Objective factors against Nota. Failure of "Object 477A"

50
Objective factors against Nota. Failure of "Object 477A"

An early version of the project "477" or "Hammer"

Recently, the Ukrainian Internet publication Defense Express once again recalled the project of the main combat tank "Object 477". It was argued that the latest version of such an MBT, known as "477A" or "Nota", in terms of characteristics and capabilities could surpass the modern Russian T-14 Armata tank - if it existed in reality. However, this MBT never appeared. Work on the "Note" stopped at an early stage, even before the appearance of a full-fledged prototype. All further attempts to continue development have failed.

At the design stage


Let us recall that the projects of the MBT family "477" were developed by the Kharkov Design Bureau for Mechanical Engineering with the participation of a number of other enterprises. The purpose of these works was to create a tank of "limiting parameters": due to new solutions and components, it was planned to obtain the maximum possible tactical and technical characteristics.



By the beginning of the nineties, the KMDB managed to create several versions of the "Object 477" project, which also bore the name "Hammer". After the collapse of the USSR, work on the topic "477" did not stop. Russia and Ukraine have agreed to continue the development of a promising tank. A new technical assignment was formed, according to which they began to design the "Object 477A", also called "Note".

The development of "Nota" was carried out at an unfortunate period. Lack of funding and problems of organizing international cooperation limited the pace of work and did not encourage optimism. Finally, at the beginning of the XNUMXs, the Russian side decided to abandon the joint project and redirect resources to its own developments.

By this time, up to ten prototypes had been built, with the help of which certain technical solutions were worked out. These products were made on the basis of existing tanks by installing the necessary equipment. Full prototypes, reflecting the design appearance of the new MBT, did not have time to build.


Modified version of "Object 477" with chassis based on available products

After the refusal of the Russian side, the future of Object 477A turned out to be a big question. Ukraine did not have all the capabilities necessary to complete the design, construction and testing of experimental equipment and the subsequent launch of serial production. However, the design did not stop. Later, an improved version of the project with the index "477A1" was created.

Independent work


After the termination of Russian-Ukrainian cooperation, the 477A1 project was not formally closed, but work for objective reasons slowed down, and sometimes even stopped altogether. Independent Ukraine could not cope with these problems on its own, which predetermined the further fate of Nota.

The main problem of the now own Ukrainian project was the lack of the necessary funding. The main customer of the "Object 477A1" was the Russian Ministry of Defense, which also assumed almost all the funding. After his exit from the project, KMDB could not find a new source of money that could pay for the completion of the work.

A number of Russian organizations and enterprises took part in the joint project "Nota", which were responsible for conducting various research and development of parts of components and assemblies. At the beginning of the XNUMXs, these ties were severed. To continue the work, Ukraine would have to re-establish international cooperation or solve the problems facing it on its own.

The problems that arose were resolved only partially. So, it was possible to reduce the dependence of the tank on imported products and change the range of units planned for purchase. The 477A1 project envisaged a wider use of units of Ukrainian or foreign production while reducing Russian production.


One of the rare images of the model "Object 477A1"

However, the Nota project did not receive the required funding. Despite constant talk about the upcoming modernization of tank forces, the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine did not find the funds to develop its own new generation MBT. Moreover, other projects that were less novelty also did not receive adequate support.

In search of a customer


KMDB, to the best of its strength and capabilities, tried to develop the Nota project and even created an improved version of it. However, the necessary support was lacking, and the project actually died out. He was remembered from time to time, but there was no talk of continuation and completion with all the desired results.

The inability of Ukraine to pay for the continuation of the work became obvious long ago, and KMDB began to search for foreign customers. As it became known later, at the turn of the XNUMXs and XNUMXs, Saudi Arabia became interested in the Nota project. It was argued that this state could fund the continuation of development and then order a number of tanks.

The latest reports of possible Ukrainian-Saudi cooperation took place in 2019, then it was argued that the interest from the foreign army persists and could lead to the emergence of a real contract. However, over the past time - as well as over the previous 10 years - the situation has not changed. Saudi Arabia is not helping Ukraine with money and is not going to buy its tanks.


