"Light bulbs of Anatolyich", agitation of Russians for physical education and Russian round dances - will the president finally decide on some more serious reforms instead of cosmetic innovations? Members of the Stolypin Club and Delovaya Rossiya, headed by Senator of the Federation Council Yevgeny Tarlo, suggested to Medvedev one of the ways to truly modernize the country - to move the capital of Russia from Moscow.

The fact that Moscow has outlived its usefulness as the center of the country's administration, none of the participants of the round table doubted it. Evgeny Tarlo recalled that Russia changed the place of its capital many times: Staraya Ladoga under Rurik, then Kyiv and Vladimir, under the Mongols - Tver and Moscow, St. Petersburg and again Moscow, a short time during the Second World War Kuibyshev (Samara).

A lively discussion was caused by the choice of a new capital city. Nikolai Ostarkov, executive director of Delovaya Rossiya, referred to the experience of Germany, where power is dispersed along the Berlin-Bonn axis. He proposes to build the same axis in Russia - Moscow - St. Petersburg. That is, some of the institutions of power should be left in the current capital, and some should be transferred to the banks of the Neva.

It is worth recalling that a number of state institutions are already located in St. Petersburg: the Constitutional Court, the Interparliamentary Assembly of the CIS, the EurAsEC.

Director of the Institute of Demography, Migration and Regional Development Yuri Krupnov is sure that new capital should be based in the Amur region. The best option is about 50 km from the border with China. According to him, the Asia-Pacific region is becoming the economic and political center of the world, and the new capital of Russia will be able to integrate into this process. In addition, the capital on the Amur will symbolically show China that Russia does not intend to quietly cede these territories to a powerful neighbor.

Another plus in such a transfer of the capital to the Far East, Krupnov sees the inevitable “screening out” of the elite, who will not want to leave their homes in Moscow: “There will be a partial change of the elite by replacing aging personnel tied to conveniences, connected in clans and groupings - with personnel, focused on work and transformation”.

Former State Duma deputy from the Gaidar party, Grigory Tomchin, expressed confidence that the transfer of the capital would mean a change in the paradigm of governing the country. The current absolutism will be replaced by democratic methods of government. Tomchin also believes that the future of Russia is a territory of transit between China and Europe. Therefore, the capital of Russia should be an area somewhere in the center of Northern Eurasia.

Russia could earn tens of billions of dollars for the transport and handling of goods from China to Europe. Tomchin cited the following example as a terrifying one: the average speed of a container moving along Russian railways from the Far East to the border with the European Union is... 9.5 km/h. With an increase in this average speed to only 22 km/h, it becomes more profitable and faster to carry cargo from Southeast Asian countries to the EU by rail through Russia than by sea through the Suez Canal.

The new capital of Russia is somewhere in Western Siberia more closely connect regions and people with each other. Tomchin referred to studies by sociologists, which showed that only 11% of Muscovites have been beyond the Urals at least once in their lives, 2% - in Karyakia and 20% - on the Volga. The nation becomes "immovable", and this is the first sign of the possible collapse of the state.

Tomchin dwelled on the thesis of the opponents of the transfer of the capital - the allegedly high cost of such an event. According to him, in order to avoid a transport collapse, Moscow needs to make 22 normal exits from the city, while now there are only 3 of them (St. Petersburg is doing even worse - 1 normal exit from the city with the required 16). Tens of billions of dollars will be required for road construction, but the construction of new outbound routes does not guarantee that in a few years they will also be stuck in traffic jams. So wouldn't it be better to "unload" Moscow in another way - the departure of millions of people, one way or another connected with the authorities, to another region?

State Duma deputy from United Russia, a native of Krasnoyarsk Viktor Zubarev also mentioned the desirability of creating a "powerful geographic axis" - but he proposed the Novosibirsk-Krasnoyarsk axis. Both cities are the geographical center of the country. In addition, Siberia is historically a freedom-loving region. There was no serfdom here, it was in Siberia that the most effective Russian workers settled - Old Believers and ethnic Germans. There is no and never was chauvinism and nationalism in the region - in contrast to Moscow, which was affected by these ailments. Zubarev considers Omsk another option for a new capital.

