No matter how much the rope twists, the secret will still become apparent. This happened with the Dozhd TV channel, which recognized foreign funding by submitting a notification for the second quarter of 2016 to Roskomnadzor.
“In addition to Dozhd, the summary report of the supervisory agency includes 65 more organizations engaged in publishing activities and obliged, as part of the recently adopted amendments to the Law “On Mass Media,” to declare receipt of funding from foreign sources,” Life journalists reported.
We would like to remind you that according to current legislation, Russian media are required to publish and report to supervisory authorities information “about funds received from foreign country, foreign agents, and international organizations or Russian companies, the founders or participants of which are Foreign citizens".
As a result, it turned out that although back in 2015, Dozhd’s general director Natalya Sindeeva and denied on personal Facebook receiving money from the West, now TV Channel Dozhd LLC has taken its place in the list of recipients of foreign funding. Also, Dozhd representatives simply swore that they “work exclusively thanks to advertising and paid subscriptions.”
By the way, about the statements of the Dozhd management. I would like to remind Natalya Sindeeva’s “cry from the heart” that there are “only 65 thousand” subscribers to the TV channel, and everyone needs to subscribe somehow because “in reality there are many more of us.”
"American foundations and agencies, European structures, all sponsor “the last light of democracy in Russian media.” And this light has a target audience of 65 thousand people. And, as a number of bloggers sarcastically note, “you still don’t know how many people have signed up for you, as they say, just4lulz,” the site wrote.
However, financial fraud and suspicious schemes are commonplace for Dozhd. In fact, almost the entire funding of the channel, starting from the moment of its creation, is “murky”. Dozhd does not shy away from foreign grants “for the development of democracy,” that is, simply put, for anti-Russian propaganda, and from a variety of sources.
Committee on foreign affairs The British House of Commons, in its report on the work of the foreign policy department of this country, indicated that the Russian TV channels RBC and Dozhd “deliver the information the British Foreign Ministry needs to the Russian audience” by collaborating with the British Air Force.
Politicians noted that both media outlets work effectively and therefore their funding should not be reduced. At the same time, representatives of these TV channels assure that they cooperate with the BBC on a voluntary basis, but experts have a different opinion about their activities. “The BBC strategy - increasing access to content on TV and digital platforms - is working,” Izvestia publishes an excerpt from a British document .
The editor-in-chief of the Dozhd TV channel, Mikhail Zygar, explained that the topics of foreign stories are determined by the BBC management. Deputy editor-in-chief of RBC-TV Alexey Zuichenko did not comment on cooperation with a foreign television network, citing “commercial conditions” of work.
Politrussia previously reported that these TV channels also receive funding from the United States. “Every year in the spring, a special government structure called the Broadcasting Board of Governors applies to the US Congress to receive funding for the next fiscal year. This structure is responsible for American propaganda in the global information field, including in Russia,” the publication notes.
“The Russian service provides information on American news to the independent Russian TV channel Dozhd,” Politrussia cites a request indicating a document for receiving funding for Dozhd from the United States for 2014. “Over the past year, the Voice of America has entered into partnerships with local television channels, including RBC, which has 11% of the Russian audience,” there is a similar request regarding RBC-TV with reference to a funding document.
The greyness of the Russian media landscape can be deeply depressing. Compared to venerable Western majors, domestic TV channels cannot provide series, news or documentaries of similar quality. The Dozhd TV channel, created in 2008, was called upon to correct this situation. What this is, it’s worth finding out in more detail.
Media information
In ten years, the channel has gone from a small-town Moscow project to an international phenomenon:
- The concept of the new resource was born back in 2007, when a journalist Natalia Sindeeva Together with my husband, I decided to give my own answer to Channel One;
- But for the first few years, things didn’t go beyond a great idea: the reason for this was constant conflicts among the founders and a lack of a clear understanding of the audience;
- Thus, it was originally planned to broadcast from one of the skyscrapers in the business district of Moscow. Then it was decided to stop at “Red October”;
- It was impossible to conclude agreements with cable operators due to disagreements over the coverage of political events;
- The path to the mass audience had to be paved through the Internet. The first launch took place on the platform of the authoritative publication Slon.ru;
- Over the following years, the media editorial staff received several reputable Russian television awards. The channel began to be broadcast in a number of CIS countries, as well as in Israel;
- However, with the outbreak of the war in Ukraine, the government began to tighten the screws in the information space. “Rain” was one of the first to be distributed. As a result, the very existence and market efficiency of the business remains in question.
Who owns the Dozhd TV channel?
According to open sources, Dozhd LLC is 95% belongs to Natalya Sindeeva, one of the leading figures in the Russian-language media sphere:
- She was born in 1971 in Tambov region. There she graduated from school and received a diploma as a school teacher;
- However, she did not work a single day in her specialty. In the early 90s, she moved to the capital, where she worked for some time in the field of fashion and entertainment;
- Her professional path brought her together with the production environment of Russian media. Business connections allowed her to get a job on the 2x2 channel, where she made a dizzying career;
- Thanks to Sindeeva and the funds of her first husband Dmitry Savitsky, the Silver Rain radio station was born;
- Another of Natalya’s husbands, Alexander Vinokurov, gave money for her next ambitious project - the independent TV channel “Dozhd”. The limited liability company of the same name was registered on April 21, 2008 (although general public I found out about it only a year later).
In addition to Sindeeva, the co-founder and owner of a 5% share is journalist Vera Krichevskaya. She does not take part in the management of the media holding.
Channel subscription cost
Just a few years ago, anyone could watch the channel if they only had access to the Internet. But thanks to the efforts of domestic legislators, the resource was forced to go deep underground, and today you can only watch promotional videos without sound for free.
You will have to pay a lot of money for access to the video library and online broadcasts (including in HD):
- A month of viewing costs almost 500 rubles;
- Three months will cost 1280 rubles;
- Unlimited views for 12 months cost 4,800 rubles. This tariff is the most profitable: savings compared to the previous ones are 1095 and 730 rubles, respectively (per year);
- There is a special offer for preferential groups of the population, which includes students, disabled people and people of retirement age. All of them can purchase a subscription at more than 2 times cheaper;
- Paying for access does not mean completely disabling advertising: enterprising TV bosses require small but significant money for this service - almost 100 rubles;
- True fans and devoted viewers of Dozhd can fork out as much as 10,000 rubles to be able to attend events “for their own” and watch special inclusions.
What content is on Dozhd?
Despite the significant cost of subscription, the project still finds followers who are ready to donate a considerable part of their money to it. wages if there is a free ethereal alternative.
The reason lies in a whole combination of factors:
- Initially, “Rain” was conceived as an independent project for active and optimistic residents of the capital. The slogan of the channel in the first years of its existence sounded like “Optimistic Channel” (precisely on English language, without Russian decoding);
- A distinctive feature of the newly-minted media resource was a live broadcast without cuts and political censorship. In all other channels in the country, live broadcasting has practically disappeared;
- How independent coverage of events disappeared public life. Channel One and NTV, which ruled the show in the 90s, actually turned into court video blogs of the ruling party. The resulting information vacuum was called upon to fill new project Sindeeva;
- Despite the fact that the quality of television production caused a lot of criticism from the expert community, whole line domestic media figures expressed open support for the resource even during the period of disgrace. Among them are Vladimir Pozner, Leonid Parfenov, Mikhail Kozyrev and others.
