Analysis of Navalny’s “Palace for Putin” Film

Putin’s Palace is officially a hotel complex near Gelendzhik, which belongs to the former chairman of the Board of Directors of Open joint-stock company “Novorossiysk Commercial Sea Port” Aleksandr Ponomarenko. Previously, the complex was owned by LLC “Azure Berry” and “Idokopas”, which were acquired by Ponomarenko. The transaction amount was $350 million.

[10:45] “Putin personally distributed licenses (unfounded) to one-day firms (unfounded) associated with him and his friends (unfounded);

[10:54] “raw materials went abroad, firms did not receive money for it and products did not come by barter” – an unsubstantiated statement, Putin himself said that some firms did not supply food in full, but Navalny lies, claiming that this is the case with all supplies;

[11:28] “The criminals keep the port, and Putin signs papers that the port would function. Formally, Putin represented the interests of the state, but in fact he just helped the bandits at the port” – Without adducing any proof, he says that there are a number of bandits who manage the port, and Putin is bad because he entered into deals with them for the supply of products, and it is not clear why Putin, who is specifically performing his official duties and is not a law enforcement specialist, is to blame;

[12:40] Says that oil is sent through “Gunvor” (unsubstantiated), Tymchenko earned unthinkable money (unsubstantiated), shows the page of the US Treasury (probably) where it is written that Putin invested in “Gunvor” (unsubstantiated) and that Putin may have access to the finances of “Gunvor” (unsubstantiated) – a lot of information, proof is very much needed, I’m sure there should be some…;

[13:00] “In whose name this share (allegedly Putin’s share) was registered was not clear” – Then he shows Kolbin, and says that he is a friend of Putin, because Dozhdsaid so (i.e., the statement is unfounded);

[13:32] “Kolbin is the holder of Putin’s share” (unfounded);

[13:45] “Maksim Freydzon (an open anti-Putiner who previously wrote that Putin earned money from selling cocaine, so a “good” source of truth about Putin) said in an interview (unfounded): ‘Putin wrote the necessary amount on a piece of paper, and Miller took this money'” – as proof, Navalny quotes the words of someone who lost a court case versus Gazprom and who openly hates Putin, for years writing terrible nonsense on the Runet. The quality of the documentation is so-so;

[14:30] Navalny says that the capitalisation of Gazprom was $360 billion, and then it became 70 billion. The cost is given in dollars in order to reflect the decline that is a reflection of the ruble rate, but the value of the company and the ruble rate do not depend on Miller, as well as events in Georgia in 2008 and the events in the financial sector in the US, which all impacted the cost of thousands of companies in the world, but nevertheless Navalny associates the drop in the company’s value with Miller’s activities. In rubles, everything looks different;

[14:40] “It fell 5-fold” – well, this is the same thing, Navalny strongly lies. If to remember that the decline is due to external factors, and that the value of the company from the beginning of the 2000s to 2008 increased tenfold… then in general, it is somehow not pleasant when  such disinformation is spread;

[15:17] “The truth is that Putin’s friends turned out to be the shareholders of the new bank” – Let Yury Kavalchuk be Putin’s friend, but it is not clear why Navalny mentions friends again, at what point did illegality occur?;

[15:40] “everything illegal acquired by Putin’s gang lies there” – an unfounded lie;

[16:10] “Team of bribe takers” is an unsubstantiated statement, all subsequent accusations are based on the fact that a number of officials have had a career since the 90s and all are familiar with each other, this is sad;

[16:48] “They have been in power for 30 years, and they like to tell us how they are against the damned 90s” – distortion and just stupidity, one does not contradict the other.

[17:21] He tells a well-known story about the accusations of Salye, pulled from thin air, half-unfounded story about Putin’s activities in the Committee on Foreign Relations. Apparently there hasn’t been any proof and documents for a long time, but I deny that Putin could have screwed up: there were many checks, but any indictments. Whether there were opportunities to get products without having relations with one-day firms, Salye does not explain, and most likely is completely incompetent concerning this question. While Putin did admit that there were problems with the supply of products, but denied the sale of some raw materials, and Salye also did not provide documentary evidence of her accusations;

[18:50] “Anatoly Chubais offered to join the administration…” – Putin.. The question is, why did Putin have to refuse and how does this expose him? If my boss at the station where I work is corrupt, do I have to quit in a hurry?;

Further, “Putin’s wife, in the office of the port of St. Petersburg, wrote letters to Germany” – what is Navalny hinting at? It is not clear why he does this. The fact that the state worked with this port is already clear. Concerning whether Putin is at fault, I personally think not, he is not busy with a criminal investigator… charges were brought against the port administration much later, as Navalny himself said;