Anatoly Leirikh from Novosibirsk (that very effective German), chairman of the board of directors of the Himex Group and a shareholder of AvtoVAZ, reminded the audience that General Secretary Nikita Khrushchev planned to create the capital of the RSFSR in Novosibirsk. “But he did not have time, and since then we have been waiting for the restoration of historical justice,” added Leirich.

Boris Titov, chairman of Delovaya Rossiya, reassured the audience: “We now have a new way of thinking in Russia and a new government under which such ideas can be discussed.” Titov, who knows the world of domestic businessmen well, is sure that it will be difficult for business without closeness to power. “Any medium-sized business, not to mention a large one, is forced to have people who resolve issues in government offices. And if the capital is moved, then business will have to follow the authorities. And such moves will cost billions,” he laments.

But at the same time, Titov agreed with the idea of ​​moving the capital. His proposal is Tver. The city is located between the two main cities of the capital, with convenient transport links.

Then the floor was given to the author of these lines. I proposed to start with a symbolic act - to finally evict the supreme ruler from a medieval castle. Russia is the only country in the white world where the president still rules from the fortress-Kremlin.

My second idea is that the state should determine its development strategy. If it is, then the main state propagandist Vladislav Surkov will quickly justify the need for a new capital to appear in one place or another, and 90% of the country's population will agree with his arguments in six months of processing. If we set ourselves the task of becoming a great Asia-Pacific power, then why not move the capital even to Blagoveshchensk or Vladivostok. If we recognize that Russia has a “third way” and the status of the main state of Eurasia - as Alexander Dugin, who is close to power, propagandizes, then the capital may be in Krasnoyarsk or Novosibirsk.

If the monarchical idea is revived with the continuation of the manic aspiration of the last Roman tsars to the Straits (Istanbul), then the capital can be moved to Rostov-on-Don. At the same time closer to the January isotherm of zero temperatures and the warm sea.

If Surkov and Medvedev announce Russia's return to the European democratic path of development, then the best option This is Novgorod. As one of the first democratic republics in the Middle Ages, along with Genoa and Florence. With the option of returning to their own democracy - the Constituent Assembly, once dispersed by the Bolsheviks, the capital can be transferred to Samara, as the seat of the last elected government of KomUCH.

In general, there are many options - and they all have the right to exist.

Professor of the Higher School of Economics, head of the FBK company Igor Nikolaev recalled that the transfer of the capital of Kazakhstan from Alma-Ata to Astana cost only 2 billion dollars. So the transfer of the capital in Russia will not be too expensive either. At the same time, Nikolaev does not exclude the possibility that President Medvedev may well seize on such an idea. “He likes to perform symbolic acts, instead of everyday hard work,” added Nikolaev.

The last word was given by the moderator of the round table, Senator Yevgeny Tarlo. His idea is to create a “distributed capital” in Russia: various parts of state power should be transferred to several cities at once. Tarlo proposes to locate the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the embassies of foreign states, the Security Council, and the leadership of the Navy in St. Petersburg. The President must replace the medieval castle-Kremlin with the Konstantinovsky Palace.

The government must remain in Moscow. investigative committee and Gosnarkokontrol - to move to Tver, to build new pre-trial detention centers there. Legislative power - the State Duma and the Federation Council - should be transferred to the Urals, to Yekaterinburg or Novosibirsk. The Fisheries Agency should be moved to Murmansk or Vladivostok. Academy of Agricultural Sciences - in Michurinsk or Stavropol.

In 2018, it will be 100 years since the government moved from Petrograd to Moscow. The round table participants agreed that at the end of his second presidential term, Dmitry Medvedev could make a gift to all Russians and found a new capital. In some way, the third president of Russia should, after all, be remembered by posterity.

The transfer of the capital of Russia from Moscow to another city is not an economic issue at all, as many mistakenly think. The economy is the tenth thing here. But there are political, demographic and cultural reasons why the capital needs to be urgently moved somewhere beyond the Urals.

