The Russia Journal

It's not exactly the Battle of Poltava – where Peter the Great finally defeated the Swedes after decades of war. But the controversy surrounding Swedish furniture retailer IKEA's plan to build an overpass obscuring a Russian war memorial has become a hot topic in this country.

While IKEA is playing down the issue as a bureaucratic problem, many Russian war veterans seem concerned about the fate of the World War II monument. The city, while also playing down the controversy, did say it was "surprised" at IKEA's "blunt and unceremonious manner" in the matter and has put a stop to completion of the overpass that would ease access to its new furniture store.

But the issue has developed into more than the saga of a set of tank traps marking the point where German troops were stopped during their assault on Moscow. It now involves charges of insensitivity to Russian pride on the part of the media, of allegations that some newspapers sold out in their coverage of the issue to reap the benefits of IKEA's advertising dollars.

The controversy started in the English-language media March 18, when the Moscow Times published a story titled "IKEA bridge gets caught in a trap." The article was based on an interview with Lennart Dahlgren, IKEA's director for Russia, who expressed his bafflement at the impasse over the overpass construction. The story, which claimed that Moscow City Hall officials had been unavailable for comment, hinted that IKEA was a victim of Moscow's jealousy and corruption.

Curiously, some say, the article appeared a day after IKEA published a full-page advertisement in the Moscow Times, a major deviation from its advertisement strategy.

Matt Bivens, editor of the Moscow Times, denied that the advertisement played any role in the paper's news coverage of the issue.

An ad industry executive familiar with the IKEA campaign but who did not want to be identified said: "The advertisement was a big surprise. The policy of IKEA had been not to publish any ads in newspapers, especially in the English-language press."

IKEA did not place any other advertisements in Russian newspapers during that time. "For a store targeting Russian customers, it would seem an odd choice that they should announce their opening only in an English-language newspaper," the executive said.

But IKEA Marketing Manager Johannes Stenberg told The Russia Journal that the reason IKEA did not advertise in Russian newspapers was that it had chosen to advertise only in the freely distributed advertising paper Extra M, which he says has a circulation of 3 million. He added that IKEA had also distributed 3.5 million catalogs directly to households and had advertised on billboards in the Moscow metro.

Stenberg also denied IKEA had engaged into a PR or press campaign, or that it had ever invited Moscow Oblast or Khimki officials to Sweden in recent years, as some had claimed. He said that Moscow Mayor Yury Luzhkov had been invited to IKEA in 1999 "while he was on a visit to Sweden."

Then, on April 9, the New York Times published a major story, based largely on comments by Stenbreg, also claiming that City Hall was not available for comments.

Shortly afterwards, Moscow's alternative English-language weekly, the eXile, not usually known for its rational arguments, came down hard on the Moscow Times and New York Times stories. Editor Matt Taibbi dubbed the Moscow Times stories as a "buy-a-full-page-ad, get-a-front-page-writeup-in-return" effort. He called the New York Times story "loathsome," "morally abhorrent" and "clearly biased."

A reporter at The New York Times' Moscow bureau said the author of the article, Jonathan Fuerbringer, was a New York-based staff business reporter and was not in Moscow.

The crux of the matter, some say, is that the controversy stems from the fact that IKEA did not ask Moscow city authorities for permission before it started to build the overpass. In a recent article, the Moscow daily Kommersant claimed that City Hall was planning to move the memorial before the controversy erupted but, out of anger about being left out of decision-making, blocked the operation.

City Hall neither denied nor confirmed that plans existed to move the memorial but acknowledged modifications were being contemplated.

"A year ago, [Moscow Mayor] Yury Luzhkov promised that reconstruction work would improve rather than spoil the view of the monument," Boris Nikolsky, deputy premier of Moscow City responsible for economic affairs told The Russia Journal. "He asked architects and designers to make sure that the monument would once again take its honored place at the approaches to Moscow."

"But when we found out that IKEA was building an overpass [that would have obscured the monument], the city administration was surprised at this foreign firm's blunt and unceremonious manner and did not approve the construction," Nikolsky said. "The relevant city bodies asked the company to halt this illegal construction work and recommended that the overpass be built further away from the monument with [appropriate] approval from Moscow Oblast and city officials."

City Hall confirmed that it has been inundated with mail from veterans, worried about the fate of the monument, 23 km outside the capital on Leningradskoye Shosse.

"Many people have expressed outrage that commercial interests would be put above one of the nation's key memorials, especially on the eve of the 55th anniversary of Victory Day [May 9]." said Nikolsky. "The press has been giving this issue a lot, even too much attention. In fact, there isn't really a problem."

IKEA's Stenberg has another version of how the story unfolded. "The IKEA store is located on the territory of Khimki village, outside the boundaries of Moscow City, and is under the jurisdiction of Khimki and Moscow Oblast authorities," he said.

"In June, we got a letter from Khimki authorities actually ordering us to build an overpass over Leningradskoye Shosse, to avoid traffic congestion. The thing is, we didn't know Leningradskoye Shosse itself was under Moscow City Hall's jurisdiction, which is why we did not ask it for permission."

City Hall insists that the dispute between IKEA and authorities has nothing to do with bureaucracy and corruption. "It has everything to do with respect for Russia's pride and its people's sacrifice," Nikolsky said.

Stenberg also ruled out the possibility that corruption could be an issue. "Moscow City Hall never asked us for money; no one has ever asked for any bribes," he insisted.

City Hall's Nikolsky said that, even though "it's basically a zoning and planning problem, people should have the sensitivity to understand that a country shouldn't be asked to sell its heritage and soul to get it. It is necessary for the foreign-language press to be sensitive to such issues and be objective in coverage of such issues."

"We do need foreign investment," he added, saying that "Mayor Luzhkov seeks good relations with Sweden and personally helps businessmen. ... However, in the case of IKEA, his patience is not without limit. Especially as Muscovites show solidarity with their mayor and are calling on him to defend the monument from such construction."

As it is now, the overpass remains unfinished and unusable until a solution can be reached.

Stenberg told The Russia Journal that IKEA did not intend to move the overpass farther down or up Leningradskoye Shosse. "We started building this overpass because we were asked to by Khimki authorities. We accepted to finance it ourselves, and we laid foundations and pillars," he said. "We just hope that, in time, opinion will change in City Hall."

Stenberg said IKEA hopes it can build a second store, this time in the center of Moscow, before the end of 2001. It plans to have a total of seven stores in Russia within 10 years, five in Moscow and two in St. Petersburg.

In any case, it looks unlikely that the controversy and traffic problems on this highway will go away very soon. Moscow City has put its foot down, calling it a sentimental issue where the company did not have appropriate approvals to make the construction. For its part, IKEA claims it is caught in a bureaucratic battle between the Khimki and Moscow Oblast administrations on one hand and the Moscow city administration on the other.

(Staff writer Ekaterina Larina contributed to this report.)