Military Review

The capital is intolerable. What city will be the capital - the problems will remain the same

78
The capital is intolerable. What city will be the capital - the problems will remain the same

I do not see any particular benefit in the transfer of the Russian capital (about which from time to time they begin to argue again) anywhere else - even to the south, at least to the Far East, or at least back to St. Petersburg.


It is quite clear: wherever we transfer the capital, the same contradictions will accumulate there immediately, which are accumulating in the capital now, for these contradictions ultimately arise not from a specific place, but from the fact of overconcentration of various affairs in one place. As long as we have the basic demands of the life of the whole country are resolved in the capital - as long as we move the capital behind it, all the innumerable contradictions will be transferred, related precisely to the fact that these issues must be solved here and nowhere else . And for the same reason, wherever we transfer the capital, both the superconcentration of the population and the inevitable corruption will immediately follow it (even if we call it American lobbying, the essence of the issue will not change - in any case it will be the desire to solve complex questions with the use of certain financial schemes). There will be pulled and massive flows of visitors.

Yes, of course, in Moscow all this is superimposed by an abundance of industrial activity, which has been preserved since the Soviet times and continues, despite all attempts to destroy the domestic industry in general and Moscow in particular. Clearly, it will not be possible to completely destroy industry in Moscow, if only because industry is closely connected with science - again, despite all attempts to break this connection - and therefore science and industry are inevitably concentrated in industrial regions. Since there are a lot of scientific and technical institutions in Moscow, there is no doubt: the industry will continue to develop here for quite a long time. In my opinion, this is even good, because the industry located in the capital has great opportunities for lobbying itself - defending one’s interests, and this, ultimately, the interests of the whole industry.

So I see neither the possibility nor the need to transfer the capital anywhere. I don’t see any need, because in any case, the same problems that Moscow is experiencing will be reaching behind the capital, but I don’t see any opportunities, because there are too many useful things in Moscow now that we can drag all this useful stuff somewhere.

True, many say: now the capital is too close to the west of the country and therefore does not pay attention either to the Urals or to Siberia, much less to the Far East. But I'm afraid, and here the transfer will not help. The government of the Russian Federation in the same way does not pay attention to the Volga region, the Non-Black Earth region, Pomorie ... It only notices Moscow’s problems when they interfere with the members of the government themselves — that is why, for example, traffic jams are said to be more than all the other complexities of the megalopolis. The reason is not in the location of the capital, but in the libertarian belief that has already been imposed for a quarter of a century: the state has no right to do anything useful. As long as this false teaching remains dominant, no location of the capital will help solve local problems. And when it is gone, the same Far East will receive no less attention than in Soviet times, when the capital was in the same Moscow, but the government was headed not by Dmitry Medvedev, but by Joseph Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili.
Author:
Originator:
http://www.odnako.org/
78 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. zart_arn
    zart_arn 27 January 2014 15: 30
    +25
    It's hard to disagree with the author - moving the capital as an end in itself is stupidity, as in the fable "Quartet". But from the point of view of the economy - it is worth considering. Everyone sees how the capital is turning into a malignant tumor on the body of the country's economy, pumping out more and more resources from it. From the point of view of objective laws, everything is logical - where there is concentration of capital, there is growth. But at the same time, the Russian hinterland withers and withers. Everyone should think - how and how will we continue to live when the profitability of hydrocarbons is not enough for everyone?
    1. Scoun
      Scoun 27 January 2014 15: 43
      +10
      Quote: zart_arn
      from an economic point of view, it’s worth considering. Everyone sees how the capital turns into a malignant tumor on the body of the country's economy

      I agree with the first part, it’s very dreary for me personally to work with Yakutsk or Khabarovsk, while I am already discussing the issue with them at all non-workplaces and I have to transfer the questions to another day.
      As for the second part .. but wherever you move the capital, there will still be a large flow of passionary people and others .. in big cities where people from different outbacks reach for big money to catch their "bird" by the tail.
      1. sledgehammer102
        sledgehammer102 27 January 2014 15: 49
        +3
        Quote: zart_arn
        It is difficult to disagree with the author - the transfer of the capital as an end in itself is stupidity, as in the fable "The Quartet". But from the point of view of the economy - it is worth considering.


        The capital of Russia should be Irkutsk. And Moscow should remain the world financial center. That's all arithmetic. The capital didn’t give up to Yekaterinburg, everything is developing quite well there, as in Samara.

        The Australians did not bathe, and their capital Canberra, and rightly so.
        1. zart_arn
          zart_arn 27 January 2014 15: 59
          +3
          Moscow should remain a global financial center

          Pro-government lobby again? Joke. laughing
        2. tirazu
          tirazu 27 January 2014 16: 24
          +7
          Vasyuki. There is already a business plan.
          1. alone
            alone 27 January 2014 23: 42
            +2
            Quote: tirazu
            Vasyuki. There is already a business plan.




            laughing
        3. S_mirnov
          S_mirnov 27 January 2014 16: 38
          +3
          Quote: sledgehammer102
          the top of Russia should be Irkutsk. And Moscow should remain the world financial center.

          The issue of transferring the capital to the Russian Federation is akin to the issue of transferring the captain’s cabin on the floating Titanic. Sense 0 but there is reason to talk.
          Considering the transfer of the capital to Leningrad is idiocy at all, placing the capital almost on the border of the Russian Federation is a very unwise move. Then it’s better to go to France so that officials closer to alternate aerodromes, the governor of the Krasnoyarsk Territory, will generally be convenient to go to the authorities. laughing
          "In France, unknown persons robbed the governor of the Krasnoyarsk Territory Lev Kuznetsov, breaking into his villa on the Cote d'Azur. The robbers shot at a Russian official, causing him a slight wound, and hit his wife on the head with a truncheon."
          1. old rocket man
            old rocket man 27 January 2014 18: 16
            +6
            Quote: S_mirnov
            Considering the transfer of the capital to Leningrad is idiocy at all, placing the capital almost on the border of the Russian Federation is a very unwise move.


