Российское житие-бытие

[Аристарх]

Всем добрый день!

Перевожу статью с английского и несколько мест вызвали вопросы

1.
Anne Applebaum, (премия Пулитцера) the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of Gulag, has written the cover story for the Spectator magazine this week. It’s called ‘Should Russia Host The G8?’, and the answer is a resounding no. The article is, in some ways, typical of Western op-ed coverage of Russia’s presidency of the G8, and I want to look at it closely to show some of the mistakes that western commentators are making.

The article begins by criticizing the Rosneft IPO. It makes some mistakes right from the start, claiming for example that the ‘part-time CEO’ of Rosneft is also Putin’s deputy chief-of-staff. The CEO of Rosneft, Sergei Bogdanchikov, is very much full-time. It’s the chairman, Igor Sechin, who is Putin’s deputy chief-of-staff.

Applebaum also says Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley are lead-managers for the IPO. Goldman Sachs is not involved in the Rosneft deal. It has never done an IPO in Russia, and barely has a presence there at all.

Applebaum says that the Rosneft IPO legitimises the Kremin’s theft of Yukos assets. This, she says, is admitted in the company prospectus, which says the company is controlled by government officials “whose interests may not coincide with those of other shareholders…and may cause Rosneft to engage in business practices that do not maximize shareholder value”. “Translation”, - writes Applebaum, - “when the Russian government walks away with your money – as it walked away with Yukos’ investors money – don’t say no one warned you”.

Здесь интересует смысл последнего предложение, в особенности слово Translation

2.(Это следующий параграф)This is a wilful misinterpretation of the prospectus. Rosneft may indeed not always act in the interests of shareholder value. That’s because it’s a state-owned company, and so will occasionally act in the interests of the state even if it doesn’t make business sense, just like Gazprom does. That should be obvious to investors. The question is whether the patronage of the Kremlin is a sufficient advantage to outweigh the disadvantage of the company sometimes taking decisions for political rather than business reasons. Many investors will conclude that, as in the case of Gazprom, the upside makes it worth it even if the company is inefficient and bureaucratic.

Здесь непонятно последнее предложение.

И последний параграф
Fear is back too, she says. “A Russian visiting America last spring told me that he was surprised by how many people, both in Washington and in Russia, had asked whether he’s really returning to Moscow afterwards — ‘will you dare go back?’ being a question that no one even considered asking five years ago. It is tragic but true: once again, Russia is a place where the blunt-speaking watch their backs.”

Здесь не ясна выделенная часть.

Если вдруг нужна будет вся статья, она здесь

http://www.eurasianhome.org/xml/t/opinion.xml?lang=en&nic=opinion&pid=452

Всем огромное спасибо заранее!

[nephew]

Translation”, - writes Applebaum, - “when the Russian government walks away with your money – as it walked away with Yukos’ investors money – don’t say no one warned you”^ Что в переводе на понятный язык означает: далее по тексту
2. upside - повышение цен на акции

3. the blunt-speaking watch their backs - где тем, кто привык высказываться прямо, теперь приходиться говорить с оглядкой (озираться - не стоит ли кто за спиной)

[nephew]

typo: "приходится" (ужос, ужос!)

[Аристарх]

СПАСИБО!!!