Unwanted revolutions

I will not describe our campaign and the end of the Pugachev war. We passed through the villages ruined by Pugachev, and inevitably took away from the poor inhabitants what was left to them by the robbers.
They didn't know who to obey. The board was terminated everywhere. The landlords took refuge in the forests. Bands of robbers were atrocities everywhere. The chiefs of individual detachments sent in pursuit of Pugachev, who was then already running to Astrakhan, arbitrarily punished the guilty and the innocent ... The state of the entire region, where the fire was raging, was terrible.
AS Pushkin

Tired of revolutions

In the late 90s, the thought was often repeated that, they say, Russia was tired of revolutions. In such a mannered voice. The country is tired of revolutions. The time was quite difficult, there were no political decisions on the horizon, and therefore this very “super-destructive” phrase. Say, no need, why ...

Today it is issued in the form of "undesirable revolutions". And also in such a mannered tone. The tone of a snickering major who is fed up with all the beauties of the world. By the way, to some extent one cannot but agree with this. The Russian revolutions of the 17th year plunged the empire into chaos and led to the death and flight of millions of its citizens abroad. What's so good about that?

The economy was smashed to smithereens during the "revolutionary festivities". We have been recovering for a very long time (if you look at the level of food consumption, it is infinitely long). But the level of political freedoms of the late Nicholas Empire within the USSR was not achieved at all. That is, it seems like a revolution is bad!

However, the monarchy in Russia collapsed almost instantly. Nobody really fought for her. The Bolsheviks also came to power quite easily. Civil war - that was later.

So, who would argue about the "undesirability of revolutions"! The Russian revolution, initially seemingly almost bloodless, later led to monstrous consequences. The Red Terror, the White Terror, the riot of various small and large gangs. Hunger, poverty ...

And such a beautiful legend was accepted that in that Russia (which we had lost!) Everything was just wonderful, just wonderful and simply magnificent. But then the provocateur Ulyanov came to VV Putin's small homeland in a "sealed carriage" and, using German (British?) Money, raised a mutiny. The Bolsheviks had a no less beautiful tale about "the thousand-year empire of slavery and Lenin, the prophet-redeemer."

That is, both there and there the role of Ulyanov-Lenin and his militant party is emphasized and emphasized. Even Pelevin has a mystical story on this topic (the theme of "Lenin in October"). That is, the logic is simple: everything was ruined by an agent of the State Department, ugh, the British / German special services Ulyanov-Lenin. Handsomely. One person - and a thousand-year empire, smacks of Hollywood. Divergent ... or insurgent?

And, it means, millions with longing in their voices ask: where were the famous gendarmes and where was the secret police? How did they slap Ulyanov-Lenin? How? How did they allow him to destroy the millennial monarchy? By the way, good questions. Very good.

Everything is just like in that joke about Lenin, the master of conspiracy in Paris: a seemingly inconspicuous, inconspicuous person, but kill him and there will be no Great October Socialist Revolution, the Parisians said to each other. With the same success one can argue that kill Hitler ... and there would be no World War II. Very historical.

Somehow, too much attention is paid to these very Bolsheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries in exile. And other different emigrants. One gets the impression that the Russian revolution was made exclusively in London and Switzerland. Wrong impression.

For some strange reason, the socio-political situation in the Russian Empire at the beginning of the 20th century itself remains behind the scenes. Fits as a background. Say, Lenin wrote there something about the proletariat and Tsar Nicholas. Yeah, I wrote. How not to write. This most openly explosive situation took place in the presence of Ulyanov-Lenin, and even in his complete absence. She did not depend on him and could not depend on him. The plight of the Russian proletariat and peasantry at the beginning of the 20th century is an objective fact, and not an abstract texture from the theoretical works of the Simbirsk revolutionary.

That is, if he had not written his "genius works", the Russian people would still madly love the Romanov monarchy? Are you sure? That is, after all, the young Russian proletariat in the capitals is primary, Ulyanov is secondary. Whatever one may say.

Good example

As you know, a revolutionary situation also developed in belligerent France, and in 1917 everything was “on the brink” there, but the situation was managed. In Britain, too, everything was very sad, but there were no demonstrations of the proletariat in Trafalgar Square. The revolution in Germany did happen, but the extremists did not come to power there (in the 20s). But in "victorious" Italy, Mussolini suddenly came to power ... But in uncontested Spain, there was a civil war ... in the 30s! And then Franco's dictatorship right up to his death. Handsomely.

But just in Britain, a country that is Russia's traditional enemy, the last "revolution" took place a long time ago. And, as a matter of fact, it was never a popular uprising. This refers to the English bourgeois revolution of the XNUMXth century. The British Empire developed very rapidly. Industry, shipbuilding, trade, stock exchanges and navigation. Sciences and fine arts. The modern global world is very seriously indebted to the British Empire of the XNUMXth century. That is, Britain was not a kind of analogue of the great Chinese empire, isolated from the outside world, it was its antipode. The British did not build walls, they built merchant ships.

And over the three centuries of rapid transformation of British society (XVII, XVIII, XIX) no revolutions happened there. Strange, isn't it? Even at the turn of the XNUMXth and XNUMXth centuries, a certain Pobedonostsev actively advised the sovereign to "freeze Russia". That is, when relatively small (against the background of, for example, Germany) changes in the economy, technology and social relations began in the Russian empire, then for the political system this became a "challenge" for which the system was not ready.

The result - three revolutions, which in the end brought the empire to the grave. But in the British Empire of that era no no revolutions happened. It is painful, bitter and insulting to realize this: there was no popular uprising in the mercantile and spiritually cynical Britain. But in the spiritual, God-saved and truly Orthodox Russia, a catastrophe has occurred. And the serial one. You know, I just want to sit down ... and rewrite all the textbooks stories, because it couldn't be.

Everything should have been exactly the opposite. As some Marxist idealists roughly expected a popular revolution in the United States in the 20th century. And the collapse of monopoly capital. Didn't wait. Rather, they waited, but a completely different development of events. Damn "stupid" (quote from Zadornov) Americans. However, from the point of view of state building and the stability of the state system, everything comes out humanly for them. Paradox!

The cynical system, built on profit and cash, for some reason beats its competitors over and over again. Do you remember when was the last American Revolution? And how did it end? But the American state for two and a half centuries of its history has developed even more dynamically than the British Empire, the enemy of all Russian TV presenters.

One simple question never occurs to you: why they can ensure the stability of their political system, but in Russia this is not possible? Britain has had zero revolutions since the start of the industrial revolution, and even today during the revolutionary political changes in the light of the exit from the European Union, no one is talking about any revolution. Even theoretically. Why is that?

And why is the revolution “always near” in Russia? What's wrong with our system?

Political circuitry

China is mentioned here for a reason. The oldest and greatest empire of the planet Earth, moreover, original. The Chinese themselves invented the first nail, the first brick, and the first cart. And the political problems are the same as those of Russia: the uprising of the "red eyebrows", the uprising of the "yellow bands". Which took place long before historical materialism and long before the rise of Kievan Rus. But practically during the heyday of the Roman Empire. And who simply "killed" the state system. It was something, it was something with something.

In general, popular uprisings happened in China with frightening regularity (as well as the disintegration of the country into parts). The last time this happened with might and main was in the era of Lenin and Trotsky. Something like this. And even much later: Mao and his Red Guards ... Life at the reactor, otherwise you cannot say. But in Britain for the past few centuries, everything is somehow mysteriously stable.

From the author's point of view, there are two reasons for this "paradox": the British legal system and British parliamentarism. The last dictator there was the revolutionary Cromwell, after him no "kings" - neither "good" nor "bad" - were observed. And the country was growing. And elections were regularly held in the country, and political crises happened, but there were no revolutions.

And when today the Russian "elitists" are trying to attach their children to Foggy Albion, there is a very sober calculation: what will happen in Russia tomorrow is not clear, but in Britain the lawns will still turn green, as they did a hundred years ago. There are good lawns there, very good, and the political system is not bad either.

And it did not arise yesterday: The Great Charter of Arms (Latin Magna Carta, also Magna Charta Libertatum) is a political and legal document drawn up in June 1215 on the basis of the requirements of the English nobility to the king.

“But now sit and listen, he didn’t wish her any harm ...” That is, for a long time, these issues began to be discussed and recorded in the British kingdom. A long time ago. It remains only to turn your head in amazement. We tried to give such "conditions" to the next empress, and on January 25, 1730 from the year of Christ, Anna Ioanovna even signed them ... And Russia was a "constitutional monarchy" ... for exactly one month.

One hundred years of palace coups and half-reform in half with terror

Then the conditions were thrown aside as unnecessary junk, and a new great era of autocracy began ... or "the era of palace coups," as historians would later call it. And by the way, how many such "coups" took place in Britain in the XVIII century? And the reasons here are very simple: if all the power in the country is embodied in the figure of the monarch, then ... it is very interesting to either influence the monarch, or put your own "king". Something like that. And the "elections" took place, they were simply carried out with their bayonets by the capital's guard. Often in the interests of certain "foreign powers". Such is "prosperity", such is the "imperial paradise".

The purpose of such coups was often the use of the Russian army in the interests of certain "European coalitions". British and French ambassadors there were still "tore and toss." Glorious epoch, really glorious ... Why did the "heroic Suvorov" put his soldiers in the Swiss Alps there? For whose interests? Well, or participation in the Seven Years War, a coup ... and a complete change of side of the conflict. Or the murder of Paul in order to prevent ...