            Moreover, all Moscow problems, albeit not in such a hypertrophied form as in Moscow, are present and developing in St. Petersburg (Leningrad), AND ALL ADJUSTERING TO THE CAPITAL OF SHUSHER will instantly move to any other place, wherever the capital is transferred
            1. Tersky
              Tersky 27 January 2014 19: 47
              +6
              Quote: Old Rocketman
              ALL ADJUSTERING TO THE CAPITAL OF SHUSHER will instantly move to any other place, wherever the capital is moved

              Anatoly is right, there is such a proverb, "When we leave somewhere, we take all our problems with us," which transparently hints that urgent problems cannot be solved by moving from place to place. Igor, hi !
          2. vezunchik
            vezunchik 27 January 2014 19: 51
            +7
            tolerates necessary. The same situation forced Peter to build a city. And the Soviet government was forced to leave the old officials in St. Petersburg. The best option is Siberia ...
            All officials to Siberia! Let them raise the virgin soil! And the place is closer to the rapidly developing China ... And the millions of Caucasians who currently live in Moscow will not go to Siberia. And there is nothing for gays to do there!
            1. Nick
              Nick 27 January 2014 20: 20
              +1
              Quote: vezunchik
              All officials to Siberia! Let them raise the virgin soil!

              radically of course, but tempting, damn it! ...
            2. Oboz
              Oboz 27 January 2014 22: 22
              +3
              To Chelyabinsk!
            3. The comment was deleted.
          3. The comment was deleted.
        4. BIGLESHIY
          BIGLESHIY 27 January 2014 17: 55
          +1
          Quote: sledgehammer102


          The capital of Russia should be Irkutsk. And Moscow should remain the world financial center. That's all arithmetic. The capital didn’t give up to Yekaterinburg, everything is developing quite well there, as in Samara.

          The Australians did not bathe, and their capital Canberra, and rightly so.

          And you see yourself from Irkutsk once so soared?
    2. Civil
      Civil 27 January 2014 16: 17
      +5
      Probably, besides Tatneft, ALL backbone enterprises are based in Moscow .. and belong to Muscovites, that’s the trouble, pumping out resources and money from the regions ... like a parasite.
      1. Scoun
        Scoun 27 January 2014 17: 47
        +5
        Quote: Civil
        and belong to Muscovites,

        To be honest ... this has already set the teeth on edge .. Muscovites Muscovites .. Muscovites have taken all of them ... but people are pondering and can they imagine what these "Muscovites" are? These are the same guys from Samara, Saratov, Irkutsk, Orenburg from Komi and Perm, the Caucasus mountains of the steppes of Kalmykia, and native Muscovites mostly work as teachers and others, those Muscovites whose apartments are in the center of Moscow live in the region and rent apartments ... (who didn’t turn around and who didn’t sell) I’m in general why .. to the fact that the active part of Moscow is the citizens of our Big country (I don’t bring foreigners).
        1. zart_arn
          zart_arn 27 January 2014 18: 46
          +3
          .. Muscovites Muscovites ..
          These are all the same guys from Samara, Saratov, Irkutsk, Orenburg from Komi and Perm, the mountains of the Caucasus, the steppes of Kalmykia
          Nobody even says that "Muscovite" is a nationality. This is not about people at all, but about the phenomenon of hypertrophied concentration of power and capital, a phenomenon that negatively affects the state of the Russian economy as a whole.
          1. The comment was deleted.
      2. jjj
        jjj 27 January 2014 23: 34
        0
        And what about Rosneft?
      3. The comment was deleted.
    3. waisson
      waisson 27 January 2014 19: 31
      +3
      as an economy I agree with you completely hi move the capital to Magadan or somewhere to Pivek and see what happens to the north
    4. Nick
      Nick 27 January 2014 20: 15
      0
      Quote: zart_arn
      transferring the capital as an end in itself is stupidity

      There is no stupidity, and not an end in itself, the goal is, most likely, to master the resources allocated for this, and, accordingly, to make money on it ...
    5. neri73-r
      neri73-r 27 January 2014 21: 59
      +2
      The location of the capital is a topic of conversation, and the main conclusion is
      the same Far East will receive no less attention than in Soviet times, when the capital was in the same Moscow, but the government was headed not by Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev, but by Joseph Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili.
      1. Login_Off
        Login_Off 28 January 2014 03: 54
        +2
        Like it or not, but the country's strength in its economy. If they refer to the fact that from the economic point of view the transfer of the capital is advisable, then this is the main argument.
        Yes, take the same time zones (this has already been mentioned), try to collect people from the Far East and Central Russia at the same time? The result is a leapfrog. The boss in the evening at the Far East received the installation, he is ready to give out orders to his employees in the morning, and when he arrives at work in the morning he finds out that the disorder has changed since a working day passed in Center.Russia and everyone replayed ... as a result, it’s already 12 nights in Moscow, there’s no one to ask and consult, I have to carry out ..... And you know what conclusion ??? And what for me it was to be detained at work yesterday!?!?!
        Believe me, this is always the case with the Far East.
        Is it economically feasible? No, of course, I'm not talking about what people process (pay them for it or not, let them not even pay), but this situation spoils the nerves.
  2. 787nkx
    787nkx 27 January 2014 15: 30
    +8
    I believe that in the north of the Yakutsk region there would be a place.
    1. Arhj
      Arhj 27 January 2014 15: 40
      +6
      I understand that about the north of the Republic of Yakutia is humor, but I'm not ready to pay for moving the capital somewhere. Not to "New Moscow", not to St. Petersburg, not even to the north of Yakutia. And moving the capital runs the risk of becoming a scam not even a century - a millennium.
      I think in Russia there is where to spend the extra money.
      1. SRC P-15
        SRC P-15 27 January 2014 16: 49
        +7
        Quote: Arhj
        And moving the capital runs the risk of becoming a scam even for centuries - millennia.

