2 Answers

  1. Well, they don't like Russian rules and borders, so what can you do? Whether it's a huge and empty territory inhabited only 1/3 of the country (only 3% of the population lives on two-thirds of the territory). Whether the fact is that they have never politically lived according to the laws and rules, but always only under a tyrannical government that rules with the help of lawlessness. Whether because for the second reason they are psychologically completely devoid of the concept of stability, property and security, and the dominant psychological behavior of Russians is constant anxiety, uncertainty about the future and the proverb “God gave – God took”, that is, the refusal to believe that what you have now, you will have tomorrow: this something can be taken away at any second, any loved one is killed, you, too, etc. Therefore, no one in the depths of their hearts, even if in words otherwise, does not believe in the effectiveness of any rule, any law, or any border. And so he despises them. Another national trait is extreme hypocrisy and generational hypocrisy, which define emotions about any border or rule: “Yeah, well, well, of course, let's put a border here … ta-a-ak, and now we'll go around it like this.” This trait-the simultaneous external recognition of “rules and their constant violation in practice” – has entered folklore and “glorified” Russians all over the world. They themselves call it their savvy and are very proud of it.

    So: form is borders, limits, definiteness, fixity. The Russians don't like it. They crawl over, flow over any form, although they often continue to claim that they remain in it. Democracy? And we have such a special Russian “sovereign democracy”, yes, yes, this is a democracy, do not doubt it! The inviolability of post-war borders? And we have it like this! Yes, yes, do not doubt that we comply with all norms and forms on the inviolability of borders. Communism and brotherhood without borders? Of course! So much for a military dictatorship and the genocide of its own people. And what? This is the kind of communism we have, the real one. Right-wing conservatives and left-wing liberals? And here we have the right for freedom of entrepreneurship, and the left – for terror and the power of oligarchs, but they are the most real! System-busting bikers and lone wolves of the anarchic desert? But here are our Orthodox Stalinist bikers on a salary from the presidential administration and removing kickbacks from the property owners who were previously squeezed out by the security forces by them. The Constitution? But hopa, we changed it at the request of a respected reputable businessman. Ecological pagan herbivores with round dances under the moon? And here's the hopa, a Nazi paramilitary order under the tutelage of Soviet retired military clubs. Thou shalt not kill , thou shalt not steal-brothers in Christ? Yes, it's easy! Let's consecrate rockets to shoot civilians, kill orphans with disabilities, and take away homes from schools and museums in the name of Christ. Well, what is the form here? How to talk about it at all? The only fixed form they recognize is the monetary equivalent. The ruble will not deceive, feed, help, it is simple and tangible. It is their only moral axis and value. But the dollar is better, of course.

    This behavior is hypertrophied in Russians, and more smoothed out in other Slavs, probably due to the general similarity of history, but the presence of several bright spots there, unlike the Russians. This behavior has not changed for centuries, so Europeans have noticed these features for the Slavs from time immemorial, and Russian thinkers tried to rationalize and explain for themselves and for us.

  2. Thomas Mann somewhere has a passage in which he continues Dostoevsky's reasoning from the novel “The Gambler”. “Yes, all Russians are like that, and you know why: because Russians are too richly and multilaterally gifted to soon find a decent form for themselves… It is only among the French, and perhaps among some other Europeans, that the form is so well defined that one can look with extreme dignity and be the most unworthy person”(this is from The Gambler). Mann writes there that the German has both (and the form, and the corresponding content).�May not be a complete answer to your question, but it's still a hint.

Leave a Reply