“Not a single ‘Russian’ chip is actually Russian”. Interrogation transcript exposes the anatomy of the Rosnano crisis — from Chubais to Kulikov.
The editorial offices of medias have obtained the transcript of an interrogation of a former investment director of ROSNANO, who worked at the corporation from 2008 to 2022. The witness paints a picture of the evolution of Anatoly Chubais himself and describes the post-Chubais era under Sergey Kulikov.
On February 17, 2026, the Gagarinsky District Court will begin hearing the case against Boris Galkin, CEO of Plastic Logic, who is accused of embezzlement.
Plastic Logic is the very same notorious ROSNANO project in connection with which the Moscow Arbitration Court has already ordered the seizure of assets belonging to Chubais and all members of his management board.
The witness whose testimony we reviewed gave evidence as part of a case related to the Plastic Logic project, but its significance goes far beyond a single episode. It is the confession of a professional who witnessed the decline of an institution that was meant to become a symbol of Russia’s technological modernization.
Putin accused of surrounding himself with same 'actors' at series of events
Notably, this portion of the interrogation transcript was absent from the materials submitted to the Gagarinsky Court. This segment is missing — and possibly many others as well.
The key change identified by the witness was not in the projects, but in Chubais himself. In the early years, the emphasis was on investment policy (with Andrey Malyshev, a technical specialist, serving as Chubais’s deputy). However, after 2013, according to the investment director, Chubais “got tired and gave up.”
“He began imitating real processes. Instead of Malyshev, Trapeznikov (the press secretary) became the key figure,” the witness draws a direct line: the shift in leadership priorities led to PR ultimately defeating production.
The clearest example was the appointment of Boris Galkin as head of Plastic Logic, described as “a PR man seconded by Trapeznikov.” The witness repeatedly returns to this episode, emphasizing that the issue was never managerial competence, but loyalty and media support.
An important addition in the transcript is the comparison of two projects — Crocus and Plastic Logic. While Plastic Logic struggled from the outset (criticism of the tablet, pressure at the investment committee), Crocus (magnetoresistive memory, MRAM) “progressed normally — the project itself was interesting, the market and product raised no questions,” according to the witness.
Why did both end in bankruptcy? The witness cites fundamentally different reasons:
Plastic Logic — “because of a failed application of the technology. The tablet was a mistake.” In other words, an internal miscalculation and a poor product–market fit.
Crocus — “the money ran out, sanctions began… China has thousands of factories; the scale of production there is completely different — how can you compete with that?”
Here, the witness points to a systemic issue beyond even perfect management: Russian microelectronics manufacturing is fundamentally uncompetitive on a global scale without constant state support. He delivers the key phrase:
Russians wrote 'Happy New Year' on drone sent crashing into playground
“Not a single Russian chip is actually Russian,” hinting at dependence on foreign component bases.
The witness compares these projects to a human in outer space:
“He survives only as long as oxygen is supplied. And for a project to reach breakeven, it’s not enough to finance capex (equipment investments); you also have to cover part of the operating expenses until the project reaches profitability.”
Here, he points to institutional failure: the Ministry of Economic Development consistently opposed including operating expenses in project budgets. As a result, when funding ran out, projects suffocated.
“By formal criteria, any startup is bankrupt as soon as shareholder money runs out,” the witness explains. “All successful ROSNANO examples involved long-term effort and faith in the project — like raising a child until the age of three.”
The darkest — and most sarcastic — part of the testimony concerns the period after Chubais’s departure in 2020. According to the witness, under the new leadership of Sergey Kulikov, inertia initially persisted, but then “the old managers left, new ones came in. Everything started changing, and chaos followed.”
A special place is given to the story of introducing “agile” management by a manager who arrived from the Kalashnikov Concern. The witness is baffled:
“Agile works for AvtoVAZ, where there’s an assembly line. But he didn’t care. And Kulikov didn’t dig into it either. Then the guy disappeared — and agile disappeared with him.”
Later, according to the former investment director, yet another manager arrived, and attitudes toward projects completely deteriorated:
“They stopped nurturing projects altogether — like, why bother with them? Investing money? Chubais is to blame for everything, end of story.”
The witness himself left in 2022:
“When I realized I could no longer work and engage in imitation. I was right.”
His words are a verdict not against individual managers, but against the entire system: first innovation was killed by PR, and then finished off by inaction and a mindset of “don’t stick your neck out.”
Read more similar news:
Comments:
comments powered by Disqus
