Connect with us
// (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});


First thoughts on arrest and sacking of Russian economy minister

Former Russian Economics Minister Ulyukaev has been dismissed in disgrace after being arrested on corruption charges. Though there is probably no political motive behind his arrest and dismissal, more will become clearer when Putin names his successor.

Alexander Mercouris



Following swiftly from the dramatic news of the arrest of Russian Economy Minister Alexey Ulyukaev comes confirmation of his dismissal by President Putin. 

The wording of the Kremlin’s statement confirming Ulyukaev’s dismissal is short and simple but could not be clearer, and leaves no doubt that he has been dismissed in disgrace:

“Vladimir Putin signed Executive Order dismissing Alexey Ulyukaev of his duties as Economic Development Minister due to the loss of trust.”

It is important to say that so far Ulyukaev has not been convicted of anything, and that he denies the charges of bribe taking brought against him.  His lawyers say that he considers himself to be the victim of a “provocation”. 

The news that Putin has summarily dismissed him for “loss of trust” is however a sure sign that Russia’s president at least accepts the validity of the charges against him.

In truth, though there is much about the case that of necessity at this point remains obscure, the evidence against Ulyukaev appears to be compelling.

Essentially the charge against Ulyukaev is that he abused his position to extort $2 million worth in bribes from the Russian state oil company Rosneft, threatening, unless the bribe was paid, to obstruct Rosneft’s acquisition of 50.08% of the shares in the Bashneft oil company, which is based in the Russian republic of Bashkortostan.

The sale of Bashneft’s shares to Rosneft has not been uncontroversial, and I will take a little time to explain this tangled affair since it is certain to feature prominently in Ulyukaev’s defence. 

Bashnet was originally privatised in 2002 and 2003, following which it was acquired by Sistema, a Russian holding company owned by the Russian businessman Vladimir Yevtushenkov.  Yevtushenkov was arrested in September 2014 on money laundering charges in connection with Sistema’s acquisition of Bashneft, leading to the seizure of 72% of Bashneft’s shares by the Russian government. 

Yevtushenkov was, however, released in December 2014, and in January 2016 all charges against him were dropped, with the Moscow Arbitration Court ordering the government to pay Sistema $1.1 billion compensation for the wrongful seizure of Bashneft.

There was speculation back in 2014 that the person who was ultimately behind the case against Yevtushenkov was Igor Sechin, the powerful CEO of Rosneft, with rumours circulating that Sechin had concocted the case against Yevtushenkov as part of a plan for Rosneft to gain control of Bashneft. 

Needless to say, when it became known this year that Rosneft was indeed acquiring a majority stake in Bashneft after the Russian government decided to sell its stake, those who alleged that Yevtushenkov’s arrest had been arranged by Sechin to enable Rosneft to gain control of Bashneft claimed that they had been proved right.

Given that it was Rosneft which apparently tipped off the police that Ulyukaev was extorting a bribe from them by threatening to obstruct Rosneft’s acquisition of Bashneft’s shares, there will inevitably be those who will say that the case against Ulyukaev is also the result of Sechin’s intrigues, and that far from being a bribe taker, Ulyukaev has fallen victim to a set up fabricated by Sechin.  

Whilst I strongly suspect this will be the defence Ulyukaev and his supporters will eventually come up with, I will now in advance express my skepticism.

Though Sechin is unquestionably a tough and forceful manager of Rosneft, I doubt that he is remotely capable of manipulating Russia’s police agencies in the way this complicated scenario would require.

Also, it seems that Ulyukaev has been under observation for some time because of suspicions he was engaging in extortion and bribe taking, and that his telephone was being tapped since at least the early summer, with Putin being informed of the concerns about him, and being kept regularly updated on the conduct of the investigation into his activities. 

As I have said, the fact that Putin hurried to dismiss Ulyukaev so soon after his arrest, and the wording of the dismissal with the pointed use of the words “breach of trust”, points to Putin believing the charges that have been brought against Ulyukaev. 

Also, whilst we obviously do not have the full details, the Investigative Committee (Russia’s equivalent to the FBI) says Ulyukaev was caught red handed, and that the case against him is foolproof.

When a member of the Russian government is publicly arrested and dismissed in this way, it is inevitable that many search for a political motive behind what has happened.

The most common view in Moscow at the moment is that Ulyukaev’s dismissal is the first step in the purge of the liberals from the Russian government, that many have been long talking about and long expecting.

