
Putin critic Khodorkovsky in Germany after pardon - wslh
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/20/us-russia-khodorkovsky-idUSBRE9BJ09020131220
======
znowi
I thought they're about to canonize him at the end of the article :)

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

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

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

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

~~~
mc32
The thing is in the 90s everyone (oligarchs) was playing below board. But
Putin only targeted (for prosecution) people who opposed him (or were
potential threats). People who were willing to subjugate to him, of course,
didn't face charges. I'd rather you not try to compare Borodin with
Khodorkovsky. It diverts from the discussion the strongarming politics in
Russia.

~~~
bostik
> _But Putin only targeted (for prosecution) people who opposed him (or were
> potential threats)._

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

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

------
1gor
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has ruled that Mikhail
Khodorkovsky's trial was _not_ politically motivated.
([http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-european-court-
khodorkov...](http://www.rferl.org/content/russia-european-court-
khodorkovsky/25056475.html)).

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

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

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

~~~
1gor
The European Court of Human Rights said there was no violation of the
defendants' right to a fair trial.

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

~~~
cpleppert
The article said in a narrow sense that the charges on their own had a healthy
foundation. It is very clear that the decision to prosecute a tax violation in
a tax code designed to force businesses to skirt the law to remain competitive
was politically motivated.

The business environment is why there have been massive amounts of capital
outflows in recent years. Everyone understands the game being played here, you
get to play by Putin's rule are you get your toys taken away at the minimum or
get sent to a siberian penal colony.

~~~
1gor
> It is very clear that the decision to prosecute ... was politically
> motivated.

No, the opposite is clear.

The ECHR court "found no basis that the case against the two was politically
motivated, as Khodorkovsky and Lebedev alleged in their complaint" (direct
quote).

The supra-national court is in no sense a pro-Russian organisation, and the
judges were perfectly aware of the political implications of their ruling.
They did note several improprieties of the trial (keeping defendants in cages
etc.), and even ordered Russian state to pay some compensation to the
defendants, but that did not change their core conclusion.

Khodorkovsky was enriching himself by defrauding the state and the Russian
public (most of the social security is funded through oil taxes). This was the
reason for his prosecution, regardless of what "everybody understands" thanks
to various PR campaigns.

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

Some random thoughts on political situation in Russia:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

\- C.S. Lewis

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

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

------
VladRussian2
One can only wonder how fast Germany issued a visa to a criminal convicted of
economic crime ( when anybody just half-knowledgeable about USSR/Russia
198x-199x history has no doubts about the crimes) .

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

~~~
Mikeb85
Pussy Riot, really? They would have been thrown in jail in most western
countries for what they did too. Hell, in Canada they may have even been
charged with a hate crime...

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

~~~
VladRussian2
nobody said that western countries don't have prisoners of conscience or laws
which would make them. Aaron Swartz. Chelsea Manning. Or look at Animal and
Ecological Terrorism Act laws. ...

~~~
Mikeb85
Vandalizing private property and hate speech have nothing to do with
conscience... It's a piss poor justification... Just like people who bomb
pipelines and spray paint swastikas on synagogues. Belief doesn't make a wrong
a right...

~~~
VladRussian2
>Vandalizing private property and hate speech have nothing to do with
conscience...

It has nothing to do with Pussy Riot. You're talking out of your a##.

> Just like people who bomb pipelines and spray paint swastikas on synagogues.

the same - it has nothing to do with Pussy Riot.

~~~
Mikeb85
Really? They committed a crime using the same type of justification as eco-
terrorists and racists use. The only difference is the social 'acceptability'
of each 'belief'. ie. it's ok to insult Christians but not Jews...

~~~
VladRussian2
>the same type of justification as eco-terrorists and racists use.

former promote co-existence while latter - exclusion. How can you even put
them together in one sentence?

> The only difference is the social 'acceptability' of each 'belief'. ie. it's
> ok to insult Christians but not Jews...

Russian Orthodox church going out of its way politically supporting Putin (and
immensely benefiting from that financially and politically) isn't a doing of
Jesus work, and challenging the church on that isn't an assault on
Christianity.

~~~
Mikeb85
> former promote co-existence while latter - exclusion. How can you even put
> them together in one sentence?

It has nothing to do with what each supports - rather that you can't justify
harmful behaviour, period.

> Russian Orthodox church going out of its way politically supporting Putin
> (and immensely benefiting from that financially and politically) isn't a
> doing of Jesus work, and challenging the church on that isn't an assault on
> Christianity.

Challenging the church regarding their supposed support of Putin isn't the
problem, using it as a justification for illegal behaviour is. What Pussy Riot
did would be illegal in pretty much every reasonably civilized country in the
world.

