Yulia Latynina has a powerful opinion column in the Moscow Times today about the second show trial of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, driving home the point that back in 2003, “Putin and Khodorkovsky personified two possible paths for Russia’s development.”  Now in 2009, Russia is a different country, with diminished opportunities to transform into a democratic society.

I don’t think there is a point in discussing new charges against former Yukos CEO Mikhail Khodorkovsky. If a thief robs somebody at gunpoint, does it make sense to discuss the robber’s claim that his victim did not pay taxes?

In the Yukos affair, the robber is the state. On Oct. 25, 2003, police stormed Khodorkovsky’s private jet and “robbed” him at gunpoint by taking him into custody. In May 2005 he was found guilty of fraud in a classic Russian kangaroo court. As a result, Yukos was essentially expropriated by state-controlled Rosneft in a sham auction and that the oil that Khodorkovsky exported before his arrest is now traded by Gunvor, a company co-founded by Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s friend, Gennady Timchenko. Thus, does it make a lot of sense to discuss the robber’s claim that Khodorkovsky did not pay of all his taxes?