I don't understand shit

I will give two examples of “unexplained atmospheric phenomena”.

Example one.

The year began - for me personally - with a minor puncture.
Discussing the prospects for Kasyanov’s election campaign, I proceeded from the fact that the authorities are definitely interested in Michal Mikhalych warming up the intrigue for them, working as a whipping jackal. Consequently, someone else will be allowed to participate in the elections. Therefore, I “persuaded” Kasyanov - don’t play along, don’t pull chestnuts out of the PR fire for them.
And now - judging by the latest “leaks” from the Central Election Commission - everything is exactly the opposite. It turns out that “his grenades are of the wrong system,” the signatures are expired, the ink has faded, 7.5% of his signatures were rejected, but only 5% are allowed... Moreover, I willingly believe that although Kasyanov is not a prime minister, at his headquarters he is. It’s definitely a mess, just like in the government, the Central Election Commission, the FSB, the prosecutor, etc. etc. Those. and he has plenty of fake signatures, and money is stolen - so he’s running for president of Russia, not for president of Switzerland. One thing is clear: if they didn’t want to, they wouldn’t notice and let them take part in the elections; if they wanted to, they wouldn’t let them. The reason is in me, the pretext is not important. In general, all this nonsense is uninteresting, but the bottom line is that they don’t seem to allow Kasyanov!
Well, this is WHY? ARE YOU SCARED OF KASYANOV?! And they so naively and openly show their fear to everyone? Some kind of nonsense... That is, it seems to me that it is nonsense. And they obviously have considerations - I just wish I could understand what they are.
Are they so afraid of harsh questions? Are you so unsure of your voter? Wait - but is it still possible to calculate as needed? So what's the matter? Does the very possibility of a discussion about the “king’s dress” already lead to irrational horror? Those. the feeling is that, sitting in a glass house, you can’t play with pebbles, even the smallest ones? If so, then these are purely Soviet phobias.
Well, well!
With such a heroic psychology, when victory is possible only if any opponent fails to appear, how can one imitate any kind of politics at all?! In the USSR they were pathologically afraid of any verbal and political competition and they got scared - as soon as the window was opened, they were blown away. Is it really possible that the current bosses are also, like old men, afraid of any draft of a fresh word? Then excuse me... But it’s still not clear: in the USSR, the information windows were caulked, but now it still comes out of all the cracks - the Internet, radio, newspapers. And it seems like nothing - the authorities feel great in the conditions of this semi-ventilation. It looks much more confident than the CPSU of the 1970s.
So why were they afraid of Kasyanov?

Or maybe it’s the other way around - they deliberately “omit” the elections, do everything to make this boring procedure even more boring, even grayer and more inconspicuous? The last element of “elections” has disappeared, i.e. at least some kind of rivalry? For what? Why do they keep the “national Bogdanov”? So that the voter feels ashamed, funny, impossible to participate in this, and so that in the end they vote less than for the “national leader” in the Duma elections? So that these elections would be less legitimate in the eyes of the West? Maybe someone really is hatching such a cunning plan. But, excuse me, WHY? And then - what does “less is more” mean - as we calculate, so it will be. What is this game with ourselves? That is, judge this way, judge that, everything is possible, everything is stupid, everything is incomprehensible, no one gives a damn about everything...

The second example of “misunderstanding”.

The theme is eternal. “He loves - he doesn’t love, he spits - he kisses, he presses it to his heart - he sends him to hell...” The plug of folk-artistic sobs about love for Putin was pulled out of the network, but the question remained. Leaving - not leaving...
Will he be prime minister or not? If so, will it last for a long time (a year or longer) or will it sit on the edge of a suitcase on the road (several months)? If he leaves, will he take Medvedev’s place in Gazprom or not?
Just as it wasn’t clear, it still isn’t.
Again, without information, you can only rely on the crutch of “logic.”
Well, after common sense: what kind of great human masochism is it to be responsible for pensions, gas supply, medicines and other abominations?! Using your fingernails to tear off the PR aura of a good wizard and national mascot?! Why is this needed?! To maintain power? Wouldn’t it be easier - if such a love for power is gnawing at you - to simply keep this power for yourself?! How about: giving up your house, but negotiating for yourself the right to remain in this house as a building manager? It's tricky...

And, by the way, to be a building manager, when the neighboring houses are already on fire, sparks fly to ours! Without metaphors: to become prime minister in the context of a clearly beginning general economic recession. THIS IS THE ONLY REAL PROBLEM IN THE WORLD. Nobody - neither in the USA, nor in the Russian Federation, anywhere - has any idea what to do with it. There are no recipes for treatment (except “wait, the curve will take out, it will form... gradually”). So why fuss and get into the hell, not knowing how to help, but having every opportunity not to participate in this!