You see, it didn't make much sense to kill the British monarch at that time. He was not alone in driving British politics, and even the assassination of the British Prime Minister made little difference. The political system because. Not tied to one single personality.

We well remember the last (unsuccessful!) Attempt of such a coup - the Decembrists. But they represent the end point of a great historical tradition of the previous (bygone) XVIII century. By themselves, they look quite wild (and this is how they are presented!). Suddenly, well-born officers rushed to fight for the constitution and the happiness of the people - what a miracle! But if we consider them as a continuation of the line of the capital coups that raged almost the entire previous century ... then the picture becomes clearer.

But what stability! What spirituality! Father Nicholas I was killed (literally) by conspirators from the highest Russian nobility, they tried to send Nicholas himself to the next world, and they tried to capture his family ... But Russia does not need a parliamentary system of mercantile Britain! We will surpass them morally, so our "theoreticians" reasoned in the glorious XNUMXth century ... Once again: Pavel and Nicholas tried to kill representatives of the same highest Russian nobility - the throne's support and the nation's hope in one person. "The best people of our city" ... True, the habits of the "Golitsyn lieutenants" were somewhat reminiscent of those of Urkagan.

And yes, Emperor Nicholas really wanted to free the peasantry, but he was afraid ... he was afraid of the very Russian nobility, which consisted of prominent slave owners. And he didn't even twitch. The era of Nikolai Palkin is an era when, in contrast to the "courtly" previous century, the nobles also shrugged their tails, for which the representatives of the noble class hated him. An era of relative stability that ended in defeat in the Crimea.

After Nikolai, reforms began ... and gradually political chaos began to unfold again. The place of the guard as a source of unrest was taken by various bombers and Narodnaya Volya. Somehow it is customary to forget that they constantly tried to kill Alexander II the Liberator. Attempts went one after another ... But he seemingly carried out large-scale reforms. But it was under him that the revolutionary movement gained momentum.

Towards the end of his reign, protest sentiments spread among various sectors of society, including the intelligentsia, part of the nobility and the army.
The intensification of repression by the police, especially in relation to "going to the people" (the trial of one hundred and ninety-three populists), aroused public outrage and initiated terrorist activities, which subsequently took on a massive character.
The public applauded the terrorists, the number of terrorist organizations themselves grew - for example, “Narodnaya Volya”, which sentenced the tsar to death, had hundreds of active members.

(Wiki.)

They know poorly the history of their own country, very poorly. A deep political crisis arose in the country long before the appearance of Ulyanov-Lenin on the political scene. A very long time. All those "damn questions" took place long before he was born. By the end of the reign of the "tsar-liberator", complete political chaos reigned in the country. And the conservative patriotic monarchists logically indicated that this was all because of the damned reforms.

That is, the logic of prosperity until 1917 is flawed at its core. The country was in permanent chaos. Political. 1904-1905 is only a moment of exacerbation. The political system was clearly inadequate to the needs of society, which led to a permanent crisis. And the question should be asked not “why did the secret police miss Lenin in the 17th?”, But “how did this archaic system stay afloat for so long?”

You can take off your hat to the administrators and gendarmes of the Romanov empire: they did the virtually impossible: they “pulled” this completely inadequate system as long as it was possible, and continued to pull, even when it became completely impossible. It was pulled by almost three years of World War ... and then everything collapsed. But it collapsed not because of the "sudden Lenin" or even because of the "sudden Kerensky", but because of the "complete exhaustion of the resource" of the political system.

Conclusions

For some strange reason, it is customary in our country to this day to regard the Russian revolutions and the collapse of the Russian Empire as something almost accidental. That, they say, this could have been avoided and “foreign agents in sealed cars” are to blame for everything. Say, Lenin arrived at the Finland Station, climbed onto an armored car and made a revolution. And if he slipped then, rolled onto the paving stones from an uncomfortable pedestal, hit his head against it - and everything would have been different ...

The industrial XX century was already underway, and autocracy reigned in our country ... And everything did not reach the point of resolving the "peasant-land issue". And the peasant with us until the very 17th year was "half-person", as he was ironically called in the press of that time. Corporal punishment was abolished for peasants as early as 1904-1905 (apparently, in parallel with the introduction of "Stolypin neckties"). Also a test subject - Stolypin the reformer ...

If anything, the habeas corpus rule has been in constant use since the XNUMXth century. At first, it was used as a means to restore freedom, violated by private individuals, mainly feudal lords and their subordinates, but already from the time of Henry VII it began to be used in cases of personal persecution by the Crown.

But this is in the damned "Englishwoman" who, of course, crap ... British history and the British authorities were not much softer than Russian ones, suffice it to recall the "fences" and "workhouses", as well as "hanging vagrants" and their "deportation in shackles in the colony" as convicts, if that. There was no smell of humanism there. But there were no revolutions and gulags. Because human and individual rights were defined there hundreds of years before the start of the industrial revolution. That is, law in itself does not mean humanism - they are different things.

British law, British parliament ... They have become models for many countries around the world, starting with the USA and Canada. That is, the "political system" was established. Including justice (separate from the executive). As a result, at the beginning of the XNUMXst century, Russian oligarchs prefer to sue in Britain, but not at home. That is, such a court (not tightly embedded in the state system) is not stupidity or weakness. It is strength, wisdom and an element of stability.

In 1265, Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester, convened the first elected parliament.

And for centuries, political crises in the British Isles have raged mainly ... in the Parliament Hall, but not in the blood-stained streets and squares of the capital. That is, the party system, inter-party battles and clashes in parliament are a kind of fuse for the system. It is customary in our country to laugh arrogantly at this - there are no parliamentary crises in Russia. Well, yes, we usually have bloody riots / revolutions. Some of our politicians made fun of the "stupid" foreign parliaments - they say, they need to have a place where you can fight with chairs. It is, of course, so, but it is much better than "when the lava passes through the lava, on the quarry going horses ..."

Many have heard about British law and parliament, but the people have not heard about the "British revolt, meaningful and humane". The last thing that comes to mind is a certain Wat Tyler. The British farmer did not need to start a riot, because he could vote, he could go to court, he could file a petition ... And his life (if anything) was not at all like sugar, but there was not much point in rebelling. Although the political system was no more humane than the continental one. But like ... there were "rules of the game"! How! A kind of "fair play".

For the government, all these signals were a kind of "red lights", that is, no one was going to "lick" each specific signatory, but too many of these alarming signals meant the need for course correction or even reforms (which, in principle, could consist in the expulsion of poor vagrants to Australia). And the system shifted to a new stable position. And so on almost endlessly.

In Russia, everything was strictly the opposite, any discontent was viewed as a riot with all the consequences, reforms were "postponed" for decades, if not generations, and therefore society was permanently in a politically unstable state. That is, the "red lights" do not light up not because everything is fine, but because they are turned off (for the purpose of patriotic illumination, only green lights are on, but connected only to power supply). And the "pilots" are permanently in a state of quiet panic, since they have no real information about the state of the aircraft. Then - a "sudden" catastrophe.

The “stable” state system in Russia is structured as follows: screw all the safety valves off the steam boiler, remove the real arrows from the pressure gauges and leave the ones drawn in the right position ... we build up the pressure, but we go around and repeat over and over that the boiler explosion is undesirable ...

Comments

[Svarog]

The “stable” state system in Russia is structured as follows: screw all the safety valves off the steam boiler, remove the real arrows from the pressure gauges and leave the ones drawn in the right position ... we build up the pressure, but we go around and repeat over and over that the boiler explosion is undesirable ...

Exactly .. today everything is so .. and in general it is similar to the pre-revolutionary situation ..
It so happened in our country that people do not pay attention to red light bulbs ... as it is customary to ignore, this is a significant difference from the West. Western capitalists are afraid and the instinct of self-preservation makes them share with the people. That in turn makes it possible to develop freely and steadily. Even in the west, there are courts, unlike ours, which also maintains the appearance of some kind of justice.
Our greed is such that the instincts are turned off and live and steal, as if tomorrow is no longer for them.

[Ragnar Lodbrok]

Quote: Svarog

as if there is no tomorrow for them.

[credo]

Quote: Svarog

The “stable” state system in Russia is structured as follows: screw all the safety valves off the steam boiler, remove the real arrows from the pressure gauges and leave the ones drawn in the right position ... we build up the pressure, but we go around and repeat over and over that the boiler explosion is undesirable ...

Exactly .. today everything is so .. and in general it is similar to the pre-revolutionary situation ..
It so happened in our country that people do not pay attention to red light bulbs ... as it is customary to ignore, this is a significant difference from the West. Western capitalists are afraid and the instinct of self-preservation makes them share with the people. That in turn makes it possible to develop freely and steadily. Even in the west, there are courts, unlike ours, which also maintains the appearance of some kind of justice.
Our greed is such that the instincts are turned off and live and steal, as if tomorrow is no longer for them.

In my opinion, you, like the Author, have a one-sided interpretation of both the history of Russia and the history of England.
Everything is served too chaotically and a complete mess.

[aybolyt678]

+

Quote: credo

Everything is served too chaotically and a complete mess.

one-sided .. I did not have enough, for example, the classic uprising of weavers breaking looms, is that not a revolution? not an uprising?

[parusnik]

Our greed is such that the instincts are turned off and live and steal, as if tomorrow is no longer for them.

... "This is our tradition and we keep it" (c) ... Alas ... this applies to our entire history ... Who did perestroika, the arisen bourgeoisie (crime), which merged with the party nomenclature.