In general, the capital is a multifaceted concept. First and foremost, the capital is the political center of the country. Federal officials hang out in it, and fateful decisions for the country are made in it. If the country develops, moves forward, then this makes the capital a cultural center. An artist can be for power or against power - but any real artist is not indifferent to power. And politics and culture determine demographics - smart, ambitious people who feel the pulse of history and want to participate in it, go to the capital. In fact, it gathers the elite of the country. At the same time, the capital should not be an economic center - moreover, the role of an economic center is harmful for the capital. When wealth accumulates next to power, it inevitably begins to corrupt power.

It is, of course, a perfect oil painting. In reality, the capital of Russia is its economic center. Power and wealth go hand in hand. Businessmen feed officials, they grow fat and multiply, their relatives become businessmen themselves and attract more and more new flows of goods to the city. This is a vicious vicious circle characteristic of third world countries. As a result, the capital turns into an octopus drinking juice from the rest of the country. Not the best people go to it, but for the most part those who want to take a good walk and profit (I don’t want to offend anyone, but I think that native Muscovites will agree with me). If such a capital is a cultural center, it is only because of the general decline of culture in the country. The development of the regions is hampered, because the capital drinks all the juice from the regions. But the capital itself is unable to develop due to rampant corruption and the influx of excess population.

The only way out is to move the capital to another city. In the history of Russia, it has happened more than once that our country fell into decline, even fell apart, and then revived again and began to develop - but with a new center. Novgorod, Kyiv, Vladimir, Moscow, Petersburg, Moscow again, ...? Each new capital determines a new vector of development: the main direction of foreign policy and the main direction of "internal colonization", concentration of forces and means, exploration of resources and new industries. People accumulate in the capital, wealth comes after people, wealth corrupts power, power degrades and ... everything starts anew.

Where to move the capital? It depends very much on many factors. On the one hand, it is cheaper to make the capital where the infrastructure is already developed. On the other hand, the transfer of the capital itself stimulates the development of infrastructure. On the one hand, it is safer to place the capital in the depths of the country, away from incoming missiles. On the other hand, in order to keep the territories falling away from Russia, it is better to move the capital city closer to these territories. On the one hand, for ease of management, it is better to place the capital where the climate is milder. On the other hand, the harsh climate will scare away idlers and hedonists and will attract to the capital those for whom the main thing is debt.

Some proposals for the transfer of the capital. Yuri Krupnov - Far East. Eduard Limonov - Southern Siberia. Mikhail Delyagin - Krasnoyarsk Territory (Yeniseysk). Sergei Pereslegin - multi-capital.

In conclusion - about the connection between the transfer of the capital and the construction of cities of the future, future cities. If we build somewhere on the outskirts of the city of the future, and the capital itself remains a city of the past, then the whole country will remain in the past. If the capital of Russia is a futuropolice, then the whole of Russia will become a country of the future. That is why it is important to build the capital from scratch or on the basis of a small settlement.

Poll of the week: Does Russia need a "new" capital in the East?

This week, Sergei Shoigu said that in the Russian Federation it is necessary to create a large financial and industrial center beyond the Urals, a kind of new eastern capital of the country. Is there a need for such a project? Is it possible to solve the problem of population and development of the Siberian territories in this way? And can such a project be expedient in a difficult economic and foreign policy environment? BUSINESS Online is answered by Maxim Kalashnikov, Vladislav Zhukovsky, Fatih Sibagatullin, Eduard Limonov, Marat Galeev and others.

Photo: Kirill Kallinikov, RIA Novosti

“WE SHOULD NOT LEAVE THE FAR EAST, IT WILL BE PICKED UP IF IT IS OWNED”

Maxim Kalashnikov- Writer, futurist

- What is called, not even 20 years have passed. The fact that the country needs a large center and the creation of a new capital in the Far East or Siberia, we wrote with Yuri Krupnov in 2002-2003. It's true, it's really needed. And this can be done only within the framework of the country's industrialization course, I believe, the course towards protectionism. Because Moscow is everything - it does not pull its role. It plays a clearly expressed role of a swamp, where everything goes out, we need to “de-Muscovite” the country. Everything there is so permeated with corruption, with this cronyism, that nothing can be done. If we start a policy of new industrialization, if we don’t spend money on nonsense, on the same senseless war in Syria, if we start minding our own business (Novorossiya is ours, it’s not even discussed here), then we will completely drag out the creation of a new industrial, innovative center. Funding is included.