        Isn't New Moscow the scam of the century? Why do they want to expand Moscow to the south? What kind of "insight" came over Medvedev's head? Why not north or east? Apparently it was necessary to cut the dough for our latifundists. And I would not be surprised if they are relatives or friends of Medvedev. Or maybe he put his paw there. So Moscow will not move anywhere, the stakes are too high. If I had my way, I would send the capital, somewhere to New Earth. Isn't it New Moscow? It is consonant and exclusive. There will be no loitering in the streets, so there will be order in the capital, and there will be no traffic jams (oh happiness!).
        1. Cpa
          Cpa 27 January 2014 19: 13
          +1
          Quote: СРЦ П-15
          Why do they want to expand Moscow specifically to the south?

          Strategic sites and an airfield will let the metro line down along with the expansion of Moscow.
          1. SRC P-15
            SRC P-15 27 January 2014 19: 45
            +1
            Quote: KPA
            Strategic sites and an airfield will let the metro line down along with the expansion of Moscow.

            Yeah, will the metro be brought to the Kaluga region? There is no strategy here, ordinary money laundering. There are airfields in the north, they have nothing to do with it. I say it again, here they made a "get-together".
          2. afdjhbn67
            afdjhbn67 28 January 2014 01: 42
            0
            Objectively, the transfer time did not come, the rest is no more
    2. S-200
      S-200 27 January 2014 19: 57
      +4
      hi Tobolsk ! - the navel of the Russian land ...
      the golden Eurasian middle of Russia!
      bully
      Novosib, Irkut, Krasnoyarsk - are close to China ...
      Yöburg - without water ...
      in megacities and without the capital status of problems ALREADY enough!
      We need a quiet provincial town in an ecologically clean region, equidistant from the borders of Russia.
      Prior to Tobolsk, not a single enemy will crawl through the Siberian swamps!
      and Moscow - let it remain the main throne metropolis!
      1. Setrac
        Setrac 27 January 2014 22: 32
        0
        Quote: S-200
        Tobolsk! - the navel of the Russian land ...
        the golden Eurasian middle of Russia!

        But Volgograd is the heart of the world, an ideal place for the capital. It used to be called the city of kings - Tsaritsino.
  3. komissar
    komissar 27 January 2014 15: 37
    +8
    It is necessary to distribute capital management functions to the capitals of the regions where these functions are most significant. For example, the Ministry of Fisheries in Khabarovsk, the Ministry of Agriculture in Voronezh or Rostov, the Ministry of Culture in St. Petersburg, the Ministry of Education in Novosibirsk and so on.
    1. PPL
      PPL 27 January 2014 17: 01
      +2
      The idea is not new and has a certain meaning, but with our "love" to coordinate everything (with the obligatory personal signature of a group of specialists from various departments and the application of seals), the decision-making process will drag on for a long, long time.
      1. S-200
        S-200 27 January 2014 20: 16
        +1
        Quote: PPZ
        but with our "love" to coordinate everything (with a mandatory personal signature

        have already implemented an electronic signature and communication tools allow live video exchange of views ...
        hi
        1. PPL
          PPL 27 January 2014 21: 53
          0
          ... have implemented electronic signatures and communication tools allow ...

          Just like in the cartoon about Prostokvashino: “We have the means! We have not enough mind! ”
          Maybe to transfer the capital to Prostokvashino ... lol
          hi
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. The comment was deleted.
    2. Greenwood
      Greenwood 27 January 2014 17: 30
      +1
      Ministry of fisheries in Khabarovsk? =))) Since when did he begin to fish ?! Vladivostok has been doing this all his life.
      1. BIGLESHIY
        BIGLESHIY 27 January 2014 18: 03
        +1
        Quote: Greenwood
        Ministry of fisheries in Khabarovsk? =))) Since when did he begin to fish ?! Vladivostok has been doing this all his life.

        Well, what about Kamchatka, Sakhalin, and the entire coast of the Sea of ​​Okhotsk, what do you think are doing, nanotechnologies?
        1. Greenwood
          Greenwood 28 January 2014 06: 33
          0
          Vladivostok is a fairly large city where it would be convenient to place the Ministry. It was in this vein, and not in who fishes in Russia with us.
          1. BIGLESHIY
            BIGLESHIY 28 January 2014 13: 16
            0
            Quote: Greenwood
            Vladivostok is a fairly large city where it would be convenient to place the Ministry. It was in this vein, and not in who fishes in Russia with us.

            You re-read your previous post and think what is written there and what you mean (usually people think about what and write, and do not think one and write another). Khabarovsk is also not small, but also beautiful. tongue
  4. Gardamir
    Gardamir 27 January 2014 15: 41
    +4
    The whole point is in the last paragraph. While the liberals are in power, there will be no good in the country. It’s not clear to me in Chapter 1, Article 13 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation:


    1. The Russian Federation recognizes ideological diversity.

    2. No ideology can be established as a state or mandatory.

    where is the diversity, if it’s not a secret to anyone, that the state ideology is liberalism. Moreover, liberals are allowed to insult the titular nation, pour mud on our ancestors and their great deeds, and call for the partition of the country. And not a single liberal was even brought to administrative responsibility.
    1. Z.A.M.
      Z.A.M. 27 January 2014 15: 58
      +3
      Quote: Gardamir
      The whole point is in the last paragraph. While in power liberals...