[bandabas]

You are absolutely right. And if we consider that almost the majority of the "powers that be" come from the Komsomol or the Communist Party of the USSR (I mean "Komsomol members" and "party members" who got out in the late 80s-early 90s, and quickly surrendered their tickets) into place. Matvienko alone is worth something.

[tatra]

This is what I wrote about below. The enemies of the communists, who always pretend to be those who are beneficial to them at the moment, who seized the USSR, imposed on the country and the people with YOURSELF in power, YOUR System, ideology, categorically refused to take responsibility for all this, because they seized the USSR with criminal goals.

[parusnik]

because they captured the USSR for criminal purposes.

... I strongly agree.

[depressant]

Colleagues, I have read your comments, but I did not see the exact layout of individual prerequisites for the revolution. And they are.

1. Under capitalism, open replacement of the local population with a cheaper foreign labor force, willing to work on a rotational basis in our unfavorable climate.

2. Suppression of entrepreneurial initiative of the local population in order to eliminate possible competitors for both local big business and foreign.

3. The displacement of large local businesses by foreign ones, the seizure of strategically important industries by foreigners.

4. Suppression by the political center of the local initiative for the development of regions.

5. Active work of NGOs to initiate the national identity of small peoples and nationalities in order to divide the country into independent states.

6. The unconcealed attitude of big business and political power at all levels to the country as an exploited colonial territory.

7. The official policy of disintegrating the morality and ethics of the population in order to suppress the remnants of Soviet ideology with the subsequent oblivion of its unifying foundations.

8. Corruption and total irresponsibility within political and economic power.

9. Merging of the judiciary and law enforcement authorities with representatives of capital and political bureaucracy.

8. Destruction of culture, science, education, medicine.

9. Insufficiency and deficiency of economic development.

10. Illiterate monetary policy.

11. Irremovability of politicians, backwardness of their thinking.

12. Inflation.

This is so, offhand and mixed. I suppose you can add more. But even what has been listed is enough for riots to cover the country with a further deterioration in the economic situation. I think the authorities have something to think about. A large territory with a large border and many peoples requires a powerful unifying principle. This was the project of the USSR at the time of its heyday. Now it was necessary to introduce into the Constitution the inadmissibility of dividing the territory, and into the laws - punishment. Weak attempt!

[aybolyt678]

Quote: depressant

Active work of NGOs to initiate the national identity of small peoples and nationalities in order to divide the country into independent states

How is it that the regional departments of Culture perform this very function of separatism?

10. Illiterate monetary policy.

Or maybe she is just literate from the opposite - competently to destroy and weaken !? Why is the amount of money in circulation provided not by production facilities but by the amount of foreign currency in the storerooms?

[CSKA]

Quote: depressant

Under capitalism, overt replacement of the local population with cheaper foreign labor

))))) I started reading and just waited for delirium to go. In your opinion, the population of each city is only factory workers and builders?))))) You at least one plant, for example a metallurgical, find this foreign labor force. And on the racks they are only laborers and laborers. I am already silent that most of the population is employed, as in all economically developed countries, employed in the service sector. Will you find many foreigners among engineers, managers, programmers?

Quote: depressant

Suppression of the entrepreneurial initiative of the local population in order to eliminate possible competitors for both local big business and foreign.

What are you chalking unfinished businessman? What is the initiative? What population? In the Russian Federation, it is nowhere easier to open an IP. Which individual entrepreneur or LLC is a competitor to big business? Which industry? In metallurgy, in oil production, in mechanical engineering? What is the suppression of entrepreneurial initiative? Give an example.

Quote: depressant

Displacement of large local business by foreign, seizure of strategically important industries by foreigners.

Well, all this is just the limit of delirium. Empty chatter and writing. Name the strategic industry where foreign business has taken over. Lies on lies.

Quote: depressant

Suppression by the political center of the local initiative for the development of regions.

An example in the studio.

Quote: depressant

Active work of NGOs to initiate the national identity of small peoples and nationalities in order to divide the country into independent states.

Yes, our NGOs, on the contrary, are closed. and an example of such an NPO. Or again your lies?))))

Quote: depressant

The unconcealed attitude of big business and political power at all levels to the country as an exploited colonial territory.

Nuu already just chatter started.

Quote: depressant

The official policy of disintegrating the morality and ethics of the population in order to suppress the remnants of Soviet ideology with the subsequent oblivion of its unifying foundations.

Laughing out loud. I read and understand that such narrow-minded dinosaurs were talking nonsense about the fact that there is no sex in the USSR. It's good that you are already in the past.

Quote: depressant

Corruption and total irresponsibility within political and economic power

Well, of course there is no corruption anywhere else in the world.

Quote: depressant

9. Merging of the judiciary and law enforcement authorities with representatives of capital and political bureaucracy.
8. Destruction of culture, science, education, medicine.
9. Insufficiency and deficiency of economic development.
10. Illiterate monetary policy.
11. Irremovability of politicians, backwardness of their thinking.

Well, it started. Blah blah blah. You there the Communist Party of the Russian Federation at least would have changed agitation. And then all the hackneyed delusional cliches are talking nonsense. Of course, our education has been so destroyed that children win dozens of medals at the Olympiads. Well, of course we don't have science. You all know everything about science. It's just not clear how we invent vaccines, created graphene, hypersonic weapons.

Quote: depressant

12. Inflation.

What are you? 3,5% this year. Oh God. There is no more inflation in the world.

Quote: depressant

This is so, offhand and mixed. I suppose you can add

Let me add. I always treated the communists normally, but thanks to such headless dinosaurs as you, ready to plunge my country into the abyss of yet another ravolutsy, I am already beginning to hate you. It is very good that you are the past that will soon disappear.

[Dart2027]

Quote: CSKA

I always treated the communists normally, but thanks to such headless dinosaurs as you, ready to plunge my country into the abyss of yet another ravolutsy, I am already beginning to hate you.

Similarly.

[EvilLion]

The 90s ended 20 years ago.

[aybolyt678]

Quote: bandabas

Matvienko alone is worth something.

forgot about Merkel maybe this is a caste?

[evgen1221]

Let's look at that and the current party apparatus from a slightly different angle - the author outlined it in the last paragraph. When all the signals from the bottom are ignored in principle, what do we expect? Just what we got. There was control and cleansing, there was development as a whole.

[Normal ok]

Thanks to the author. Sometimes, really good articles are printed on VO. That's why I also read.

[unaha]

"they do not pay attention to the red bulbs at all ... as it is customary to ignore them" - well, you, they are not ignored, it is customary for us to declare the initiators who turn on these bulbs traitors, agents of something (the State Department, Japan, Germany, etc.) and press with all the forces of the state apparatus ... Press the initiators, and not eliminate the phenomenon leading to the signal.
The article is excellent.

[neri73-r]

Thanks to the author, there is something to think about.

[mark2]

And what is there to think about? For the author, everything is mixed in a heap: popular uprisings and revolutions. Successful uprisings received the status of revolutions, unsuccessful ones remained riots or uprisings.
In the British Empire, including in the metropolis, there were uprisings and riots after their revolution. They were brutally suppressed. It was based on the brutality of suppression. Now we see the same thing. The suppression of any discontent is tough. Which is right.
In Russia in the 20th century, two riots were successful.
Well, from all that has been read, the conclusion is drawn that only hard power can guarantee the stability of the political system in the country. Having consolidated a new political system once in the process of revolution, the authorities are obliged to preserve it. Otherwise, this is a new revolution.

[parusnik]

Do not confuse revolt and revolution. There are two big differences. By the way, the first "revolt" in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century was to some extent successful. The monarch had to share the absolute power, no, of course not with the people, with the bourgeoisie . But it cost, in half measures. In February 1917, I had to give up completely. Although, perhaps it still had to be done 12 years ago. But the bourgeoisie stepped on the same rake, in half measures. It ended in October.

[mikh-korsakov]

I quote "do not confuse rebellion and revolution." The picture of events described by the author is one-sided, because the author rightly cites Anglo-Saxon, as well as northern, countries as an example of stability, and it turns out that this goodness is explained by the deep character traits of their peoples. But, as if in reproach to all other peoples, a picture emerges, here you are, the Anglo-Saxons and other Swedes with their parliaments, the superior race, and all the rest - by the way, European countries (the same France with a chain of revolutions from 1789 to 1968) - are narrow-minded peoples, incapable create a system. In general, the author is strange - he recognizes the bloody crimes of the British authorities, exceeding in cruelty the actions of the autocrats in "bastard" Russia - but at the same time admires Anglo-Saxon law - but stability and parliamentarism, they are executed not just like that, but in compliance with the procedure. The fact that Russian oligarchs prefer to sue in England, in my opinion, only testifies to the fact that the English courts are more experienced in resolving their vile swindling vile disputes, since over hundreds of years they have become experienced in settling disputes between crooks. The fact that our oligarchs send their children there to study does not indicate the advantages of the education system, it is archaic, but fashion. Talented and hardworking young people from Russia turned into great scientists (Pavlov, Mechnikov, Kapitsa, Landau ...) tired of naming. And how they began to simulate parliamentary democracy in Russia after 1991 - so new geniuses are not visible either in science or culture, or a breakthrough in the economy. In addition, the current bloody events in the United States, senseless and merciless - in this stronghold of procedure and democracy, suggest the thought "what a hell ..." In addition, the possibilities of the Internet make historical excursions useless - now it is different.