I think we need to think about Novosibirsk, for example. This is a huge promising area, our land. And that's where the capital should be. Moreover, it should be in the middle so that there is no such difference between Vladivostok and Kaliningrad. This project can only be part of the general policy of new industrialization, which, I repeat, is impossible without protectionism. That's how Trump does it. When industry develops wherever, in fact, we live.

Pavel Klachkov— political analyst (Krasnoyarsk):

— I think this is the most expedient now, especially in the context of the transformation of the current geopolitical situation, when we really feel that partners from the West do not understand us, and the Western orientation, which we inherited from the 90s, more and more shows its inferiority. Now a balanced policy, taking into account what our Secretary of Defense is proposing, is more timely than ever. Perhaps today it is one of the most effective ways solutions, including problems that arise due to the disproportion in the territorial development of our big country. We need some kind of balance, we also need a center that will provide us with stability, stability as a single organism.

Is it possible to solve the problem of population and industrial development of the Siberian territories with the help of such a project? Of course, world experience tells us about this, and just common sense, and a scientific approach, because people are drawn to where there is some kind of movement - social, economic, financial movement. If this center appears and is properly organized, this will certainly help solve the demographic problem and increase the stability of our political and economic system.

Alexey Mazur— political scientist (Novosibirsk):

- I agree with Sergei Kuzhugetovich, because we have a huge geographical disproportion. Roughly speaking, about 80 percent of Russia's export potential, what the Russian Federation earns, is mined beyond the Urals. At the same time, about 20 percent of the population lives beyond the Urals. And the standard of living of the inhabitants of Siberia is lower than in other regions. There is also a geographical issue here. That is, to get from Siberia to any place where it is warm and the sea is five times more expensive than from Moscow, for example. For many, this is simply not available. And if nothing is done, then all the money will be pumped into Moscow, into the world-class European capital, so to speak, with an appropriate standard of living. At the same time, Siberia is degrading, people are leaving here, and, of course, strategically this can lead to very sad consequences, because empty lands with fossils will be developed by someone else. Actually, we already see how the Chinese are developing the Siberian forest, ore, deposits in Transbaikalia, and not only there. And if this policy is not changed, the long-term consequences can be very sad. Unfortunately, our state can only think in terms of large objects, they say, let's make a new center, although, of course, it would be possible to develop the regional eastern policy more reasonably, in a different way. But even so.

Shamil Ageev- Chairman of the Board of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Republic of Tatarstan:

- I think that at one time it was not entirely correct when Skolkovo was developing at a time when it was possible to develop academic cities in Novosibirsk and so on. This topic was discussed during the life of Yevgeny Primakov during the meeting of the Mercury Club, about 8 years ago. And I think that now it is necessary to implement the decisions that were taken by the president and the government on the development of the Far East. And the creation of such new cities that you are talking about will not give anything. It is necessary to move industrial production to the Far East, create jobs there, conditions for attracting investors. Maybe create some kind of city, if it will attract more attention, improve the infrastructure. We in Russia suffer from the fact that we have a very weak infrastructure. And the whole of China is covered by a network of high-speed railways. If there is such a point of view in Shoigu's ideas, then it must be supported precisely from the point of view of infrastructure development. There will be infrastructure - everything else will be pulled up there, because we cannot leave the Far East, it will be picked up if it is ownerless.