      You are a little bit wrong. Although the highlighted word has a meaning, but! Wasserman said oh HOW more: "... and in what has been planted for a quarter of a century libertarian beliefs: the state has no right to do anything useful."
      As I understand it, this is "pushing" off yourself (By the state) A LARGE number of duties and responsibilities. Including the "distribution" of sovereignty, in the broadest sense of the word.
      Who runs this for us?
      Rather, who have nothing to do with us? By the way - always ...
  5. Vitaly Anisimov
    Vitaly Anisimov 27 January 2014 15: 42
    +2
    And yet, the idea of ​​moving the capital is not so bad .. Moscow is simply suffocating from the abundance of all sorts of ministries and departments .. Yes, and the proximity to the border plays an important role in the security theme .. It seems to me so.
    1. St Petrov
      St Petrov 27 January 2014 15: 56
      +2
      Well, right away PRO Moscow Estimate how and where to transfer. Estimate what kind of material costs it will incur, I'm not talking about other costs in the style of work hours and so on.

      The capital is the most protected part of our country. Tomahawk will not fly by (s)
      1. Vasek
        Vasek 27 January 2014 18: 26
        +1
        Quote: s-t Petrov
        Well, immediately think about Moscow missile defense how and where to transfer it. Estimate what kind of material costs it will incur, I'm not talking about other costs in the style of work hours and so on.

        The capital is the most protected part of our country. Tomahawk will not fly by (s)


        Therefore, it is probably more expedient to expand Moscow to "Big Moscow" than to move the capital and re-build air defense rings around it.
        Why if you already have one?
        Another question, can it really make sense to resettle ministries by region to the most appropriate for them?
        For example, it is more convenient to manage metallurgy from the Urals (as well as the strategic and defense industries), energy and the oil industry from Tyumen, etc.
        In general, such an important experience of the Second World War as a feverish emergency evacuation of strategic industries, the associated losses and delays in the supply of troops, cannot be ignored.
      2. Vitaly Anisimov
        Vitaly Anisimov 27 January 2014 19: 54
        0
        Quote: c-Petrov
        Well, right away PRO Moscow Estimate how and where to transfer. Estimate what kind of material costs it will incur, I'm not talking about other costs in the style of work hours and so on.

        The capital is the most protected part of our country. Tomahawk will not fly by (s)

        And the center of Russia will be the most protected .. (not immediately, of course) and the infrastructure will begin to develop. Just a lesson of the 41st when hundreds of plants had to be evacuated literally from under the noses of the Germans and in the bare steppe restored in a couple of months .. You see the government will change to strong Siberian and Ural business executives .. Not a bad idea, all the same .. (I think from this the real revival of Russia and all regions would begin ..) It is unlikely that this will go of course .. Too cozy and comfortable in Moscow .. alas ..
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. St Petrov
          St Petrov 29 January 2014 15: 17
          0
          then there were no missiles that were accurate to + - 5 meters per hundreds of kilometers. In today's war, the topic of production equilibrium would be completely absurd
    2. The comment was deleted.
  6. soldat1945
    soldat1945 27 January 2014 15: 42
    +3
    I don’t agree, moving the capital to the approximate geographical center (city of Chita) of Russia would solve the most important problem, in order to get there you would need to cross half of the country and the regions would not consider themselves remote, plus this would break many corruption schemes for many years. would be the most difficultly developing region of Russia to develop, and 15 million Muscovites would cease to decide for the whole of Russia, and even if arrogance would be reduced!
    1. Gardamir
      Gardamir 27 January 2014 15: 45
      0
      China will then be closer than Europe now.
    2. andrei332809
      andrei332809 27 January 2014 17: 12
      +2
      Quote: soldat1945
      , yes, and if I had diminished

  7. mountain
    mountain 27 January 2014 15: 54
    0
    This is not the time for transfers, the pollock is not the same. Yes, even at the north pole, in a couple of years, there will be the same option.
  8. yehat
    yehat 27 January 2014 15: 54
    +2
    over concentration brings some pluses, but in reality, when all the money and functions are tied to Moscow, there are a lot of minuses from it. This includes forced migration, lowering living standards on the periphery, and urban problems, but the main thing is that such a concentration within the framework of the existence of an ineffective system of economic relations between clans and monopolies (usually with a criminal past) makes the economy itself completely ineffective. I won’t even talk about export, - there is already a trite lack of profitable agriculture. Only processes with an unhealthy rate of return survive, which makes society gangster, because it becomes impossible to live honestly.
    It is not necessary to transfer Moscow, but it is imperative to radically change the financial and budget systems.
    In general, the ideal is when they will not take more than 40-45% of the total tax from a working person, all will leave, I emphasize, ALL premiums of monopolies for a monopoly position, trust conspiracies (as in mobile communications) and kickbacks for monopoly rights. Finally, if one wants to live in a democratic society, it would be time for the socialist government. commitments to be honest, not cynical.
    1. old rocket man
      old rocket man 27 January 2014 18: 27
      +1
      Quote: yehat
      In general, the ideal is when they will not take more than 40-45% of the total tax from a working person


      Perhaps you wanted to say from the enterprise?
      With individuals, a reasonable limit is 25%, with legal entities 35-40%
      1. Cpa
        Cpa 27 January 2014 19: 17
        -1
        Quote: Old Rocketman
        Perhaps you would like to say from the enterprise? From individuals, 25% is considered a reasonable limit, from legal entities 35-40%

        They forgot about VAT.
        1. Tersky
          Tersky 27 January 2014 19: 55
          +3
          Quote: KPA
          They forgot about VAT.