Who finances the Dozhd TV channel?
Business model of the most famous Russian online media leaves much to be desired for a number of reasons:
- In 2014, the editors of the project had the imprudence to allow a discussion of the admissibility of the surrender of Leningrad during the Great Patriotic War. The storm of indignation from viewers and politicians was so strong that almost all providers refused to broadcast the “optimistic channel”. Thus, an important source of income was cut off at the root;
- The following year, the State Duma presented an unpleasant surprise. According to the new law “On Advertising”, all off-air media were deprived of the right to it;
- Today, all channel content is created through donations from viewers. This model was first tested by Dozhd back in 2013, but then it did not bring in significant funds;
- According to media reports, one way or another controlled by the Kremlin, the opposition television channel allegedly receives significant material support from the American government agencies. However, these data are not sufficiently confirmed.
The only information that the average Russian knows about the Dozhd TV channel is that it is one of the foreign agents working with American money. If, of course, ordinary people even know about this opposition resource. As long as this situation remains, hopes for changes for the better in our country should be abandoned.
Video about the channel financing mechanism
In this video, Mikhail Romanov will tell you a detailed financing scheme for the Dozhd channel, how it can exist with such unprofitability:
The main task of the Dozhd TV channel was to prevent Vladimir Putin from coming to the presidency. Money has been allocated for this, is being allocated and, unfortunately, will continue to be allocated, because the change Russian authorities, change in rate to receive state sovereignty is the main task of the “liberal opposition” in Russia. Financing anti-state activities with public money is a signature style. Let's remember the colossal money that was spent on several lectures - these funds were allocated to finance Bolotnaya and prevent Vladimir Putin from winning a third presidential term.
Some time ago, a murky scheme for financing the creation of the Dozhd TV channel surfaced. This “scrupulous” TV channel still has colossal losses. In 2012 they amounted to about 125 million rubles. Who finances all these projects? What benefit are they pursuing if this benefit is definitely not economic?
I spoke about all this and the situation in Ukraine on the air of RSN on January 30 with presenter Ilya Peresedov.
“I. PERESEDOV: Good evening. This is the “No Questions” program on the Russian News Service. And today in the studio Nikolai Starikov, writer, co-chairman of the GREAT FATHERLAND PARTY, and I am his interlocutor Ilya Peresedov. Nikolay, hello.
N. STARIKOV: Good evening.
I. PERESEDOV: Well, you came to us from St. Petersburg. And today it so happens that this great city, or rather, the events associated with it, are at the center of an unexpected scandal. The popular Dozhd TV channel, based in Moscow, posted on its website, based on the results of one of its historical programs, a survey that it might have been necessary to surrender Leningrad to the Germans in order to save hundreds of thousands of lives. And after this happened, accusations rained down on Dozhd. Today, as we know, the St. Petersburg prosecutor’s office has initiated an investigation into the extremism of these events. New information is constantly coming in that some cable operators are turning off Dozhd from the air, while others are not. I’ll probably ask you to comment on this, first of all, as a resident of St. Petersburg. What do you think about it?
N. STARIKOV: You know, as a resident of St. Petersburg, as a patriot of Russia, as a citizen of Russia, in any form, of course, this outraged me to the core. And not only because the blockade directly affected my family. My grandmother, then a 30-year-old woman, lost her one-year-old child. And thus the blockade took away part of my family. But it’s just that such surveys do not show that a complete misunderstanding of history, in my opinion, is a complete lack of conscience. I would like you and I to sort everything out today. That is, from a historical point of view, from a moral, moral, etc. point of view. Let's start with the most important thing. Are you in opening words said a popular channel. What kind of popular channel is it? The popularity of the TV channel, which is called “Dozhd”, and in the patriotic environment it is called “lie” for the deceitful position that it constantly takes; in fact, I myself recently measured my popularity very in a simple way. This TV channel began to have serious financial problems. And then he decided to introduce a paid subscription. It will be clear that the number of paid subscribers is the number of such forgotten fans of this channel. Look how many people have signed up? In my opinion, about 2 thousand people. Therefore, what can we say about the popularity of a TV channel that has 2 thousand fans? This is not a popular TV channel, this is just a channel that the majority of the population does not watch or listen to at all and learn about its existence from such publications in the media, when this channel messes something up.
I. PERESEDOV: Nikolay, just a second. Firstly, as we now know, Dozhd has several profit-making schemes. And one of them is, indeed, a paid subscription, the other, as Natalya Sindeeva admitted, they take money from cable network operators and also, according to information that is sometimes confirmed and sometimes refuted, in the popular Akado network they are almost at fourth place. But if they are marginal, who are of no interest to anyone and are little known, it is all the more unclear where all this fuss comes from.
N. STARIKOV: Ostap Bender, as far as I remember, had more than 100 methods of relatively honest taking of money from the population. But that didn't make him an honest man. As for this TV channel, I have the RBC newspaper in front of me - I picked it up to read today - it says here that in 2012 the loss of the Dozhd TV channel, the net loss, please note, amounted to almost 125 million rubles. So, we have a TV channel that few people watch, which has enormous losses and to which someone gives money. Let's ask a question: if a TV channel does not make a profit, but brings losses, then what is the meaning of those forces that give money? What do they give money for? They give money for propaganda. And now this propaganda has reached its extreme. We have sorted out what is called the financial component. Let's look at the historical one now. They asked their viewers whether it was necessary to surrender the city, maybe it was necessary to surrender - the meaning of this vote - and then hundreds of thousands of residents would have been saved. But this is the first stage of this voting. Here the second stage is logically visible. Or maybe then we should have surrendered on June 22 and then we would have saved money, we would have saved 27 million citizens from death. Then there was no need to fight with Germany, it was necessary to surrender. That is, do you understand where they are aiming in the end?
I. PERESEDOV: In principle, I can say that nothing is new under the sun, and if I remember, if I’m not mistaken, either in the late 90s or early 2000s there was an article by journalist Minkin in Moskovsky Komsomolets, who is still alive and writes in the same newspaper, which stated in exactly the same way that if Hitler had conquered Soviet Union, then it wouldn’t have turned into big troubles, he still wouldn’t have been able to hold on to this country, and maybe many people would have survived from those who died, and Stalin wouldn’t have committed such atrocities on the territory of Europe and own country. But at the same time, no one is trying to condemn Minkin now, no one has any complaints against Moskovsky Komsomolets, although clearly this article is still in his archives.
