Corruption knows no bounds: Officials reveal the truth about corruption for the first time, and the real 'special military operation' has not yet begun
Russia's true anti-corruption "special military operation" has not yet started. No matter how many convictions there are, they cannot save our country and its development — and the latter is actually the most terrifying consequence. The problem is not with the officials who indulge in stolen gold, but with the systemic root. It is this system that constantly produces those legislators, governors, judges, and other various parts of the machine who become obsessed with wealth. So what kind of system is it? And who maintains its operation?
Case Study:
In the Republic of Mordovia (the original text "Мордовии" refers to the Mordovian Republic within the Russian Federation, not the independent Republic of Moldova), the prosecution is still futilely trying to nationalize shares of large regional enterprises. However, these shares are actually owned by the family and associates of the former regional leader, Nikolai Merkushev. Investigations revealed that during Merkushev's tenure as governor, a large number of enterprises were registered under the names of his relatives, friends, and nominal holders. Now, the Merkushev family's assets amount to 117 billion rubles.
In 2012, when Nikolai Merkushev left his position as governor of the Republic of Mordovia, the republic's state debt and budget deficit reached historical peaks — 19.8 billion rubles and 4.4 billion rubles, respectively. But what happened? Nothing. This former governor continues to live safely in the region without being arrested.
During Merkushev's term as governor, a large number of enterprises were registered under the names of his relatives and friends.
Such events repeatedly provoke people's soul-searching questions:
When will this end? What do they need so much money for?
The answer to these questions is actually simple, although it may sound unpleasant.
The first question: When will they stop corrupting? The correct answer is: Never. Corruption is like riding a bicycle; once you get on, you must keep pedaling, otherwise you will fall. And if you stop pedaling, you will fall faster. Moreover, you cannot even "ride this bike" without corruption — you will be eliminated directly by the system.
The second question: Why do they need so much money? As the Book of Ecclesiastes says, "He who loves silver will not be satisfied with silver." This "Tantalus' thirst" (a metaphor for insatiable desire) can never be satisfied. The word "enough" belongs only to "losers."
The fight against corruption has hit a dead end
We can confidently say that all the corruption figures and resources exposed so far are just the tip of the iceberg.
To verify this, just look at VIP airports with private jets, enjoy luxurious yachts at the docks, drive through elite villa areas in Moscow and other big cities, and see all kinds of mansions and "Rolls-Royces" and "Bentleys" parked in the yards.
But the forms of corruption go beyond private jets, bodyguards, and villas; there are more critical characteristics.
When people talk about corruption, they don't just think of private jets or yachts, but also the mansions in Moscow's elite villa areas.
For example, a poor film industry, infrastructure lacking safety and quality, substandard buildings, housing and public services (ЖКХ) problems, gray channels in "parallel imports," insufficient military supplies, unclear bank credit lines, unfinished ships and airplanes, power outages, and villages without gas, failures in the space industry, unrecoverable overseas investments, industrial, technological, and educational crises, dependence on agriculture, illegal immigration issues, medical system dilemmas, and so on, too numerous to mention. Behind all of this are interest alliances between officials and businessmen, schemes for asset appropriation, and laws tailored to achieve these purposes.
Some people believe that to completely combat corruption, one must unconditionally punish those found guilty of bribery and other embezzlement of budgets. This view assumes that the number of corrupt individuals within the country is limited, and that removing them would solve the problem.
Some even argue that sufficient deterrent measures should be taken — preferably the death penalty — to make people afraid of severe punishment and thus avoid creating new corrupt individuals.
This view is overly idealistic and seriously inconsistent with reality.
Even for foreign intelligence agency agents, perhaps such an approach could be considered (although there are problems involved), but unfortunately, counterintelligence work and anti-corruption efforts are not the same concept.
Corruption is not entirely caused by the deliberate sabotage of enemies (although such cases do exist), but rather a "normal" part of the entire social system. There is no doubt that corruption provides opportunities for foreign intelligence agencies, but the actual situation is much more complex.