          It is taken only from legal entities, they fill it in the final cost of the products or services that we pay. A kind of tricky cycle .....
          1. Cpa
            Cpa 27 January 2014 22: 43
            0
            As well as excise taxes and other fees that are secretly paid by a simple Russian.
  9. Boris55
    Boris55 27 January 2014 15: 55
    +5
    And I'm for Magadan! wassat
    1. sinukvl
      sinukvl 27 January 2014 15: 58
      +1
      Support! good
    2. Aleksey_K
      Aleksey_K 27 January 2014 16: 07
      0
      To the camp, behind the barbed wire, in wooden sheds? Can also give a term to all those moving?
  10. predator.3
    predator.3 27 January 2014 15: 58
    +5
    Not to move the capital, but to restore production in the regions, new factories and jobs. Otherwise, we had a case, one Azerbaijani rented factory buildings and began to dismantle aluminum window frames and sell as nonferrous metals, and in other enterprises the same "investors" , will be sold from machine tools to the last rusty bolt and brought down to sunny Cyprus for permanent residence.

    the same Far East will receive no less attention than in Soviet times, when the capital was in the same Moscow, but the government was headed not by Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev, but by Joseph Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili.

    Gold words !
  11. ramsi
    ramsi 27 January 2014 15: 58
    +1
    no, but what is Washington - such a metropolis? Or here Bonn was ... In addition, it would be possible to think over a layout at a bookmark, and not adapt then the existing
    1. St Petrov
      St Petrov 27 January 2014 16: 02
      +5
      It was in 1147 that it was necessary to think over the layout, taking into account the number of cars, the metro and 13 million people? laughing
      1. jjj
        jjj 27 January 2014 23: 41
        +1
        And what, migrants and then whole hordes fell into non-rubber
      2. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. andrei332809
      andrei332809 27 January 2014 17: 34
      +1
      Quote: ramsi
      no, but what is Washington - such a metropolis?

      offer to transfer the capital there? so many bureaucrats from the government and Tatupeds with senators have it there anyway (judging by the proposals and laws that they spew out). and if for us (for the people), then first we need to make tanks rolling there, but it’s still expensive, and laziness bully
  12. bubla5
    bubla5 27 January 2014 16: 05
    0
    It has long been clear in the capital that the stolen capital is concentrated and exported abroad
  13. askort154
    askort154 27 January 2014 16: 08
    +2
    And so as not to argue, I propose to make two capitals. Moscow and Magadan: with shuttle rotation of officials in 2 years.
  14. Alex_Popovson
    Alex_Popovson 27 January 2014 16: 28
    0
    Hm. Onotole said a rather commonplace thing. But in the era of information technology, the capital plays a role no more than a symbol.
    Although symbolism in Russia has always played a much greater role than common sense. They won, they lived, and it will remain so.
  15. Corsair
    Corsair 27 January 2014 16: 29
    0
    Quote: article title
    The capital is intolerable. What city will be the capital - the problems will remain the same

    And what does the author say about this thesis in relation to Ukraine.
    Today's Ukraine ...
  16. Mviktor
    Mviktor 27 January 2014 16: 42
    +4
    I do not agree with the author. Kazakhstan, when moving the capital, solved many problems. Many problems also accumulated in Moscow, and a competent transfer of the capital could solve many of them. And most importantly, Moscow is parasitic on the body of Russia and even official foam could be eliminated
    1. Clegg
      Clegg 27 January 2014 18: 05
      +3
      Quote: Mviktor
      I do not agree with the author. Kazakhstan, when moving the capital, solved many problems.

      Yes, especially no,

      Quote: Mviktor
      And most importantly, Moscow is parasitic on the body of Russia and even official foam could be eliminated

      Yes, they just move to the new capital))))
      1. marshes
        marshes 27 January 2014 19: 34
        +1
        Quote: Clegg
        Yes, especially no,

        As an Almaty citizen, I can say that my city has become a little freer, I can imagine what happened if it remained the capital, they simply suffocated from exhaust gases.
        1. Zymran
          Zymran 27 January 2014 19: 40
          +3
          I think, despite the costs, the transfer of the capital was the right decision, if only so that the North of Kazakhstan would not come off.
          1. marshes
            marshes 27 January 2014 19: 46
            +1
            Quote: Zymran
            so that the North of Kazakhstan does not come off.

            Not only though the city was unloaded from the bureaucracy, it is good that regional officials are in Taldykorgan right now.
            Almaty resources in terms of development are now limited.
            1. Zymran
              Zymran 27 January 2014 20: 29
              +3
              Quote: marshes
              Not only


              Well, that was one of the reasons. Plus, in Astana you don’t really protest on the street. Especially in winter. laughing
              1. marshes
                marshes 27 January 2014 20: 42
                +2
                Quote: Zymran
                Especially in winter.