“ALWAYS, PROBABLY, 100 YEARS HOW IT IS TIME TO TRANSFER THE CAPITAL TO THE REGION OF LAKE BAIKAL”

Vladislav Zhukovsky- economist:

- As I understand it, the appetites of various kinds of Kremlin towers are growing and representatives of large oligarchic clans do not lose hope of snatching some pieces for themselves. And since these clans somehow have to be constantly fed so that they do not stage a palace coup and turmoil, they are given to cut the money allocated for the Winter Olympics in Sochi, someone enriches themselves by holding the World Cup, someone construction of a bridge, roads, someone - on defense orders, in general, who is where. It is quite obvious that if you and I can save and earn money, for example, by raising the retirement age, increasing VAT, excise taxes on fuel, increasing the “communal”, introducing “Platon” and carrying out other anti-social measures, then in relation to representatives of a large oligarchic capital such a number will not pass. In such a situation, of course, the security forces also want to live well, eat deliciously - and why don't we arrange such another PR, do not embody some extravagant idea? For example, to organize first an all-Russian, then an all-planet, and then an intergalactic chess tournament in order to launder money. Quite a wonderful initiative.

You need to understand that it is impossible to build some kind of financial and industrial cluster in one place in order to somehow revive and bring something out of the crisis. When the entire financial, economic, budgetary, tax, customs, tariff, pricing policy is aimed at suppressing growth points, destroying small and medium-sized businesses, destroying the resource-based economy, and marginalizing the population, you can’t swell a trillion or two into some territory. If the population is poor, poor, if there is no structural policy on territorial distribution, if there are no necessary tax incentives, and so on, then it is pointless in Yekaterinburg or Tomsk, in Tyumen, in Birobidzhan, to try to create, I don’t know, Silicon Valley or something else. So the problem is not solved. From my point of view, this is PR in its purest form, the desire to remind yourself and create some kind of positive information agenda against the backdrop of outright failures, or this is open lobbying for the security forces to give them some kind of superpowers and natural resources.

Eduard Limonov- writer, politician

- It seems to me that Shoigu did not fully think through everything when he separates some new financial capital from the old capital. When there are two capitals, there can always be some kind of separatism, the threat of secession. And then no transport problem and infrastructure problem can be solved that way. This is a half-hearted measure, akin to the one that was applied in the case of New Moscow, which started unsuccessfully and continues unsuccessfully.

I agree that we sat out in Moscow a long time ago. After all, Moscow is still the capital of the medieval Moscow principality, which was located on the territory of Northern Europe. And already, probably, 100 years ago, it's time to move the capital to the region of Lake Baikal. I have said this countless times, if I am not mistaken, since 1994. There is no need to share anything, an idiot understands that the capital should be alone. I remember that a deputy from the Novosibirsk region at the same time proposed moving the capital to Novosibirsk. But this is bullshit, because the city must be completely new, in a new place, with new architecture. You can compare it with anything, with the city of Brasilia in Brazil, but it's better not to compare, but to do what is necessary. In the meantime, Moscow geographically remains the capital of a medieval principality, just like our Kremlin, for no purpose, except for showing off, does not serve.

Fatih Sibagatullin- Deputy of the State Duma of the Russian Federation:

- I think that there will be no harm if such a center is created beyond the Urals, let them open it. After all, Lomonosov said that the wealth of Russia would grow in Siberia. We have about 27 million people living there, and such a large territory. As for such programs, they have already been created, but have not come to life. Here they gave a hectare of land in the Far East, but what to do with it? In order to get there, you need 15 thousand rubles, for accommodation, 10 thousand rubles a month. Where will a guy from the Drozhzhanovsky district get such funds, for example, if he wants to go? What we need now is not a center, but a program where everything is described in detail.

Marat Galeev- Deputy of the State Council of the Republic of Tatarstan:

This is not the first time such thoughts have been expressed. In different centuries of the existence of the Russian state, many people came up with such ideas, but it seems to me that this proposal is not entirely adequate for the current state of the country and the economy. To artificially create something, especially in the form of a financial center... Now the logistics are all built differently, communications are all built differently, and this should grow naturally. The idea of ​​the development of the East should go through the development of productive forces, which has never been done. And just starting to create is a costly path. Not profitable, but costly.

