The Federal Security Service (FSB) will monitor the law's enforcement. If it finds that foreigners have been buying up shares in strategic enterprises via front firms, the Russian government will have the right to protest against such purchase in court. (Quoted by Anderson, 2008, 57) If the FSB garners authority to monitor all cash flows and transactions allegedly in order to protect Russia from foreign control, implications could extend to Russia, seizing foreign-owned private property. The economic future does not look too propitious for foreign investors.

Most ominously, as Anderson (2008) points out, it is no longer the private company that will sell itself, but Russia that will now serve as its marketing agent. What this implies is that promotion of the firm will now transfer to promotion of the state, creating a potentially conflictual situation for the West where Russia will attempt to maximize its show of national power abroad, aside from potentially introducing opacity and corruption to its Western business partners. The Russian foreign policy perspective still sees undermining western influence as being the best way to raise its own. Such prospects are not encouraging for building business partnerships with Western governments.

Who gains from deprivation? Who loses?

In many instances, the government seems most likely to profit as 'Gazprom' illustrates. Gazprom accounts for approximately 25% of Russian tax revenue with its logo that it is "a global energy leader providing secure deliveries of natural gas and other fuels and raw materials to the world and domestic energy markets." (Quoted Anderson, 2008, 54). Russia also deprivatized the Gazprom Media Holding Company, which not only possess Russia's largest newspaper, the Izvestia, but also owns several large TV channels such as NTV, TNT and several radio stations. Obviously controlling the media would patently serve...

An analysis of the companies who have suffered under deprivations show that a majority of them represent the industrial activity, particularly in the natural resource segment, of the nation.
Finally, the FSB will profit for, by monitoring the law's enforcement (and, consequently, all money flows and cash transactions), it will regain ominous power.

Why would a local politician support such a policy?

As Anderson (2008) points out, renationalized industries have become a power base of Russia's political elite. Much of their wealth comes from this policy which would make them want to continue to support Putin's party politics in order to, not only maintain the sources of their personal wealth, but also retain their political power. In order to rationalize his decision, the politician might rely on Putin's announcement articulated December 2007 in the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry:

We do not plan to create state capitalism… However, we see that without the support of the state, we could not restore some vitally important sectors of the economy & #8230; I want to tell you that we do not plant o keep these government corporations in the form in which they were created forever. After they stand on their own legs and are competitive in world markets, we will attract to them private businesses.. I do not want to exclude such a possibility, and I think that we will do such things." (Anderson, 2008, 56)

Source

Anderson, R.J. (2008). A history of President Putin's campaign to re-nationalize industry and the implications for Russian reform and foreign policy. PA: U.S. Army War College.