                That's right! laughing
                I am surprised by those who protest in Almaty, the government is in Astana! laughing
                And even so, the border to China is about 300 km, to Kyrgyzstan in a straight line 50-70 km. Earthquakes, transport problems, the environment, old communications and infrastructure. Any construction in the city creates problems for those living nearby.
                For this I live in the country with my parents, although there are apartments in the city.
                1. Semurg
                  Semurg 27 January 2014 21: 02
                  +2
                  For the decision to move the capital to Astana, NASU is definitely a plus, although at first everyone thought that it wasn’t serious. He studied there in his youth last year, traveled 25 years later did not recognize the city heaped up from the heart. On the topic, the option with Tobolsk is a good proposal, though for the transfer of the capital you need good reasons and reasons, as well as the desire and will of the first person in the state.
    2. Horn
      Horn 28 January 2014 06: 01
      +1
      All this nonsense. If visitors do not go to the brothel, it is not necessary to rearrange the beds in some places, but to change the whores.
  17. Aleksey_K
    Aleksey_K 27 January 2014 16: 44
    +6
    If we are talking about the most remote point from the alleged enemies of Russia, then Ekaterinburg is probably the most suitable. But Yekaterinburg itself is not suitable for this. The roads are narrow, even the newest (due to savings). The darkness is darker than the old (pre-revolutionary) houses - brick shacks with wooden ceilings (supposedly architectural monuments). There are no new buildings for the government and the president. All bridges are narrow and few. Almost on all bridges and under bridges. Very few underpasses for pedestrians.
    Conclusion: We need to build a new city near Yekaterinburg (to the north) and connect it with the transport arteries with the old one.
    Reasons for building a new city next to the old:
    1. In the Middle Urals, the construction, metallurgical and mining industries, engineering are very developed, there are scientific personnel, there is nuclear energy, and there is a lot of forest. There are defense institutes and factories (in Soviet times, the city was closed to foreigners). Those. there is everything to create a new city.
    2. Near Yekaterinburg are the cities of Chelyabinsk, Perm, Magnitogorsk and many other industrial cities, the potential of which can be successfully used
    3. There are a lot of military units and aircraft in the Urals. And there is a missile defense system (maybe outdated, I don’t know). There are government bunkers.
    4. The construction of a new city will hardly interfere with the life of the old city.
    5. You can build a new ultramodern city of the 22 century, taking into account all the urban mistakes of the past.
    But, for this it is necessary to have very, very much money.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  18. SRC P-15
    SRC P-15 27 January 2014 17: 01
    +2
    It seems to me that it is necessary to levy more taxes from all firms and enterprises located in Moscow than in other cities and towns. By doing this, we will interest owners to open production in the periphery. Only the difference in tax should be noticeable, otherwise the sheepskin should not be made. But I’m afraid those who should pass such a law are not interested in this, since most of them have business in Moscow.
    1. Penzuck
      Penzuck 28 January 2014 07: 11
      0
      As far as I know, the tax settles where the company’s boss is, so any comrade in Yaroslavl will open the production and rejoices in Moscow. The tax will settle in the hero city of Moscow. And now, in your opinion, the office will open in Yaroslavl, the tax (its insignificant part) will go to the budget of Yaroslavl, part will be returned with subsidies from the Federal budget. A little better than at the beginning, but ATTENTION: WHEN EVERYTHING IS DISTRIBUTED BY THE CAPITAL WITH SUCH MEANS, YOU WILL NOT CHANGE THE SITUATION IN THE SUBJECTS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION.
  19. felix34
    felix34 27 January 2014 17: 02
    +4
    Grandfather.
    I agree with Anatoly only on one thing: it is necessary to change the SUPER-CONCENTRATION of functions, affairs and infrastructures of the capital city, and to move government buildings to its quiet protected outskirts. When the CAPITAL first TAKES away the "revenue" from the provinces, and then DIVIDES it approximately equally between those who work hard and who are dependent, even in the presence of the most favorable natural and human resources, it is, to put it mildly, not economically. And the people will flee from the Far East and Siberia to where they pay much more for less and less harmful work, where they build houses and roads, where there are enough hospitals with high-tech equipment, where there are enough good schools, kindergartens and sports grounds, where you can stay from home and without a long and expensive road to get quite a decent special and higher education. Then I will fully agree with the "water man". Good luck!
  20. The comment was deleted.
  21. Begemot
    Begemot 27 January 2014 17: 11
    +4
    Dear Wasserman, one thing is right: Problems will remain, but these will be other problems. Since Moscow solves them today, it cannot last long. The population outside Moscow is no longer considering themselves to be residents of the same state with deputies, ministers and other figures.
    They are sitting on a hydrocarbon pipe and are not going to do anything else. They cannot do this either in terms of qualifications or mentality, and it’s been a long time ago to work at the top in Moscow. I already wrote that only professionals will go to Siberia or the Urals, the husk will remain in Moscow and while the new capital grows overgrown with the same fat and adsorbs the same amount of slag and husk as in Moscow, it will take a long time to do a lot of useful things for the country. And Wasserman estimates the pace of the new capital's becoming too high. The main engine of bargaining is majorics, "sons", "relatives", hustlers - where will they go from nightclubs, beauty salons, spas for wives, boutiques, hairdressing salons, restaurants, mistresses and apartments bought by him? They will stay. And a lot of work for the authorities has accumulated, for too long the Government and especially the State Duma overwhelmed the country's economy with obstacles and absurdities. It would be better to move the capital ourselves than people who were unknown to anyone except the secret police and sponsors, who led the coup and seized power, as in the 17th, will do it.
  22. shelva
    shelva 27 January 2014 17: 24
    +1
    The main thing is to remove those structures beyond the capital that the administrative center can do without. It is necessary to create separately cultural centers, scientific, tourist, sports, health, etc. Only without fanaticism - so that it doesn’t work out that there was not a single clinic in the scientific center. And so that the centers would not be individual cities but regions. This would contribute to a more even distribution of wealth.
  23. polkovnik manuch
    polkovnik manuch 27 January 2014 17: 29
    +1
    I put a lot of advantages here because my thoughts are consonant with mine. Then I thought again and decided that Wasserman was right as always, although many of the thoughts expressed in the suggestions of my colleagues reasonably complement the author of the article. It is necessary to put the ORDER in Russia, to clear of husks and leeches!
  24. Greenwood
    Greenwood 27 January 2014 17: 47
    +4
    I fundamentally disagree with Wasserman. It must be said that in most large countries, with the exception of Russia, the capital cities have long been actually contingent towns with a small population and apart from the capital status are unremarkable. In our case, we in the largest country in the world have a bloated metropolis, in which all state institutions, largest banks, state companies are located and in fact the entire large Russian business is spinning. I believe that one of the most important tasks of the country's development is decentralization.
    In my opinion, it is optimal to give a small city to the capital, for example, in the Krasnoyarsk Territory (but not Krasnoyarsk itself), or build it from scratch, as they did in Brazil. This is actually the center of Russia, equidistant from most regions, it will not show such a wild difference in time zones as it is now between Moscow and Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky. Plus, many Siberian cities are concentrated nearby: Krasnoyarsk, Novosibirsk, Kemerovo, Barnaul, Irkutsk, etc. It is optimal to leave the financial center in Moscow. But here are the offices of all sorts of Gazprom, Rosneft and other state-owned companies scatter closer to the regions where their main assets and production are concentrated. This will increase the replenishment of local budgets and create additional jobs. And to a large extent will unload Moscow.
    I was always amazed that in the USA, the largest and world-famous corporations and firms have their offices in small towns (for example, Apple in Cupertino, California; Microsoft in Redmond; Intel in Santa Clara; Cisco in San Jose; Oracle in Redwood - Shores; McDonalds at Oak Brook; Coca-Cola in Atlanta, etc.). And only in Russia everyone is hustling in Moscow. I believe that the transfer of the capital is important and necessary.
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Penzuck
      Penzuck 28 January 2014 07: 27
      0
      I am surprised how you can Move office, open a new slave. places? 100 accountants and extra secretaries to get what? So in the field their managers already sit and grandmas get paid for it.
      Now about missile defense: how many missiles from 10 can theoretically hit Moscow? - 1! Central Industrial Region 4! And about Siberia I FORGOT SORRY. So until the second deeply echeloned missile defense system, stuffed with modern means, is opened, it makes no sense to transfer the capital. And the creation of the second most effective complex is hindered by the agreement to REDUCE OFFENSIVE WEAPONS!
    3. BIGLESHIY
      BIGLESHIY 28 January 2014 13: 27
      0
      Greenwood SU Yesterday, 17:47