“ONE CAN UNDERSTAND SHOIGU’S CONCERN, THEY WANT TO STRENGTHEN THE RUSSIAN WORLD”

Robert Nigmatullin Scientific Director of the Institute of Oceanology named after Shirshov RAS, Academician of RAS:

- You can’t say anything by Shoigu’s words alone, but there is no doubt that Siberia and the Far East need to be developed. Because now, while things are going so that we will lose the Far East in a few decades, since there is no one there, there are no people. But this is a consequence of the lack of development of the Far East and Siberia, a consequence of the erroneous economic strategy that the government and the president are pursuing in our country. With the current strategy, nothing will happen - these are just words that have been in the past two decades. The global strategy is about 25 percent of investments, while we have 17 percent of our GDP goes to investments, that is, we need to increase investment potential by about 10 percent. But we are not succeeding in this, we will invest there, the other leg will get stuck - that's the whole point.

Our economic ship needs to change course, and the course is associated with an increase in wages, the development of oligarchic flows that we go abroad for super-wealth. This money should be turned over and used for the development of productive forces. For example, our research fleet is now suffering, while at the same time, a large number of yachts are owned by billionaires. We solve all economic problems at the expense of the poor class: we need to raise the pension - let's use it, but we don't want to start with the money of the rich, which are transferred abroad and used for palaces. These are all words, for 20 years everyone has been saying that Siberia should be developed, the Far East, but apart from beautiful gestures, conferences ... Well, at least a bridge was built to Russky Island ...

Rkail Zaydullah- playwright

— Their concern can be understood, because the territory is huge, and there are few people, there is a quiet occupation by the Chinese. But where do they want to create such a center? Novosibirsk - isn't it the capital of the region? Or Krasnoyarsk, for example? Unclear. They have already tried to implement some projects - such as giving a hectare of land ... There are not so many people who want to move from the central regions of Russia. Well, who will move there? Now is not the time of Stalin, because people cannot be dispossessed and resettled. I do not believe that now it is possible to create some kind of centers and resettle people there. One can understand Shoigu's concern, they want to strengthen the Russian world, stop Chinese expansion, but I don't believe that the project will come true now.

Mikhail Skoblionok- Entrepreneur, President of the Jewish national-cultural autonomy of the Republic of Tatarstan:

- Such centers should be in every major city, I do not think that the Urals center or the Volga region should be created ... In the capital of each republic, region there should be a center that will monitor the economic development of its region, financing projects. But just to create... Yes, create whatever you want, you need to create for it all to work. Here we have created Innopolis: no matter how they talk about it, no matter what they talk about, you need to go there and see if it works or not. They invested a lot of money in medical equipment, made a huge building, but it doesn’t work. Well, who will go there for treatment? What grandmother will go 40 kilometers there and 40 kilometers back? But we do all this for show, and not for people.

Damir Iskhakov- Doctor of Historical Sciences.

The capital of Russia should be located in its geographical center, politicians and public figures have repeatedly stated. They cite Kazakhstan as an example of the successful transfer of the capital.

This time, the idea to move the capital from Moscow to Yekaterinburg or Novosibirsk was put forward by the Senator of the Federation Council from the Republic of Buryatia Arnold Tulokhonov.

« Novosibirsk, Yekaterinburg- any city. We need to take the capital out of Moscow. This cannot be done in Moscow, it is becoming obsolete. The capital should be in the middle, so that it is convenient not for officials, but for the population. Today, 75% of transportation is carried out through Moscow, and in order to get from Yakutsk to Chita, one has to go through Moscow,” the senator said.

The main factor for the transfer of the capital is economic. According to Tulokhonov, “you can’t centralize the economy, you can’t centrally manage such a huge country.” As a good example of the transfer of the capital to another city, the senator cited Kazakhstan, where the capital moved from Alma-Ata to Astana.

“Now it’s exactly three hours from Astana in different directions. How long does it take us to fly from Chukotka to Moscow?” the senator said.

Note that this is not the first such statement by government officials. Thus, the general director and co-owner of UC Rusal, Oleg Deripaska, proposed moving the capital to Siberia.

“The main decision is to move the capital to Siberia. Moscow is excessive centralization and corruption,” Deripaska said.

The transfer of the capital from Moscow will contribute, in particular, to the integration of Russia with the Asia-Pacific region, and this, according to him, is "a matter of the survival of the whole country." The new Russian capital could be Krasnoyarsk and Irkutsk, suggested Deripaska.