All I would say about that is that though Ulyukaev is undoubtedly a liberal and is one of the last survivors of the team of liberal reformers brought into the Russian government by Yegor Gaidar, (Boris Yeltsin’s ultra liberal acting Prime Minister of the early 1990s), he has always seemed to me somewhat detached from the dominant liberal grouping within the government, which consists of Kudrin, Central Bank Chair Nabiullina, and Finance Minister Siluanov.

Ulyukaev has long been a critic of the Central Bank’s tough monetary policy, pressing continuously for a lowering of interest rates, and my distinct impression at SPIEF this June was that he and Central Bank Chair Nabiullina were personally on extremely bad terms.  When Ulyukaev’s name was mentioned by a member of the audience at a panel that Kudrin, Nabiullina and Siluanov all attended – but from which Ulyukaev was pointedly excluded – it seemed as if a chill had descended on the room.

In addition, if Ulyukaev really was dismissed as part of some sort of purge I don’t understand why Putin felt the need to go about his dismissal in such a complicated way.  Ulyukaev is neither popular nor a major power broker, and if Putin simply wanted to get rid of him I can’t see why he didn’t just sack him.

Unless more information comes to light that more is involved than appears on the surface, my operating hypothesis will be that Ulyukaev has been dismissed for the reason the Russian authorities have said – because he was caught extorting bribes – and for no other reason than that. 

I appreciate that most people probably won’t agree with me, but until I see some evidence that more is involved, I shall accept the official explanation, which seems to me sufficient to explain what has happened. 

More should become clearer when Putin announces who Ulyukaev’s successor will be.

There is one further point I do, however, want to make.  This is that though there is a general blanket assumption that corruption is rife in high places in Russia, the sort of people who get caught with their hand in the till invariably seem to be liberals: former Prime Minister Kasyanov, former Defence Minister Serdyukov, former governor of the Kirov region Belykh, and now of course Ulyukaev.

Whether that is because liberals are more prone to corruption than other officials – as many Russians believe – or because liberals are more likely to be targeted for corruption investigations than other officials – as many liberal commentators in Russia and outside claim – the fact speaks for itself.  For the record my opinion is the former.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Advertisement // (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Notify of


Trump Has Gifted “No More Wars” Policy Position To Bernie Sanders (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 148.

Alex Christoforou



RT CrossTalk host Peter Lavelle and The Duran’s Alex Christoforou discuss how US President Donald Tump appears to have ceded his popular 2016 ‘no more wars’ campaign message and policy position to Bernie Sanders and any other US 2020 candidate willing to grad onto a non-interventionist approach to the upcoming Democrat primaries.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

“Is Bernie Stealing Trump’s ‘No More Wars’ Issue?” by Patrick J. Buchanan…

The center of gravity of U.S. politics is shifting toward the Trump position of 2016.

“The president has said that he does not want to see this country involved in endless wars… I agree with that,” Bernie Sanders told the Fox News audience at Monday’s town hall meeting in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.

Then turning and staring straight into the camera, Bernie added:

“Mr. President, tonight you have the opportunity to do something extraordinary: Sign that resolution. Saudi Arabia should not be determining the military or foreign policy of this country.”

Sanders was talking about a War Powers Act resolution that would have ended U.S. involvement in the five-year civil war in Yemen that has created one of the great humanitarian crises of our time, with thousands of dead children amidst an epidemic of cholera and a famine.

Supported by a united Democratic Party on the Hill, and an anti-interventionist faction of the GOP led by Sens. Rand Paul and Mike Lee of Utah, the War Powers resolution had passed both houses of Congress.

But 24 hours after Sanders urged him to sign it, Trump, heeding the hawks in his Cabinet and National Security Council, vetoed S.J.Res.7, calling it a “dangerous attempt to weaken my constitutional authorities.”

With sufficient Republican votes in both houses to sustain Trump’s veto, that should be the end of the matter.

It is not: Trump may have just ceded the peace issue in 2020 to the Democrats. If Sanders emerges as the nominee, we will have an election with a Democrat running on the “no-more-wars” theme Trump touted in 2016. And Trump will be left defending the bombing of Yemeni rebels and civilians by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia.

Does Trump really want to go into 2020 as a war party president?

Does he want to go into 2020 with Democrats denouncing “Trump’s endless wars” in the Middle East? Because that is where he is headed.

