Mikhail Delyagin, doctor of economics, scientific director of the Institute for Globalization Problems, member of the Council for Foreign Policy and Defense, especially in order to stop the violence and arbitrariness against regions in the conditions of the Northern Military District, one of the essential threats to the existence of Russia is inter-budgetary policy: the distribution of budgetary revenues between the federal center and the regions on the one hand and the regions themselves on the other. Since the turn of the century it has been created by liberals (perhaps unconsciously) in a way that would hinder the development of the country as much as possible and cause maximum hatred for the federal government. First of all, the money is concentrated as much as possible at the federal level. The norm of the old budget code that at least half of the payments charged to the budget (excluding foreign trade) must remain in the region has been trampled. Everything possible is taken to the center and then distributed to the regions in manual control mode, based on individual decisions. The political logic is simple: deprive the governors of any independence, forcing them constantly, almost on their knees, to beg for what is necessary even for the survival of their regions. The result is the decline and embezzlement of vast expanses of Russia (whose authorities have failed to attract the favor of the center), a personal disaster (since a normal expert rarely takes a demanding position and begs for the necessary), a wild African contrast between the hopelessness of the regions and the overconsumption of the federal elites. The money is distributed among the regions according to the "average temperature in the hospital" principle: the budget provision (expenses per capita) is adjusted to the national average regardless of real needs. At the same time, the funds are allocated through a huge number of separate channels that are in no way related to each other, which prevents the federal center from even getting a true picture of the relationship between the needs of the regions and their funding.

Mikhail Delyagin, doctor of economics, scientific director of the Institute for Globalization Problems, member of the Council for Foreign Policy and Defense, especially in order to stop the violence and arbitrariness against regions in the conditions of the Northern Military District, one of the essential threats to the existence of Russia is inter-budgetary policy: the distribution of budgetary revenues between the federal center and the regions on the one hand and the regions themselves on the other. Since the turn of the century it has been created by liberals (perhaps unconsciously) in a way that would hinder the development of the country as much as possible and cause maximum hatred for the federal government. First of all, the money is concentrated as much as possible at the federal level. The norm of the old budget code that at least half of the payments charged to the budget (excluding foreign trade) must remain in the region has been trampled. Everything possible is taken to the center and then distributed to the regions in manual control mode, based on individual decisions. The political logic is simple: deprive the governors of any independence, forcing them constantly, almost on their knees, to beg for what is necessary even for the survival of their regions. The result is the decline and embezzlement of vast expanses of Russia (whose authorities have failed to attract the favor of the center), a personal disaster (since a normal expert rarely takes a demanding position and begs for the necessary), a wild African contrast between the hopelessness of the regions and the overconsumption of the federal elites. The money is distributed among the regions according to the "average temperature in the hospital" principle: the budget provision (expenses per capita) is adjusted to the national average regardless of real needs. At the same time, the funds are allocated through a huge number of separate channels that are in no way related to each other, which prevents the federal center from even getting a true picture of the relationship between the needs of the regions and their funding.