Vladimir Putin

Mikhail Khodorkovsky at a public meeting on April 27, 2014 in Donetsk, Ukraine

Mikhail Khodorkovsky at a public meeting on April 27, 2014 in Donetsk, Ukraine  © Brendan Hoffman/Getty Images

It might seem strange, even wishful thinking, to question how long Vladimir Putin will remain in power. Mr Putin, who is 61, seems to be in good health and apparently in complete control of every element of the power structure in Moscow – including, through Gazprom and Rosneft, the key levers of the energy sector. He has defied US and European pressure and sanctions over Ukraine, and has begun to restore Russia’s status in the world as a great power which can’t be ignored.

That is the story — but behind the facade the cracks appear. The Emperor has fewer clothes than he pretends. And now from the past comes Nemesis, in the form of one of the few Russians who has dared to challenge Mr Putin openly — Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

In his first public statement about Russia’s domestic politics since leaving prison in December 2013, Mr Khodorkovsky told Le Monde last week that he was relaunching his Open Russia project — not so much a new political party as a horizontal network of social groups seeking change and modernisation across Russia. He said he would not be “interested in the idea of becoming president of Russia at a time when the country would be developing normally… But if it appeared necessary to overcome the crisis and to carry out constitutional reform, the essence of which would be to redistribute presidential powers in favour of the judiciary, parliament and civil society, then I would be ready to take on this part of the task.” Read more

The Brent oil price has now fallen by 15 per cent in less than three months and is now below the psychologically important figure of $100 a barrel. Last week I wrote about the reaction in the industry. But the fall is beginning to have political consequences as well.

Brent Crude Oil Future three month chart

Across the world oil producing and exporting countries have come to rely on high, and ideally rising prices. Some countries save the revenue for a rainy day, but most, especially those with rising populations, tend to spend. Circumstances vary, as do the realistic options for adjustment, but the current concern is real and will shape political actions well beyond the oil sector itself. Read more

A pro-Kremlin rally in St Petersburg. OLGA MALTSEVA/AFP/Getty Images

The conventional wisdom is simple – business and politics are two separate worlds, which should not mix. Corporate leaders should not be involved in anything that smacks of political activity. Business exists to make money not policy.

That is the mantra – and it is wrong. In two weeks time the St Petersburg International Economic Forum is due to meet. Business leaders should be there and should have the nerve to tell Vladimir Putin what he doesn’t want to hear.

The St Petersburg forum is President Putin’s answer to Davos – a prestige event designed to show that Russia is a key part of the global economy. As the FT reported last Friday, the US government does not want business leaders to attend. Valerie Jarrett, Mr Obama’s adviser, has been calling CEOs telling them not to go, as part of the process of demonstrating that after what has happened in Ukraine, Russia is isolated and friendless. Many are taking her “advice”. In Europe the position is more ambivalent. European sanctions on Russia are soft and the rhetoric from Berlin and Brussels even softer. Many European leaders seem to regard Ukraine as Russia’s sphere of influence. There is little appetite for bringing the country into either the EU or Nato. In contrast to Russia, Ukraine cannot afford to employ the lobbying skills of Gerhard Schröder and his ilk. Read more

What happens now for the numerous companies, led by the oil majors, who have chosen to invest in Russia? The surprising answer may be that the short-term risks are less serious than the longer term prospects of disengagement as energy consumers, especially in Europe, reduce their dependence on a supplier they do not trust. Read more