Moscow should not be expanded, but resettled. This opinion was expressed by the owner of the Rusal company, Oleg Deripaska. “Every time I approach Moscow, I think: what are these people doing there? What a burden on our economy,” he explained his thought. Earlier, the oligarch said that the Russian authorities should think about moving the country's capital from Moscow to Siberia if they want to develop this region. Deripaska cited the Sochi Olympics as a successful example of such tactics. “In order to develop the south of Russia, it was decided to hold the Olympics there. The country is tense and a new cluster has appeared in the south.”
Brasilia. Photo: mixdecultura.ro
Deripaska is not a pioneer of the idea. The transfer of the capital has become a popular topic in recent years. Not so long ago, for example, Senator Arnold Tulokhonov spoke about the same thing: “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, you have to go through Moscow.” Earlier, Eduard Limonov and Sergei Shoigu spoke about the need to move the capital.
This is not surprising - modern Moscow can hardly be considered a city convenient for living. Endless traffic jams, clogged public transport, terrible ecology, huge residential areas without any infrastructure. Moscow has turned into a real concrete jungle, populated by hurrying, unsmiling people and migrant workers. The capital consistently ranks among the top most expensive cities in the world, but in ratings of the comfort of the urban environment it is somewhere at the end of the top hundred.
Depriving Moscow of capital status will help the metropolis - officials will leave here along with their numerous servants, the Kremlin will turn into a public museum, near-budget business will dissolve, roads will no longer be blocked for the passage of “top officials,” anger will go away, people will become kinder. At the same time, the city will not degrade, but the driver of growth will change. Moscow may well become the country's leading scientific and educational center. There are also great hopes for the development of tourism.
On the contrary, the new eastern capital of the country should become a territory of struggle, development, conquest, as befits every new business. The transfer of the capital will force us to engage in accelerated infrastructural development of the region and strengthen it from a military-strategic point of view. Many regions of Russia need such a breakthrough, but first of all, of course, Siberia. The monstrous imbalance in the country's development to the west needs to be corrected. It is for this purpose that the capital must be located in its geographical center. Obviously, the city should be connected to the rest of the country by rail, that is, located on the Trans-Siberian Railway. Many cities are ready to fight for the status of the capital - Yekaterinburg, Novosibirsk, Krasnoyarsk... However, there will be many opponents to such a decision - these million-plus cities are still suffocating from traffic jams.
The best solution would be to build a new city, as was done in Brazil, Australia, and Kazakhstan. “The implementation of this grandiose project will provide millions of jobs and employ the unemployed. Airports, railways and highways will be built. The transfer of the capital will create a new infrastructure for Russia. It will populate Southern Siberia and strengthen the ties of Far Eastern Russia and Siberia with the Russian “European” metropolis. It will stop the expansion of China,” wrote Eduard Limonov about the transfer of the Russian capital. A city built from scratch can be infinitely good, because the designers are free from historical buildings, old planning problems, etc. – they can avoid all mistakes and build a truly ideal capital.
And most importantly, such a national project will benefit not only Moscow and the new capital region. Firstly, it will give a powerful impetus to the economy of the entire country, which will receive a new impetus for development. Secondly, a major update awaits the country's political elite. After all, not all officials will be ready to move. Burdened with wives, mistresses, children in London universities, they are unlikely to dare to pack their bags. And this will provide an opportunity to rejuvenate the country’s governing class. The new political elite of Russia will be made up of those who are active, energetic, mobile and ready for new achievements.
Mikhailo Lomonosov was sure that Siberia would increase Russia’s wealth. Russia will give Siberia a capital, and Siberia will give Russia development dynamics for two hundred years to come.
A similar initiative was made on October 6 by the Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation, a native of Tuva, Sergei Shoigu. Apparently, his idea is to create a kind of analogue of New York in Siberia, an “economic capital” in order to stimulate the development of the region.
“We need to create here, beyond the Urals, a large financial and industrial center, a kind of capital that will give a powerful impetus to the development of the Siberian and Far Eastern lands,” the media quotes Sergei Shoigu as saying.