[21:06] Aleksey says that a German banker paid for the treatment of Putin’s wife, so Putin, who works in the administration, is a bribe taker – A bribe is the reception of values for professional services. Putin personally was given a lot of things by both entrepreneurs and presidents even when he was already president, a whole herd of puppies is probably all bribes? The help of a friend in the treatment of a spouse can be regarded in different ways, and I agree that it may not look good, although it can be regarded as the onset of insurmountable circumstances;

[21:41] “Matthias Warnig” – Aleksey hints that Putin has put his friend on the boards of directors in a number of major companies;

Next, a fictional story about a conversation between Sechin and Putin about apartments and Putin’s alleged impressions. Just unfounded nonsense and delirium;

[24:05] Further, “Putin’s wife, in the office of the port of St. Petersburg, wrote letters to Germany” – what is Navalny hinting at? It is not clear why he does this. The fact that the state worked with this port is already clear. Concerning whether Putin’s at fault, I personally consider that he isn’t, he is not busy with a criminal investigator… charges were brought against the port administration much later, as Navalny himself said;

[24:50] “To neutralise Skuratov, the FSB arranged an entire operation” – an unsubstantiated statement and speculation. Where is the proof that Skuratov did not compromise himself?

[25:59] “As soon as Putin became stronger in power, i.e., he subdued television, the courts, and established a system of election fraud” – unsubstantiated claims, for the sake of colourfulness;

[26:42] “If you want to steal, share it with Putin” – an unsubstantiated statement and slander;

[27:00] “The most secret and protected object in Russia is… the palace” – an unsubstantiated statement, but funny;

[27:55] “The only real owner of this place from the very beginning to the present day is Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin” – an unsubstantiated statement that will not be backed up by anything up to the very end of the film;

[28:09] “The President of Russia is mentally ill (unfounded), he is obsessed with wealth and luxury (unfounded);

[28:52] “We will show the palace of the most corrupt from the inside” – so, it can be seen, this is a protected object;

Next, a beautiful, high-quality and informative video about the infrastructure of the residence;

[39:34] “There is an official no-fly zone over it, just like over nuclear power plants or secret military facilities” – Aha, or like over all the other residences of top officials;

Then he talks about Kolesnikov and Gorelov and many other companies, about their construction activities. Every time he mentions Putin, he talks about other people, linking them in any way with Putin;

[43:12] “In the early 90s, the company Petromed was established, the city hall in St. Petersburg also had a stake in this company, and the interests of the city in such companies were represented by the deputy mayor Vladimir Putin” – unfortunately, it is unfounded, it would be possible to back up such points that specifically relate to Putin;

[44:01] “They agreed that the oligarchs such as Abramovich and Mordashev will donate money to Petromed (unfounded), and Petromed will spend it on medicine (great, but unfortunately unfounded), but part of the agreement was that 35% of the donated amount will go to a special offshore (unfounded);

[45:36] “… And 94% of the shares were given to Putin… “ – no documents and references, just unsubstantiated statements, but already specific figures. As I understand it, the whole film is based on the testimony of Sergey Kolesnikov, who is a politically engaged character. But the main thing is not this, it is important that Aleksey Navalny calls everything related to investment projects, which by the way were led by Sergey Kolesnikov, Putin’s theft, which of course is an unfounded lie. There are no grounds to claim personal enrichment. The whole point of Petromed is to take away a part of the income of the oligarchs and make this money spin in the economy, Kolesnikov himself tells reporters in 2011. All of Putin’s involvement was invisible, and Nikolay Terentyevich Shamalov allegedly acted on his behalf. There is no proof of this claim, and there will not be up to the end of the film;

[46:25] “Putin was Mikhail Ivanovich” – An unsubstantiated statement, which is the speculation of all participants in the discussion;

[47:01] “Shamalov is the main liaison from Putin (unfounded);

[47:44] As evidence of the value of the objects, Navalny cites a letter to Medvedev from Kolesnikov, i.e. the one with whom he immediately communicates, this is in the least not professional, and in general ridiculous. But it will pass for immature minds, and it is this screenshot that they will present to the public as proof;

[48:00] An unsubstantiated statement about equipment and cost. Neither the equipment nor the cost of course is not given, besides, all this has to do with Putin’s “associates”, well, i.e., people’s noses are rubbed into it throughout the film and will continue up to now;

Moreover, Kolesnikov in an interview in 2011 says that medical equipment purchased for a medical organisation in Russia was sold at discounts from 5% to 60% depending on purchased volumes (From the words “Here there is one feature”) out of 100% of the cost, part of the cost was offset by private donations from the oligarchs, and 35% of the total cost for the equipment cost was accumulated offshore in an investment company. Moreover, Kolesnikov himself welcomed this scheme, accompanied it and in 2011 claimed: “This is not fraud. We could keep this profit for ourselves”;