In Canada, people spray painting political graffiti on a synagogue is a crime,
even if the content of the graffiti isn't necessarily insulting to Judaism.
The point is that you can't arbitrarily allow some types of crime, and
disallow others based on the ideology behind it...

~~~
VladRussian2
>It has nothing to do with what each supports - rather that you can't justify
harmful behaviour, period.

what harm is coming from "eco-terrorists"? Lesser availability of whale meat?
I doubt whales would see it as a harm. Or people who worked for decades to
restore whales population. Or people who are just disgusted by whale killings.

>What Pussy Riot did would be illegal in pretty much every reasonably
civilized country in the world.

i'm wondering what do you think they did? Do you seriously think that
tresspassing and non-violent disturbance of peace - the minor crimes in
reasonably civilized countries - are the "2 year in prison" crimes in Russia?
Or calling upon God to chase away a President is a crime "in pretty much every
reasonably civilized country in the world"?

> The point is that you can't arbitrarily allow some types of crime, and
> disallow others based on the ideology behind it...

You seem to be saying that no illegal behaviour can be justified. Well, you've
mentioned swastikas and Judaism before. That reminds about the most known and
indisputable today example when illegal behavior was rightly justified - i.e
doing right thing toward Jews for example was illegal in Nazi Germany and
doing legal thing was terribly wrong.

~~~
Mikeb85
> what harm is coming from "eco-terrorists"? Lesser availability of whale
> meat?

You know, things like harm to property and people... Eco terrorism isn't just
whale protests. Here they bomb pipelines...

> i'm wondering what do you think they did? Do you seriously think that
> tresspassing and non-violent disturbance of peace - the minor crimes in
> reasonably civilized countries - are the "2 year in prison" crimes in
> Russia?

What they did and said qualifies as hate speech here, so yes 2 years would be
within the scope of the law.

> That reminds about the most known and indisputable today example when
> illegal behavior was rightly justified - i.e doing right thing toward Jews
> for example was illegal in Nazi Germany and doing legal thing was terribly
> wrong.

Really? I mean really? The laws are hardly unfair in this case...

~~~
VladRussian2
>What they did and said qualifies as hate speech here, so yes 2 years would be
within the scope of the law.

Hate speech laws, while may sound like a reasonable thing in theory, on
practice naturally allow for very selective enforcement (mostly due to their
inherent vagueness - any political speech can be qualified as hate speech if
there is a strong will to do so) and thus are used as extremely effective tool
for oppression of political opponents by the powers-to-be while people like
you (who seems to not understand or know that selective enforcement of laws is
a form of tyranny and such enforcement actually voids those laws) are blinded
by the fog-screen of declaration of "illegality". For example, nobody was
arrested (less sent to prison) for publicly praying to God in support of Putin
and his regime which is as much a hate speech toward the Putin's opponents as
a public prayer to God to chase Putin away is a hate speech toward Putin and
his supporters.

As result, in their application in real life, hate speech laws is mostly very
unjust and unfair laws and mostly used as a tool of unjustice. A right and
just action like challenging powers-to-be on their unjust actions or statement
of facts unpopular with the powers-to-be may very well result in conviction
under such laws. And even without actual convictions, such laws result in
unjust chilling effects on political opponents of the powers-to-be.

Btw, this is why one of the greatest thing that US have and that sets US so
far apart and ahead (as this thing is missing in the rest of the world) is the
freedom of speech, the 1st Amendment.

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

1:
[http://books.google.de/books?id=q1F4otnSovMC&lpg=PA59&pg=PA5...](http://books.google.de/books?id=q1F4otnSovMC&lpg=PA59&pg=PA58#v=onepage&q&f=false)
and the following pages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~~~
rz2k
When you put it that way, the situations begin to sound more parallel than I
would have thought. There are rules to being an oligarch, though the payoff is
a lot better, and Khodorkovsky should have had a more sophisticated
understanding of the terms of the deal.

~~~
smsm42
There's a bit of a difference between running afoul of the dictator and
getting 10 years in jail on a show trial and joining the military and getting
jail term for leaking actual secrets you took the oath not to disclose.

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

------
CamperBob2
I can't believe Putin turned him loose, honestly. That guy has got to be
dangerous. He has had nothing to do for several years but sit around stewing
about how to put one over on Putin. Should be interesting to see what happens
next.

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

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

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

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

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

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

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

~~~
beaker
I hadn't seen this yet...

[http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/music/2013/12/19/pussy-
ri...](http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/music/2013/12/19/pussy-riot-members-
freed-from-prison/4123959/)

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

~~~
lobotryas
Game? Of course.

Chilling? That's bad for business.

------
rsp1984
What is not clear from all the reports: Has his partner Platon Lebedev been
pardoned as well or is he still imprisoned? As far as I know they were facing
much the same charges.

