leaders it is still on the way to rastaschatbinding (ha ha ha) "fraternal assistance". The money that was initially envisaged it as a "safety cushion" for the sake of geopolitical ambitions of our rulers flick of the wrist has been invested in the securities of the country, which, according to its own declaration, is in fact bankrupt. As for the energy companies, so in fact they are private or public, they pay taxes the same, all the duties they, too, are the same. Deposits of their they are will not carry away. And what's the difference - they are private or public? In private even order more and steal less.