[aybolyt678]

++

Quote: mikh-korsakov

In addition, the current bloody events in the United States, senseless and merciless, are in this stronghold of procedure and democracy,

I agree with everything, but the last phrase is not right ... A farce is played out in America, the owners of money do not care where to sow chaos

[Olezhek]

The Anglo-Saxons and other Swedes with their parliaments, the superior race, and all the rest - by the way, European countries (the same France with a chain of revolutions from 1789 to 1968) - are narrow-minded peoples, unable to create a system.

Today there are peoples really promoting "nanotechnology" (not according to Chubais)
And there are peoples living on a dollar (well, three dollars) a day
And who is "evil Buratina" to whom?
You, excuse me, wanted "tolerance"?
Black live matter?

[mikh-korsakov]

What I don't want is tolerance. As for nanotechnology. You used this word as a bogey of backwardness not Anglo-Saxons. But nanotechnology is nothing more than one of the branches of colloidal chemistry - there is no Anglo-Saxon monopoly there. But I am not inclined to believe that the path of parliamentarism is the only necessary and sufficient one. An example of British parliamentarianism is India. So there people are not only living for a dollar, they are dying of hunger. Another example is China. Achieved shining peaks under wise guidance ... Well, you know.

[Olezhek]

What I don't want is tolerance. As for nanotechnology. You used this word as a bogey of backwardness not Anglo-Saxons. But nanotechnology is nothing more than one of the branches of colloidal chemistry - there is no Anglo-Saxon monopoly there.

I did not put this word in quotes for nothing
There are countries with powerful high-tech (not only the Anglo-Saxons), but there are all the rest
And there is nothing to be offended at
And these two categories are very clearly separated.
And in the first country there are not many

An example of British-style parliamentarism is India. So there people are not only living for a dollar, they are dying of hunger. Another example is China

Now think about which country is more politically stable?

[mikh-korsakov]

There is an effective cure for political instability - Tiananmen. In Hong Kong, in the presence of a British judicial system, the authorities could not do anything about the "umbrella revolution" until the PRC authorities lucidly explained to the snickering "civil society" that if at least once ... And the protests subsided. I believe that the only indicator of the effectiveness of the state is the steady growth of GDP, and the associated increase in the well-being of the working masses is not important. The important thing is that for this the state should encourage the workers and punish the crooks and everything will go. The technological superiority of the Anglo-Saxons is based mainly on the superiority of their science, and in the monopolization of certification systems. An example is the delay in production of MC17 due to sanctions. In fact, the technology for the production of carbon wing components in the VKP of Russia has long been mastered. However, products using this technology are not certified in the West. Hence all the troubles.

[aybolyt678]

Quote: mikh-korsakov

However, products using this technology are not certified in the West. Hence all the troubles

question: the trouble is that it is not certified, or is that there is no such technology in the West and they want to fuck with it? And maybe all the troubles of dependence on the West ??? Or maybe all the troubles from our pro-Western elite ??

[Olezhek]

There is an effective cure for political instability - Tiananmen.

Yeah, of course, and the Chinese use it regularly.

In Hong Kong, in the presence of a British judicial system, the authorities could not do anything about the "umbrella revolution" until the PRC authorities intelligibly explained to the snickering "civil society"

And in Hong Kong, "civil society" is not so "snuffed" because of China.
They have nothing to thank the CCP for.

https://topwar.ru/166442-gonkong-i-tajvan-dve-stupeni-k-uspehu-bolshogo-kitaja.html

[unaha]

"steady growth of GDP, and the associated increase in the well-being of workers" - where did you find the connection between these phenomena? Our GDP is quite at the level, but at what level of well-being in the mass?

[mikh-korsakov]

There is a difference to honey, as it happens with the correct management of the national economy on the basis of a fair distribution of the social product, and at the same time as in our country. you understand.

[CSKA]

Quote: Olezhek

Today there are peoples really promoting "nanotechnology" (not according to Chubais)

And not for Chubais, how is it? And who promoted Th?

[stas]

The main driving force behind the revolution is the government itself, which is incapable of leading reasonably and justly!

[Ingvar 72]

Quote: stas

incapable of leading reasonably and fairly!

And their goals are different, because everything they do is aimed at infringing on the rights of the people, and not at improving their welfare. Of course, they talk about good intentions, only now it turns out the other way around. Although even according to the theory of probability, from time to time it should turn out as planned.
Take, for example, the amendments - one of the promoted ones about the Russian language, but the "optimized" RAS officially introduced the words cashback, fake, selfie into the Russian language.
The village is dying out, the Russian language and culture are degrading - we are simply being destroyed in a complex way. But we all endure. How long? Where is the line when the people will rise? And won't it be a shame when the people wake up?

[aybolyt678]

Quote: Ingvar 72

Where is the line when the people will rise? And won't it be a shame when the people wake up?

not a milestone but a start. And it is possible only if there is a Leader with an understandable Purpose, Path, tasks, and Ideology that unites everyone. And God forbid that this goal was: survive the fire of war
The biggest misfortune of today is a technogenic loss. Our level of technical education does not allow us to create anything competitive in the global consumer goods market.
They don't want to go the Stalinist way and buy specialists and scientists from us.

[Baloo]

Quote: stas

Everything is just like in that joke about Lenin, the master of conspiracy in Paris: a seemingly inconspicuous, inconspicuous person, but kill him and there will be no Great October Socialist Revolution, the Parisians said to each other. With the same success one can argue that kill Hitler ... and there would be no World War II. Very historical.

Quote: stas

The main driving force behind the revolution is the government itself, which is incapable of leading reasonably and justly!

If there were no Lenin, the collapse would have been continued by the agents of influence Trotsky and Sverdlov and others. In the first years after the revolution, who was in charge of the power structures? Tribesmen of Trotsky and Sverdlov. When power passed to Stalin, the number of fellow tribesmen in the country's leadership began to decline. Russia has always been a tasty morsel for plunder by neighbors and newcomers.

[Malyuta]

Quote: stas

The main driving force behind the revolution is the government itself, which is incapable of leading reasonably and justly!

I would note that the Russian authorities have been particularly successful in this.

[krops777]

I would note that the Russian authorities have been particularly successful in this.

The authorities of the late USSR and the Russian Empire succeeded in this more, because they no longer exist.

[aybolyt678]

Quote: stas

incapable of leading reasonably and fairly!

isn't pragmatism and the sacred right of private property the clearest example of rationality and justice ??? Or are these guidelines wrong?

[stas]

Our bourgeoisie has stolen property that cannot be sacred.
Thieves should be in jail until the damage is paid in full!

[aybolyt678]

Quote: stas

Our bourgeoisie has stolen property that cannot be sacred.

property is not sacred but the right to it. Constitution of the Russian Federation

[Basil50]

The author tried to write simply and intelligibly about the INEVITABILITY of revolutions in the RUSSIAN EMPIRE. Thank you for not being afraid to write.
But even today there are those who write about the * Golden Age * in relation to the RUSSIAN EMPIRE.
There was a lot of gold, but it was spent on fun and a little on the army, which, if anything, is not only against an external enemy ...
It seems that the descendants of all these * former * and their lackeys are still raving about fairy tales about the RUSSIAN EMPIRE and about their * high ..... *.

[dust31]

But even today there are those who write about the * Golden Age * in relation to the RUSSIAN EMPIRE.

Excuse me, but when was it, that golden age of Russia as a state, taking into account a thousand-year history?

[aybolyt678]

Quote: dust31

Excuse me, but when was it, that golden age of Russia as a state, taking into account a thousand-year history?

from 1930 - 1967

[Malyuta]

Quote: Vasily50

But even today there are those who write about the * Golden Age * in relation to the RUSSIAN EMPIRE.

Here, too, is full of bearers screaming that Russia has never lived as well as it did under Putinism.

[Dart2027]

Quote: Malyuta

that Russia has never lived as well as it did under Putinism

Judging by what bags people come out of stores with, they live quite well.

[andrewkor]

And what are the conclusions? It is clear that one cannot live like that! So how should it be?
They wanted to live in the neighboring country of Russia as in France, and what came of it!

[Basil50]

France is a republic with a bunch of colonies. The plunder of the colonies feeds the metropolis.
Whom do our neighbors see as a colony? Who are they going to rob?

[parusnik]

Who are they going to rob?

.... So they have been robbing since independence. And they have been robbing people everywhere throughout the territory of the former USSR ..

[Malyuta]

Totally agree with you! Now the metropolis is the capital, and the colony is the rest of the territory of the castle.

[nnm]

Recently, I hear more and more often that with the current government the people will no longer be able to come to a socio-economic consensus. Even in the latest BadCommedian review.
And here, reading the article, everyone was expecting this result, but they did not decide on a crescendo (within the framework of the law, of course), but limited themselves to a small allusion to the words of the Adjutant General of Alexander III, Otto Richter:
"Imagine, sir, a boiler in which gases are boiling.
And around there are special caring people with hammers
and carefully rivet the smallest holes.
But one day, sir, gases will pull out such a piece,
that it will be impossible to rivet. "
But I repeat, more and more often I begin to hear this from people of different positions and different ages.

[Virus-free crown]

Quote: nnm

Recently, I hear more and more often that with modern government the people will no longer be able to come to a socio-economic consensus.
...
But I repeat, more and more often I begin to hear this from people of different positions and different ages.

Well, at least here you give me a plus sign for my post ?! for being in this FULLY !!! I agree with you !!!

[Malyuta]

Quote: nnm

But one day, sir, gases will pull out such a piece,
that it will be impossible to rivet. "
But I repeat, more and more often I begin to hear this from people of different positions and different ages.

The main thing is that you hear it from yourself, otherwise you listen, listen ...