      I fundamentally disagree with Wasserman. It must be said that in most large countries, with the exception of Russia, the capital cities have long been actually contingent towns with a small population and apart from the capital status are unremarkable. In our case, we in the largest country in the world have a bloated metropolis, in which all state institutions, largest banks, state companies are located and in fact the entire large Russian business is spinning. I believe that one of the most important tasks of the country's development is decentralization.
      In my opinion, it is optimal to give a small city to the capital, for example, in the Krasnoyarsk Territory (but not Krasnoyarsk itself), or build it from scratch, as they did in Brazil. This is actually the center of Russia, equidistant from most regions, it will not show such a wild difference in time zones as it is now between Moscow and Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky. Plus, many Siberian cities are concentrated nearby: Krasnoyarsk, Novosibirsk, Kemerovo, Barnaul, Irkutsk, etc. It is optimal to leave the financial center in Moscow. But here are the offices of all sorts of Gazprom, Rosneft and other state-owned companies scatter closer to the regions where their main assets and production are concentrated. This will increase the replenishment of local budgets and create additional jobs. And to a large extent will unload Moscow.
      I was always amazed that in the USA, the largest and world-famous corporations and firms have their offices in small towns (for example, Apple in Cupertino, California; Microsoft in Redmond; Intel in Santa Clara; Cisco in San Jose; Oracle in Redwood - Shores; McDonalds at Oak Brook; Coca-Cola in Atlanta, etc.). And only in Russia everyone is hustling in Moscow. I think that the transfer

      I completely agree with you about moving the capital to the center of the country. And while the whole country is injecting Moscow asleep, and when the country goes to bed Moscow starts to consider the loot that the country has earned.
  25. Max_Damage
    Max_Damage 27 January 2014 17: 58
    0
    Plenty of mlyn .....
  26. The comment was deleted.
  27. kaktus
    kaktus 27 January 2014 18: 08
    +3
    In Ufa, during the WWII, the People's Commissariat of Communications of the USSR, the People’s Commissariat of Local Industry of the RSFSR worked, many other organizations were also evacuated. People worked - without electronic mail, the Internet, cell phones, and generally almost no phones ... We won the war! drinks
  28. Stinger
    Stinger 27 January 2014 18: 17
    +2
    Yes. With a mess, neither moving furniture nor changing location helps. It is necessary to change the girls.
  29. individual
    individual 27 January 2014 18: 43
    0
    No need to move the capital anywhere.
    It is enough to transfer financial flows to another city and all capital activity will flow there, and Moscow will remain a symbol of Russia.
    1. BIGLESHIY
      BIGLESHIY 28 January 2014 13: 31
      0
      Quote: individ
      No need to move the capital anywhere.
      It is enough to transfer financial flows to another city and all capital activity will flow there, and Moscow will remain a symbol of Russia.

      We are talking about the transfer of the CAPITAL and not the transfer of Moscow. Moscow as it was a symbol will remain so, along with Leningrad (Peter), Stalingrad (Volgograd), etc.
  30. shurup
    shurup 27 January 2014 19: 04
    0
    First, the capital must be transferred to Runet, ending with anonymity.
    Subsequently, after the abolition of thoughts and election commissions, together with the money saved from this, to think where to better transfer the center of the executive branch and whether to decentralize it at all. Why is a president at all in a democratic society? This is not an army.
    All power to the councils! Long live the information revolution!
  31. cccr51
    cccr51 27 January 2014 19: 13
    0
    Yes, what kind of transfers are there, the Jewish mafia will even move from Antarctica, if only the shekels dripped into Kerrmanchik
  32. saag
    saag 27 January 2014 19: 17
    0
    And why did Anatole wake up with the transfer of the capital, as if now it is an urgent issue on the agenda
  33. Cpa
    Cpa 27 January 2014 19: 23
    0
    This is the problem of a psychological and ideological plan. Many people, having visited the capital, say: "Moscow is abroad, everything is like in America."
  34. Blackmokona
    Blackmokona 27 January 2014 20: 16
    0
    The reason is not the location of the capital, but the libertarian beliefs that have been planted for a quarter of a century: the state has no right to do anything useful.