N. STARIKOV: Yes, but you know, if Minkin published such an article now, the reaction civil society Russia would be exactly the same. And I think that Minkin, as a smart journalist, he probably won’t print something like this now, especially after looking at what happened in this situation. But let's look even further from a historical point of view. That is, here, firstly, there is a denial of the victory of the Soviet people in the war, that is, there was no need to fight, this is the meaning here. The second meaning is actually the whitewashing of the Nazis. After all, we know what the Nazis did in the occupied territory. There are facts here even around my native Leningrad - St. Petersburg. Pushkin, Tsarskoe Selo, was captured by the Germans. More civilians died there as a percentage than in besieged Leningrad. This is the first. Second: Hitler issued a specific order. There is a document, there’s nothing even to argue about. That St. Petersburg should be strangled by the blockade, the inhabitants exterminated, and then the city destroyed, in its place there should have been a lake. Therefore, to say that there was no need to resist, the Germans would have come and simply destroyed everyone.
I. PERESEDOV: So, we return to the discussion of the problematic, complex, in my opinion, stupid survey, which was published on the website of the Dozhd TV channel and led to scandals for it and it is now unclear how it will all turn out. Fine. Naturally, Leningrad could not have been saved if it had surrendered to the Germans. N. STARIKOV: The inhabitants would have been exterminated by the Nazis if the city had been surrendered to Hitler.
I. PERESEDOV: Let's clarify one thing. No one directly stated on the Dozhd website that it was necessary to do this. They asked a question hypothetically: in your opinion, was it necessary or not necessary.
N. STARIKOV: Okay, let me make an analogy. In every society there are things that are impossible to talk about. This is considered not only indecent, but offensive. There are a lot of these things. In our society, such a formulation of the question regarding the blockade is simply blasphemy. Well, let's take a situation somewhere in the USA. One of the TV channels would simply decide to conduct a survey on the topic: in your opinion, dear radio listeners, would this American channel ask viewers whether the Nazis had the right to exterminate Jews in concentration camps or did they have no grounds for this? Please express your point of view. What do you think would happen to these presenters, what would happen to this channel? I think that the presenters would have been fired instantly, and the channel would have been deprived of its license, all its credit lines would have been immediately closed, and the US Jewish lobby would have played the most active role in this. And it would be the right thing to do, because this way of asking questions is offensive. So, in Russia, talking about the fact that it was necessary to surrender to the Nazis, and this is precisely what this survey is about, also insults the citizens of Russia, the civil society of our country.
I. PERESEDOV: Well, following the logic of Nikolai Starikov, we can rejoice that our civic feeling is in no way inferior in strength to the civic feeling of united Americans. That Russia has gone through such a wonderful thing since the late 90s – early 2000s, where few people paid attention to the article by journalist Minkin, and today we hear from every newspaper about how “Dozhd” was wrong. That is, all this is very good. Yes, perhaps for Dozhd this will even end in some kind of penalties. But where does all this hatred and demand to close this resource come from? They are not economically profitable, they are unprofitable, they will go bankrupt themselves after a while, they have problems with certain cable operators, let them solve them. As one communist, a deputy, said on our air: if we fail to condemn them now, then we will have a reason to change the law so that we can condemn such steps and actions. Everything is very logical. Where does this bloodlust come from?
N. STARIKOV: Firstly, there is no thirst for blood. Please note, no one was beaten, no one was beaten. For example, the trade union of Russian citizens, a public organization of which I am a member, today peacefully picketed Dozhd. Some probably patriotic people climbed onto the roof of this organization and placed the Victory flag there. Please note that the protest is absolutely peaceful, no one is insulted or beaten. So there is nothing to talk about bloodlust and hatred. But there is a thirst for justice. Imagine that some scumbags insulted your mother with words, were you somehow supposed to react to this? Same reaction here. And, of course, this survey is a disgrace, it is a crime, in fact, against our people. But the only good thing in this whole story is that you say that we see how the social field, the civil creation of our people, has changed. What we did not notice or few of us reacted to such offensive attacks in the 90s, but now civil society has stirred up and is demanding that this TV channel be punished. How to punish him is a purely technical question. But I would like to emphasize that the TV channel, which does not enjoy any real popularity among the population, outside the Garden Ring, I think that practically no one knows what kind of TV channel it is, which can only gain 2 thousand subscribers. You know, this is comparable to the number of subscribers to my site if I suddenly decided to make it paid. My traffic is 50-60 thousand per day. But of course I will never do this. And he has enormous losses. You know, very often liberals tell us how many kindergartens could be built with the money that is spent on something, on rearmament of the army, as much as possible. Let's do the math: 120 million. How many kindergartens can we build? This is who gives 120 million, wanting not to return it every year so that something like this can be held there. We must understand that the profit from these liberal media is always broth, fat in the form of anti-Russian propaganda, and this is precisely the meaning of the existence of this TV channel. Let's ask ourselves, do we need such a TV channel? What is actually strange here?
I. PERESEDOV: Sorry, Nikolai, here I am directly forced to stand up for my colleagues. Firstly, direct benefits from business only happen if you sell pies on the corner. Everything related to media technologies, everything related to IT technologies, as a rule, works in the negative for the first years in order to then start working in the positive. I do not say that economic model“Dozhda” is doomed to become successful over the years.
N. STARIKOV: Ilya, would you like me to tell you why the Dozhd TV channel was created? It is obvious.
I. PERESEDOV: Very interesting.
N. STARIKOV: The Dozhd TV channel was created with money that Kudrin allocated to save the KIT-Finance bank. Some of this money was actually stolen and was not returned to the state. With this money, the conscientious TV channel “Dozhd” was created, the main task of which was to prevent Vladimir Putin from coming to the presidency, so that anyone would become president, but not Putin. That is, it became the flagship of liberal forces, which began to actively oppose Putin’s rise to the presidency. And if we also remember that it was Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev who actively promoted this channel and its representatives at his press conferences, that is, no one knew what kind of channel it was, he put it on the level with ORT, NTV, then this scheme becomes clear.
I. PERESEDOV: Based on what sources are you now talking about Kudrin and KIT-Finance?
N. STARIKOV: I exclusively express my value judgment.
I. PERESEDOV: Okay. Even if so, we have a law according to which it will obviously be very, very difficult to condemn “Rain” today. Let's look at the efforts of the St. Petersburg prosecutor's office, time will tell, as they say, but in general, based on existing precedents, it is unlikely that this will result in serious losses or shocks for him. And here the channel’s management says today that telephone law is in effect, that the same operators are trying to turn them off when they call, that we are leaving, that for some reason our patriotism does not lead to strengthening of laws, but, on the contrary, to us leaving the legal field.
N. STARIKOV: Ilya, I don’t see any violation of the law anywhere. Unfortunately, firstly, we see a small legal vacuum that needs to be resolved, and among other things, the “Great Fatherland” party took the initiative to introduce criminal liability for denying the victory of the Soviet people in the Great Patriotic War. Patriotic War. We see once again how relevant this is more than ever, because these are the nasty things that Gozman said in his time, by the way, in my opinion, he did this on the air of RSN, talked about smersh, etc. , compared with SS.
I. PERESEDOV: I remember this story, I honestly don’t remember on the air of which radio station he said this.
N. STARIKOV: Yes, God be with him, with Gozman, thank God, he is no longer on the air of RSN. So, now we see that polls like these, that is, our victory will be dealt a blow. But here we are speaking exclusively from a market perspective.
I. PERESEDOV: Nikolay, look, but it’s impossible not to notice that there is a certain trend now. Almost simultaneously with the time Dozhd published this scandalous survey on its website, the day before on official page VGTRK on Facebook placed Goebbels’ statements in the section of great people.