The idea of moving the capital to Siberia was positively noted by representatives of the Krasnoyarsk expert community. Let us note that in 2012, Sergei Shoigu already came up with such an initiative.
What do representatives of the expert community of Buryatia think? Academician Arnold Tulokhonov has long expressed a similar point of view. True, he proposed moving the administrative capital of the state to Siberia. His article “State capitals in the “mirror” of political geography” was devoted to this topic. According to Arnold Tulokhonov, Moscow is too far from the regions where resources are extracted and tax revenues are created, and is not always attentive to their interests. The academician gives historical examples of the successful transfer of capitals, or the separation of the functions of a political and economic center. For example, the new city of Astana was specially built for the new capital of Kazakhstan. Or Brazil, where the city of Brasilia was built in 1960. The scientist also referred to examples of successful transfer of capitals or separation of financial and political centers in Germany and the USA. In addition, the transfer of the capital of Russia to Siberia, according to Arnold Tulokhonov, will be “cutting a window to the East” by analogy with the construction of St. Petersburg.
“Such a decision could allow Russia, as the largest power, to join the number of states where there is a logical separation of administrative and financial functions for comfortable living of the capital’s population. Russia's vast distances cannot ensure effective management of the regions of Asian Russia from the European center. The difference of 9 time zones negatively affects the operational communication of Moscow with Far Eastern cities. This situation is stimulated by the need to organize closer contacts with new global financial centers in the countries of the Asia-Pacific region, and this is already becoming an axiom for the future development of Russia,” says Arnold Tulokhonov.
In his opinion, as a result of the implementation of this project, the country's capital will become more accessible for millions of Russian citizens, and the number of officials in Moscow will decrease and transport routes will be unloaded.
In the opinion of political scientist Alexei Mikhalev, the base for the development of Siberia and the Far East should be located precisely in the Siberian Federal District. After all, the infrastructure there is more developed, for example the Trans-Siberian Railway and the BAM. Alexey Mikhalev sees Novosibirsk as the proposed base for such a center, taking into account the initiative of the Russian President to invest in the Novosibirsk Akademgorodok.
But there are also skeptics who doubt the expediency and, in general, the feasibility of such a step. Aleksey Kombaev, head of the department of political science at Buryat State University, gave a detailed commentary on this matter. In his opinion, discussions about moving the capital to Siberia are just populism.
- Today, economic, trade and administrative ties are turned upside down - this requires centralized political will, which is now scattered on other things. I think that preparation for some next stage of reform of some territories is possible here. That is, there is some kind of probing of public opinion. I don’t think that in the near future there will be a transfer of the capital to Siberia or somewhere else,” says Alexey Kombaev.
The political scientist notes that too many contacts have been made with Moscow and colossal resources have been spent. Therefore, forcing the Moscow elite to move to Siberia and move their business there is simply unrealistic. And transferring transport links to the new capital and expanding the infrastructure will be too expensive.
— The point is not only that it would be nice to move the economy to Ulan-Ude or Novosibirsk. Initially, Moscow was developed as a trading city, due to geographical conditions. Trade routes lead there from the post-Soviet space, and it conveniently borders on Europe, with which we have more trade turnover than with Asia, despite the sanctions. Our foreign policy and economic ties with the European part of the world are much more developed than with the Asian part. And we are still largely Europe, no matter how much we try to convince ourselves that we are Eurasia. The transfer of the capital is associated with high costs and protests from financial lobbyists who are located there, says Alexey Kombaev.
An attempt to separate the administrative and economic centers in the country, according to the political scientist, contradicts the existing model of federalism, and in general, the historically established political culture. After all, in Russia, all power has always come from a single center, where everything was decided by the “Tsar-Father”. Therefore, in his opinion, references to the example of the United States, which initially developed as a decentralized community of independent states, are incorrect. In addition, in recent years in Russia there has been a tendency towards centralization, which conflicts with the prerequisites for the economic development of the regions.
