What city do they want to make the capital. The new capital of Russia is proposed to be built in an open field. Novosibirsk has already tried on the capital's gloss

Head of the Supervisory Board of the Institute of Demography, Migration and Regional Development Yuri Krupnov proposed to the President of Russia to move the capital beyond the Urals. This is not the first such proposal to "de-Moscow" the capital of the country for last years. According to the expert, the metropolitan region "has absorbed almost a fifth of the entire Russian population." National development is also focused on 15-25 metropolitan areas in which "already more than half" of all citizens live. On the occasion of once again considering the issue of transferring the capital of Russia, we recall how this issue was approached in different years.

Saint Petersburg

The most frequent candidate for regaining the title of the capital of the country. The city on the Neva was originally built as the capital of the Russian Empire and everything in it is majestic: from buildings to fountains and squares. There was no formal decree according to which St. Petersburg became the capital. The transfer of the capital began in 1710, when high officials began to move to St. Petersburg, followed by senators. In 1712, the royal court settled in St. Petersburg. Despite the reverse transfer of the capital in 1728, after its transfer to St. Petersburg in 1730, it remained the capital until 1918. It should be noted that talks about St. Petersburg becoming the official capital again began to rise after being elected president Vladimir Putin.

The first to start talking about the transfer of part of the capital's functions to St. Petersburg was the speaker of the State Duma Gennady Seleznev. In his opinion, there are not enough premises in Moscow for the fruitful activity of people's deputies, and Mayor Yuri Luzhkov does not want to allocate land for the construction of a modern parliamentary complex. In St. Petersburg, the legislators could easily accommodate themselves in their "native land" - the Tauride Palace, where the first Russian Dumas met. In 2000, the then Ambassador to Belarus also addressed this issue. Pavel Borodin.

In January 2002, another attempt was made to raise the topic - Federation Council Chairman Sergei Mironov announced that he would soon submit to the State Duma a bill on transferring part of the capital's functions to the city. The project was prepared by Mironov himself and St. Petersburg Governor Vladimir Yakovlev. In February 2003 - the third call. Valentina Matvienko, then Deputy Prime Minister, announced that she was in favor of transferring part of the capital's functions to St. Petersburg. However, the matter did not come to concrete proposals.

Novosibirsk

The capital of Siberia is another discussed version of the country's capital. For its transfer to Siberia were Sergei Shoigu when he was the governor of the Moscow region and businessman Oleg Deripaska, whose main production assets are located beyond the Urals.

“In general, in a good way, many people talk about it. I’m probably one of them. I think that the capital should be moved further away, to Siberia. I think so,” Sergei Shoigu said then.

In addition, in different years, Vladimir Zhirinovsky proposed to make Novosibirsk the capital of the country, Eduard Limonov and other public figures.

The experts then agreed that strengths This idea is that neighboring regions will receive an impetus for development, there will be some renewal of power structures in the process of moving. There were also many potential downsides. First of all, these are the costs of moving, which will cost hundreds of billions of rubles. In addition, in the process of moving, it will be difficult for the authorities to work. Muscovites are also worried about the prospects of their city, which is now imprisoned for metropolitan functions and will not be able to exist without them.

By the way, Novosibirsk is the third largest city in the country. It is curious that at the peak of conversations and rumors on this topic Vasily Yurchenko, the then governor of the Novosibirsk region, called it inexpedient to move the capital of Russia beyond the Urals and, in particular, to Novosibirsk - in his opinion, this idea is an unrealizable project.

Magadan

Magadan could be Russia's ideal "first city", says LDPR leader Vladimir Zhirinovsky. A few years ago, he said that the transfer of the capital from Moscow to the Far East would increase Russia's influence in Japan, China, Korea, Indonesia and Australia. At the same time, Zhirinovsky admitted that he was not at all afraid of the potential estrangement of the new capital from Europe. According to him, Europe is aging and by the middle of the 21st century it will become a "museum", so there is no need to worry about this. At the same time, most of those who advocate the transfer of the capital doubt that the idea will be supported by Moscow officials. In addition, such a large-scale project will require enormous costs.

Krasnoyarsk

After the speech Vladimir Putin At the tenth forum "Seliger" in 2014, a topic appeared about the possible relocation of the entire political elite of the country to Krasnoyarsk. The President's statement caused a heated discussion among the deputies. Later, this issue was approached several more times, but in this case everything remained at the level of proposals, even if they were said by the president of the country. However, Krasnoyarsk has everything to become one of the centers of the country in the coming years. In terms of economy, this city is one of the leaders in Siberia, and in 2019 the Winter Universiade will be held there, which will help attract additional investment to the city.

Sevastopol

Last year, on the anniversary of the referendum on the reunification of Crimea with Russia, Yevgeny Tunik, chairman of the board of directors of the Institute for Political Infrastructure Analysis, proposed moving the capital to Sevastopol. He sent a corresponding appeal to Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. However, such a decision is hardly reasonable, given the attitude to the status of the peninsula in the West.

Ekaterinburg

Another option that appears as possible candidates. So the other day, a member of the supreme council of "United Russia" Dmitry Orlov named Yekaterinburg the best option transfer of the capital from Moscow. According to Orlov, Moscow is far from the geographical center of Russia, and its development leads to hypertrophy of the Moscow agglomeration. By the way, the capital of the Urals is the fourth largest city in the country and one of the fastest growing and modern.

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 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.