N. STARIKOV: Thoughts of the great.
I. PERESEDOV: About Lenin. Shortly before this, popular blogger Rustam Adagamov wrote that Kalashnikov stole the prototype of his assault rifle from some German inventors. And there, too, a group of patriots is now trying to file a complaint against him with the prosecutor’s office. If you dig around, you can find it. Moreover, each of these events betrays some kind of sloppiness, in fact, inattention to history. Where does this come from now in your opinion?
N. STARIKOV: Let's separate mistakes from deliberate lies. As for the situation when Goebbels was ranked among the greats, RTR actually apologized and fired the entire department that was involved in this. Dozhd has not apologized to that extent and is not going to fire anyone. As for conscientious bloggers, they try to spoil any date that is significant for Russia. Therefore, this bird that Kalashnikov, so to speak, drew ideas for his ingenious machine gun from the German assault rifle 1944 model, they are similar only in appearance. Please note that American soldiers and British designers, for some reason having the same captured German rifles, did not learn anything from there. That is, in order to create a Kalashnikov assault rifle, you need a Kalashnikov, and not some kind of German assault rifle hanging on the wall, slightly similar in appearance. Everything inside is different. But Rustam Adagamov is not able to understand this. Now let’s return to “Rain” and the marketability of these solutions, which should exist, as I said. Look, there is such a thing as reputation. TV channel "Rain" and reputation, of course, it sounds funny, but still. There is such a thing as a handshake. So, advertisers should not advertise on this channel. Well, imagine there are advertisements for German cars and such a scandal. This is not appropriate. Further, I am the owner of cable networks, I have a reputation, my grandfather fought, someone died in the war, maybe blockade survivors are parents, how can I allow a channel that does such things to be on my network. Then I will be ashamed to look my children in the eyes. I make an absolutely market decision, no one forces me, I cross out this channel, I simply cross out. And I won't have it. He could be somewhere else if he wants, but he won't be on my cable network. If such a decision is made by many cable networks and dishes that broadcast, then no one will dare to spoil our victory anymore.
I. PERESEDOV: Nikolay, firstly, you speak as if “Rain” persists in its lies. They have already apologized 20 times as soon as possible and wherever possible. They will now hold a marathon dedicated to patriotism every day.
N. STARIKOV: How many people were fired?
I. PERESEDOV: At the moment, not much.
N. STARIKOV: When will they be fired?
I. PERESEDOV: As far as I understand, they will not be fired.
N. STARIKOV: Is this called an apology?
I. PERESEDOV: Why should your apologies be accompanied by dismissals?
N. STARIKOV: Because this is conscious work, this is not a mistake. Here RTR showed, please note that RTR showed how to apologize. There the scandal did not grow and the issue was closed because people admitted their guilt.
I. PERESEDOV: I constantly urge us to remain within the law. It is not at all clear under what Labor Code the management of VGTRK fired the entire department.
N. STARIKOV: And I’ll tell you why. The department just came and wrote a letter of resignation. Can you imagine, this happens when people come and say: that’s it, I’m leaving and they write a statement, and the manager signs it. Such situations happen in life.
I. PERESEDOV: But then it’s not called dismissal, then it turns out that people left on their own. And they tell us that the management fired me.
N. STARIKOV: But you and I understand that they were asked to write a statement on at will, they wrote them.
I. PERESEDOV: It’s the same with cable operators: someone decided that the apologies that Dozhd brought were enough for him, someone will decide that the ones that will come in the future are enough. But they determine this. This is where I urge that this story remain strictly within the law.
N. STARIKOV: It remains strictly within the framework of the law, it’s just that no one is stopping civil society, the formation of which the Dozhd TV channel so persistently called for, to express its point of view. This is what we express. Today we are picketing Dozhd, tomorrow we will write to the addresses of cable networks and ask them to stop the Dozhd TV channel from being included in the subscription that they offer to their viewers. I don't see a violation of the law here.
I. PERESEDOV: You decided to wage a systematic fight against the Dozhd TV channel, right?
N. STARIKOV: I think that many patriots, including me and my colleagues, decided to bring this matter to the maximum end. That is, do not let go of this insult, which was inflicted on millions of our fallen citizens, millions of our living citizens.
I. PERESEDOV: Tomorrow, I don’t know, the editor of the Dozhd website will write a letter of resignation. Will this suit you, satisfy you?
N. STARIKOV: Come on, when a real apology is made, and I very much doubt it.
I. PERESEDOV: A real apology, confirmed by someone’s departure?
N. STARIKOV: Of course, if the editorial policy of this channel changes, if it conducts a survey in which it actually asks a question about our history, without trying to falsify it. After all, look, they don’t conduct such surveys, for example: what do you think, should Paulus’s army have resisted in the encircled Stalingrad or should it have capitulated in order to save hundreds of thousands of lives? German soldiers? They don't do that kind of survey, right? They don't.
I. PERESEDOV: Okay, Nikolay, look, but the fact is that people are not robots. Robots are controlled by computer programs, clearly defined, where there is a plus, a minus and nothing else, zero, one. What do I mean: in fact, society cannot live purely according to laws.
N. STARIKOV: That is, how can it not?
I. PERESEDOV: Just a second, I’ll explain now. It is impossible to spell out every situation in law. The law is some kind of boundaries, a framework that protects us from blatant actions, and everything that is inside this zone is built on human communication, on human interaction, okay, on that handshake that you are talking about. But it’s simply obvious here that our society today is split, there are no unconditional laws for everyone that would be recognized by everyone.
N. STARIKOV: Why say that it is split? yes 98% normal people who are outraged by this. There are 2% liberals, 2 thousand of them have subscribed, others feel sorry for the money for this conscientious TV channel “Dozhd”. What is the split here? And you always talk about some laws. It is important that there are laws. But no laws apply here. The most important law of civil society applies here: expressing one's attitude towards what people do. And some consequences follow. After all, when those who doubt the Holocaust are simply pushed out of Western society in general, no laws are violated there, it’s just that everyone around understands that one cannot deal with this person, because he violates unwritten laws, because he says what is indecent to say in this society. We have the same case.
I. PERESEDOV: This is what I’m trying to ask you about, because, to be honest, as a person who lived in St. Petersburg, as a person who studied in St. Petersburg, this survey shocked me. Because I know how St. Petersburg residents simply harden their faces when the blockade is mentioned.
N. STARIKOV: Not only among St. Petersburg residents.
I. PERESEDOV: And for everyone, not only those whose relatives lived in these terrible days in this city, but even came after the evacuation and saw how this city was being restored or heard family stories. So, of course, this is monstrous. And for me, the main problem, as I see it, is not whether “Rain” will remain on the broadcast schedule or not, but why a significant part of us, as they say today, of opening makers, do not notice that there is a monstrous dissonance in this. The same Posner, by the way, notices this in his words, which he expressed to Dozhd. But other journalists do not.