[Blacksmith 55]

There was little reason for the British to go to the barricades.
For centuries, they robbed half of the world, all goods were taken to England.
They played off other states, while they themselves tried to stay aside.
Russia really has enough revolutions, because this has always led to the destruction of statehood and the impoverishment of the people. I think the last revolution is still in the minds of many. This is the end of the 80s and 90s, although many do not consider this a revolution.

[nikvic46]

Blacksmith 55. Yes, England robbed half the world. But what did the simple English have from this? Why didn't you go to the barricades? This is still a question for me.

[Blacksmith 55]

Any society consists of 3 layers, very rich, very poor, and a layer between them.
The thicker the middle, the calmer the society.
In England, on average, people lived better than in Russia. Incidentally, not only there, in general in Europe.
There are several reasons for this. I have already named one, it is the robbery of the colonies.
Second: the emancipation of the peasants took place earlier, and yet there was some kind of democratization and freedom.
And third: the weather conditions in Europe are much more favorable than even in the European part of Russia.
I am not a historian, I do not claim that I am right, this is my personal opinion.

[Gardamir]

Any society consists of 3 layers

how many layers were there in Soviet society? Please do not tell perestroika tales.

[Blacksmith 55]

Also 3. Or do you want to say that there were no rich, or well, very wealthy people in the USSR?
There was also poverty. If you do not know this, then you have not been in the outback.
In the 50s and 60s, no money was paid in the villages and hamlets yet. Did you put "sticks", or is it not familiar to you?
All were equal, but some were still more equal.

[pmkemcity]

Quote: Blacksmith 55

I am not a historian, I do not claim that I am right

Put the third reason first, and remove the other two ...

[boris epstein]

Why did England rob half of the world? She continues to rob. It is simply called now not the British Empire, but the British Commonwealth of Nations and the former colonies still recognize the English queen, including the USA, Canada, India, Australia ... And England itself is now the mighty center. The USA is rich and strong, but straightforward. Angia is not less rich, but it is more sophisticated. In any case, the pound sterling rate is ABOVE the dollar rate.

[Blacksmith 55]

Well, you blurted it out, the United States and India do not belong in any way to England. These were colonies, but now independent states.
Canada, Australia, and many others, another question, they recognize the Queen as the head of their state.

[boris epstein]

In relations with the United States and India, England is number two and rules from behind the scenes. Moreover, in relation to India it is coarser, in relation to the United States it is subtler and more invisible. And they recognize the Queen not as the head of their states, but as the head of the British Commonwealth of Nations. And they have their own heads of state, including in England itself, the prime minister rules.

[Blacksmith 55]

The prime minister is NOT the head of state. The head of state is the president, the king, the king after all. Can't you see the difference between these positions?

[boris epstein]

In different countries it is different. In England and Germany, the Prime Minister rules. The President of the Federal Republic of Germany has only representative functions. Where and when does the President of the Federal Republic of Germany Weizsäcker appear? In England, there is no president at all, and the Prime Minister of the FRG is everywhere, the Prime Minister of England is also. But in the United States, France, the president is ruled, and the prime minister is the second person. There is Russia, in which the president has only power ministries and foreign policy. Prime Minister - Economy. Separation of powers. Read carefully the Constitution of the Russian Federation. It depends on the form of government. There is a presidential republic, there is a parliamentary republic, there is a constitutional monarchy with a monarch who has sharply limited rights, such as the king of Belgium. And then there is England, where the queen is the main English tradition, and the prime minister rules.

[Blacksmith 55]

Yes, in different countries it is different. But there is the position of the head of state (president, king, etc.), and there is the position of the head of government, but this is probably not familiar to you.
In my opinion, you live in the 20th century.
Richard von Weizsacker was the President of the Federal Republic of Germany, but he died almost 6 years ago.
Now President Steinmeier. In Germany, the president approves the government, and can withdraw for your information, and in Germany the head of government is called the chancellor.
You have a direct path to political education

[helvetic]

As Andre Siegfried showed in two of his monographs, ordinary Englishmen were still warming up in the colonial empire (a sales market in a quarter of the globe provides jobs quite well) and did not want to say goodbye to it at all.

[iouris]

Quote: nikvic46

But what did the simple English have from this?

They had and very much had. But only a part of the loot. And not only the British. Colonies were considered the norm. Social Democracy (and these are mass political parties) came out for the war. The ruling Svejiks explained: if you want to continue to live well, you have to fight. And they went to fight. And it ended badly. Very bad. For the same Englishmen, the main one is the First World War.
And revolutions, they could happen in the USA before WWII, before WWII, in England in the 20s of the last century. In Germany. It was not just that they brought Hitler to power. For a reason, in France, Hitler was seen as an alternative to the victory of the left forces. It's just that Russia turned out to be the weakest link of imperialism, it turned out to be the most rotten elite, unable to divide and govern without devouring the country. On the whole, Russia has a predestination: to go to spare parts for "Western democracies" when they hit the bottom.
As if this time ...

[Olezhek]

And revolutions, they could have happened in the USA before WWII, before WWII, in England in the 20s of the last century.

Could ... but did not happen

[iouris]

Didn't happen. Patamushta that the ruling class studied well and, in addition, deeply studied Marxism. The same Roosevelt said that we will not surrender Marx to the communists.

[Basil50]

In England, all criminals are criminals. There are no political processes.
M Thatcher became prime minister when, by her order, some of the miners were shot * with resistance * the rest were sent to hard labor. The miners did not build barricades or arm themselves. Their demands were only for better working conditions and wages without delays * AS IN THE SOVIET UNION *.
In England, strikes and other manifestations of discontent are frequent, sometimes quite numerous. But as soon as dissatisfaction with the authorities arises, the massacre is swift and bloody, as a rule, with the murder of anyone who dares to encroach on the royal power.
Only criminals who have served time are released from prisons. The rest are inexplicably dying from illness, then suicide

[iouris]

Quote: Vasily50

There are no political processes.

Do you need "checkers" or "go" ???

[tatra]

There is such a concept inaccessible to the enemies of the communists - like logic. And according to this logic, if people are doing something for good purposes, they believe that they are doing well, then they will never shift the responsibility for what they have done to others, they will never slander others to justify the fact that they did. And if the Bolshevik communists and their supporters were always proud and proud of the October Revolution, they never slandered those from whom they took the country, then their enemies cowardly blame the communists and their supporters responsibility for their counter-revolution in Perestroika, and slander those them and the only justification for their seizure of the USSR in 30 years, and their ideology, and the "history" of their country and people.

[mz]

But it collapsed not because of "sudden Lenin" or even because of "sudden Kerensky", but because of the "complete exhaustion of the resource" of the political system.
The political system only provides an economic system that is beneficial to the ruling class (or the system that this class considers beneficial) at the moment.
In my opinion, the initial mistake in the article is that the author considers the political system to be primary, and not the system of economic coercion. In Britain, revolutionary situations were also enough, but the government did not hesitate to arrange a preventive genocide in its own country, physically eliminating the threat to the ruling class.
As for the reasons for the revolutionary situation, I like this logic (rather long video, but in detail):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dq622t1SYxY&feature=emb_logo

[Reviews]

This is the stream of consciousness of the addict ...

[stas]

Are you talking about your stream?

[Pavel57]

Nothing happens by accident. Randomness can only be in our imagination.
Everything is predetermined, although not obvious.

[for]

But the level of political freedoms of the late Nicholas Empire within the USSR was not achieved at all.

Why, in the late 80s and got 90 and sequel. There is a limit to everything and freedom, beyond the line anarchy, and beyond it cruel measures.

[Egoza]

Before doing something in the country, you need to carefully assess what is being done in other countries, as it were, "horizontally". We are more accustomed to studying history "vertically", going back centuries. but the "horizontal" can more reliably warn and protect from rash steps.

[nnm]

And what is this "horizontal" warning about now, colleague?

[Ryaruav]

We now seem to have a parliament, but what's the point?

[parusnik]

Yes, there is a parliament. According to the English model. Any opposition to the English parliament, whether liberals or conservatives, called themselves not opposition to the king, queen, but opposition to the king, queen. Feel the difference. So it is with us, not opposition to the president, but opposition to the president.

[Keyser soze]

It's nice to read very meaningful articles, thanks to the author. There is a reason for comprehending what you read.

[Undecim]

From the author's point of view, there are two reasons for this "paradox": the British legal system and British parliamentarism
In fact, there are more such reasons and the issue with Britain is much more complicated. As the British economist J.M. Keynes said about Trotsky's book "Where is England Going?" he says defies comment for an English reader. "
In 1919, a very tense, "revolutionary situation" really developed in England.
Further, an excerpt from the memoirs of one of the leaders of the miners' trade union and the future minister in the Labor government about the events of 1919.
Immediately after the end of the First World War, the British masses, workers and soldiers, began to demand a significant improvement in their living conditions. The strike movement flared up; the leaders of the trade unions formed a three-member confederation of trade unions of miners, transport workers and railroad workers (Triple Alliance), and the planned strike could paralyze the economic life of England.
Prime Minister Lloyd George met with the leaders of the confederation.
“He told us, 'Gentlemen, in your Confederation you have created a very powerful weapon. I am obliged to tell you that, in our opinion, we are in your hands. The army is in a state of disarray and cannot be relied on. Unrest is already taking place in many garrisons. We have just finished a big war, and the people want to receive in full for all their donations, but we are not able to satisfy them. Under these conditions, if you fulfill your threat to go on strike, then you will defeat us.
“But if you do,” continued Mr. Lloyd George, “do you appreciate all the consequences? The strike will be carried out in opposition to the government of our country, and its success will throw the country into the arms of a constitutional crisis. After all, if a force arises in the state that is more powerful than the force of the state, then it must be ready to take control of the state into its own hands, or to retreat and return its authority to the state.
"Gentlemen," the prime minister asked quietly, "have you considered this, and if you have thought about it, are you ready for it?"
“From that moment on,” said Robert Smillie, “we knew we were defeated.
That is, the leadership of the British working class refused to take power.