— The fundamentals that were initially proclaimed, independence and decentralization, which were supposed to contribute to the economic growth of individual regions - they do not justify themselves today. Because the political model is becoming more and more centrist. On the one hand, this is objective, because the external threat is increasing, and in order to maintain integrity, a single line and its strengthening are necessary. On the other hand, by strengthening centrism and destroying some elements of decentralization that would contribute to economic growth, we get a weak economy, but a relatively manageable state. Attempts by the central government to avoid chaos in the Russian Federation, tightening the screws, lead, on the other hand, to economic stagnation, the political scientist believes.
Alexey Kombaev notes that considering politics and economics as spheres independent of each other is a wrong approach. After all, they are inextricably linked; the political course is largely determined by the economy, and vice versa.
— Therefore, when they talk about the need for decentralization in economic terms, they say that in the economy you will be independent, but not in the political sphere, this will not happen. Because economic independence also leads to political consequences. When a region becomes economically independent, non-subsidized, when it has its own internal and external trade relations, sooner or later the question will inevitably arise: “Why do I need a center when I solve my own economic and social problems? Just for protection? But I’m not going to fight with anyone, and I’ll provide it for myself.” And the Russian authorities traditionally see this as a threat, given the vast territory that is difficult to govern centristly. On the other hand, excessive decentralization can lead to the country simply breaking up into small “principalities.” Therefore, we are constantly looking for a balancing mechanism. And the things that are said in the media about moving the capital - well, let’s move it? And will we really develop dramatically economically? It seems to me, I repeat, that public opinion is preparing for some reforms. Either the unification and consolidation of regions into a new model to preserve, again, integrity, or something else,” believes Alexey Kombaev.
The NHS remembered the phrases of politicians and businessmen who have been proposing to do this for more than 100 years
Deputies are again arguing about where to move the capital of Russia, this time it went to Yekaterinburg: a member of the Supreme Council of the United Russia party, Dmitry Orlov, wanted to send the government there - he told all his subscribers about this on Facebook. NGS.NOVOSTI do not agree with this formulation of the issue, so they have compiled their own envious rating of arguments in favor of moving the capital from Moscow not to Yekaterinburg, but to Novosibirsk. Alexander Rutskoi, Sergei Shoigu, and Oleg Deripaska, among others, once spoke out for the Siberian capital.
It is difficult to count how many times deputies, oligarchs, scientists, cultural figures or ordinary citizens have proposed taking away Moscow’s capital status. In recent years, the primacy among cities - along with overcrowding, traffic jams and other problems - many newsmakers have dreamed of moving to the east. The latest statement was made on his Facebook page by Dmitry Orlov, a member of the Supreme Council of the United Russia party, director of the Agency for Political and Economic Communications - he proposed moving the capital to Yekaterinburg, which he considers “the best option.”
And now Orlov’s statement is being seriously discussed in the media, politicians and experts are arguing about it. With a feeling of undisguised envy, the editors of NGS.NOVOSTI decided to remind you that in addition to Yekaterinburg, there are other cities that are more suitable for moving the capital. For example, Novosibirsk. Judge for yourself.
1. The capital’s ambitions have haunted us since the beginning of the 20th century.
Novonikolaevsk did not have time to think about the status of the capital of the Russian Empire, but it was able to declare itself the capital of the region already in 1907. The corresponding document, an act on the transfer of the lands of the Altai District to Novonikolaevsk at that time, on December 9 in the building on Obskaya Street, 4 - from that moment Novonikolaevsk became an independent city, and later the capital of the region.
2. Novosibirsk has already tried on the capital’s gloss
Novosibirsk first felt like a capital in 1942, when during the war not only factories from the European part of Russia, but also theater groups, the exhibition and storage rooms of the Tretyakov Gallery were moved to the city at once.
3. The Vice President of the Russian Federation spoke for the Novosibirsk capital
The ideologist of the transfer of part of the capital's powers to Novosibirsk in 1991 was the Vice President of the Russian Federation. In 2012, he told an NGS.NOVOSTI correspondent that back in 1991 he proposed moving the government to Novosibirsk, leaving the presidential administration in Moscow: “The government of the Russian Federation should sit in Novosibirsk. If we look at the development prospects of our country, this should have been done 20 years ago. Investments would go not to China, but to Russia.” According to Rutsky, all the Novosibirsk residents he met during perestroika business trips rejoiced and “applauded while standing” when they heard the idea of moving the capital to Novosibirsk. But the plans were prevented by Gennady Burbulis and Yegor Gaidar, who were opponents of this idea in Moscow.