Now Navalny interviews the same character, and transforms this testimony into “theft”, of course, completely groundlessly;

[48:24] “We paid taxes to treat people with this money, they took this money and spent it on Putin’s palace” – well, finally, from simple unsubstantiated statements, Navalny moved to an unsubstantiated lie. What taxes are we talking about, the budget of the special programs was based on private capital transferred to Shamalov officially as donations – (with the words “Yes. We met and discussed the project.”);

[49:04] “And the fact that Putin (unfounded) at his personal dacha (unfounded) put himself on the gate (unfounded);

[49:20] “Kolesnikov’s story, confirmed by dozens of documents” – Kolesnikov published something somewhere, but why are the key points not included in this film, the documents aren’t good enough? The film is steep, but why is there so little proof? It’s unsubstantiated;

[49:25] “Putin wants a palace, Putin will get a palace” – populism and unsubstantiated claims;

[49:34] “The palace seemed to be bought by Aleksey Ponomarenko” – why “seemed”, if according to the documents that Navalny will show it will be proved that he bought it, but bought it cheaply, then the crime is just that someone sold some real estate very cheap, but legally;

[50:02] “We are opening financial accountability of the offshore” – for the first time in the film a document (!) appears – financial accountability, but the fact that this same offshore is related to the residence, then that this particular item from the statements is related to the residence and to Shamalov, the fact that this is the only reporting document and there are no others – you must take his word for it, the investigation that led to this document is simply omitted;

Kolesnikov himself says that the palace was built from the income of his activities in the investment company with Shamalov, which brought in private income;


Angelina, [23 Jan 2021 at 11:45:57 pm]:

Some cuteness for you in your feedback. The film is experiencing a strong hunger for documentary filmmaking, and in order to emotionally suppress this hunger for the viewer, Navalny, after demonstrating the plan of the building, says the following: “You can say in objection: You yourself invented all this, drew the plans, then show us” – well, what can I say, the veracity of the plans does not bother anyone and even doesn’t concern, and in general the plans don’t not prove anything at all, especially in relation to Putin, it’s the rest of the conclusions before these plans that confuse. But Navalny playfully clings to the plans, stuffing himself with this cheapness the price of a truth-teller and the owner of stunning and incriminating proof. All this looks cheap and sad;

[1:02:50] “Statement in support of the constitution” – I shed tears of laughter: amazing. By this point, it became clear that this construction site is not well suited to the residence, then Putin stopped believing that he would live here at all, although he suspected such a thing, despite the lack of any evidence of this. Well, for example, the theatre, the theatre! How can you keep everything a secret if there is still a theater there, despite the huge number of staff? The whole life of this house would certainly be public if Putin lived there. More like the palace of the monarch, of course, I don’t think it will be Putin, maybe the State Service found a direct descendant of a surviving member of the royal family – oooh!!! – and they are building him a house?

[1:09:58] “A special position was invented to protect business, Putin’s” – an unsubstantiated statement;

[1:10:38] “Another Putin deal for many billions of rubles” is an unfounded lie, since neither before nor after, judging by the film, did Putin make any deals;

[1:11:10] “Someone gave free of charge two and a half annual budgets..” – A lie, in his own table the maturity date is written, why the words “free of charge”?

[1:13:52] About the beaten ecologist: why not publish the case and talk about the actual circumstances of this event. Why the environmentalist was beaten was also omitted from the film;

[1:15:02] “I can repeat for the third time, these vineyards are actually part of Putin’s possessions” – an unsubstantiated statement, as Goebbels said, “repeat even more lies as often as possible and everyone will believe”, Navalny, as a follower of Goebbels, only does this, instead of investigating, he can only repeat the same unsubstantiated, fake in general claim.