    It seems to be a person who knows, but confuses the terms.
    Libertarianism (English libertarianism; from French libertaire - anarchist [1]), less often libertarianism (French libertarisme) is a political philosophy based on the ban on "aggressive violence", that is, the ban on the use of force or threat to another person , or his property, contrary to the will of that person.
  35. Ivanovich47
    Ivanovich47 27 January 2014 20: 17
    +3
    In his youth, he served in the Far East. Going on vacation in the summer was a big problem. Why? Almost all the population of the Far East, with the beginning of summer, rushed to the "West", that is, to the sea coasts of the European part of the country. Almost any family had the opportunity to relax in the southern resorts and as independent vacationers - "savages". And the capital of the country, Moscow was very close to the Far Eastern people. After all, a ticket to Moscow cost a little more than 100 rubles. The semi-miserable existence of the bulk of the people alienates the Far Eastern people from the center of the country. This is where the main problem is.
  36. Power
    Power 27 January 2014 20: 36
    +1
    With all due respect to the author, there is a sense in moving the capital, at least in developing the infrastructure of new regions.
    1. Oboz
      Oboz 27 January 2014 22: 49
      -1
      Chelyabinsk!
    2. The comment was deleted.
  37. SFIR
    SFIR 27 January 2014 21: 09
    0
    In the Caucasus, it is all the same ....
  38. Dmitriy1969
    Dmitriy1969 27 January 2014 21: 38
    +1
    Moscow-Omsk, especially since they already have the experience of being the capital. Under Kolchak, if someone does not remember. And the degrading ruling clans can be cut off, will they leave Moscow real estate? Young people will go, there is more ambition, like energy, it can be useful will be ... And from the mossy boyars one disorder ... But information for thought http://www.trinitas.ru/rus/doc/0232/009a/02321264.htm Chernyaev A.F. A little about the pyramids in Giza .Article 4.Chapter "Symbols of the revival of Rus (Russia)." So everything has already been decided at the top. The future of Russia will grow in Siberia.
  39. O_RUS
    O_RUS 27 January 2014 21: 41
    0
    Quote: Strength
    With all due respect to the author, there is a sense in moving the capital, at least in developing the infrastructure of new regions.


    yeah there is ... and part of the population, such an idea, can be distracted from the urgent.
  40. AVV
    AVV 27 January 2014 21: 52
    -1
    Quote: waisson
    as an economy I agree with you completely hi move the capital to Magadan or somewhere to Pivek and see what happens to the north

    The most expensive event is the transfer of all institutions and grandmothers are enormous here, but the most important thing is expediency, and you won’t transfer sacred historical places! Red Square, where the troops went to the front in 41 after the parade !!! How to deal with them? This is a question! Another thing is that part of the institutions like the Headquarters of the Navy or the constitutional court has already been moved to St. Petersburg, you can send something else there, that would be the best option !!!
  41. Dmitriy1969
    Dmitriy1969 27 January 2014 22: 33
    0
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNS6y-xuLb0. А.Литвин о переносе столицы,начиная с 23:15
  42. DPN
    DPN 27 January 2014 22: 35
    0
    Quote: S_mirnov

    "In France, unknown persons robbed the governor of the Krasnoyarsk Territory Lev Kuznetsov, breaking into his villa on the Cote d'Azur. The robbers shot at a Russian official, causing him a slight wound, and hit his wife on the head with a truncheon."

    He wanted to be a Frenchman, they did not recognize him as a photo, he didn’t come out, but they did it right. The rich region is still scratching.
  43. VadimSt
    VadimSt 27 January 2014 22: 36
    0
    The most urgent topic in the light of what is happening in Ukraine itself is for the citizen of Ukraine Wasserman!
  44. DPN
    DPN 27 January 2014 22: 42
    0
    Of course, it is not worth transferring, but Russia should not be located only in Moscow. Why the hell to enlarge it, soon the entire population of Russia will gather in it.
  45. Sergey S.
    Sergey S. 28 January 2014 00: 05
    +1
    Given the current situation. including the development of information technology, I would suggest the following:
    1. Ministries. committees. Departments should be leaders in cities in the following areas:
    metallurgy - in Norilsk, energy - in Bratsk or Shushensky, it is also possible in Balakovo, shipbuilding in St. Petersburg or Severodvinsk, agricultural - in Saratov, the aerospace industry in Samara, tractor engineering - in Vladimir ........
    2. Representative power should not have Moscow apartments. let them live on their suitcases, and spend each session in another city. Then the deputies and senators will be younger, later, more informed, the people will see them sitting in the cold houses of culture - the intensity of passions can and will decrease, especially if decisions are addressed to the people.
    3. The President, having received the mandate of the people, has the right to transfer his residence to any city in the country. Moreover, for example, for a year, six months .... By this, he will force local authorities to develop infrastructure and industry.

    I am sure that these measures will positively affect the standard of living and power of the country.
    Here are just a little inconvenience ...
  46. Hort
    Hort 28 January 2014 07: 32
    0
    I do not completely agree with the author: if you transfer the capital, then you need to do this after careful calculations - how, where and why. Ideally, to Siberia, to a new city built specifically for these purposes. And so that all husks (buffoons, traders, etc.) would not be pulled after officials, the city should be purely administrative, like Washington with Amers.
  47. saag
    saag 28 January 2014 07: 51
    0
    Quote: hort
    Ideally, to Siberia, to a new city built specifically for these purposes.

    In a specially built underground city :-) Security and all that :-)
    1. Hort
      Hort 28 January 2014 13: 27
      0
      why, there they built Astana, quite a land city)