Highly sweet

The erudite Russian, who was then a member of the Russian government, told me in Moscow about his fear that the Russian Democratic Revolution would soon ripen to the "Termidore", which would end with it. When I naively objected that it was shortly after the thermidor that Napoleon took possession of dictatorial powers and began the conquest of Europe, he answered me as if he was talking to a baby who did not understand anything in the difficult matters of this world: "Well, of course!"

This certificate belongs to the pen of the American economist Mansur Olson. You can guess who was this "erudite Russian", but it is much more important that the conversation took place under the late Yeltsin. So, even then, the members of the Russian government had a feeling of sunset of the regime, a historical impasse from which the country could withdraw the dictator, and the dictator will need conquest. True, the “erudite Russian” agreed: the then Russian regime should be compared with the French directory - a limp, mired in corruption - and not talking about thermidor, but about the upcoming eighteenth Brumer.

Mansur Olson is known primarily by his book “The Hind and Decline of the Peoples: Economic Growth, Stagflation and Social Sclerosis” (1982), in which he showed how lobbyists and other groups of interests inhibit economic development - they do not create, but redistribute the benefits in their favor. Social or institutional sclerosis Olson called the rebirth of institutions of Western democracy into a instrument of regression. As examples of rapid economic growth, Olson calls the post -war Germany and Japan, where the institutions disappeared and were re -created. But in the winning countries, the institutions remained the same - and the growth there slowed down.

Another famous economist and political scientist, Naill Ferguson, referring to the theory of Olson, writes that he believed that Western democracies need an “external shake - like a lost war” to restore institutions in their pristine immorality. Then Ferguson had a memory error. Olson leads the reader to this conclusion, but categorically rejects him: "Such a political recommendation makes no more meaning (or even less) than the proposal to welcome the epidemic as a remedy for overpopulation."

The Book of Ferguson, which I quoted, is even worse than the book of Olson: " Great degeneration: how the institutions rot and the economy dies ." A disappointing diagnosis, but in the West many agree with it.

The decline of the institutions of democracy, especially in America, is a fashionable theme of modern political science. Francis Fukuyama , Farid Zvolly , and many analysts smaller write about him. And this literature finds demand.

A separate aspect of the topic is the loss of the roles of the world leader or even a voluntary rejection of this role by the United States. In February of this year, Ferguson published an article under the heading of the global retreat of America , which listed a number of last international crises, from Arab spring and ending with Ukraine, in which Washington occupied or takes a wait -and -see, passive position. Ferguson mentions, among other things, an interview with Barack Obama David belt, where the US president says that he does not need some kind of global strategy. “I really don’t need any George Kennan today,” he recalls the author of the deterrence doctrine. There are many other remarkable statements in this text. Obama, for example, admits that he does not believe in the role of personality in history: he believes that major changes occur when the people make them or the circumstances coincide. But he believes by virtue of his own word, with the share of skepticism adds a belt, and therefore makes speech everywhere.

Strong isolationist sentiments in society. Here are the dynamics of the Americans's attitude to the Ukrainian crisis on the latest surveys of the sociological service of Pew Research. In early March, 56 percent believed that the United States should not "get too involved" in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, and only 26-that America should "firmly resist" Russia. Eight percent of the respondents were expressed for military intervention. In the second half of March, the ratio changed towards Ukraine’s support, but still 52 percent of the Americans opposed excessive involvement, and 22 percent did not see a big problem at all.

At the end of April, the share of not seeing a big problem increased to 26 percent, and considered 31 percent very important for the United States. At the same time, 36 percent of the respondents spoke out against economic sanctions, and 62 against the supply of weapons and military equipment to Ukraine.

According to another survey , a quarter of Americans just published by the data of another survey, they consider the state, hostile America, but only 18 percent recognize Ukraine as their ally. 65 percent advocate economic sanctions, six - for military interference, and 28 say that America should not do anything. At the same time, 52 percent of the Americans do not believe in Obama as in the commander in chief.

In the most active country in Europe, Germany, 48 percent of citizens believe that she should stay from the conflict as far as possible. When asked "Is it worth worrying about a new Cold War?" Only 20 percent of the Germans reply that such a threat is very high. Economic sanctions against Russia are supported by half of the respondents, and military assistance to Ukraine is only 18 percent.

And here is the results of the survey in the ten countries of the European Union. 55 percent of citizens of these countries believe that their governments should "do everything possible to help Ukraine and their people gain political and economic stability." However, 30 percent are sure that their countries should stay away from the conflict and provide a solution to the problem to others. In Hungary, this figure reaches 49 percent. The Hungarians demonstrated the lowest level of Ukraine’s support (31 percent), while the Swedes are the highest (69). In Germany, Great Britain, Spain and Italy, public opinion is divided approximately in half, in France the share of supporters of active pro -Ukrainian actions is 43 percent. And only a quarter of Europeans supports the idea of ​​a military buffer between Ukraine and Russia with the participation of military personnel of their own countries.

Naturally, with such a bifurcation of society in every country there is also political forces that support the opposite point of view. Journalist of Radio Liberty, Yaroslav Shimov, lists the political parties and political figures in Europe both right and left -wing, supporting Putin's actions. The list is long. It is clear that each of them has its own interest and its own agenda, but why were the masses of non -partisan Europeans on their side?

Two months ago, the Parisian Le Figaro was so surprised by the abundance of Pro-Putin's comments under articles on the Ukrainian topic that she turned to the political scientist Pierre-Henri D'Arzanson for explanations. How is it, his editorial office asked, because in the survey only 14 percent of the French spoke well about Putin, but here are the majority. And you look at other answers in the same survey, D'Arganson answered. 72 percent is considered him an energetic leader, 56 - a defender of the interests of his country. This is a collective unconscious: Putin is associated with Louis XIV - an absolute monarch capable of protecting the people from the arbitrariness of the powers of this world. Yes, he planted Khodorkovsky, but Louis did the same - he imprisoned Nicolas Fuke, the richest man in France, - and the people rejoiced.

That is, in relation to the French towards Putin, dissatisfaction with the state of affairs in his own country and their own leaders is expressed: they are helpless and limp, and he is strong and decisive. We have stagflation, sclerosis and decay, and in Russia a national rise and "movement". On a pan -European scale, the parallel with Napoleon is more appropriate: he also fought with Hegemonia of the Anglo -Saxons (then - England, today - the USA), broke the established world order and built a new one, they also admired Goethe, Byron, Andrei Bolkonsky and Pierre Bezukhov. "Purformation of the entire world system" - as the purpose of Moscow policy Sergei Lavrov identified. And do not think that this is just a self -native bluff.

It is useful to remember all this to all those who believe that "a foreign country will help us" that the sanctions will suffocate the Putin regime in the near future, that Putin "drove himself into a corner." It can be considered, as I think that he does all this not from strength, but from weakness, uncertainty in his abilities, but it is ridiculous to close his eyes and give the desired behind the real one.