N. STARIKOV: You say that people are not robots. You know, when I see liberals who especially work in the media, I have the feeling that they are robots, because they, clearly according to a given program, regardless of reality, mumble the same thing, shit on the same thing, falsify history in one direction. By God, like robots. But it seems to me that this is still a job, it is a well-paid job to scold Russia, to falsify it. If they stop paying money, they will stop doing it. But in order to not stop paying money for this, I think that the platform where they receive this money should disappear. From my point of view, if a TV channel, which almost no one watches in Russia and which brings losses, disappears from the Russian media space, I don’t think that anyone except Natalya Sindeeva will shed a single tear.
I. PERESEDOV: You understand, when you say the word liberals to mean strangers, you create exactly the same split as a journalist who does not interpret history in the same way as you are used to.
N. STARIKOV: Why? As a matter of fact, we always see this in elections about how many Russian citizens support liberal parties. Most liberals live in major cities, most of this majority is in Moscow, St. Petersburg and further down. As a matter of fact, beyond the Moscow Ring Road you will find a liberal less often than mushrooms in the forest.
I. PERESEDOV: This is the “No Questions” program on the Russian News Service. In the studio, Nikolai Starikov, a writer, co-chairman of the Great Fatherland party, and I, his interlocutor Ilya Peresedov. Well, let's see how the situation with the Dozhd TV channel is resolved and what changes in legislation this will ultimately lead to. Now I propose to talk about Ukraine.
N. STARIKOV: Yes, of course.
I. PERESEDOV: We devoted a whole hour to this topic last week, and in your opinion, what has changed now, what is the main thing happening in Kyiv now?
N. STARIKOV: You know, the topic of Ukraine worries not only the citizens of Ukraine, but also the citizens of Russia much more than this situation with the Dozhd TV channel. With him, as they say, everything is clear. There is less clarity with Ukraine, so I would like to express my point of view on what is happening. We discussed this a week ago. Everything is going according to the scenario we talked about. Russia won a diplomatic victory over the West. In fact, at the meeting of the Russian President with Western politicians it became quite obvious. Today, Western newspapers publish an interview with NATO Secretary General Rasmussen. He generally blames Russia for the situation in which it did not allow Ukraine to sign the European integration agreement and thus tension in Europe did not decrease. In fact, he admitted that we won with all these diplomatic equivocations. This means what is happening in Ukraine today. After President Yanukovych invited the opposition to become prime minister for one, the other to become prime minister according to social issues, in fact, this victory was secured. The opposition found itself in a dead end. It is impossible to refuse, because Yanukovych can always say: Dear friends I propose that you become prime minister, restore order, and, in fact, run the economy. Please do it. If you refuse, you turn out to be a talker, you only want to stand at rallies, you don’t want to work. It is also impossible to agree, because you take full responsibility on yourself, especially the prime minister, and two of these oppositionists will immediately quarrel with the third Tyagnibok, who was not offered anything, that is, this is a split. And imagine, Prime Minister Yatsenyuk must restore order on the Maidan, and he must restore order there if it becomes so. Therefore, they found themselves in a situation where they, like Trotsky, said: but we do not agree and we do not refuse. And in order to put them in an even more difficult position, Yanukovych dismissed the government and did not appoint anyone to replace him, and today he fell ill. That is, he is actually waiting for the opposition to agree. If she doesn’t agree, she has the absolutely legal right to say: guys, I’ve been waiting for you, but since you don’t want to, I’m appointing someone else as prime minister.
I. PERESEDOV: I have a lot of questions, so let’s talk about the same thing, but in more detail. First: Russian victory. We are used to hearing that Russia showed itself weakly publicly in these Ukrainian events, except for Vladimir Putin’s very late speech at the summit in Brussels, we did not see any active actions by our ambassador in Ukraine, we heard the rather restrained position of Minister Lavrov. What kind of work in Russia are you talking about then?
N. STARIKOV: Okay, let's just assume that Viktor Yanukovych got a second wind in thoughts, in money, in ideas. He didn’t shine for 4 years, and suddenly he was overwhelmed. The brilliantly carried out operation baffled the oppositionists; instead of being a bloody dictator, as in the scenario of the “Orange” Revolution, they now became the bloody opposition. He just had brilliant thoughts. Then he somehow himself, without Russia’s participation, managed to seriously reduce the price of gas. Absolutely on his own, without the participation of Russia, he managed to obtain from Russia the first 3 billion out of 15, which Russia is ready to give; in principle, Russia really did not participate here at all. I’m ready to chalk everything up to Viktor Yanukovych.
I. PERESEDOV: So Russia won due to the shadow economy and economic leverage?
N. STARIKOV: Wait, what shadow is there?
I. PERESEDOV: Shadow diplomacy, excuse me, for God’s sake.
N. STARIKOV: Let's treat our native country with respect. Russia won because it offered Ukraine what Ukraine needed. And she explained to the Ukrainian president that if he accepts what the West is offering, it will definitely not end with him being elected president, because the economy will collapse and his only chance of being re-elected is not to sign this enslaving treaty on pseudo-European integration.
I. PERESEDOV: No, let’s put it that way. Now Yanukovych. We are used to thinking that Yanukovych got into trouble and simply discredited himself as a politician by allowing the situation with the Maidan to become so serious and significant. Now in your words he is portrayed as almost a genius of combinatorics.
N. STARIKOV: So, actually, I’m hinting so subtly, Ilya, that when a politician who has not previously shone with brilliant moves suddenly begins, you know, like in chess, suddenly begins to beat grandmasters, then maybe someone tells him these moves . You know, if on an exam a D student or a C student, say, a C student, would suddenly start solving for A's, but the teacher should see if he has a cheat sheet, and even better, he doesn't have a microphone in his ear, which would tell him all this the matter dictates. Therefore, let's think about what kind of excellent student could dictate to Viktor Yanukovych such a non-standard situation, which led to the fact that the opposition did not achieve its goals. And, most importantly, the West no longer supports the opposition. That is, the Maidan is actually over. It’s just that not everyone knows about it yet. A week ago we told you that Maidan would end. Maidan is over. He is now under the banner of some pseudo victories, but look, Yanukovych passed laws, Yanukovych repealed the laws, that is, he created a problem and sold its solution at a high price. There were laws, there weren’t, what’s the difference? No Maidan. Passed laws change to the fact that the Maidan will be collapsed. And this is what we will see in the very near future.
I. PERESEDOV: Okay. Our forecast came true for the week. Let's try to look further. Does this mean that Maidan will now appear again on the streets of Kyiv or will grow on the streets of Kyiv only in 2015, on the eve of the presidential elections in Ukraine, and until that time Yanukovych will quietly sit in this chair?
N. STARIKOV: Last time we talked about analogies with the 1905 revolution. The revolution is over, the Maidan 2014 project is over. Now the project “revolution” begins on the 19th, well, it turned out to be, unfortunately, the 17th. Now the “Maidan 2015” project begins for the next presidential elections.
I. PERESEDOV: What will happen to Tymoshenko?
N. STARIKOV: Gleb Zheglov also said well on this topic: “A thief should be in prison.” It seems to me that nothing will change in this situation.
