Yanukovych and the limit of stupidity

The German Chancellor Conrad Adenauer once said that the Lord, having put the limit to the human mind, did not put the limit of human stupidity. All actions of the Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych are a lively illustration of this thesis.

In the power of Yanukovych - two features. First: Yanukovych is a small criminal. And a small criminal is a very specific psychology. This is a very nearby person who is always looking for, where to stay, and is not able to calculate the strategic consequences of his actions.

And the second feature - the eldest son of Yanukovych and his friends really control Ukraine. Golden and brainless youth. During his reign, Yanukovych fired all his initial associates and removed even his original sponsors from himself - and the oligarch Akhmetov, and even the gas magnate of Firtash.

Therefore, in the actions of the Ukrainian authorities there are no goals, no cunning entertainments - there is an extreme simplicity of small criminals and the confidence of the golden youth that the brakes came up with a coward.

Why did the first Maidan disperse in November? This is impossible to explain. He was dispersed because decisions are made by inadequate people.

Why, for example, “Titles” have now arranged a real terror in Kyiv? It must be understood that now in Kyiv the gopniks hired by the authorities really hit everyone in a row, burning cars and are engaged in street terror so that people are afraid to leave the houses. You can offer some rational explanations. For example, the authorities hopes that the layman will correct, aware and crumbs: "Where is the native police?" Or to assume that the gopniks ordered terror against the leaders of the opposition, but because of their gopniks, human qualities, it is easier for them to beat everyone in a row. But, most likely, the “titles” were released not “why”, but “why”. Because - a psychological need to give in the face. “Oh, you are with us! Yes, we are so! "

All of the above, of course, does not mean the unconditional victory of the revolution. After the landing of Yulia Tymoshenko - the only person whom Yanukovych is really afraid of - the president was concerned about the problem of creating a weak, corrupt and controlled opposition and partially achieved results. The project-the purchase and taming of the opposition-was engaged in Mr. Klyuyev, who was now hastily returned to power and appointed the head of the presidential administration precisely with the aim of negotiations with the opposition.

It is not yet possible that the official leaders of the Ukrainian opposition - Yatsenyuk, Tyagnibok and Klitschko - agree to negotiations with Yanukovych in a situation where there can be no talk of any negotiations, and maybe we are only talking about the resignation of the president, against which the revolution is accomplished. It is completely no coincidence that Yatsenyuk, Tyagnibok and Klitschko still do not raise the question of the liberation of Tymoshenko, and it is completely incidentally that they now and then persuade the Maidan to disperse. While the only thing that is now legitimizing the Ukrainian revolution is precisely the Maidan and violence.

One way or another, even if Yanukovych does not run away from the country in 2014, he will lose the elections in 2015. Without options and with severe criminal consequences, because unidentified snipers that kill people, and gopniks, scurrying Kyiv cannot be left without consequences. Then nothing will help Yanukovych, even if the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Zakharchenko, like his predecessor, will commit suicide in two shots in the temple.

And in order to understand what is happening, you need to keep two very simple thesis in my head. Firstly, we are subconsciously used to believe that the strongest wins in any conflict. Two strong enemy enemy met, who won, who won. In fact, in reality, two incompetent enemy faces each other much more often, and the one who is less incompetent wins.

And the second. When we see that a person who is cooked by power does some actions, we ask ourselves questions: “Why”? "What does he want to achieve this?" But a person often acts not “why”, but “why”. Not because he wants to achieve something, but because the authorities "demolish the roof."

Photo by ITAR-TASS/ Maxim Nikitin