Putin's Hidden Wealth
Last August, I sat down for dinner in Moscow with Stanislav Belkovsky, an estranged Kremlin insider with extraordinary political antennae. This compelling, 36-year-old Russian, a computer programmer by training, runs a think tank called the National Strategy Institute along with a news website. Amid a long discussion of Russian politics and history, Belkovsky provided his take on the main thrust of Kremlin policy today -- allowing the folks who have lined their pockets for the last seven years to cash out their winnings.Among those folks? Vladimir Putin. Belkovsky claimed that, as part of the spoils of being president, Putin was bestowed with lucrative shares in two Russian energy companies -- 37% of Surgutneftegas and 3%-4% of Gazprom. He said this wasn't provable at the moment, but that the signal of veracity would be if that 37% went on the market before March, when Putin steps down as president. Belkovsky was sure that, given the non-transparent aspect of most Russian companies, the shares would be snapped up by another big Russian company such as Gazprom or Rosneft. If Putin does cash out, Belkovsky said, these shares would be worth some $40 billion. A nice bit of change, but not surprising for those familiar with the publicly known holdings of the presidents of the former Soviet Union's other petro-states, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan. At that level in government in that part of the world, one does not retain respect among peers solely with political power -- one must also have enormous personal wealth to project the mystique that's necessary to grip the political reins in this treacherous environment.
I raise this now because Belkovsky has recently given a couple of interviews repeating his assertions, including one published in today's London Guardian. Robert Amsterdam, who is imprisoned oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky's lawyer, has concluded on his blog that Belkovsky's remarks are a "leak" reflecting a struggle among the Kremlin's wealth-holding factions. Amsterdam thinks that one of these factions must be behind this supposed leak.
There does seem to be a struggle going on, but that isn't very surprising. The same has gone on with some regularity in both Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan. These fellows have a lot of spoils to fight over.
Belkovsky, a bearded bear of a man, once worked for exiled oligarch Boris Berezovsky. Then he went to work for Putin. In other words, there is no ideology here. With Belkovsky, it's all business.
And I think there's a simple, non-conspiratorial explanation for the appearance of this material now. It's called the news cycle. Putin is on his way out as president, and there's uncertainty on the outside as to how the levers of power -- and the spoils -- will be shared. So naturally there is interest among journalists, editors and pundits about anything that would shed light.
Belkovsky's theory has simply intersected with that news cycle. This man strikes me as no one's errand boy.
Labels: belkovsky, Gazprom, hidden wealth, oil, Putin, putin's wealth, rosneft, Russia


9 Comments:
Yes, self-promotion seems a more likely explanation than a plant by the Cherkesov clan, which is Amsterdam's theory. But who knows? And Belkovsky raises a point, in the Guardian piece: He says he hasn't been sued. When you and I discussed this a few weeks ago, my version of that same point was: How is it he feels safe saying this? Now that I think of it, maybe it's because this IS in fact a deliberate leak, but not as a consequence of in-fighting. Maybe it's a trial balloon to see what kind of reaction there'll be. Belkovsky has been used for that purpose before. And if a major packet of shares in a major company is about to change hands, perhaps someone wants to check the winds.
http://www.harpers.org/?redirect=1005516268
FH: You make good points. I tend to seek the simplest explanations, which tend to be the true motive. When I met him, Belkovsky was not leaking -- he was speaking about a lot of topics, including this one, over dinner. The fact that he has chosen to be a receptacle of such data makes sense -- it's fascinating, and he tries to know what's going on inside. Your suggestion is that someone urged him to talk about his theory right now, and that he went ahead with it as a consequence of that urging. That's what I'm not convinced about -- Belkovsky, anyone, would see such manipulation from a mile off. On the other hand, perhaps he himself wished to see what came about from his shaking of the tree. Let's stay tuned.
Orta, not sure what specific item you are linking to at harpers.org
I don't think that Belkovsky has much to gain from the leak insofar as self-promotion, in fact, he has much more to lose.
The argument of the news cycle is legitimate, especially coming from a seasoned reporter like yourself. But is that to say that under different circumstances Belkovsky's claims would have been ignored? The same with the Shvartsman interview and the Cherkesov letter?
In my opinion, we're dealing with a pretty water tight government from which information does not escape unless it has a purpose for some party.
Let's just wait and see if my sources are correct.
While I don't agree with FH's analysis, it is the iterative method of the Kremlin, their MO. They always "test the winds" with such things beforehand, as they have been doing for years in the Khodorkovsky case.
Welcome Bob. My point on the news cycle is not that otherwise it would have been ignored -- I myself did nothing with the material because it is hearsay; I used it now only because the assertion is already out there and deserving of comment; I'm sure it may be the same with you -- but that this is a more likely explanation of why Belkovsky is discussing it right now, and why it is less ignorable by good journalists like Luke Harding at the Guardian. It's always a stressful matter when one receives such a difficult-to-verify tip. Do one's competitors have the same information? How much does one need to verify before publishing? You seem, however, to be suggesting that Belkovsky is a cog in the Kremlin trial balloon machine -- the same as what FH is suggesting -- and I'm not certain that is the case. Your blog is great by the way. Best Steve
Oh, I see what you mean, Steve. Yes, that's very possible. Mr. B has in fact been kiting these ideas for some time. It's only now, since the Die Welt piece and Anders Aslund started talking about it, that the English-speaking media have felt compelled to use.
But, like Bob, I'm still left wondering about Belkovsky's original motives and why he feels immune from any retaliation. Best. Fred
Yes why does Belkovsky feel so comfortable? Very good question. We shall plumb that one. Best Steve
I see that Gunvor has now denied the claims. http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,2231399,00.html
Sadly, the Guardian piece has drawn the UK's russophobes out of the woodwork. See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=D0XBTN25THCUVQFIQMGSFFOAVCBQWIV0?xml=/opinion/2007/12/22/do2203.xml
And let's not overlook the blogosphere: http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&q=putin%27s+billions&btnG=Search+Blogs
Stanislev Belkovsky, a billionaire, who opposes Putin, charges the president of Russia has secretly accumulated a fortune that might be as high as $40 billion.
Good heavens.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home