"Many Russians, what are commonly called Average Citizens, really do want Russia to win, or rather not to lose, not out of love for Putin, but out of fear of great upheavals. Here they are of course right: a serious military failure always or at least very often has led the Muscovite state either to a revolution, as in 1905 and 1917, or to reforms that would break the habitual way of life, as after losing the Crimean War and the Cold War (and the Afghan War along with it), or simply to civil unrest, as in the early 17th century. Of course, all this did not arise from nothing, there were enough problems without the war, a military defeat was just the last straw, but even now there are so many problems that the loss of the war will make the turmoil inevitable. And it would make them inevitable now. If they do not happen today, they will happen tomorrow, and they will be even cooler, but the modern Russian average man lives for today, he does not care as much about what will happen in ten or fifteen years, as what will happen in a year.
At the same time, however, the average citizen makes the big mistake of not realizing that he is objectively interested in great upheavals. Not because he will be better off with them, but because he will be worse off without them.
War has already produced a mass of rapists and robbers. No matter how the war ends, the "heroes of Bucha" will not be exterminated in it; they will return to their homeland and go about their usual business of robbery. And they will rob not Gazprom and Sber, but ordinary Russians. Yes, they are much poorer, but much more defenseless and numerous. Thus, foxes and wolves prefer to hunt not elks and deer (they only attack them if they are sick, old or, on the contrary, very young), but... Mice, voles or rats (yes, wolves in summer eat mostly rodents). For the same reason.
Looters in Russia will be as greedy and ruthless as in Ukraine. It will be impossible to buy them off, they can only be destroyed. Which is extremely difficult for the average citizen, but still possible, if only in one case out of three, five, or even ten. Especially if this philistine is able to unite with two or three others like him.
But after that, the law enforcement will come to him. Who don't care who they get their stars for: the robber who slaughtered his victims' family, or the average man who "exceeded self-defense". In any case, the law enforcers won't risk getting into a fight (that's why it's useless to count on their help before you're killed), but it's a sweet deal for them to come and take on the winner, who is already exhausted and has no strength for a second fight. In the end, even after repulsing the robbers, the average citizen will become a victim of the law enforcers. If the government retains its strength.
But if a revolution breaks out, the authorities will not care, and the winners will not be judged. This does not give the average man a guarantee, because he may not be the winner, but it gives him a chance. The same is true of ordinary unrest. Revolution differs from sedition in that its goal is to demolish the old system and build a new one. That is why turmoil may or may not lead to revolution, depending on whether or not people have the aforementioned goal. In any case, during both turmoil and revolution, the authorities are afraid of the people and do not interfere with them. And even during drastic reforms, if they are accompanied by an upsurge in people's activity, the government slows down its fervor. This is exactly what happened in 1989-1991.
It turns out, no matter how we look at it, that great shocks are not a threat, but, on the contrary, a salvation for the average person. True, not for anyone, but for an active one, capable of playing the role of Sancho Panza, at least, not Don Quixote. Who was also an ordinary philistine, just determined enough. The only problem is that the rare Russian Sancho Panza understands this. Although, maybe not so rare? I don't know, I don't judge. I will note, however, that the more ordinary people understand this, the better. Revolutions need not only Don Quixotes, but also Sancho Panza. Reforms, and even sedition, by the way, also." https://avtonom.org/author_columns/rossiyskiy-obyvatel-i-velikie-potryaseniya
I believe most of life's decisions are emotional even rational one's.
I did mathematics and the best work for me involved emotions!
Here's a better link for that Russian Dissent article - https://russiandissent.substack.com/p/stupidity-treason-or-business-as
“Russia.. is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma”
Only the ignorant of Russian History believe that.
All of Russia appears to follow Putin's whims. Like any tsar. He has reasons for what he does, but I would not call them logical.
Appears - but the official media only allows the viewpoint of the state, and that's Putin - "L'état - ç'est moi." Here's a guide to the beliefs which underlie Putin's actions - https://tec.fsi.stanford.edu/docs/aleksandr-dugins-foundations-geopolitics
And not all of Russia is buying in, not by a long shot, it's a generational divide - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgf-p-1cxao
"Many Russians, what are commonly called Average Citizens, really do want Russia to win, or rather not to lose, not out of love for Putin, but out of fear of great upheavals. Here they are of course right: a serious military failure always or at least very often has led the Muscovite state either to a revolution, as in 1905 and 1917, or to reforms that would break the habitual way of life, as after losing the Crimean War and the Cold War (and the Afghan War along with it), or simply to civil unrest, as in the early 17th century. Of course, all this did not arise from nothing, there were enough problems without the war, a military defeat was just the last straw, but even now there are so many problems that the loss of the war will make the turmoil inevitable. And it would make them inevitable now. If they do not happen today, they will happen tomorrow, and they will be even cooler, but the modern Russian average man lives for today, he does not care as much about what will happen in ten or fifteen years, as what will happen in a year.
At the same time, however, the average citizen makes the big mistake of not realizing that he is objectively interested in great upheavals. Not because he will be better off with them, but because he will be worse off without them.
War has already produced a mass of rapists and robbers. No matter how the war ends, the "heroes of Bucha" will not be exterminated in it; they will return to their homeland and go about their usual business of robbery. And they will rob not Gazprom and Sber, but ordinary Russians. Yes, they are much poorer, but much more defenseless and numerous. Thus, foxes and wolves prefer to hunt not elks and deer (they only attack them if they are sick, old or, on the contrary, very young), but... Mice, voles or rats (yes, wolves in summer eat mostly rodents). For the same reason.
Looters in Russia will be as greedy and ruthless as in Ukraine. It will be impossible to buy them off, they can only be destroyed. Which is extremely difficult for the average citizen, but still possible, if only in one case out of three, five, or even ten. Especially if this philistine is able to unite with two or three others like him.
But after that, the law enforcement will come to him. Who don't care who they get their stars for: the robber who slaughtered his victims' family, or the average man who "exceeded self-defense". In any case, the law enforcers won't risk getting into a fight (that's why it's useless to count on their help before you're killed), but it's a sweet deal for them to come and take on the winner, who is already exhausted and has no strength for a second fight. In the end, even after repulsing the robbers, the average citizen will become a victim of the law enforcers. If the government retains its strength.
But if a revolution breaks out, the authorities will not care, and the winners will not be judged. This does not give the average man a guarantee, because he may not be the winner, but it gives him a chance. The same is true of ordinary unrest. Revolution differs from sedition in that its goal is to demolish the old system and build a new one. That is why turmoil may or may not lead to revolution, depending on whether or not people have the aforementioned goal. In any case, during both turmoil and revolution, the authorities are afraid of the people and do not interfere with them. And even during drastic reforms, if they are accompanied by an upsurge in people's activity, the government slows down its fervor. This is exactly what happened in 1989-1991.
It turns out, no matter how we look at it, that great shocks are not a threat, but, on the contrary, a salvation for the average person. True, not for anyone, but for an active one, capable of playing the role of Sancho Panza, at least, not Don Quixote. Who was also an ordinary philistine, just determined enough. The only problem is that the rare Russian Sancho Panza understands this. Although, maybe not so rare? I don't know, I don't judge. I will note, however, that the more ordinary people understand this, the better. Revolutions need not only Don Quixotes, but also Sancho Panza. Reforms, and even sedition, by the way, also." https://avtonom.org/author_columns/rossiyskiy-obyvatel-i-velikie-potryaseniya