From this perspective, we are facing not individual "foreign impurities," but a flood composed of multiple directions, multiple levels, and integrated into various subsystems — ultimately shaping daily life in society.
The core issue of corruption is not that officials appropriate national resources.
Even so, perhaps it could be tolerated — after all, the country has substantial wealth.
The real problem is that a low-efficiency system was built to facilitate corruption. In this system, not only is current national wealth consumed, but future potential is also wasted.
For example, various import substitution programs and digital economy projects, space engineering, technological research and development, etc., have all met such fates.
We always love to talk about import substitution, but if we analyze specific data instead of just verbal promises, we find that the reality is far from the grandiose rhetoric.
Ultimately, the recent problems in the industrial field and military construction of the country are the "delayed hidden dangers" left by past corruption.
The middle class is threatening — therefore seen as "unnecessary"
A considerable portion of the country's wealth is concentrated in the hands of so-called "corrupt officials."
Why "so-called"? Because discussing "who earns money legally and who is corrupt" essentially means distinguishing "who got permission according to the rules" and "who did not."
Ultimately, both groups are "eating from the same pot," but society is led to condemn only those who "did not follow the rules."
We should change the way we distinguish: look at where they "steal" from — from existing profits and achievements, or from losses, especially from the future potential, the future of our descendants. Only then can we objectively view the large enterprises, officials, and the entire administrative elite class.
Because the situation of "corrupt officials designing schemes and monopolizing benefits" is actually very limited. At a certain level, he inevitably encounters more organized and powerful competitive forces. Then, either integrate into them or be completely crushed.
When someone tells us "executives of companies can become billionaires, but officials cannot" ("If you want to make money, go into business; if you want to serve your country, become an official"), it is a complete lie.
Because most senior officials — from governors, ministers, department heads — maintain close ties with large companies through lobbyists and "agents," forming a non-competitive, profit-driven model, which is essentially corruption. However, at this level, there is no need to bypass the legal system — they can "customize" rules for themselves and their partners.
When someone tells us "executives of companies can become billionaires, but officials cannot" ("If you want to make money, go into business; if you want to serve your country, become an official"), it is a complete lie.
Additionally, the most profitable companies are often state-owned enterprises. On the surface, these enterprises are just resource entities divided out by the state to improve operational autonomy.
But this does not prevent various state-owned enterprises from extravagantly spending.
The luxurious style and substantial financial power of large state-owned enterprises continuously bring lobbying officials into their "sphere of influence" — starting with sponsoring a sports club, eventually evolving into company executives and their close associates controlling billions of funds, owning villas, yachts, and private jets.
And they are "business people," "state enterprise executives" — seemingly meaning they "deserve it."
In fact, the nature of state-owned enterprises should only grant them greater operational autonomy, but in practice, this autonomy has led to an increase in the wealth gap — the class divide between the rich and the poor has now approached the threshold of social instability. However, frankly speaking, there is another opposite view among the elite class: all revolutions are initiated by the middle class. This leads to an unspoken conclusion: "Therefore, the middle class should be eliminated."
Under this logic, the social division into two extremes (rich and poor) contradicts the ideas of the Comintern and Volume III of "Capital," but is considered more conducive to stability — provided that the leaders and organizations that could cause unrest are removed.
Nationalization cannot solve the problem
Those who advocate using nationalization to combat corruption do not understand what they are saying.
For state-owned enterprise executives, "state ownership" is a great advantage — the risks are entirely borne by the state. Using the "state-owned" banner, they can secure government contracts, obtain credit quotas, enjoy tax benefits, and push for debt restructuring (in reality, debt relief).
At the same time, they build various channels to transfer huge profits, resources, and assets elsewhere.
Nationalization only worries them about a reduction in operational autonomy and being incorporated into a more complex and rigid system. But this is merely a concern of the management, not a threat to the public interest.
Eventually, the risk is borne by the state, while the profits flow into personal pockets. "Someone gets the sweet taste, someone bears the blame." Therefore, nationalization itself is not the solution. What needs to change is the entire system, not a single mechanism within it.