I. PERESEDOV: Okay, what will be new? What dividends will Maidan bring and to whom?
N. STARIKOV: A new situation when all three of today’s opposition leaders have very much compromised themselves during this Maidan. Klitschko showed himself to be insufficiently strong-willed and lost part of his image of such a brutal macho. Tyagnibok scored points among his supporters, but lost potential supporters among sensible people, because after all, everyone saw what kind of lads he had in this Svoboda party. Yatsenyuk achieved nothing at all, because it was clear that the protesters, especially these militants generally don’t cost a penny. Therefore, some new leader is needed. And now they will try to find someone to oppose Yanukovych. Now this fuss will begin.
I. PERESEDOV: No, well, the main possible opponent of Yanukovych is Tymoshenko, whatever one may say.
N. STARIKOV: Well, we found out where it is.
I. PERESEDOV: Well, we believed Nikolai Starikov and decided that the Maidan was really over and what we see now are just smoldering coals that will cool down in the next couple of weeks. But this does not remove the issue of European integration for Ukraine, because even if the Maidan comes to naught, and we see this today, consultations between Ukrainian politicians and European politicians are already beginning on returning the association agreement with Europe to the agenda.
N. STARIKOV: So what is the victory that we are talking about? The victory lies in the fact that no one talks about this agreement anymore. That's it, Ukraine has not signed this agreement, the issue is postponed. Europe swallowed this and now it is betting on the victory of its protege not the following presidential elections, on whom hopes are pinned to sign this agreement. There will be no signings, nothing will happen before these elections. Because for Viktor Yanukovych today, talking about European integration means losing his rating. It must rely on those who do not want European integration at all. Therefore, he will say that we are in Europe, tra-la-la, some general phrases, dance ritual dances, but, of course, he will not sign this, because you and I remember that behind the chessboard, where he plays so well, there is someone who advises him very well. And this someone is Russia, he perfectly understands the West’s goal in this mythical European integration. She needs to tear Ukraine away from Russia, completely destroy industry in Ukraine, do the same thing they did in the Baltic states, and ultimately get a market for their goods. But the most important thing is the good old Roman saying “divide and conquer”.
I. PERESEDOV: Putin’s words that there is no direct contradiction between the European Union and the Eurasian Union and that cooperation with both the first and the second can be completely combined, do they change anything here?
N. STARIKOV: You know, politicians are forced to speak different words. Let's remember our history. At first, the Soviet press scolded the Nazis with the most last words, then suddenly and unexpectedly we signed a non-aggression pact with Germany and the danger of war was eliminated for 2 years. Then the war began with these same Nazis. Naturally, they showed themselves “in all their glory” - this is about the question of the Dozhd TV channel and the fact that they had to give up. Therefore, the policy changes very often. And to perceive every word of a politician as some kind of revelation, as the fact that he will definitely do what he says - this is probably wrong. You need to understand the general direction of movement. It would be strange if, when preparing for the creation of the Eurasian Union, the leaders of Russia said, you know, like Khrushchev: “We will bury you,” knocked their boots and said: “We will create the Eurasian Union and bury the European one.” Well, of course not. A smart politician will come out and say: “There are no contradictions. Let's Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok", many more wonderful ones, beautiful words. The task is to create the Eurasian Union in order to receive minimal opposition from the West.
I. PERESEDOV: You know, Nikolai, when I remember as a child watching films about the Shao Lin - Chinese monks who jumped over trees and crushed rocks with a blow of their fist, and inspiredly recounted all this to my father, believing in all this, he said: “It’s strange that these guys then don’t take all the gold medals at Olympic Games, if such Shao-lin are hiding in the mountains of China.” What do I mean, if we have such excellent strategists and such analysts who are able to enter conflict-ridden Ukraine and resolve everything in such a way that it’s worth watching in your words, it’s surprising why they don’t apply their talents to our everyday agenda, in -first? And secondly, it’s good if we pulled Ukraine out of this cruel dive, but still got a time bomb until 2015, as you say, what will all this turn out to us, except for the eventual financial and other losses?
N. STARIKOV: Actually, what we don’t need to think about when we talk about geopolitical struggle is money. Money in this case is not a goal, but a means. And the money that Russia gave to Ukraine today, again, I repeat, lent it, having bought Ukraine’s debt obligations, it should have used this money to buy American bonds, this is the current system. As for why wonderful foreign policy players are not always successful inside, I want to say that you know, the situation in 2011-2012, Bolotnaya, our local Maidan, this chess game was won in exactly the same way. And today we are so successful in Ukraine because we did not lose to them in Russia. Let's also not forget that we played great domestically. As for the economy, road construction - this is no longer a matter of one chess game, it is a matter of painstaking daily work. And here, you know, one president, one foreign minister, a couple more advisers, a few more smart people, there won’t be enough of them for everything. And most of the governors who are inside Russia, they should be more business executives than politicians. And that’s when a good business executive comes, as, for example, in Belgorod region, the area is blossoming. When a person comes, like I was in Tula, the governor of the Tula region received 9 years for a bribe; in fact, you understand, there is a personnel shortage here. It turns out that it is very difficult to find 82 decent people in such a big country like Russia to appoint 82 wonderful governors. Personnel shortage.
I. PERESEDOV: What’s interesting is that the leaders of the Maidan or the journalists who work on the Maidan from the Ukrainian side, they think very much in tune with you. And they even name the person who, in their opinion, is from Moscow trying to supervise Yanukovych or give him advice. They say that this is all the merit of Surkov. You showed off your knowledge of inside information when talking about the initial financing of the emergence of the Dozhd TV channel, maybe you can somehow confirm or refute this information.
N. STARIKOV: You know, I will not argue with conscientious Ukrainian journalists. Everything is much clearer from Ukraine. How can you argue with them on this issue?
I. PERESEDOV: That is, we can associate the name of Surkov with at least influence or action?
N. STARIKOV: You can associate any name with what is happening in Ukraine, but this will be your point of view.
I. PERESEDOV: And yours?
N. STARIKOV: My point of view is that Russia won this round. Victory is always the fruit of the combination of several intellects. Here are the patriots in Russia who made what contribution to this victory, who put how much into this piggy bank, I think we may someday find out from their memoirs.
I. PERESEDOV: I was very confused, to be honest, by the activity that America showed in this situation, and the fact that Biden called on Yanukovych to take the riot police off the street and the fact that Obama, in his message to Congress, clearly expressed his sympathy for Ukraine. In your opinion, will this American position harm Russia’s relations with this country or not?
N. STARIKOV: You know, in principle we and America cannot have good relations, because it is our geopolitical rival. I support Zenit, so I can say that there is always rivalry between CSKA and Spartak. I do not suggest that fans find out this in some kind of fist fights, it would be better in some peaceful way, but, nevertheless, there are Spartak fans, there are CSKA fans, they are unlikely to ever agree with each other. So is Russia and the USA. This is the first. Secondly, the US position is always the same: they called on Muammar Gaddafi to remove the army from the streets - there are peaceful demonstrators there. Now these peaceful demonstrators have moved to Syria, they demanded that Bashar al-Assad stop hostilities. Well, the fact that peaceful demonstrators cut off the heads of priests, you know, the excesses of the struggle for democracy. Therefore, in Ukraine they demanded the same thing: to remove special forces from the streets. Well, of course, when the thugs there are throwing stones and rioting, it’s time to remove the police from the street. Why did they do this? To help these thugs, to help these terrorists in Libya, to help their own al-Qaeda militants, whom they finance in Syria. The policy is the same, nothing changes. They put pressure on the authorities, trying to force the authorities to surrender in favor of those forces that they pay for. In Ukraine it is Klitschko, Yatsenyuk, Tyagnibok, the same forces.