[stalkerwalker]

Quote: Undecim

That is, the leadership of the British working class refused to take power

And the Bolsheviks did not refuse. They took power. Although they were a clear minority, both within the RSDLP and in quantitative terms.
Reservation. The Bolsheviks did not take power to save the country. And to achieve their goals - the World Revolution. This is if very briefly about their goals.
But you cannot argue against nature. First, it was necessary to restore statehood. Well, then it turned out that no "ghost of communism" is walking around Europe, and does not wander. And the plans for Our World were postponed.
The country survived in the flames of the Civil (or?) War.
But the political contradictions of the supporters of the World Revolution have not gone anywhere.
While Ilyich was alive, everything was guided by his theoretical calculations, which he gave out as events developed.
But after January 1924, a struggle broke out for the place of the leader, the leader of the Bolsheviks.
Further - everyone knows.
But one thing is clear - political battles within the party went on until the very memorable repressions of 1936-1937. Which almost led to the seizure of power by the bond between the Trotskyists and the adventurers who "joined them" with a party card in their pockets. Stalin and his inner circle were forced to endure the decision of the Congress on the need to get rid of the "unnecessary anti-Soviet element" by mass executions. Fortunately, Comrade Yezhov turned out to be one of those, determined revolutionaries.
Comparing the history of parliamentarianism in Britain and Russia is stupid and pointless. The author focuses on the wrong periods of history, as well as geography.
Let it compare with another island nation of that era, Japan. This is more relevant.

[pmkemcity]

Quote: Undecim

That is, the leadership of the British working class refused to take power.

And then Lenin comes out all in white, and says - there is such a party! So much for the role of personality in history. There were no less theoreticians and verbiage in England than in Russia, only "Narodnaya Volya" was never there. The passionarity of the British people spilled into the periphery of the empire, in contrast to Russia, where passionarity always arose on the very periphery, and strove inward.

[Fizik M]

Quote: Undecim

In 1919, a very tense, "revolutionary situation" really developed in England.

Quote: Undecim

That is, the leadership of the British working class refused to take power.

Nothing so at YOU drug addiction

[for]

The “stable” state system in Russia is structured as follows: screw all the safety valves off the steam boiler, remove the real arrows from the pressure gauges and leave the ones drawn in the right position ... we build up the pressure, but we go around and repeat over and over that the boiler explosion is undesirable ...

Better not tell.

[parusnik]

Come on, the "bloodless English bourgeois revolution", in the name of O. Cromwell, still frightens the children of Ireland. And at the same time, the British speak of Cromwell as the man who laid the foundations for the structure of modern Great Britain. And the revolution itself, according to English historians, lasted in England for about 100 years, by about 50 years of the XVIII century, everything finally calmed down ...

[nikvic46]

When the upper classes cannot, but the lower classes do not want to. There is a small desire to understand why this is happening. There are many unrest in the world, but there are no revolutions. But I know for sure that such revolutions do not happen because of someone's desire.

[bober1982]

The article is strange and slightly illiterate.
The Russian nobility mentioned in the article that she killed Paul I was entirely connected with English Masonic circles and Pavel Petrovich was killed, precisely on the orders of these same English persons, by our Russian duraks.
The Russian Empress Anna Ioannovna did not suppress the foundations of the emerging parliamentarism, as it is sometimes believed, but in fact restored the autocracy, after all the chaos that remained after the reign of Peter I.

[stas]

An article about now, what to do and how to live further!

[bober1982]

Quote: stas

An article about now, what to do and how to live further!

Articles like this are inflammatory, if not diplomatically speaking.
We need to strengthen the army and navy, the police. There is no one else to hope for.
The people themselves are thieving, spoiled, they won't climb the barricades, but the authorities, just in case, need to be very careful and careful, they don't need to repeat the mistakes of their predecessors, tsarist and Soviet.

[stas]

Leave your diplomat-reflections to yourself. Your people are not for you, and you are not for the people! Everything is like that of Nicholas II, until soaked!

[bober1982]

Quote: stas

Everything is like that of Nicholas II, until soaked!

When Nikolai Alexandrovich was "soaked", there were only a few Russian degenerates in the firing squad, the rest of the regicides were persons of undetermined nationality
- these very people are the driving force of any revolution, a kind of combat detachment.

[stas]

And what's next, if modern bourgeois make the same mistakes against the people. Or do you think that Russian thieves are better than Jewish ones!

[bober1982]

Quote: stas

if modern bourgeoisie

And who is considered bourgeois?
If a revolution begins, then, under the bourgeois category you mentioned, the owners of bicycles will fall and they will be requisitioned.
This is the law of any revolution.

[stas]

You tell the chickens at the poultry farm. And if the government does not change, then the fate of the USSR can be repeated in 70 states.

[bober1982]

Quote: stas

You tell the chickens at the poultry farm

The fact of the matter is that nobody and nothing has taught, we spin like a squirrel in a wheel.

[pmkemcity]

Quote: stas

Russian thieves are better than Jewish ones!

[helvetic]

An article about "I know here, I don't know here". As far as I can judge from the documents from the RGIA on the revolutionary events of 1905-1907, the authorities (including its upper echelon from the governors and above) were well aware of the problems and protest moods, in the 1980s - too (TsGA RT). The problem, therefore, is not arrows and whistles, but the lack of means of suppression (this is in 1905-7, the repressive apparatus was very weak and small) or political impotence (1980s). Just as little reflects the reality of the arguments about legal and parliamentary England, the charter of 1215 and English law. The first stage of British "democratization" is the destruction of its peasantry and its transformation into cheap labor (including Navy personnel) with rights not secured by property. The second is pumping up the country with the hands of these homeless people plundered in the colonies. Many fell from robbery, but no longer became rights from this (for legal instruments, land and means of production remained in the hands of the elite, quite numerous, however, judging by Lloyd's). Add to this the religious oppression of Catholics and extreme Protestants. Therefore, from happy England, potential revolutionaries were dumped into resettlement colonies. So much for the valve. If Russia had such fertile and transportable land reserves as Canada and the United States, there would be no revolutions.

[Engineer]

The quality of the article is above average if we take the typical VO level.

In the late 90s, the thought was often repeated that, they say, Russia was tired of revolutions. In such a mannered voice. The country is tired of revolutions. The time was quite difficult, there were no political decisions on the horizon, and therefore this very “super-destructive” phrase. Say, no need, why ...
Today it is issued in the form of "undesirable revolutions". And also in such a mannered tone. The tone of a snickering major who is fed up with all the beauties of the world. By the way, to some extent one cannot but agree with this.

Here I do not agree. TONE is not necessarily mannered, it is different. Often heart-rending screeching. Like here

The most interesting thing is that this vector is supported by the absolute majority of those who approve of the October revolution. That is, the right to protest and even, O HORROR, an armed uprising as a whole seems to be supported. At the same time, the existing government is almost unanimously branded as anti-people. But Any a real attempt to counteract the power vector, at least in the form of a rally, causes a fit of some kind of animal anger. "Not ours, Soros, liberda, Nazis, State Department grants." Either a paradox, or a bipolar

[Dart2027]

In England, USA, Germany, etc. the elites have always understood one simple fact - they are masters in their own country, but no one in another country. And the second, that he seriously believes that some English peasant could oppose something to the duke and the rich man? Seriously? At the end of the last century, both in the USSR and in China, the question of restructuring the socio-economic system arose, but in China the fans of the enlightened West were harshly and quickly suppressed, and not only in Tiananmen Square, but also in the highest echelons of power, and this is the result.

[Avior]

Here's the deal. In China, they were literally suppressed on the square + but their demands were fully met

[Gardamir]

All this is of course interesting, but why no one talks about the 1989 -93 revolution, when the conditional "Nikolay2" (Gorbachev) brought the conditional "Lenin" (Yeltsin) to power. After all, it was also a revolution, when the whole system and power changed, when the conditional "civil war" (90s) destroyed many inhabitants of Russia? And now those who have come to power say that Russia has spent limits on revolutions. That is, they staged a coup, and the people should treat this with understanding.

[boris epstein]

The author mentions the February Revolution in passing. But this is wrong. After all, the monarchy as a system no longer suited not only the workers and peasants, but also the industrialists and the intelligentsia. The best proof of this is from AI Denikin in his Essays on the Russian Troubles. His policy of non-determination. That is, first we will win, and then we will decide what the system will be. In the Volunteer Army there were regiments for the monarchy, there were regiments for the State Duma, there were regiments for the dictatorship, there were regiments for the parliamentary republic. And in battle, they did not always interact closely with each other.

[Olezhek]

The author mentions the February Revolution in passing

There is a link at the end of the article to another article.
You can't tell everything at once.

[Selevc]

But the level of political freedoms of the late Nikolaev empire within the USSR was not achieved at all

What kind of freedoms are you writing about? About the freedom of those 5% of the population of Tsarist Russia who rode (personal !!!) trains in Europe? About those who had palaces, walked to the houses of tolerance, smoked drugs from idleness and from boredom gobbled in restaurants? Or about the freedom of the remaining 95% of the population - those who got up before dawn, who stood in whole shifts at the machine, those who worked in the mine and plowed in the field?
You really decide about whose freedoms you write specifically !!! Freedom is as different as it can be - to someone and an extra day off - freedom, but to someone give the Champs Elysees and kardeballets !!!