Presumably, the same mock tank from a different angle.

Also, in recent years, interest from other countries was mentioned, which could also help with the development of a new MBT and order serial equipment. However, as in the case of the hypothetical Saudi order, so far there are only conversations without any real continuation.

Stored history


According to known data, after the breakdown of cooperation in Ukraine, 6 or 7 prototypes of "Nota" remained, as well as a significant number of various units, spare parts and ammunition. Until recently, equipment and some other products were stored at the Bashkirovka test site in the Kharkov region, where they were previously tested.

According to Defense Express, the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine took out mock samples from the test site and placed them in a special storage facility. In addition, the fate of the remaining 152-mm rounds for the Object 477 cannon was decided. Previously, they were planned to be disposed of as unnecessary, and now they will also be sent for storage.

It is also reported that the development work "477A1" or "Nota" is not closed and formally continues. However, the continuation of the development of such an MBT in its current form requires a lot of time and money. Accordingly, completion of work in the near future is unlikely or impossible.

Non-existent future


The development of the Object 477 main battle tank and its modifications has been going on for about 30-35 years, but has not yet led to the desired results. It was possible to build only a dozen "defective" samples, and they appeared at least 20 years ago, and since then the situation has hardly changed. Apparently, in the future, everything will remain the same, and no breakthroughs can be expected.

History project "Nota" perfectly shows the real state of the Ukrainian tank building and the defense industry in general. The country still retains a school of design that can still come up with bold and promising ideas. However, the independent implementation of such ideas turns out to be impossible due to the limited financial and production potential. In addition, there are no opportunities for industrial modernization, restoration of lost competencies and development of new directions.

Obviously, the ROC "Nota" continues only on paper. This project, despite all the hopes of the past and bold statements of the present, has no real prospects for a long time, and there are no prerequisites for changing this situation. Real "Objects 477A1" will never appear, will not go to the test site and will not go into service. And attempts to compare such technology - if it existed - with real serial samples look like a cruel joke on the Ukrainian industry, which is already not easy.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

50 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +13
    1 July 2021 04: 20
    Development of the main battle tank "Object 477" and its modifications lasts about 30-35 years
    And it never ends ...
    1. +3
      1 July 2021 04: 46
      Aha! They will always develop! laughing
      1. 0
        1 July 2021 15: 39
        Maybe they will. But to release it into the series? Where is Zin's money ??.)
    2. +5
      1 July 2021 09: 02
      Well, yes) Ukraine is not able to work out a foreign order for the supply of tanks based on the Soviet development of the T80, and they are already laying tales about new wunderwaves))
      1. -7
        3 July 2021 07: 00
        And Muscovy that, has already been able to develop a dvigun of 1500hp? There is no engine, no armata, but what about transport workers? Have mastered the modernization of silt 76md and all the achievements in the industry.
        1. +4
          4 July 2021 06: 53
          I'm afraid to upset you, low-respected Faker, but you have a somewhat incomplete list ... But I understand that you are not out of mental malice, but out of feeble mind ... Correct yourself, I believe in you!
          1. -6
            4 July 2021 09: 29
            MOTOR NO. Serial. Reliable.
            Anyone who really understands will tell you about the failure in the industry at BTA.
        2. 0
          10 July 2021 16: 43
          You know, we have at least not on paper and in words this is all.
    3. -1
      4 July 2021 20: 00
      It is not the result that is important, but the process.
      1. 0
        1 September 2021 14: 11
        I am ashamed to ask, in what state is such a wunderwaffle, as in its time, widely advertised and as usual in our countries, which has no analogues, the Yatagan tank that stalled in Kiev, I don’t remember, at the parade or rehearsal itself, and which could not to reanimate even the specialists accompanying him from the factory? Unlike the same Armata, that the same stalled, but wound up and drove ...
  2. +7
    1 July 2021 04: 42
    Well ... in the Soviet "storehouse" there are many interesting, if not mysterious "vesches"! And in the fact that they have remained "veschy in themselves", "Soviet power", perhaps, is not to blame! "Everything has its time" ! These "vesches" are the dreams of design engineers! And dreaming is not harmful! It is harmful not to dream, because the dreamers-techies "move" progress! (Sometimes, by "progress" faster and more accurately bringing the Apocalypse closer!) I personally am more impressed by the project "Object 299" ... well, if only because it is more understandable to me! And perhaps now is the time for Object 299!