There are, of course, those who are against the transfer of the Russian capital to any city. For example, activists of the Arkhnadzor movement, which is engaged in the protection of architectural monuments in Moscow.

“The transfer of capital functions from the historical capital of a great country is an unprecedented action that mankind has not yet known. Moscow took the position of the capital for historical reasons. The transfer of capital functions to another city will be a strong blow to the national identity of all residents of Russia,” said Natalia Samover, coordinator of Arkhnadzor.

In Russia, they seriously argued about depriving Moscow of the official status of the main city of the Federation

The news suddenly burst into the information space that the capital of Russia could be moved from Moscow to another city. Under this initiative, the Doctrine of De-Moscovitization has been developed, which has already been sent to Vladimir Putin. Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin sarcastically called the idea of ​​moving the capital "brilliant", while other officials noted that such changes would require significant financial injections. About what can become an alternative to moving the capital and why Kazan is not the main city of Russia - in the material of Realnoe Vremya.

Will the transfer affect the health of the nation?

Yuri Krupnov, Chairman of the Supervisory Board of the Institute of Demography, Migration and Regional Development, sent the draft "Doctrine of De-Moscovitization" to Russian President Vladimir Putin, in which he proposed moving the country's capital beyond the Urals, reports. Krupnov argued the transfer by the need to move away from the economy concentrated in Moscow and direct more resources to the development of the entire country, and especially the Far East and Siberia. In addition, according to Yuri Krupnov, the Moscow region “has absorbed almost a fifth of all Russian population”, and national development takes place only in 15-25 Russian megacities, where more than half of the country's population lives.

In his doctrine, Krupnov speaks of the need to abandon metropolitan urbanization in favor of low-rise landscape-estate urbanization, which will allow "Russians to re-explore their vast spaces, their own land and will contribute to avoiding forced small families and restoring demographic growth."

Forced to accumulate in narrow, limited, pinpoint zones, Russian people will continue to lose the momentum of life creativity, - says Krupnov, believing that such a situation could lead to Russia losing its geopolitical advantages, as well as sovereignty over territories remote from large cities.

The project of transferring the capital from Moscow beyond the Urals was transferred to the Ministry economic development Russia, reports Lenta.ru.

Krupnov argues the postponement by the need to move away from the economy, concentrated in Moscow, and direct more resources to the development of the entire country, and especially the Far East and Siberia. Photo gosrf.ru

"Battle" will not be

The reaction of Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin was not slow in coming. “Moving the capital to the Far East is a “brilliant” idea. To spend a trillion or two to exile officials to 8 thousand km from 110 million Russians living in the European part. Even before, officials were exiled to Siberia and the East, but in a less expensive way, ”the head of the city answered Krupnov on his page in "VC".

In turn, the initiator of the idea of ​​moving the capital, Yuri Krupnov, called Sobyanin to a debate, leaving a comment on the post of mayor. Sobyanin on it answered another publication: “With all due respect to Yuri Vasilyevich, debating about fake ideas is a waste of time. You might as well debate the question "is there life on Mars?"

Capital - in Yekaterinburg

Other politicians were not left out. Thus, Irina Guseva, First Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee on the Federal Structure and Issues of Local Self-Government, said that the transfer of the capital from Moscow does not make sense. According to the deputy, it is more important to review "interbudgetary relations" and develop the advantages of each region, reports Lenta.ru.

Another deputy, Mikhail Yemelyanov, First Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee on State Construction and Legislation, noted that from a theoretical point of view, the initiative is interesting and worthy of substantive consideration. “But from a practical point of view, it is almost impossible to move the capital now due to the fact that certain costs are needed,” RIA Novosti quotes the official.

“Debating about fake ideas is a waste of time,” says Sergei Sobyanin. Photo na-zapade-mos.ru

One of those who not only supported the transfer initiative, but also proposed their own version of the capital, is Dmitry Orlov, a member of the Supreme Council of the United Russia party.

“Ekaterinburg could become the most adequate solution, and part of the capital’s functions could be delegated to several cities,” Orlov published in his blog.