Isn't it better to leave when leaving? Sitting in Gazprom, export gas, take care of your bonuses, in a word, take a break from the “galleys” on which Putin - according to him - has already served two full terms?
Or what, are there some Napoleonic plans for the “transformation of Russia”, for the sake of which, etc.? So where are they, “Putin’s plans”? A secret from the jackals? Well, is that so...
Not to mention the fact that Putin is probably no more stupid than political scientists and understands perfectly well that “two kings in his head” means bureaucratic schizophrenia, a split of the vertical to the ground, and then... The vertical has two humps, because life is a struggle. Does he need it?!
Finally, the last argument. “I just want to be free - I can’t break the chain.” The security forces, with the power given to them, “don’t let me in.” Very nice... What does this actually mean?!
Who, how and why can “prevent” Putin from resigning?
How can you “threaten” him? "Coup"? The fate of Pavel Petrovich? "Revelations"?
They know the fate of possible “turnovers” - see State Emergency Committee, “high security comedy.” "Regicide", i.e. the same coup, only with blood? Compromising evidence, revelations, “documents from Swiss safes”? Listen, well, we’re not in a senile TV series after all... What kind of... “revelations” are there?! Rutsky’s suitcases (and about Rutsky), Major Melnichenko’s films, Gdlyan’s “Kremlin case”?
Who was “exposed” in the countries of the former USSR? What kind of... wet dreams of political scientists, to put it censoriously? Or do the “siloviki” not live, but play themselves in TV series?
Finally, WHY do the terrible “siloviki” who have drawn up another “worldwide conspiracy” do all this? The great and terrible Security Forces, publicly, through newspaper tubes, spitting at each other and hiding behind the back of “dad”? “Venetian conspirators” were found, you know...
Kindergarten of political scientists and conspiracy theorists...
But despite all the self-evidence of all these arguments, NO ONE can confidently say ANYTHING. Logical? And to hell with logic... We don’t know or understand a damn thing. It’s like with the “British Council” (the third, very minor example): there are a lot of supposed “explanations” for all this stupidity, but in essence - well, it’s absolutely not clear why this is being done? “It’s your fault that I want to eat...” Is this “advice” really so nourishing, this cretinous scandal so life-giving? WHAT are you still not full of?
I DON'T KNOW.
Nothing is clear—neither to the “toadies,” nor to the “heroic dissidents,” nor simply to “outside observers.” "Talk about yourself, Aramis!" Well, I’m talking about myself - I don’t understand. And, do you know how I differ from my colleagues? Because they say the same thing in other words, and I say it just like that, simply.
What is the reason for this complete misunderstanding? Why can't you catch the tail of a black cat in the dark Kremlin?
Yes, if only because we - “analysts” - do not have any tools for catching the tail.
How can a political scientist work?
There is no public policy or political competition in the country, “formal” laws do not matter. How to determine the underlying driving forces?
What remains is purely psychological political science.
Excellent, sir. But how to understand “THEIR” psychology?
There is one view, as simple as a moo: “everyone is a seller of Christ.” Hedonistic consumers who think only about getting rich, who have long and firmly “gave up” on this useless country “hanging on oil pipelines.” “After us, there’s even a flood” (more precisely, “after the oil flood, there’s even a desert”). “Take more, throw further, rest while it flies,” “suck it out and spit it out.”
So, absolute cynics. “All those words about justice, goodness, law, faith, God, etc. there were only words and they covered up the crudest self-interest and cruelty.” This is how Tolstoy understood the royal nobles.
This was, of course, a half-truth—i.e. lie.
So about the nobles of today, this is obviously the same half-truth, although in their cynicism, uncertainty and rudeness of the nouveau riche they are obviously far superior to their illustrious predecessors.
The security forces are cynics. And “liberals” are cynics. All cynics, all the pieces do not pass by, but they are still somehow different. Personally. Corporate. Ideologically, excuse the expression.
Simple greed and cynicism do not explain well, say, a senseless confrontation with the West: the “gorillas” from Latin America did not argue with the West. It is logical: “For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” The treasure is offshore, in Switzerland, and at home in London? Well, why swear?
So, it's not all that simple.
So, there is some kind of ideology, some kind of ideological psychosis? Or more simply: they understand that “there is no land for us beyond the Volga”; they personally, with money, but without power, cannot fit into the Western system, so they become “reluctant sovereigns.” Maybe so? Or is it not?
The correlation between cynical hedonism and overvalued ideas (“oil went to my head - I felt insulted for the State”) is incomprehensible to us. The MOTIVES for actions are unclear. The language in which they think is incomprehensible. The coordinate system in which “they” exist is incomprehensible. (For example, with the Soviet leaders it was clear - “just don’t touch anything, it will fall apart.” With the Bolsheviks it was also clear: “what is written is what is said,” ideological people, although, of course, they also did not forget to plunder into their own pockets.) And here - unclear. Moreover: I think that “they” themselves are not so acutely reflective as to even really explain this to themselves. Well, not such sheep as to explain this to “outsiders.”
So what is all our political science worth then?
And she's not worth a damn thing.