    1. +3
      1 July 2021 06: 02
      The last drawing reminded me of this. Only at a new technological level.
      1. +4
        1 July 2021 06: 23
        And how is this "handsome" worse?

        Well, and so ... by and large ... "Object 299" is a car of the 80s; and the "Object 775", like the "Object 288" -machines of the 60s ...
        1. +1
          1 July 2021 07: 16
          The concept of a rocket tank, in my opinion, only the lazy did not work out. Before the information on our developments became available, there was an article in TM. American project. With vertical launchers. Similar to your picture.
          But, in my opinion, everything depends on the economy. Something tells me that a shot from such a tank has a relatively prohibitive price. wink
          1. 0
            1 July 2021 15: 09
            Quote: Monar
            But, in my opinion, everything depends on the economy. Something tells me that a shot from such a tank has a relatively prohibitive price.

            Smoothbore guns and uranium crowbars are also not cheap, to put it mildly. And in fact, for modern tanks, the main ammunition is a rocket launched through the barrel.

            Today, on the contrary, the cost of simple guided missiles is falling rapidly. You can often observe how old ATGMs are used against machine-gun points and even just against groups of infantry. It is possible that we will see a revival of interest in missile tanks.
          2. +1
            2 July 2021 13: 53
            Quote: Monar
            But, in my opinion, everything depends on the economy. Something tells me that a shot from such a tank has a relatively prohibitive price.

            As far as I know, according to a participant in one of these projects, it is not in the economy. The military always has one question: what are the advantages of this machine. And then you have to scratch your turnips. Yes, in theory, this thing can knock out a lot of tanks. But for this she needs to "see" these tanks. That is, to reach the range of visual contact, there is no "over-the-horizon" and there is no nearby. 5 km is the limit. And at such a distance, it can fly from artillery, and from tanks, etc. One way or another, it turns out not just a missile BM, but a missile танк... And the tanks are now armed with cannons. And in terms of versatility, the gun is better. In the USSR, there were two directions for the development of such technology - a tank with a missile launcher and a tank cannon, designed as a PU.

            In the USSR, in the end, this task was solved by the creation of a tank ATGM, launched through the barrel of a classic gun.

            I think now, this topic can be revived only for BMPT.
            1. 0
              2 July 2021 16: 53
              I think now, this topic can be revived only for BMPT.

              What to revive them? There's a ride 1.5 hours away from me.
              https://rg.ru/2021/04/08/voennye-oprobuiut-bmpt-terminator-2-na-poligone.html
              1. 0
                6 July 2021 11: 22
                Quote: Monar
                I think now, this topic can be revived only for BMPT.

                What to revive them? There's a ride 1.5 hours away from me.
                https://rg.ru/2021/04/08/voennye-oprobuiut-bmpt-terminator-2-na-poligone.html

                I was referring to the topic with ATGM in vertical launchers.
                1. 0
                  6 July 2021 13: 01
                  Something I do not remember a single ATGM system with a vertical launch ...
                  Such a start has one undeniable advantage. No need for preliminary horizontal guidance. Well, there is also the opportunity to release all the ammunition almost simultaneously.
                  And a bunch of shortcomings with the same lethality. More complex device. More weight and dimensions. More flight time.
                  1. 0
                    7 July 2021 15: 17
                    Quote: Monar
                    Something I do not remember a single ATGM system with a vertical launch ...
                    Such a start has one undeniable advantage. No need for preliminary horizontal guidance. Well, there is also the opportunity to release all the ammunition almost simultaneously.
                    And a bunch of shortcomings with the same lethality. More complex device. More weight and dimensions. More flight time.

