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.