The cities to which the authorities can move the capital of Russia have been named. Notifications Which city they want to make the capital

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 the entire 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 of Economic Development of Russia, Lenta.ru reports.

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

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 is "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 the Far East, and it is necessary to move from the economy concentrated in Moscow 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 its own "family homestead" with an area of ​​at least 30 acres, which has 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 there were no prerequisites for the transfer of the capital of the Russian Federation, and they 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 living conditions. This is what governors, mayors, the population, residents, and public organizations should do. 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, Yekaterinburg or 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 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 themselves become businessmen 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.

Several cities at once claim to bear the honorary title of the third capital of Russia. It is not clear, to be honest, what exactly is honorable or beneficial in this, because the city automatically recognizes the superiority of Moscow and St. Petersburg in all areas. Yes, the reality is exactly that, but our cities could not reach for the two capitals, but immediately adopt, say, the European experience.

Maybe for foreign tourists coming to Russia, there is some charm in this label, and it's all about their wallets? We do not have any special deductions from the federal budget for this title ... Be that as it may, some time ago there was a serious struggle for the status of the third capital, and disputes do not subside to this day.

Now the brand "Third Capital" belongs to Kazan. The city wrested it from Nizhny Novgorod and other less successful competitors. But times are changing. In recent years, there have often been proposals to move the capital of Russia somewhere in the Urals or Siberia, so that soon the struggle for the right to carry the banner of the third capital may again become relevant.

And what do you think about this? Let's vote, because we have so many cool applicants!

Kazan

Everything is clear with Kazan. The capital of Tatarstan, an ancient but modern city, which Putin himself called the third capital! True, sometimes there is such a thing ...



Novosibirsk

The third largest city in Russia, the capital of Siberia (although Krasnoyarsk would argue here), which in 100 years has turned from a provincial provincial town into a metropolis. True, in 1993 Rutskoi and Khasbulatov wanted to set up their temporary capital here, but the people of Novosibirsk are not to blame for this!



Ekaterinburg

The capital of the Urals with a rich history, a constant contender for the title of the third capital, the city in which the first president of Russia matured!



Nizhny Novgorod

The capital of the Volga region... True, this is the only million-plus city in Russia that is losing its population, but Nizhny Novgorod will still never recognize the superiority of Kazan!



Velikiy Novgorod

One of the oldest cities in Russia, once a rich center of international trade, which remained independent even during the Horde occupation of Rus', has now turned into a backwater (although it is the capital of the region). The status of the third capital of Veliky Novgorod was proposed by Nikita Mikhalkov himself.



Samara

Samara during the years of great upheaval was already (in fact) the temporary capital of Russia and the USSR. Another city, the inhabitants of which could not help but be dismayed by the fact that Kazan outran them.



Omsk

Ah, Omsk! Kolchak used to sit here, and now Dvorakovsky was barely kicked out... But maybe the status of the third capital will help this beautiful Siberian city to revive?



Sevastopol

The city-skrepa, which, after the annexation of the Crimea to Russia, received a unique status: along with Moscow and St. Petersburg, Sevastopol, in terms of legislation, is an independent region - a city of federal significance.



Grozny

Another city that the center willingly spends money on. A city that has risen from the ashes of the Chechen wars and gained great political importance, each time guaranteeing the incumbent president and the ruling party an excellent election result.



Great, but we need another option for fans of the Soviet Union!

Maybe Ruzaevka in Mordovia?

Or Naberezhnye Chelny in Tatarstan? But then the whole Kazan will be bombed ...

Let it be better Volgograd! Moreover, I have not been there yet and can not judge biased. And especially for fans of the USSR, we will also rename it to Stalingrad, it’s not a pity!

So, let's practice choosing!

UPD: There will still be a second round. Kazanians, with the active support of the Tatarstan media, tried very hard and forced, but still did not have time before midnight, and the voting results turned into a pumpkin!

At 0:05 Moscow time it was like this:

As you may have guessed, Kazan and Yekaterinburg are going to the final! I hope that Yekaterinburg residents will also wake up by the second round, and an exciting fight will be waiting for us.

Which city is worthy of the title of the third capital of Russia?

Velikiy Novgorod

83 (2.5 % )

Volgograd

79 (2.4 % )

70 (2.1 % )

Ekaterinburg

688 (20.6 % )

1576 (47.3 % )

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.