                    There are no such. But if someone in Russia decides to really make BMPT, then this option for the location of the URO will be the only justified. You cannot enter into direct fire contact with the enemy, carrying 4 missiles on your head, and even count on their performance ...
            2. 0
              5 August 2021 11: 34
              In Israel, similar missile tanks with a range of up to 40 km based on the American M-60 have already been 15 years old. True, they were recently declassified. And the Italians have been carrying a regular tank UAV in the amount of 2 units launched through the barrel with compressed air for 7 years now.
              1. 0
                5 August 2021 16: 52
                Quote: tank64rus
                In Israel, similar missile tanks with a range of up to 40 km based on the American M-60 have already been 15 years old. True, they were recently declassified. And the Italians have been carrying a regular tank UAV in the amount of 2 units launched through the barrel with compressed air for 7 years now.


                And how do they find targets at such a distance?
  3. +10
    1 July 2021 05: 56
    Here you go. I was waiting for an article about "Note" ... As a result, I got 3 phrases.
    1. The collapse of the USSR.
    2. Reducing funding.
    3. The project was closed.
    I wonder how many more such articles will be enough for closed projects from the USSR?
    1. +5
      1 July 2021 07: 14
      You forgot to mention Ukraine)
      1. +2
        1 July 2021 07: 22
        There were many projects closed after the collapse of the USSR, even without Ukraine. And for each, you can write a similar article.
      2. +3
        2 July 2021 01: 22
        Yes. Soon it will only be possible to "mention" Ukraine. There was such a reservation .... Country of slaves and slaves ..
  4. +2
    1 July 2021 06: 33
    For the connoisseur: OCD "Nota" means "NEW TANK".
  5. +5
    1 July 2021 07: 20
    The Sumerians are good at jumping, wearing an embroidered shirt, dancing hopak, singing songs, drinking moonshine, eating bacon. Something more complicated than all this is no longer available for their Sumerian brain.
  6. +5
    1 July 2021 09: 39
    It was argued that the latest version of such an MBT, known as "477A" or "Nota", in terms of characteristics and capabilities could surpass the modern Russian T-14 Armata tank


    Only one gnarly arrangement with two hefty drums with 152mm unitars sends these fantasies into a pedestrian erotic. And what are they going to surpass? 80s technology?
    1. 0
      5 July 2021 12: 53
      Quote: Hermit21
      with 152 mm unitars

      152mm unitars were in the technical assignment. The designers could only work in the direction of how to store it in the tank and how to charge it
      1. 0
        6 July 2021 08: 06
        I forgot to write that these drums were in the BO next to the CT and NO and, accordingly, we are not talking about any survivability
  7. +3
    1 July 2021 12: 30
    While they were developing since the 90s, progress has gone far ahead - and if this could be neglected in matters of remote control or weapons, then in matters of options for increasing the protection of the crew, increasing situational awareness, communication, battery and electronic components, of course, significant progress was made, which cannot be ignore. The same UAVs are at a completely different level now - the issue of a UAV powered by a cable to improve the tank's awareness is no longer an abstraction, but something that needs to be integrated into a modern project. In connection with the development of dynamical protection and means of destruction, it is probably also necessary to reconsider the booking of certain sections. Perhaps the armor itself should also be revised, because materials science also does not stand still - in the same "Armata" they achieved, according to statements, + 15% increase in the parameters of the armor equivalent due to new alloys.