4. The oligarchs dreamed of moving the capital to Siberia
The head of RUSAL, oligarch Oleg Deripaska, has repeatedly spoken out in favor of moving the capital from Moscow, for example, to Novosibirsk. He spoke about this in 2008 and 2009. “To fight corruption, we need to move the capital to Yekaterinburg or Novosibirsk. Peter I was forced to flee Moscow, because bureaucratic expenses were a burden for development even in his era,” he said in an interview with the Spanish newspaper El Pais.
5. Novosibirsk was supported by neighbors from the Far East
In 2010, the Far East news agency Vostok-Media conducted a survey on the topic “Where should the capital of the state be located?”, in which 2,079 residents of the region took part. Novosibirsk was supported by 34% of them, Moscow was in second place (21%), and St. Petersburg was in third (10%). The editor-in-chief of RIA Vostok-Media, Nikolai Kutenkikh, then supported the readers’ choice: “Such a choice only confirms that sensible people live in the Far East.” However, at the same time he admitted that residents of the Far East have no sympathy for Novosibirsk residents, and it’s all simply due to geographical criteria and the location of the city.
6. Intellectuals wanted to see a scientific center as the capital
Novosibirsk in 2012, he received every fourth vote taken into account in the survey conducted on the RBC.Rating portal. The rating consisted of 15 alternative capitals, Novosibirsk received 24.03% of the votes, while it significantly broke away from its competitors: Ekaterinburg was in second place (17.5% of the votes), Vladivostok was in third (about 10%). At the same time, St. Petersburg was even lower with 9.09% of the votes. Scientific director of the Social Information Agency of St. Petersburg, Roman Mogilevsky, then suggested that the matter was not in Novosibirsk. “Here there is the factor of a special critically thinking audience of the RBC portal. These are educated people who have become hostages of their own image of Novosibirsk. Your city, in the generally accepted view, is a large scientific and educational center with a highly developed innovative industry, a quiet political haven, a spacious, developed, tolerant city. Taking into account that there are businessmen in RBC’s audience, when answering the question, they took into account that the risk of losing business in Novosibirsk is lower than in Moscow or St. Petersburg,” said the sociologist.
7. The idea was also supported by influential Siberians
Talk about moving the capital from Moscow to Siberia began again after Sergei Shoigu’s statement that the capital of Russia should be located in Siberia. His remark was happily supported by Vladimir Gorodetsky, who then served as mayor of Novosibirsk. “I think when great politicians consider where the capital should be, Novosibirsk has the right to lay claim to this mission,” he said. Gorodetsky became the author of a local meme about the “capital gloss”, which was supposed to appear in Novosibirsk after the next snow removal.
8. LDPR deputies tried to make Novosibirsk a city of federal significance
The corresponding proposal was submitted to the State Duma by LDPR deputy Dmitry Savelyev. He proposed forming a new entity within the Russian Federation - the federal city of Novosibirsk, and placing two ministries there - the Ministry of Regional Development and the Ministry of Eastern Development. “Now everything is concentrated in one capital - Moscow. Beyond the Moscow Ring Road, by and large, there is no life. That's at least how the people of the province joke bitterly. As a result, Russia was placed in a province, in the so-called castle,” Dmitry Savelyev explained his initiative.
9. In 2015, a convicted State Duma deputy, straight from prison, spoke out in favor of the Siberian capital
State Duma deputy from the Communist Party of the Russian Federation Konstantin Shirshov, sentenced to 5 years, wrote the corresponding bill in the colony “Matrosskaya Silence,” Gazeta.ru reported. He was not deprived of his deputy status, so he could make any proposals. He called the bill “a testament from Matrosski”; the deputy proposed moving the capital to Novosibirsk to “create a more stable structure of the territorial-political structure with a center in Western Siberia.” It was necessary to move the capital because of high housing prices, problems with infrastructure, corruption, social mobility and justice, he wrote. In total, there were 17 pages of arguments in favor of Novosibirsk. Among them was the often-mentioned statement that “today Novosibirsk is the fastest growing city in the world, which is therefore included in the Guinness Book of Records.”
