Forum

When a people fights for their rights and freedoms and overthrows a corrupt dictator, it is always a positive thing.

No. Destroying a bad shed doesn't mean building a new, good one. Some people build, some don't, but in any case, after breaking down the old one, you have to endure some discomfort for a while.

The Bolsheviks, after 1917, eventually built something; it took about 10 years to climb out of the mess, and only towards the end of the 1920s did economic growth begin.

Putin & Co. also built something, and it also took about 10 years, with stable growth starting in the early 2000s.

But in Ukraine, neither 10 years after 1991 nor 10 years after 2004 saw any significant progress.

Therefore, you should only break something down if you know who will build it and trust their competence. For example, if Navalny had come to power in 2011, 10-20 years of turmoil would have been guaranteed. That's why I was against it then; Putin, at least, doesn't break down the generally functioning shed. Can it function better? Yes, it can. Will Putin make it better? I don't know. I only know that he won't make it worse, and that's enough for me, as I believe that my personal well-being depends primarily on my own efforts, and not on the results of some government programs. If they don't interfere too much, that's good enough.

There is a festive atmosphere, people are having fun and helping each other to endure until the end. I am with the Ukrainian people with all my heart and feel great sympathy for them; I hope everything will end well and that this will serve as an example for Russia, and we will finally get out of this swamp.

You'll be able to talk when you get out. But all of humanity's historical experience shows that societal progress is almost always not the result of a festive atmosphere and fun (Greece and Spain have already had enough fun), but the result of a firm hand at the helm – a person who understands where he is leading the ship and makes others work.

The people who go to rallies are always a tiny part of the total number of people who agree with the protesters. Some were busy and didn't come, some thought it was useless to go out, some were afraid. In the end, for every 100,000 citizens who are inclined to protest, only one actually comes out (considering the entire population of the country). And the more authoritarian the regime in the country, the greater this ratio. In Ukraine, one and a half million people came out. This means that almost the entire population of the country is opposed to the current government. Therefore, calling the people on the Maidan a "bunch of rowdy idiots" is the same as calling the entire population of Ukraine that.

That's your personal theory. But sociology says otherwise – in any society, at any time, there are always about 5% of chronic oppositionists who criticize any government, no matter what it is, 5-10% who are absolutely loyal to any government, and the remaining majority, who are essentially apolitical, but who are motivated by their stomachs and wallets, and therefore, depending on the circumstances, lean either one way or the other.

And the percentage of fools in all three categories is approximately the same. It's just that in the first category, the average age is lower, so the foolishness is more visible; with age, a person, if not gaining intelligence, at least learns to imitate it better.