    I am afraid that in the aggregate of all this, a "new" tank in Ukraine will be created vryatli. They can work deeply with something already existing, with roots from the 90s. The cannon can be cut down larger, the KAZ can be hung newer - they can. Would it make sense to mass produce homunculi like this? I don’t think so.
    1. +2
      1 July 2021 18: 34
      Dear, why are you trying to shove a UAV into a tank? The drone is not an interceptor robot, but a remotely controlled aircraft with a decent amount of fuel (the wire for powering the device from the tank engine is no longer clear here). There is no place in the tank for a pilot-operator with his bulky equipment, antennas for communication with an aircraft, etc. But a modern tank is connected to the network, and all information from UAVs controlled from stationary posts can be instantly processed and put into action. The ideology of the combat network implies the output of all the necessary information even to the tablets of ordinary shooters ... Naturally, you were not the first to declare the symbiosis of a tank and a drone as a priority.
      A bigger cannon in Ukraine is not able to cut down, and they cannot make the current one. I do not want to develop this topic. In the archives of the site (I don't know how deep they are now) there are good articles on this topic (and a couple of dozen bad ones).
      Old KAZs do not exist at all. KAZ (active protection complex) implies the presence of an all-round radar on the tank, with the help of which an object dangerous for the tank is detected, and a weapon that automatically destroys this object. There are two known KAZs: an Israeli one, capable of knocking out ATGMs (the easiest target for KAZ systems, since it is a low-speed one), possibly a single one (no one checked the opposite), and KAZ of our "Armata" (probably, in my personal opinion, more effective, but how much , again no one checked). They will most likely be able to make their own locator with AFAR (an active phased antenna array - the antenna itself is stationary, but provides an all-round view in azimuth and tilt) in Ukraine, such antennas appeared forty years ago, and electronics everywhere have long been Chinese and inexpensive. But no one will give them the active part. Not Israel, not us.
      Specifically, I finally left the issue of the reservation. Serious by the way. Armor is not only steel of the corresponding composition, but also forged (obviously rolled) according to the composition, and then the technologies corresponding to it. machining and welding. In full, this is not the case in Ukraine. Perhaps there is no one other than us (the top-secret "Armata" armor was developed during the Soviet era, all its data are present in Ukraine, Ukraine has long sold everything useful to someone - why don't such products be copied and pasted?)
      1. +4
        1 July 2021 19: 19
        UAVs are the "eyes" of a tank when other means of reconnaissance are lagging behind. When a tank has the ability to hit targets at distances of many kilometers (or if the tank is part of a network centric), such a device is simply necessary because its RCS is negligible, at the same time it can be sufficiently weighted with sensors.
        The cable is needed to power the UAV (probably a multicopter) and / or to control and transmit data (if we are talking about the data stream from several cameras, then this data is easier and more secretive to transmit through the cable).
        The pilot-operator is not needed - the UAV is a logical continuation of the concept of the so-called "transparent armor".
        In this concept, the tank is precisely the ground node of the network centrics, because it is he who collects and distributes the most relevant data for his infantry from this UAV and his sensors. Micro-reconnaissance vehicles available for similar functions to the infantry are much less functional due to their much smaller volume and power.
        If you do not like the mandatory inclusion of the UAV in the complete set of the tank, it is probably possible to solve it in a modular way. But the very practical benefits of having such a device are unambiguous for me.
        1. +1
          1 July 2021 20: 34
          Brother! For some reason you did not fully understand my message ...
          A modern UAV useful in war is a half-tank-long unit (if it is without a cannon), taking off from a prepared platform (this is how concrete airfields are now nicely called), to which is attached a control panel in the form of a pilot-operator and a nine-ton kung with equipment. All this rampage will not get into the tank in any way. Even if the concrete GDP is replaced with a catapult. And communication equipment with a volume of half a brick will not only fit into the tank, but it is already there (also in duplicated form).
          And why the heck is a button accordion?
          1. +1
            1 July 2021 21: 27
            UAV (probably a multicopter)

            UAV is "Unmanned Aerial Vehicle". I specifically specified that it would probably be a multicopter - however, there are other variations - for example, a helicopter-like model, a quadrocopter model, etc.
            This type of UAV does not require runways or catapults as they are capable of vertical takeoff / landing.
          2. +1
            2 July 2021 14: 04
            Quote: uwzek
            A modern UAV useful in war is a half-tank-long unit (if it is without a cannon), taking off from a prepared platform (this is how concrete airfields are now nicely called), to which a control panel in the form of an operator-pilot and a nine-ton kung with equipment is attached.