10. In the end, Novosibirsk was supported by Buryatia
Last winter, Arnold Tulokhonov, a member of the Federation Council from Buryatia, spoke in favor of moving the capital, saying that Moscow was becoming obsolete, as reported by the Baikal Daily portal. When asked by a journalist about where to move the capital of Russia, the senator replied that there was no difference. “Novosibirsk, Sverdlovsk. Doesn't matter. It could be any city. This cannot be done in Moscow. Moscow is becoming obsolete,” Tulokhonov was quoted as saying by Baikal Daily. He also stated that the capital should be located in a more convenient location. “We need to “move” the capital out of Moscow: it should be in the middle, so that it is convenient not for officials, but for the population. Today, 75% of all transportation is carried out through Moscow. And in order to get from Yakutsk to Chita, you have to go through Moscow,” InformPolis Online quoted Tulokhonov as saying.
Do you like the idea of moving the capital to Novosibirsk?
The mystery of the Russian man has not yet been revealed. It is not revealed even to ourselves. We work, love, serve in the army, pray and dream, without realizing our scale and purpose. We ourselves have not formulated for ourselves the image of our Russian dream, the scale and greatness of which does not allow us to sink to the status of a “normal European country.” Our dreams, our dreams and desires are as mysterious as the endless expanses of the Russian north.
The mystery, apparently, is that we can work hard only when a common - extremely clear and at the same time almost unattainable - goal is obvious to everyone. The Russian people do not waste their time on acquiring comfort, adding a hundredth of a share of GDP per year, or improving the streets. All this is good, but fatally insufficient for the breadth of the Russian person. Getting up for work every day, pulling the burden, getting closer to death every day for the sake of this is boring and uninteresting. Therefore, perhaps, we are not as interested in domestic politics as we are in geopolitics. The defeat of the black bandit caliphate really worries our people more than petty elite squabbles or microscopic regional elections on a global scale.
Our Russian dream does not fit into the template scheme of the Western way of life, individual comfort and material prosperity. In order to find a cozy and comfortable life, did we melt the polar ice with the warmth of Soviet cities, raise the full power of the nuclear fleet, and decorate the northern borders with a chain of beautiful monasteries?
The answer to the painful question of the Russian dream lies somewhere in Siberia and in the north, in Ugra or Chukotka, where people-heroes, people-pioneers, people of prayer and discoverers come. If our people have a dream, then it smacks of the polar purity and cold of the heroic Russian north.
Following our Russian dream, we turn our gaze to the snows of our north, to internal geopolitics and geostrategy. Key changes must and will begin here. All the social, economic and geographical prerequisites for this exist. In terms of average alcohol consumption per person per year, Ugra has the lowest rate among all northern regions.
The birth rate in Ugra, despite the difficult climatic conditions, is higher than the Russian average - 13.9. The mortality rate per 1000 population is one of the lowest in Russia as a whole - 6.3. As a result, positive natural population growth is still observed today, even without taking into account migration. Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug is one of the five most demographically developed regions of Russia. All together, this is the result of a competent social policy of local authorities.
Labor productivity in the region, by all-Russian standards, is off the charts. Since 2005, this figure has almost doubled in Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug, and this is due not only to the resource-based structure of the region’s economy. It is labor efficiency that has increased. All this gives reason to think about possible and necessary changes in Russia’s internal geopolitics.
On the geographic and political map, centers of power are constantly drifting, zones of economic activity are shifting, and balances of power within the states themselves are shifting. The smaller the area of the state, the less significant geopolitical problems are for it - external and internal. Sweden, Greece, Argentina or Iceland can only fit under one or another geopolitical and military-strategic umbrella. The scale of their maneuver is small. We are so large in four climate zones and eleven time zones that we can safely raise the little-studied question of domestic geopolitics. We don’t talk about this so often, but there is hardly another country in the world for which this issue would be so acute.