In 2008, John McCain, leading hawk in the Senate, was routed by a left-wing first-term senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, who had won his nomination by defeating the more hawkish Hillary Clinton, who had voted to authorize the war in Iraq.

In 2012, the Republican nominee Mitt Romney, who was far more hawkish than Obama on Russia, lost.

Yet, in 2016, Trump ran as a different kind of Republican, an opponent of the Iraq War and an anti-interventionist who wanted to get along with Russia’s Vladimir Putin and get out of these Middle East wars.

Looking closely at the front-running candidates for the Democratic nomination of 2020 — Joe Biden, Sanders, Kamala Harris, Beto O’Rourke, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker — not one appears to be as hawkish as Trump has become.

Trump pulled us out of the nuclear deal with Iran negotiated by Secretary of State John Kerry and reimposed severe sanctions.

He declared Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization, to which Iran has responded by declaring U.S. Central Command a terrorist organization. Ominously, the IRGC and its trained Shiite militias in Iraq are in close proximity to U.S. troops.

Trump has recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, moved the U.S. Embassy there, closed the consulate that dealt with Palestinian affairs, cut off aid to the Palestinians, recognized Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights seized from Syria in 1967, and gone silent on Bibi Netanyahu’s threat to annex Jewish settlements on the West Bank.

Sanders, however, though he stands by Israel, is supporting a two-state solution and castigating the “right-wing” Netanyahu regime.

Trump has talked of pulling all U.S. troops out of Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet the troops are still there.

Though Trump came into office promising to get along with the Russians, he sent Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine and announced a pullout from Ronald Reagan’s 1987 INF treaty that outlawed all land-based intermediate-range nuclear missiles.

When Putin provocatively sent 100 Russian troops to Caracas — ostensibly to repair the S-400 anti-aircraft and anti-missile system that was damaged in recent blackouts — Trump, drawing a red line, ordered the Russians to “get out.”

Biden is expected to announce next week. If the stands he takes on Russia, China, Israel and the Middle East are more hawkish than the rest of the field, he will be challenged by the left wing of his party, and by Sanders, who voted “no” on the Iraq War that Biden supported.

The center of gravity of U.S. politics is shifting toward the Trump position of 2016. And the anti-interventionist wing of the GOP is growing.

And when added to the anti-interventionist and anti-war wing of the Democratic Party on the Hill, together, they are able, as on the Yemen War Powers resolution, to produce a new bipartisan majority.

Prediction: By the primaries of 2020, foreign policy will be front and center, and the Democratic Party will have captured the “no-more-wars” political high ground that Candidate Donald Trump occupied in 2016.

Do You Appreciate Reading Our Emails and Website? Let us know how we are doing – Send us a Thank You Via Paypal!

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


Over 200 killed, hundreds injured in series of blasts at Sri Lankan hotels & churches

A series of bombings hit churches and hotels across Sri Lanka on Easter Sunday, killing more than 200 people.





Via RT…

A series of eight explosions rocked Catholic churches and luxury hotels in Sri Lanka as Christians began Easter Sunday celebrations, with over 200 killed and hundreds injured, media reported, citing police.

The blasts started at around 8:45am local time at St. Anthony’s Church in Colombo and St. Sebastian’s Church in Negombo, a Catholic-majority town outside of the capital. The Zion Church in Batticaloa on the eastern coast was also targeted. At around the same time, the Shangri-La, Cinnamon Grand and Kingsbury five-star hotels were also hit, police confirmed.

Two more explosions happened later in the day, targeting two more locations in Colombo. All attacks appear to have been coordinated.

At least 207 people were killed, Reuters reported, citing police. More than 450 were injured in the attacks.

Alleged footage of the aftermath, shared on social media, showed chaos and large-scale destruction inside at least one of the churches.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


Mike Pompeo reveals true motto of CIA: ‘We lied, we cheated, we stole’ (Video)

The Duran Quick Take: Episode 147.

Alex Christoforou



The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris take a look at a Texas A&M University speech, and subsequent interview, with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

The former CIA Director admitted, ‘as an aside’ to the question asked, that the Intelligence agency he headed up before being appointed as the top US Diplomat had a motto “we lied, we cheated, we stole”…which, according to Pompeo, contained entire CIA training courses based on ‘lying, cheating and stealing.’

Pompeo finally speaks some truth.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...


Quick Donate

The Duran
Donate a quick 10 spot!


The Duran Newsletter