Slashdot Mirror


Putin Government Moves To Take Control of Russia's largest space company Energia

schwit1 writes Vitaly Lopota, the president of Russia's largest space company Energia, was suspended Friday by the company's board of directors. From the article: "The move appears to be part of an effort by Russia's government to obtain majority control over Energia, of which it owns a 38-percent share. The directors elected Igor Komarov as its new chairman of the board. Komarov is chief of the Russian United Rocket and Space Corporation (URSC), the government-owned company tasked with consolidating Russia's sprawling space sector." The government is also conducting a criminal investigation of Lopota, which might be justified but appears to be a power play designed to both eliminate him from the game as well as make sure everyone else tows the line so that URSC can take complete control.

15 of 252 comments (clear)

  1. minutes to midnight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Anyone else here miss the 1980s USSR? Looks like Putin does ...

    1. Re:minutes to midnight by Lennie · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You might think it is funny, but this really is sort of the plan of Putin.

      It has always been his plan, from the start.

      He never made a secret of it and clearly states that this is what he is trying to do.

      It might not be communism he wants. What he wants a is strong Russia, a country other countries respect (maybe this can be explained as: fear).

      Which includes re-integrating most of the former USSR countries.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    2. Re:minutes to midnight by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I for one, living in the USA, would have been shot long long time ago for running my mouth like I do here on Slashdot, had I been doing all this in 1980's KGB Soviet Union. ... At the very least I would have ended up at some Siberian Gulag.

      Oh, please, what a silly stereotype of the USSR, completely inappropriate for its last decade. Shooting dissidents and sending them off to gulags in the Soviet Union came to a nearly complete end with the death of Stalin in the 1950s. By the 1980s, persecution of dissidents had long since become more subtle, such as commitment to psychiatic hospitals on false grounds or pushing them into exile in the West.

    3. Re:minutes to midnight by benjfowler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not this basement-dweller stupidity again.

      The US is ***NOWHERE*** near as bad as the old Soviet Union or it's satellites. So just STFU about the whole 'cops confiscated my spliff == GULAG' thing.

    4. Re:minutes to midnight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No we are not, not even close not even to todays Russia.
      From personal experince in both countries.

  2. Trillion-dollar boo-boo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    This sort of thing is why shares of russian companies trade at a huge discount compared to shares of western and asian companies.

  3. people who can't write because they didn't read... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... really... you "toe the line" not "tow the line" as the submitter writes.

  4. Russia = Fascism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Anybody still seriously doubt that Russia is a neo-Fascist country?

  5. Re:"to take control" by sillybilly · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's called nationalizing. Sometimes it's done in the best interest of the public of the nation. Such as USRA was a nationalizing of all private rail during WWI in the USA, only to be spun off again in the 1920's as private enterprises. In fact USRA was a nationalization of rail twice, once during WWI, and one in the 70's related to Conrail. See the first two entries at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... Also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...

  6. Somebody mod this up by Jesrad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Administrative takeover of corporations by autoritative central state, with intimidation through abuse of executive power, is textbook fascism. Mussolini would be proud.

    --
    Maybe we deserve this world ?
  7. Re:"to take control" by hughk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Consolidating a fragmented industry can be a good idea and has worked to a greater or lesser extent in the past. The problem is that the government is usually too far behind the curve to make the best decisions and a good example would be some of the nationalisations that happened in the UK.

    However, in Russia, it is about redistributing the assets privatised in the early nineties. The privatisations were a "fire-sale" in which only a favoured few could take part, however subsequently, the shares traded on a secondary market and became assets belonging to pension funds and the like. Unfortunately, in the early nineties, when Putin and his backers (the so-called Siloviki) came to power, they discovered there was nothing new to privatise so they took some companies back such as Yukos. On the smaller scale, many companies found themselves forced with new directors who had relationships with the Siloviki.

    Either way, by undermining corporate governance and the protection of property, the government has made it far more difficult for a normal financial infrastructure to exist.

    --
    See my journal, I write things there
  8. Not a bad idea by Alarash · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sure, the way Russians go about nationalizing companies is not very nice or even subtle. But I wish my government did the same. Services that people need in order to live - energy, water, medical - shouldn't be on the free market. All that stuff should be publicly owned and the goal shouldn't to be to make money but to provide critical services to the people for the cheapest amount possible.

    1. Re:Not a bad idea by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sure, the way Russians go about nationalizing companies is not very nice or even subtle. But I wish my government did the same. Services that people need in order to live - energy, water, medical - shouldn't be on the free market. All that stuff should be publicly owned and the goal shouldn't to be to make money but to provide critical services to the people for the cheapest amount possible.

      While that is a laudable goal the reality is government owned utilities rarely view "cheapest amount possible" as a primary goal. Rather, they become tools for politicians to use to maintain themselves in office by providing jobs, subsidies , etc to please their voters and donors. That is not to say government owned utilities cannot provide lower cost services just that cost is often secondary to politics.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
  9. Re:people who can't write because they didn't read by fey000 · · Score: 4, Funny

    In Soviet Russia, line tows you!

  10. Re:"to take control" by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nationalisation pays the previous owner. It's a compulsory purchase, not just seizing control.

    What the Russians are doing is just theft, extralegal, unconstitutional, just as they did with all the energy companies which are the only thing propping up their economy, and media companies. The method is a variation on how organised crime takes over a business, but with the backing of the courts.

    --
    Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.