Russia, China, Kazakhstan, and the United States in this sense face greater risks, but they also have a much greater margin of maneuver than, for example, the eternally neutral Switzerland. This concerns intercontinental geopolitics, and internal geopolitics, which we often forget about.
With the breakdown of one era and the transition to another, under the influence of economic and foreign policy factors, the political and economic centers of states drift across the map. The capitals of countries are located not according to the principle of historical continuity, but based on current national interests, current geostrategy and geo-economics. Thus, the capital of ancient Kyiv, at the intersection of river arteries and trade routes, seemed to be hiding deep into the continent - into the princely lands of St. Vladimir. Economy and political power flourished again in Moscow. To participate in European politics, the center of our state was moved to the northern seas - to St. Petersburg. Finally, Moscow became the point of balance of power in the Soviet Union. Will Golden-domed remain as a capital city in the 21st century, when the Eurasian and northern vector of our geopolitics has clearly emerged in the conflict with the collective West? This is a big question.
The Western and European optimism of the perestroika elites of the 90s clearly did not come true. Europe and the USA see us exclusively as a vassal and speak to us in the language of ultimatums. On the contrary, the eastern and northern vector of our policy is gaining strength. Moreover, it is objectively intensifying with the growing economic power of the “Asian tigers”, China, India, Persia and Indonesia. If European countries endlessly put forward energy ultimatums to us and refuse to build the Northern and Southern Streams, then our interaction with China is developing successfully. The transport infrastructure of the future is the Northern Sea Route and land routes from Asia to Europe. Both are inextricably linked with the development of the northern and northeastern regions of Russia.
Dozens of nuclear and conventional icebreakers break through Arctic ice around the clock to allow merchant ships from all over the world to pass along the Northern Sea Route. Russia, together with China, is turning the Arctic into part of a grand sea and land route, and a new Silk Road is making its way through the entire Eurasian continent. Stalin's unfinished Transpolar Railway project is being replaced by the Northern Latitudinal Railway, approved by the president and being implemented right now.
Leading meteorologists say that melting ice in the Arctic will lead to the emergence of new routes connecting the Pacific and Atlantic oceans within 50 years. Climate change will allow these routes to be used for shipping year-round. The importance of the Suez and Panama Canals in the maritime transport system will decrease, which will hurt the leading maritime powers - primarily the United States. That is why NATO countries are concentrating their military fist here.
But even these reasons will not push us to the need to move the capital to the northeast - closer to the geographical center of Russia. The main reasons are still socio-political.
In the 21st century, it is vital for Russia to break the tangle of bureaucratic, corrupt and elitist ties that stretch back to the 90s and are incompatible with Russia’s survival in the 21st century. To do this, it is necessary to shift the center of the Russian state to the northeast - to the intersection of new trade routes and closer to the catastrophically unpopulated areas of Siberia and the Far East.
From a military point of view, this will secure our capital from any land invasion. Storming the Eurasian continent from the shores of the Arctic Ocean is pure madness. The creator of geopolitics, Halford Mackinder, spoke about this in his famous work “The Geographical Axis of History.” He places this motionless axis of world political processes precisely in the region of the central and northern Urals.
In the modern world, we have repeatedly seen examples of the “unloading” of old capitals and the transfer of government centers to significant and easily accessible cities. In the USA, low-rise Washington is most suitable for metropolitan functions. In Kazakhstan, Nazarbayev cut the knot of inter-elite contradictions by moving the capital from Almaty to Astana. Israel has now made an attempt to move the recognized center from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, guided by its national interests.
In the case of our vast Motherland, Moscow and St. Petersburg can remain the financial and cultural capitals, respectively, and the new center will need to gather talented managers from all over Russia. When an air route from one end of the country to the capital takes nine hours, and a train journey from Vladivostok to Moscow takes almost a week, this does not have the best effect on state centralism.