The Russian Empire under Nicholas II was a rotten state !!! Well, there cannot be a successful country in which some buy themselves diamond flowers from Faberge and others swell from hunger - this is in peaceful years !!! The Russian elite of the beginning of the 2th century is a herd of peacocks decorated with feathers who endlessly decay from the fate of the country in words but in fact cling with all their might to the old world order !!!

But this whole chaos is somehow badly poor and would have continued further if not for two fatal events for Nikolaev Russia - this is the 1st World War and the Abdication of the Tsar !!! Whatever one may say, the leader of the state betrayed his country at the most turning point of the war - and this opened the Pandora's box of all Russian troubles for the next decades !!!

[Olezhek]

What kind of freedoms are you writing about? About the freedom of those 5% of the population of Tsarist Russia who rode (personal !!!) trains in Europe?

Well, for example, in late RI, liberal newspapers scolded the tsarist government
The Duma worked, where the tsarist government was also scolded

Of course, I completely agree that under Brezhnev the people lived much like the best,
however, to such freedoms it was like walking to the moon.

[Baron pardus]

The author is an excellent replacement for Petrosyan. In England, and, by the way, in all other Europe, there were not a few things that undermined and undermine Russia from the inside. There, the nobility did NOT raise their children in admiration for other countries, but raised patriots and nationalists. They were brought up with "class consciousness" that of course we are all British, but there are gentlemen, and there are rabble. And there was no liberal nobility in England, from the word at all. There was "Her majesties loyal oppositon". The law, of course, is great, but you can turn it anywhere, the English monarchs were so amused that they sent more people to the next world than Ivan the Terrible, but he was the "bloody maniac". To know Britain and not only, they were not brought up in a spirit of admiration for "foreign countries" and contempt for their own country. For them, English was not a second language. And the nobles in England could squabble among themselves as they liked, but instantly united against the "rabble". And there was simply no "populism" there, because of upbringing. And in Russia, precisely because of the vicious upbringing, the nobility itself fed the 5th column. All these Narodnaya Volya - bobmists, were they peasants' slaves? No-know and "intelligentsia". By the way, it is interesting that in the same England the intelligentsia was nationalistic and chauvinist, contemplating such laws that Adlf Alloyzovich admired them. And the executions of demonstrations in the "cultural England" were the norm, and the workers were treated no better than "Orthodox Spiritual" "Russia, I am silent about the attitude towards the Irish and the Scots. And it was all LEGAL, it was also legal to shoot the miners, read the shegif to the floor voices heard the order "Disperse" or did not care, fire is opened to kill. The reason for stability in England is the education of the nobility and the "intelligentsia" in the spirit of chauvinism and class solidarity. A doctor or professor, maybe not a nobleman, but a gentleman, not a rabble. Plus the harshest laws "I am an Englishman and can be hanged by a court verdict in 24" hours. Children, by the way, in the same England, were hanged absolutely legally for vagrancy and theft. The author is no different from the Russian intelligentsia (remember what it is), overwhelmed and praying for this west
Russia that then, that now doomed itself to instability precisely by the unpatriotic upbringing of the elite and the excessive softness of the law. Riots do not happen with a brutal government, but with its weakening. See the French Revolution.

[pmkemcity]

Exactly! Bravo!

[maktub]

Didn't expect such a "passage" on VO
What for!

[WayKheThuo]

Article is fire!
Thank you, Author

[dust31]

And the peasant with us until the very 17th year was a "half-person"
Was the peasant a full-fledged person under Stalin? Without a passport and the right to move?

In Russia, everything was strictly the opposite, any discontent was viewed as a riot with all the consequences, reforms were "postponed" for decades, if not generations

My grandfather, a neighbor, told how his father, the chairman of a small collective farm, which he organized together with the villagers, was reexamined simply for objection to a representative at a meeting, but before that he had distributed the crop grown by the collective farm among the members of the collective farm, a crime.
So the peasants were blessed, and the king, yes, was a tyrant.

[BAI]

The fact that the revolution in Russia was inevitable, and neither Lenin nor Nicholas 2 had anything to do with, is absolutely true. There would be others - there would be others. The revolution was caused by the backwardness of Russia, the gap between the patriarchal mentality and the rapid development of industry. Roughly speaking - the brains moved out.
But here are all the coups ... I think the author missed an essential point - religion. Russia is the only major country professing the most reactionary and backward branch of Christianity - Orthodoxy. Which is based on a God-given king, on which everything depends. Those. change the king - everything will be different. In other religions - hope for God, but don't do it yourself. Therefore, people understood that they themselves are the source of their own problems and that the solution must be sought in themselves, on their own, and not nod at outsiders and blame the government. Orthodox Byzantium collapsed, its heiress - RI, too. Other Orthodox states are too small and dependent on their neighbors; they do not have enough steam for a revolution.
China has its own mentality, it is a different planet.
Here is Australia, if the United States was founded by no one understands, every rabble, then in Australia there are official convicts, criminals. And no revolutions, from the word "absolutely". We established the rules, determined the punishment for violating these rules, and - forward. Has anyone, heard anything about revolutions and coups in Australia?
And now we have a similar picture - power is from God, elections are fiction. De jure - "republic", de facto - monarchy with the transfer of power to the heir (who is called the successor), albeit not by blood. In the Republic of Belarus we see an attempt to convey to the blood. Azerbaijan is even Muslim, but with the heritage of the Republic of Ingushetia - there is the transfer of power by inheritance.
So the US can sleep well. Sooner or later, the revolution in Russia will take place. It is inevitable. But with US money comes sooner. Moreover, there is such a feature (we do not consider palace coups). Revolutions in Russia occur when a certain peak of development comes. Everything seemed fine, but a recession begins, which ends with a revolution. That in 1917, that in 1991. The USSR, although it was atheistic, but officially, but in life Orthodoxy still remained, it is genetically hammered into the Russian person.

[7,62x54]

Musolil protested the author, but did not say the main thing. The monarchy was overthrown by the nobles themselves, and then they wanted to surrender Russia to Western countries. And the Bolsheviks were collecting the country from fragments, and the bloody terror was just a response to the white terror.
An article in the spirit of the modern Kremlin regime, VKPB and Ulyanov are afraid to find fault with openly, but they do not want to acknowledge the merits.
Ulyanov stopped the collapse of Russia, introduced the GOERLO plan, gave a letter to the poor, made medicine available. Finally, I opened social elevators for everyone, in a modern way.

[Avior]

Do you think that plans for electrification appeared under Ulyanov? And the first power plant in Zaporozhye was built in the early 30s by the incredible strain of the people, hunger and hardship?
No, the first power plant in Zaporozhye appeared in 1910 without any special stress. There is no need to think that the plans for electrification and education implemented after the revolution would not have been realized and we would still be sitting at the torch.

[Rokambol]

Quote: Avior

Do you think that plans for electrification appeared under Ulyanov?

It doesn't matter when the plans appeared. It is important that only under Soviet rule they began to be embodied in reality.

[Avior]

They incarnated when their time came.
After the revolution does not mean because.

[Woodman]

Quote: Avior

There is no need to think that the plans for electrification and education, realized after the revolution, would not have been realized and we would still be sitting at a torch.

Quote: Avior

They incarnated when their time came.

A very sensible idea. It is a pity that many simply do not want to think about it.

[Campanella]

Everything is sad and banal. Historical experience suggests that revolutions are inevitable, this is how the world works.
You can relax and get your share if you were born at the wrong time and in the wrong era.
You can talk about the reasons endlessly, they are from an external enemy to an enemy inside the person himself, therefore it is impossible to avoid cataclysms. You can reduce risks, but a person is irrational by half and this is always a reason to go into a tailspin.
See at least Belarus, a seemingly quite prosperous country, but the eyes of citizens are "blurred" with a permanently calm life, they want a "holiday" and if this thought eventually takes over the minds of most citizens in one way or another, the holiday of the revolution will be provided to them in conjunction with for most problems. The funny thing is that the media that drip into the ears and eyes with the poison of discord will practically not suffer, they will always remain in the service of the strongest, while the rest will fall victim to their own myopia. Alas and ah.

[Iskazi]

not bad ..., moderately sharp, disputable, but decisively fresh, against the background of the usual popular propaganda materials of this site, we are waiting for the continuation ... if they do not cover

[Cottodraton]

In the Western countries, all the "having the right" broke up into camps (in the United States for two, in Britain for three) and agreed to alternate power and especially not to meddle in each other's affairs ... Everything ... What the hell are "independent courts and democratic institutions "? Again this populist nonsense comes out of the authors. It's just that everything is agreed there and everyone is working on their own territory, despite the tales of "equality of crap."
We always have forces working for other people's territories and for the sake of someone else's way of life ... And no one, even within the elite, listens or respects anyone. The cult of "show-off", since the tsarist times. Every prince, every king!
Until the same elites begin to listen to each other and at least stop looking into the mouth of the Western "enlightener" like the Papuans, there will be troubles.