I. PERESEDOV: In addition to Yatsenyuk, Tyagnibok and Klitschko, there were tens, almost hundreds of thousands of people on the Maidan, most of whom still do not belong to any regular military or other formations. And for them it is clearly clear and visible that Ukraine is perceived as a European state and it is interesting that in this situation Russia can offer them as some kind of cultural program. Everything is impossible only in shadow diplomacy.
N. STARIKOV: For me, Ukraine is part of the Russian world, and the Russian world, naturally, belongs to both Europe and Asia, because we are very large. Rather, Europe belongs to Russia, if you look at it in terms of volume. Next, regarding large quantity the people who came out, firstly, were significantly fewer than in 2004, and secondly, of course, there were a lot of sincere people. Let's remember ourselves in 1991, we all loved Yeltsin, we went to the squares, there were demonstrations of millions here. Now how many of those who loved Boris Nikolaevich in 1991 will stand up and say: “I love Boris Nikolaevich”? Only a few, because they understood what it was coming to. In the same way, there was Yushchenko in Ukraine, how everyone loved him. Why didn’t they choose him, who was so democratic? not chosen. The second time they try to step on the rake. But it must be said that the number of these people is significantly less than in 2004.
I. PERESEDOV: This just shows the specifics of Ukrainian politics, when our interest is reduced to a single leader, to a single name, where they love, obviously, the free-democratic process more.
N. STARIKOV: No, there they simply chose a new leader, everyone they like. You like the fascist - Tyagnibok, please, you are a nationalist. If you like a man, you are a lady, that means brutal. At the same time, conscientious gays should vote for him, because he appears in a magazine for this category.
I. PERESEDOV: Are you talking about Klitschko?
N. STARIKOV: Of course. And Yatsenyuk is for those who are supposedly smart and those who love Yulia Tymoshenko. People are being selected again, and what does freedom have to do with it?
I. PERESEDOV: At the same time, no one clearly likes Yanukovych. No one came out to support him.
N. STARIKOV: You know, I think that the pro-Russian forces in Ukraine, the forces that want to integrate two parts of a single whole, they should now be looking for a new leader. Because with all due respect to the President of Ukraine, we need, just like the President of Russia, to think about continuing a certain political line, we need to look for new people, we need to look for patriots who will be nominated to power. We haven’t seen it for a long time, but now, however, young Ukrainian politicians have begun to appear, pro-Russian, friendly, and understanding that this is one people, which I hope will move forward.
I. PERESEDOV: In your opinion, this person can only leave the ranks of the Party of Regions, or can he be found on the Maidan, like this, reconciling everyone with everyone?
N. STARIKOV: No, well, maybe you can find him on the Maidan, but the question is, you need a large political structure in order to participate in political elections. Today we see that there are a lot of parties in Ukraine.
I. PERESEDOV: In your opinion, the optimal successor to Yanukovych will still come from the Party of Regions?
N. STARIKOV: Apparently yes.
I. PERESEDOV: Okay. It was the “No Questions” program on the Russian News Service. I am Ilya Peresedov. We talked with Nikolai Starikov, and, obviously, we will continue in a week.
N. STARIKOV: Goodbye.
I. PERESEDOV: All the best.”
I have long wanted to talk about the combat video of the Russian white-tape opposition - the Lozhd TV channel, comfortably located in the pool of handshake publications from Gazeta.vru to the Russian Orthodox radio Ekho Moskvy.
I was forced to write about this wonderful media outlet by the story of Lozhd’s persistent and completely blatant lies about the rally on Poklonnaya Hill. For a week, this channel promoted the fake organizing committee of the rally, persistently calling the event itself a “rally for Putin.” Moreover, he continued to do this, even knowing about the existence of the official website anti-orange.ru and the composition of the real organizing committee. This whole story is perfectly described in the Saturday edition of MinaevLive. Look:
However, this is only a small fragment of the work that Lozhd has launched in recent months. Now think about it: who and why can finance a very expensive and unprofitable propaganda TV channel with a zero audience share, and even existing mainly on the Internet.
According to legend, the owners of the rain are the spouses Natalya Sindeeva and Alexander Vinokurov, who touchingly met in the VIP box of Stamford Bridge at the Chelsea match, where they arrived at the invitation of Roman Abramovich.
Sindeeva was previously a co-owner and commercial director of the Silver Rain radio station, now a real media oligarch, managing a holding company consisting of Slon, Bolshoi Gorod and the Dozhd TV channel. She is a close friend of the president’s press secretary Natalya Timakova, who, in fact, initiated Medvedev’s visit to the Dozhd studio at one time, and also, according to rumors, contributed to the channel’s entry into cable and satellite networks. Whether it has an influence on editorial policy is not known for certain, but if it does, then this whole situation is finally sliding into a farce.
The second owner is Sindeeva’s husband Alexander Vinokurov, who is declared as the main and only investor of the project. Here he is showing off with a white ribbon in on your Twitter :
Where, you ask, does this modest comrade, who does not live by a lie, get so much money to launch and maintain afloat a whole pool of unprofitable media projects. There are many answers to this question on the Internet, but they are best collected in Litvinovich’s report. Below are the most delicious fragments from it:
The activities of KIT Finance managers are connected with the history of the St. Petersburg bank Palmira, registered on April 29, 1992. Its founder and member of the board of directors in 1994-2004. there was a businessman Otar Margania - a native of the widely represented economic and informal power elite of St. Petersburg in the 1990s. communities of "Ebraeli" (Georgian Jews). He graduated from the same university with Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin, maintaining close personal and business ties after the latter moved to Moscow. In 2000, Alexander Vinokurov, an acquaintance of Otar Margania, who worked at the investment company BALTONEXIM Finance, became the chairman of the board of directors of the bank. A year later, the institution was renamed Web-Invest Bank. In 2005, the bank changed its name again - to KIT-Finance.
After the appointment of Alexey Kudrin as minister, the mentioned persons figured in financial and political conflicts related to the struggle for control over the assets of the Russian diamond monopolist, AK ALROSA. A significant stake in the company belonged to the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia). In 2001, during the presidential elections in Yakutia, IC "BALTONEXIM Finance" Alexander Vinokurov filed a statement with the prosecutor's office demanding that the head of the region, Mikhail Nikolaev, be brought to criminal liability under a number of articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - it was about late payments by the local Ministry of Finance. The Company magazine wrote that the actions of BALTONEXIM Finance could have been carried out at the request of Otar Margania, a freelance adviser to Alexey Kudrin. Under the threat of criminal prosecution, Nikolaev withdrew his candidacy, Vyacheslav Shtyrov won the election for the head of the republic, after which the board of directors of ALROSA was headed by the Minister of Finance of Russia.