Historians often sneer at Peter’s transfer of the capital to a swampy area on the Neva, but this was precisely what was required by state expediency at that time. From a strategic point of view, this was a sure-fire move, but it required political will and determination. If we have the same will and determination, then sooner or later we will move the capital to Siberia, to Ugra, or even to Salekhard - closer to the edge of the Arctic Ocean. The strategic center of state interests is shifting to the north - to the North Pole of the large Russian world. Here, on the shores of the thawed northern seas, a new capital will be built: industrial and high-tech centers will flourish - the Russian “Silicon Valley”, trade ports and naval bases will open, ready to compete with the Mediterranean coast in terms of equipment.
In the end, out of financial and selfish interests, not a single bureaucrat will go to a “warm ministerial chair” in the region that the Norwegian polar explorer Nansen called “The Land of Ice Horror.” Russian politics should be handled by selfless heroes, for whom participation in the historical mission of the Motherland is the greatest responsibility, test and happiness.
Happiness is to feel like a hero-pioneer, akin to our ancestors who mastered and loved their native expanses of the Russian north.
Oleg Rozanov
Source
Follow us
The proposal to move the capital of Russia to Yekaterinburg is causing heated debate. Social networks are conducting polls on this topic, and the media are already preparing publications about the pros and cons of such a decision. Some call the proposal a whim of politicians, others call it a solution to the problems of several regions. But if you remember, two famous prophets said at once that it was Siberia and the Urals that would become, if not the center of the world, then certainly the center of Russia! “Komsomolskaya Pravda-Tyumen” will tell you about the most famous predictions concerning Siberia.
SIBERIA WILL SAVE THE WORLD
The prophets unanimously declared: Siberia will save humanity. The sleeping prophet Edgar Cayce spoke about the region becoming the Promised Land, where there is water, food and shelter. The clairvoyant from America made his predictions in a trance - he answered the questions asked of him without regaining consciousness. Cayce argued that by the end of the 20th century the climate on earth would change so much that mangoes and bananas would begin to grow in Siberia.
Moreover, Siberia will not be affected by the apocalypse. According to the clairvoyant's predictions, the end of the world will go around one continental plate - where Western Siberia is located. It is she who is destined to become the center of civilization.
“It is Russia that will lead the revived civilization of the Earth, and Siberia will become the center of this revival of the whole world. Through Russia, the hope of a lasting and just world will come to the rest of the world... The new leader of Russia will be unknown to anyone for many years, but one day he will unexpectedly come into power... He himself and his new race will create centers of a new culture and a new technological civilization throughout the world. His home, and the home of his new race, will be in the south of Siberia...” Cayce predicted.
SIBERIA – THE GLOBAL BRANCH
The Bulgarian clairvoyant Vanga also made a number of predictions related to Siberia. One of them is about a boy who will have the same gift as Vanga herself. This child was already born - in the 80s of the 20th century in the south of Western Siberia. If the prophecy came true, the great clairvoyant must now be at least 27 years old. Was this the man Cayce was talking about when he predicted a new ruler of Russia and a new race?
By the way, this is not Vanga’s only prediction about the cold region. According to her prophecy, in 2030 Siberia will become the world's breadbasket, and in 2060 the Ural Mountains will be proclaimed the center of Russia.
INVASION OF THE GENTILES
While some prophecies speak of the greatness of Siberia, others warn of the invasion of infidels. Schema-Archimandrite Seraphim (Tyapochkin) said that the Chinese will begin to move en masse to Siberia - to buy real estate and enterprises. This is because the borders between our states will weaken. Or the prediction of Blessed Nicholas of Ural, who said that China would seize “the Siberian and Central Asian expanses.”
According to the prophecies of the elders, the invasion of Gentiles will force the Russians to unite.
But should we believe the predictions? Most of the prophecies ever made have not come true. Take the same end of the world - since the 1990s, the apocalypse on earth should have happened at least 16 times! And there is no direct mention that the above events will affect the Tyumen region and Yekaterinburg. Therefore, if you believe in prophecies, then only good ones. And remember the words of Mikhailo Lomonosov, who assured: “The power of Russia will grow with Siberia”