Yuri Krupnov, Chairman of the Supervisory Board of the Institute of Demography, Migration and Regional Development, proposed to Russian President Vladimir Putin that the Russian capital be moved from Moscow beyond the Ural Range. This initiative is included in the project "Doctrine of de-Moscowing", which the publicist recently sent to the head of state.

The public figure pointed out that modern Russia"hypercentralized" - the Moscow region alone absorbed almost a fifth of the entire population of Russia. At the same time, national development is focused on 15-25 megacities, in which more than half of all citizens of the country live.

According to the expert, as a result of ongoing internal migration, Russia may not only lose its geopolitical advantages, but also lose sovereignty over territories remote from large cities.

“Forcedly accumulating in narrow limited point zones, Russian people<...>they will not want to increase the number of their families, to move away from the global plague of small children and extinction.<...>Today, on 1/7 of the world's land, we live 7-10 times more crowded, crowded and taller than the same British and Germans, ”the draft doctrine says.

Yuri Krupnov
globallookpress.com
Alexander Legky/Russian Look

A demographic specialist sees a possible solution to the problem in the transfer of the capital of Russia beyond the Urals. At the same time, Krupnov is convinced that priority in development should be given to Siberia and Far East, and from the economy concentrated in Moscow, it is necessary to move on to the development of the country's territories.

The expert also suggests abandoning 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."

The public figure proposes that the state allocate to each large family own "family estate" with an area of at least 30 acres, with all the necessary infrastructure.

According to Krupnov, in addition to the proposed measures, Russia should be “razmoskvich” by a project to build thousands of new cities and the accompanying new infrastructure. The expert proposes to provide transport communications for all small towns in the country with complete aviation and full restoration of navigability of rivers.

The head of the LDPR faction, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, in an interview with RT, expressed the opinion that there was no reason to transfer the capital of Russia beyond the Urals.

“No need to touch (to the capital - RT). The holy city of Moscow, which is already almost a thousand years old, and suddenly take - and the new capital. This is a lot of money, and most importantly - what is the point? We are leaving the Urals and will be the capital of an Asian state, that is, all symbols will be lost.<...>There are no economic, historical, legal, or moral and ethical grounds for transferring the capital,” he said.

View of Yekaterinburg
RIA News
Konstantin Chalabov

The politician noted that the authorities should deal not with the transfer of the capital, but with the development of regions. He drew attention to the fact that the arrangement of the new capital will take too many resources.

“It just makes no sense to transfer the capital. Nobody interferes with directing money for the development of all other regions of the country. Otherwise, it will turn out that we will now equip another capital and tell everyone that now all the money goes to the new capital, so wait ten years, ”Zhirinovsky emphasized.

He also stated that his party would in no way support this initiative and would hinder it in every possible way.

In turn, the chairman of the State Duma Committee on state building and legislation Pavel Krasheninnikov expressed confidence that the prerequisites for the transfer of the capital Russian Federation do not exist and are unlikely to arise in the foreseeable future.

The deputy noted that any transfer of the capital is a "costly business" that "is hardly worth doing during a crisis." He recalled that in the history of Russia there have already been cases when the capital was transferred from Moscow to St. Petersburg and back, but then, according to him, there were prerequisites for this.

“Then it was a different story. Now I do not see any prerequisites, so I do not think that such a need is ripe. Yes, there is an overload in the capital, Muscovites suffer in many ways, but it seems to me that if this is torn off, then we will increase the suffering both for Muscovites and for those cities where, according to this project, it is planned to move the capital, ”TASS quotes Krasheninnikova.

View of the center of Vladivostok from the cable-stayed bridge across the Golden Horn Bay
RIA News
Vitaly Ankov

The politician called the initiative “an interesting stuffing for discussion,” but doubted that it would be implemented in the coming decades.

First Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Federal Structure and Local Self-Government Irina Guseva, in an interview with RT, called the proposal inappropriate.

“This is generally the wrong approach. What is the point of leaving the Urals, what will it give us? In my opinion, the most important thing in this matter is the need to reconsider, perhaps, interbudgetary relations, because the regions are very dependent on the federal center. We need to set a little more priorities in the regions, take care of the population so that people do not run away from their small homeland, but are proud of it, develop enterprises, build businesses,” she said.

The Federation Council also does not believe in the prospects of such a proposal. First Deputy Chairman of the Federation Council Committee on Federal Structure, Regional Policy, Local Self-Government and Northern Affairs Stepan Kirichuk, in a conversation with RT, called the initiative far-fetched.

“No one needs Moscow either as a capital or as a metropolis if there is work and good conditions life. This is what governors, mayors, the population, residents, public organizations. Not the transfer of the capital, but the development of the regional economy, the creation of conditions for excellent work, the creation of jobs - this is the main thing, and not far-fetched events associated with such things, ”he said.

According to him, the capital can be located in any city, but the situation in the regions will not change from this: “What difference does it make for Buryatia, where the capital will be, if in 1990 they had 2 million rams and sheep grazing, and today - 200 thousand. What difference does it make to them whether the capital will be in Moscow, in Yekaterinburg or in Novosibirsk? It is necessary to solve the situation so that the rams grow and the meat is sold, and not the Mongolian is imported.”

Novosibirsk
RIA News
Alexander Kryazhev

Judging by the results, in which more than 5,000 people have already taken part, RT readers support Krupnov's proposal. More than 50% of respondents voted for this option.

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, Ekaterinburg- 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.