After Kudrin entered the diamond mining industry in 2002, Web-Invest Bank, being a small St. Petersburg credit institution, became the underwriter of the bond issue of AK ALROSA and the general agent for organizing the bond issue of Yakutia. AK ALROSA began placing large sums on deposits in the bank of Alexander Vinokurov, supervised by Otar Marganiya - in particular, in 2004, temporarily available funds in the amount of $75 million were transferred to Web-Invest Bank.
Simultaneously with Alexey Kudrin, Fedorov Andreev was appointed to AK ALROSA - in the company he took the position of first vice president for finance. According to SPARK-Interfax, Alexander Vinokurov from April 1999 to January 2002. was listed general director CJSC LenRos Invest. The founder of the CJSC was Fedor Andreev, Vinokurov’s colleague from work at Tveruniversalbank and BALTONEXIM Bank. From the quarterly reports of KIT-Finance it follows that in 2002 Andreev, through Composition-Asset Management LLC, controlled 19.99% of the bank.
In 2003-09 Vinokurov's friend worked at OJSC Russian railways", whose shares were placed with him by the same "Web-Invest Bank". Since July 2009, Fedor Andreev returned to AK ALROSA, becoming its president and is currently the president. Until 2011, the Minister of Finance remained the Chairman of the Supervisory Board of Directors of ALROSA.
The role of Alexander Vinokurov and his colleagues was considered technical - there is reason to believe that the strategy of property and financial transactions was formulated by Otar Margania on the basis of his relationship with Alexei Kudrin. Forbes magazine described the adoption system as follows: key decisions in the Russian diamond industry: “The name... Otar Margania is well known in the gemstone industry. He works as a freelance adviser to Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin. Kudrin heads the supervisory board of ALROSA and oversees the industry. And Margania, according to experts interviewed by Forbes, has big influence to the minister. Forbes’ interlocutors are also confident that it is his companies that now own a significant share of the shares of the investment group that are not controlled by ALROSA.”
“Investment group” means OJSC IG ALROSA. The main owner of this joint stock company, according to SPARK-Interfax, private capital turned out to be unrelated to AK ALROSA. The monopoly transferred the largest promising deposits of gold and precious stones to the management of the group - up to 200 million carats of diamonds in Arkhangelsk region and 700 tons of gold in Yakutia.
<...>
Minister Alexei Kudrin did everything possible to prevent the bankruptcy of KIT Finance when the bank was unable to fulfill its financial obligations to its partners. As a result of a series of actions, on October 8, 2008, a consortium of investors consisting of ALROSA Investment Group and Russian Railways OJSC acquired 45% of the shares of KIT Finance. The heads of the railway department were asked to intervene - the rehabilitation of KIT Finance took place at public expense. Subsequently, IG ALROSA withdrew from the capital of the bank, the only shareholders of which were structures close to JSC Russian Railways.
Rehabilitation of the private bank KIT Finance, close to Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin, which owes debt to counterparties, cost the state an unprecedented amount of 130 billion rubles. - more than $4.3 billion.
In general, to put it briefly, Vinokurov plays the role of the wallet of Alexei Kudrin and the “authoritative businessmen” close to him. A few months before KIT-Finance had to be rescued by the state for 130 billion rubles. and under pressure from Kudrin to transfer Russian Railways under the control, Vinokurov leaves the bank and SUDDENLY invests billions of rubles in media assets - Slon.ru, Bolshoi Gorod, and the most expensive - the Dozhd TV channel.
That is, on the one hand, the bankruptcy of the bank and the rescue of its depositors’ funds for 130 billion budget money, and on the other, billions of dollars of investment in handshake media.
"Swindlers and thieves" you say? Oh well.
Well, you can draw your own conclusions about whose interests Dozhd is pursuing based on such an excellent composition of owners and their biographies. Everything here is somehow completely transparent. People don't live by lies.
Illustration copyright RIA Novosti Image caption Alexander Vinokurov sponsors Dozhd, and his wife Natalya Sindeeva manages the editorial office
The owner of the Dozhd TV channel, entrepreneur Alexander Vinokurov, believes that the shutdown of Dozhd by the last major cable television operator in Russia means its actual closure.
Major television operator Tricolor TV will exclude the Dozhd TV channel from its broadcasting from February 10 due to disagreement with its editorial policy.
“The shutdown of Dozhd by the last major operator means the actual closure of the TV channel,” Vinokurov wrote on Twitter on Monday evening.
The TV channel, which broadcasts on the Internet and on cable networks, is considered one of the last electronic media to represent the opposition's point of view - for example, it was the only TV channel to broadcast an interview with Moscow mayoral candidate and head of the Anti-Corruption Foundation Alexei Navalny.
The survey, dedicated to the 70th anniversary of the lifting of the siege of Leningrad, which caused a scandal and a prosecutor's investigation, appeared on the channel's website on January 26, 2014. The survey was part of the “Amateurs” program, which will be broadcast on Ekho Moskvy radio in February.
In the question for readers, the possibility of the surrender of Leningrad was allowed German troops in 1941-42 - this outraged many journalists and social activists. A few hours later, the survey was removed from the site, and the editors apologized for the incorrectness.
However, the scandal did not subside. Over the course of four days, operator companies Akado, NTV+, ER-Telecom, Beeline and Rostelecom announced in a row that they would be switching off Dozhd from their digital TV packages. Beeline broadcast Dozhd longer than others in its digital TV packages, but then it too joined the boycott.
In response to customer questions, most operators stated that they have the right to unilaterally change the content of their packages, regardless of the wishes of consumers.
Faced with the threat of being deprived of an audience, Dozhd intensified the subscription campaign for its paid broadcasting on the Internet - 1,000 rubles per year.
A few days
In the twenties of January, the last of the major providers, the Tricolor TV network, announced that it could turn off the Dozhd channel “if the channel’s incorrect content policy continues in the next 30 days.” The decision to shut down Tricolor was announced on February 3. What exactly in the content of the Dozhd TV channel did not suit the broadcasters these days was not explained on the network.
The St. Petersburg prosecutor's office began an inspection of the Dozhd TV channel after the city Legislative Assembly asked the Prosecutor General to take sanctions against the TV channel.
At the same time, Roskomnadzor sent Dozhd a preventive letter warning about the inadmissibility of violations of the article of the law “On the Mass Media,” which obliges a journalist to carry out professional activity respect the rights and legitimate interests of citizens.
“We demand that in the future, when carrying out activities for the production and distribution of media products, strictly comply with the current legislation of the Russian Federation,” the letter said.
The press service of Roskomnadzor emphasized that this letter does not entail any sanctions against Dozhd.
The owner of Dozhd, Alexander Vinokurov, previously admitted in an interview with the BBC Russian Service that the channel does not rule out problems with partners due to “pressure from the authorities.”
“According to the law, it is impossible to close us, because we have not violated any law,” he emphasized in an interview with the BBC Russian Service Chief Editor TV channel "Rain" Mikhail Zygar.
In response to the criticism that fell upon it, the channel held a patriotic telethon “Love the Motherland” on Sunday.
Loading...
