The problem of leadership is a problem of national character, cultural traditions that have evolved over the centuries. Well, tell me why a country with smokehouses and wild peasants has constantly rotted the country, Ukraine with neat and literate Cossacks and peasants for centuries? And do not, please, about tsarism or the Bolsheviks! History has repeatedly given a chance to “break away”, but this has been repeatedly not used …
The leader’s problem is NOT a leader’s problem, i.e. individual person. Some pundits vainly quote the text of a historically and sociologically ignorant but popular persons. They get confused and mumbles about the leader and the masses – these persons would be better if he kept silent if they do not know what to say. Mannerheim historically first wanted to lead the white movement in Russia itself, where he was a general for 30 (thirty) years. But the mediocre Denikin and Kolchak were preferred to him. Each of them wanted to enter Moscow on a white horse. But fiins as a people turned out to be wiser than the Ukrainians. Let’s not forget: Mannerheim is NOT a Finn, but a Swede, he spoke Finnish poorly. Russian general – why not “Yulka the thief”? Pilsudski, who led Poland, was NOT a Pole, but a Litvin (Belarusian). In addition, he was a socialist – “Comrade Jozef.” A complete set for the next “Yulka-thief”. During the civil war, the “president” was the unworthy man Grushevsky, a man overestimated historically. But they killed Colonel Bolbochan, who was really against the Bolsheviks. No – the problem of the leader, it is primarily the problem of the active minority. It is infected with the rot of betrayal and conceit, narrowness of outlook and endless anger at people who are at least somewhat different from their faces. Ukraine sheds blood through the desire to have unusual things by the usual means, methods, people… It is better to die like dogs – if only to remain in the familiar atmosphere of disoriented populacy.