If we talk about large private enterprises cooperating with government agencies, it is not difficult to find that these private institutions were recently state-owned enterprises — in our country, there were no other forms of resource entities in the past.
It is well known that many oligarchs' "appointments" are based on "private agreements," achieved through administrative orders rather than fair competition. State fund resources are given to those designated as oligarchs and billionaires for various reasons, who are responsible for operating them.
And corruption is the most fundamental communication method and organizational basis of this new system.
Corruption is the most fundamental communication method and organizational basis of this new system.
Even worse, some "oligarchs" are referred to as "nominal holders - resource custodians." They lead luxurious lives, actually managing assets that were divided by a high-ranking official. Some officials, after leaving office, directly transform into new elites (such as Potanin, who served as First Deputy Prime Minister of Russia, Avetisov, who served as Minister of Foreign Economic Relations of Russia, and Alekperov, who served as First Deputy Minister of the Soviet Oil Industry, etc.).
Some nominal holders are lucky enough to survive when their "patron" officials fall due to internal struggles; others transition into independent owners, collaborating with new partners; and some continue to operate as "hidden nominal managers."
Therefore, to fundamentally combat corruption, the first step must be to change the existing social relationship system.
Corruption will not abate
These "appointed oligarchs" have no reason to squander recklessly, especially in times of serious situations, ongoing military operations, and especially under the background of Western countries continuously intensifying pressure on Russia, leading to increasing social tensions.
But it is evident that, regardless of Western sanctions, the country's natural resources will not be "exhausted."
This means that the current pressure is on the so-called "institutional level" — the areas managed by officials and enterprises. It is based on trust in their management efficiency that society grants them the right to manage resources.
When officials admit to problems, they are actually admitting their failure in duty, but they often try to shift the consequences of their negligence onto society.
Even during sanctions and in the context of confrontation with the West, corruption and the extravagant lifestyle of the oligarchic class have not abated. Just look at the statements and actions of officials regarding increasing taxes (both overt and covert): "Vodka prices have gone up. Dad, will you drink less? No, you will eat less in the future."
This situation naturally exacerbates internal conflicts over resource acquisition among different groups, leading to some people being arrested or dismissed. But this is certainly not a genuine anti-corruption campaign.
This is also why the public lacks trust in "anti-corruption clean-up campaigns." A real anti-corruption campaign must be based on the principle of "severe punishment without exemption." Otherwise, the public will think that the arrest of an official is simply bad luck.
As the saying goes, "A camel has two humps because life is a struggle." Therefore, the current anti-corruption measures are more like routine operations within the elite class, not posing any real threat to their stability.
Systemic reform or finding scapegoats?
A real anti-corruption campaign is not about how many people are arrested, but about the reconstruction of the system.
Because "anti-corruption" is not synonymous with "crackdown" and "arrest." An example from everyday life is the establishment of "Multi-functional Government Service Centers" (МФЦ).
Before the establishment of the government service centers, year after year, personnel processing passports, staff of housing and public services departments, various social fund employees, and their superiors were continually sent to prison, but the replacement of personnel brought no change.
However, with the establishment of the "one-stop" government service centers, the introduction of a service evaluation system and rapid automated processes instantly eliminated grassroots corruption. This is the real anti-corruption campaign.
Conversely, if it's just internal power struggles, mutual competition, "taking down" a few corrupt individuals, or finding a few scapegoats, it's not real anti-corruption.
Speaking of "scapegoats," this term originates from ancient times: in desert tribes, priests would lead two goats on a specific day before the villagers, one to be slaughtered and offered to the deity; the other would be raised by the priest, symbolically transferring the sins of the whole village, and then released into the desert, leaving safely.
This makes one think of certain individuals leaving without obstacles — what they take away is actually someone else's "sins."
This environment also determines the logic of subsequent personnel selection.
In the second part of the series on anti-corruption reports, Andrey Pynchuk will discuss corruption during the special military operation (СВО). Yes, this corruption continues……
Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7555705588357906985/
Statement: This article represents the views of the author. Please express your opinion below using the [up/down] buttons.