            So the same is for reconnaissance for many kilometers ahead and a supply of fuel for hours of flight. A tank tethered UAV can be a powerful quadrocopter capable of rising to a height of 10-20 meters, keeping itself above the vehicle using the marks located on the tank's armor, receiving power from the tank, transmitting data online to the tank's LMS, and containing a modular OLS. Possibly a laser rangefinder. Basically, the tank needs a periscope. From a height of 20 meters, the horizon is moved 16 km. And this is the range of the Gvozdika self-propelled guns.
  8. +7
    1 July 2021 12: 48
    At the beginning of the article, I really thought that Baron Tonkalyuk visited us.
    In short: bury the flight attendant. Three drums 152mm unitars. There is another one between the two mechanized drives, between the gunner and the tank commander. It's not even a T-64, it's just tin.

    1. +5
      1 July 2021 18: 22
      Quote: demiurg
      Three drums 152mm unitars. There is another one between the two mechanized drives, between the gunner and the tank commander.

      Are there any fuel tanks in the fighting compartment? Well, so that with a guarantee ...
  9. +2
    1 July 2021 13: 21
    As soon as I started reading, I realized that Ryabov's article meant nothing of value. endless repetitions and chewing of chewed. solid graphomancy. editorial-looking for sensible authors !!!
  10. +5
    1 July 2021 13: 24
    A promising Ukrainian tank - A cruel joke of evil clowns in a crazy and nasty country-circus ..
  11. 0
    1 July 2021 13: 48
    The author is seriously mistaken in his article!
    At the end of the 80s and beginning of the 90s, pre-production samples were released for this development. And a new plant was being built for this tank in Kharkov!
    They did not have time to deliver the machine tool park and the hulls were then safely dismantled.
    In Kubinka, pre-serials were tested at the end of the 80s.
    Well, in 2012, Russia planned to bring a model of a promising Armata to the exhibition in Abu Dhabi, and Ukraine planned to bring a pre-series. Fortunately, at that time there was a nondisclosure agreement in the field of military developments and Ukraine did not bring anything.
    P.S. At the end of 90, manuals for the operation of this type of non-existent and not yet adopted tank came to the Kharkov tank school.
  12. +1
    1 July 2021 22: 50
    They are all hidden between the beds in the garden. What will happen to them in winter is not clear to anyone. Plywood may not hold up. Maybe they will be carried in knapsacks to and from work.
  13. +2
    2 July 2021 01: 20
    This tank symbolizes Ukraine itself. Unfinished. Premature. Or dropped during childbirth ..
  14. +2
    3 July 2021 01: 16
    If my grandmother had a buoy, she could surpass "Armata" (c)
  15. -2
    5 July 2021 19: 51
    Armata created several pieces and show them at the parade. Nobody knows what's inside under the skin. And the Russian Ministry of Defense has not yet ordered a single piece. The question about Armata is as open as about the Note. The only difference is that there is money here, but, perhaps, UVZ did not create exactly what the military needs.
    1. 0
      6 July 2021 11: 45
      Quote: AC130 Ganship
      Armata created several pieces and show them at the parade. Nobody knows what's inside under the skin. And the Russian Ministry of Defense has not yet ordered a single piece. The question about Armata is as open as about the Note. The only difference is that there is money here, but, perhaps, UVZ did not create exactly what the military needs.

      Dear, carefully study the technique of a potential enemy. In order not to be fired so clearly :)
      First, the tank is called the T-14, not the Armata. "Armata" is a tracked platform, a base for several heavy vehicles for various purposes. What your allies in Britain tried to do on the Ajax project, and what they screwed up with.
      And secondly, the tank is undergoing military trials and, naturally, the Ministry of Defense ordered more than one vehicle. Perhaps there is something unusual under the casing, the tank is being modernized based on the results of the tests, and only at the end of the tests will the final appearance of the production vehicle be determined. Perhaps to you, accustomed to the logic of Lohokid Martin, in which design flaws are identified and eliminated already on serial combat models, this seems strange, but such are the national characteristics of the domestic defense complex, the Russians make weapons for war, and not for profit.
      :)
  16. 0
    5 July 2021 20: 35
    Miracles, however! Now, if our picture were real, it would be better! What is absolutely delusional.

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"