[1:20:06] “So we saw a huge bribe that was given to Putin” – An unsubstantiated statement, yes, yes, Navalny, no matter how much you repeat it, without proof it always remains an unsubstantiated statement;

[1:21:40] “This Kovalchuk registrar was created specifically so that it was impossible to say exactly what belongs to whom” – an unsubstantiated statement, especially given that it immediately proves that it is not difficult to collect information. But it is possible to assume that the registrar should hide the information, due to the fact that the object has an increased level of secrecy, as well as all related activities. Next, there is a lot of interesting information about various companies of Kolbin and Tymchenko related to real estate around the palace. Billions of rubles in accounting securities, and not meaning the corruption component of these funds, but of course, nevertheless, the data is interesting;

[1:24:37] “A firm that is illegal (unfounded), and fraudulent (unfounded) but still owns the presidential palace” – a number of unsubstantiated claims that probably should have been confirmed by some data up to this point, but there was no such data. Just neuro-linguistic programming of some kind, the main thing is to repeat “crooks” many, many times;

[1:29:36] “On him (Shalomov) it is simply recorded that Putin stole or received in the form of bribes” – another unsubstantiated statement, which in general does not correlate with any data mentioned in this film, not even confirmed. The only point that Navalny voiced in his opinion about Putin’s bribery is a bribe in the form of a palace. Again, neuro-linguistic programming (NLP). We know, we were taught.

[1:29:40] What is Aleksey hinting at? That Putin is bad because he did not give the shares of Gazprom to the boy? – too hellish a precedent, as for me, if the request was granted, and I doubt that it was a boy who asked for the shares, and not a girl;

[1:30:29] “Mikhail Shelomov is the owner of 39 million Gazprom shares – that’s even believed, but still unfounded, why not show the original source?

[1:32:00] Next, everything about Aleksandr Plekhov is unfounded, without references, without documents, everything must be taken at face value;

Even further about Plekhov, Kovalchuk, Putin is still to blame for the fact that everyone who is financially tied to the construction of the palace and knows the name Putin;

[1:37:20] “Binom received 4.3 billion rubles from Transneft, using a fictitious lease scheme” – an unsubstantiated claim, nothing from the table displayed at this moment in the video proves that the lease is fictitious.

Of course, renting an amphitheater is a strange object for Transneft, and at the moment this is the most interesting information of the entire film, but I really want to make sure that renting a number of objects of only a few infrastructure complexes costs 120 million rubles a month;

[1:38:55] “And this is in addition to the billion dollars that has already been invested in construction by 2017” – an unsubstantiated statement with numbers from thin air;

[1:40:40] “This common fund is used by Putin to cover the expenses of family members” – an unsubstantiated statement;

[1:40:52] “And Putin has a rather rich and satiated personal life” – That’s it, Aleksey got into Putin’s underpants, well, it’s indeed in vain that he speaks in a film about dry finances, this spoils everything

The story of “Krivonogikh”, like everything before it, is just a series of completely unfounded, unsubstantiated statements. And all because Krivonogikh is whirling among the same group of businessmen described above.

[1:43:55] “Billions of stolen money is spent on the upkeep of another Putin woman (A. Kabaeva)– an unsubstantiated claim;

[1:47:26] “Kabayeva’s mother received an apartment from joint-stock company Teploinvest” – but how this is connected with Putin apparently does not matter at all;

[1:50:00] “Every day new laws prohibiting criticism of the government” – the picture shows information about blocking materials that offend society, the state, authorities and state symbols. This is called lying, distorting and quite dirty, why so? Navalny is a living example of the fact that criticism of the government in the Russian Federation is completely freely practiced. Trump wrote a couple of times about electoral fraud, he was blocked by a dozen social networks. In our country, every second person writes about all kinds of theft and falsification, and were many of them blocked for this? If Navalny were more careful in his appeals and actions, he could still be elected president;

[1:50:02] “All who are dissatisfied are ‘foreign agents'” – false;

[1:50:06] “It is already forbidden to even campaign for candidates in the elections” – an unfounded lie. It is not forbidden to promote. United Russia is asking the rights for the election commission of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation to apply to the controlling media bodies to block those resources that violate the legislation of the Russian Federation on elections and referendums, which, by the way, remains unchanged. In other words, it will be possible in the future to campaign as it was possible before, but it should be done according to the law as before. The new bill will only allow to block resources that violate the law. I am sure that Navalny knows all this, lying deliberately and quite brazenly.

Well, then he tells fair things, if all these officials stop stealing, we will live better.

All the disclosure of information in Navalny’s film about the “corruption” of the president is based on the fact that all the people associated with large construction projects and ventures are familiar to each other today and were familiar 20-30 years ago, and they also know Putin. Navalny dedicates the entire film to this point, which probably means that everyone is stealing.

I, for example, studied at the same school with Complex 29 in Naberezhnye Chelny, I know many people, I supported and maintain relations, but this does not mean that I was part of the organised criminal group “Complex 29.

Navalny also talks about a big bunch of businessmen and their financial relationships through a large joint-stock company, part of which pay for the construction of the Palace – Where Putin features here, who the hell knows, even if Navalny suggests, but does not have at anything his disposal: the whole film is about the means of some people and companies, but calls the palace Putin’s.


Copyright © 2022. All Rights Reserved.