[Unknown]

again the rapture of western Europe, this time Britain. Some will not understand in any way that it is impossible to compare Russia with Europe at all .. we are different, we have a different story, a different mentality. the proximity to the wild field left its mark. not a single country in Europe was subjected to such devastating raids by nomads, first the Polovtsians, then the Mongol Tatars, and the latter fiddled with Russia until the middle of the eighteenth century. Having gone through this, Russia understood one thing for itself, if you want to exist, then one state, one king, not otherwise the end. hence the different inheritance law. in Europe, the primacy, and then the younger offspring of the feudal lords themselves are looking for a better life, scouring Europe and hiring to various large feudal lords, and even selling themselves to cities. others on ships and overseas to conquer colonies. in russia, a different order of inheritance is shared by all. hence all our "Oblomov" and "mitrafanushki". yes, and there were enough upheavals in England until Cromwell, the same wars of the white and scarlet rose, which lasted for thirty years. and the current Hanoverian dynasty, the entire eighteenth century, was shaken by the descendants of the Stewarts. the peoples of Europe have always considered themselves kindred, here is the legacy of Charlemagne, dynastic marriages and whatever one culture does, and they are also pretty mixed among themselves, there were so many wars there. but Russia was never considered their own, and no matter how our tsars, starting with Peter and ending with Nikolashka, did not ride around Europe, they did not become their own, despite the marriages concluded, with almost all dynastic courts. For example, from those Romanovs who managed to escape in 18, no one was accepted in the royal courts, except for the mother of Nicholas, but she was a Danish princess. so no need to nod at Europe all the time.

[Olezhek]

once again the rapture of western Europe, this time Britain

Their system is more stable.
Purely technocratic approach

The approach is
1 Choral performance "God Save the Tsar ..."
2 Mass shootings

somehow does not appeal.
No way.

[Unknown]

Quote: Olezhek

once again the rapture of western Europe, this time Britain

Their system is more stable.
Purely technocratic approach

The approach is
1 Choral performance "God Save the Tsar ..."
2 Mass shootings

somehow does not appeal.
No way.

.......... oh well, then let's sing .... .. Right, Britain, by the seas!
Britt is a free man.
Not to be with his slaves
Now, ever and ever! "

A foreign country collapsed:
Her tyrants toppled to dust
But you, Britain, are strong ........... is also normal, and by the way they sing in chorus, but only with them try to doubt the lines, they can beat you. mass executions were not practiced, it was not developed. but to cut easily, as in the days of cromwell ........

that's European.

[evgen1221]

Whatever one may say, but recently in our country there has been a clear course towards the conservation of the existing state of affairs without hints of attempts by the helmsmen to change something. Hence the decorative places and positions and our eternal helmsman. And as for the population, over the past 3 years, the authorities, without doing anything, managed to turn my mother, a pensioner, from an ardent zaputintsy and approver of the authorities into an evil hater, and what will happen in 2 years? They would have to travel more often by taxi buses and the metro - they would learn a lot of useful things about themselves and the country.

[Igor Litvin]

I like the author's approach - find the essence / bottleneck without hysteria.
A functioning judicial system is able to randomize and reduce a significant part of society's problems. And vice versa. And there are enough examples not only in Russia.
For example, in Rzeczpospolita - a certain Bogdan Khmelnitsky was suing Chaplinsky over a woman and an estate, but Chaplinsky had better garters. To Khmelnytsky's appeal to the king for justice, the latter replied: "Do you have a saber or something ?!" There was a duel in mind. But Khmelnitsky had not only a saber, but also a talent for organizer and commander. The result is the Flood.

[EvilLion]

Tellingly, there were hundreds of such Khmelnitskys, but history has not preserved their names (someone wiped himself off, someone went to wave his sword, but died, someone, on the contrary, resolved his petty dispute, hacking down a neighbor, and calmed down on this), the question was only when there is a strong enough organizer, but the Cossacks fought for their rights and privileges and so regularly.

In my opinion, the gentry did not have an institution of duels; they had the right to rokosh, that is, to gather a band of their boys and wage a private war.

[Igor Litvin]

Quote: evgen1221

... They would have to travel by taxi buses and the metro more often - they would have learned a lot of useful things about themselves and the country.

Alas, they clearly did not come to power in order to ride the bus and listen to opinions about themselves ...

[Igor Litvin]

Quote: Unknown

again the rapture of western Europe, this time Britain. Some will not understand in any way that it is impossible to compare Russia with Europe at all .. we are different, we have a different story, a different mentality. the proximity to the wild field left its mark. not a single country in Europe was subjected to such devastating raids by nomads, first the Polovtsians, then the Mongol Tatars, and the latter fiddled with Russia until the mid-eighteenth century ...

Russian is no worse and no better than a German or an Englishman. If the Russian is put in adequate conditions, it will develop rapidly, and vice versa. Look at the multitude of states in the 20th - 21st century that, with the right approach, have become economic "tigers". Compare South Korea and the DPRK - one people, but the abyss separates them in development!

[tatra]

Russians are also different. Over the past 0 years, some Russians have carried out large-scale industrialization / modernization of Russia, while other Russians have plundered and destroyed everything that those Russians have created.

[Unknown]

what are the adequate conditions? such as in Europe, or what? A Russian person has a different mentality, he will go to a red light if there are no cars, there will be no one, guided by common sense, what is there to stand if there is no one. a Scandinavian or a German will wait for green, because it is necessary, these are the rules. ,, become tigers ,, you did not add the word ,, paper ,,. crashed and all crumbled. there is no need to compare the south with the north. northern blockade and nothing. But I'm not sure if the southern one will be put into circulation, will everything be all right there? and separates the two peoples, not at all a mythical abyss, but the real USA, remove them, and there they will agree among themselves.

[EvilLion]

Abyss - this is called the United States and their sanctions against North. Korea and everyone who trades with it, and providing South Korea with most favored nation treatment. Learn already materiel or something. And North. Korea is industrially well developed and can do a lot of things, its problem is the lack of fuel, but they are not allowed to buy.

[Andrey Krasnoyarsky]

Lenin had nothing to do with the overthrow of the autocracy. But to overthrow the Provisional Government - the most direct. Not all Bolsheviks were supporters of a violent coup; it was Lenin who insisted on the violent seizure of power.

[Pushkowed]

The Russian revolution, initially seemingly almost bloodless, later led to monstrous consequences.

Question: if the revolution was bloodless, then where did the monstrous consequences come from? Answer: they were perpetrated by anyone, only not revolutionaries... The task of the revolutionaries is simple: to seize power in the country (if possible, without destroying this country), and then calmly rule it. It is not in their interests to turn the country into a bloody mess. The civil war was unleashed not by them, but by their opponents, who lost power.

Even now, those who threaten the dire consequences of a possible revolution (civil war, terror), in fact, admit that they intend to do all this if they are not obeyed.

[EvilLion]

But the level of political freedoms of the late Nicholas Empire within the USSR was not achieved at all.

For whom? The Nikolaev empire is an estate state, and while some could sit in the Duma, others could be flogged in the stable, because they are the lower class. The presence of a multi-party system in itself does nothing for the people. We have a lot of parties, the only sense is this, if everything is tied to Putin, and no political alternatives are offered. Our opposition is professional, it does not want to be the government, it only wants to criticize the government.

[EvilLion]

As you know, a revolutionary situation also developed in belligerent France, and in 1917 everything was “on the brink” there, but the situation was managed. In Britain, too, everything was very sad, but there were no demonstrations of the proletariat in Trafalgar Square. The revolution in Germany still happened, but the extremists did not come to power there (in the 20s)

But in 1870, when France blew the war with the revolution, everything turned out fine. It is logical, if the Entente in 1918 managed to end the war with its victory, and even begin to receive some resources from Germany as an indemnity, then it could also extinguish social problems. But the Germans and Russians after the military defeat (and Russia also got rid of the Japanese barbarians in 1905, disgraced in front of the whole world) had many questions for their authorities. And no need to talk about propaganda in the army, she saw in 1917 and without propaganda that the German simply fell asleep with shells, and there was nothing to answer.

[EvilLion]

From the point of view of the author, there are two reasons for this “paradox”: the British legal system and British parliamentarism.

The author's point has nothing to do with reality. And it is no different from the assertion that democracy is good and totalitarianism is bad. Although the examples of Asian countries show that at first they taught everyone to observe laws and order, and go to work, and only then there were indulgences. Well, there was also American money without which the same South Korea would not be any different from the poor in the Philippines or Malaysia.

The British Empire is a completely bestial organization in relation to the common people, and unlike the USA, the emergence of which, as it were, was also an uprising (and, unlike the Pugachev riots, it was successful), Britain still lives in an estate society. And the fact that there sirs and peers demanded some kind of rights from the king in an era when in Russia the main question was how to get servicemen to go to the south, where you need to watch the notch line for months and chase Crimean raiders and other steppe inhabitants, where you can it was easy to get a saber in the skull and lay back, but there was nothing to earn. In contrast to the wars in the Novgorod region, where there was always someone to rob. So these are the questions of sirs and peers, it was not easier for the British plowman. When industrialization began in Britain, these plowmen were kicked in the ass from the ground and hanged for vagrancy. The Britons generally knew how to hang and loved.

The main merit of the British Empire is that it won the naval war from its European neighbors, capturing the largest number of colonies, and at the expense of these colonies could raise the standard of living of the population of the metropolis. And endless uprisings took place not in London, but in the periphery. There was no stability there. In the United States, the political crisis of the mid-19th century led to the separation of part of the country and a long-term civil war, somehow not like stability. Presidents were also regularly shot there.

The funny thing is that the author himself pointed out earlier that there is no Maidan sentiment in Russia, unlike its neighbors in the CIS. Of course not, because Russia in the 2000s is a completely developed European state, not Germany, but Ukraine, Belarus and even more so the Asian republics can only dream of this.