A scenario of victorious protests

In democratic countries, changes are achieved relatively peacefully - they are elections and party changes, it can be a political scandal, it can be large and peaceful demonstrations. There is relatively little chance of changing power in a military way, as it has now appeared in Ukraine, because the majority of the people are still aware that in this way they will lose their freedom. Totalitarian regimes in democracies come with violations of the system, as it happened in Russia too - limiting the freedom of the press and establishing the stability of power. Therefore, here, I repeat, everything is relatively simple - the freedom of the press (which is already relatively limited for us in Latvia, even though it might not look like it), the change of power in a free election process and the inviolability of rights must be observed.

All this does not work in tyrannical regimes. In today's information age, people look at what is happening in the world and take to the streets. It was always the case in the past, but nowadays one gets the impression that demonstrations and pickets in tyranny are capable of bringing about changes, but in reality it doesn't work that way. As I said - guilt-free democracies give the impression that this is a good mechanism. Yes, demonstrations, demands and various electoral mechanisms are fine in democratic systems, but it does not work in tyranny.

That is why nothing will change in China, Russia and Iran. Hopelessly. In order for changes to happen, tyranny has a completely different mechanism, where the main principle is that YOU MUST BE READY FOR AGGRESSION AND DIE. First of all, the changes are not peaceful, but aggressive and military. I will list the steps that need to be taken. The first is to ensure the safety of the leaders. If you allow your leader to be arrested, then it is not serious - with this we can also say that the protest is over and everything else is just talking. It's not for nothing that the Great French Revolution began with the taking of the Bastille - the fact that the revolutionaries showed that their leaders should not be imprisoned gave the rest of the understanding that the protest could be successful. The second is a military conflict. Protesters must be prepared to use military force and aggression. The most famous modern example is the Maidan in Ukraine. An example can also be given of how the Baltic states gained independence - huge protests along with promises to resist if the Soviets tried to arrest the protest leadership. Here is the huge difference between the effectiveness of the movement in Russia and the Baltics, that in the Baltics the population would not allow the arrest of anyone from the protest movement, nor the leadership, while in Russia thousands were arrested at every protest and there was no reaction. And the last point is to cooperate with the army. Either the support of the army or neutrality must be achieved. The police and special services are not a serious force in the protest - if aggression begins, the protesters always defeat them. For example, in Russia, there are now a huge number of men in the National Guard who "protect" Putin's peace, but in Tsarist Russia this service was more aggressive and active, but already in 1918 they were nowhere to be found - they got tired of the first serious threats. Here, on the other hand, a good example is how the democratic system won Russia in 1991 after the August coup, when it was enough for one army unit with tanks to side with Yeltsin.

As the best example of such a change of power, we can see the Russian revolution in 1917. What happened in 1918 and later is another story, but the events of 1917. First of all, the activities are carried out by those who are at liberty, who, moreover, have been actively campaigning in the army since 1915. It is not those who started the protests in 1917, but those who led the activities that have already remained in the historical memory. The protest leaders were free and ready to defend them with military force and the army was ready to support or at least be neutral. The fact that the protests ended with a new tyranny and insane ideology is another story - failing to reach an agreement, an anarchist situation arose with a lack of power, and in the conditions of many of its glorified anarchy, usually the winner is not the best solution, but the sickest leader who is not sorry to make sacrifices for the sake of victory anything.

Belarus' protests ignored all three prerequisites for a power change. They allowed the arrest of the leaders and none of the demonstrations ended even with an attempt to free the prisoners in Ocrestin. They didn't even try to defend their actual newly elected president. There were no signs that the population was ready for an aggressive conflict. There was no attempt to talk to the army. The classic tyrant is an ordinary "gopnik" of the farm - he will not understand anything until he is punched in the face. That is the reality. And yes - there is no guarantee that such a change of power will succeed. However, there is a guarantee that if these three principles are not followed, the change of power will not succeed. The best example is Venezuela, where nothing ended even after Chavez's death, or Libya - if the principles are not followed, there is no improvement.

That is why the protests in Russia, Iran and China will have no results. In Russia, the opposition for some reason hopes that it will be possible to replace the power in a peaceful way. It won't work. On the contrary - if the representatives of democracy are not ready to go to war, as in 1917, someone similar to Lenin or Stalin will take their place again. If someone thinks that Lenin was better than Stalin - no way. Smarter for sure, but exactly the same in his attitude towards people.

In Iran, according to the information, the main problem is that the leaders are arrested and their security is not ensured and there is no cooperation with the army. Automatically, there are protests there practically every six months and equally hopeless. Protests are also relatively frequent in China, but there the empire is currently at its peak - just like in Tsarist Russia, it can now throw troops from city to city, suppressing riots, and nothing positive will happen there either.

The moral is simple - the form of protests is different in each system. And the European example is not exactly what would help everyone. The French Revolution clearly showed what can happen if people are not listened to. Europe was driven crazy by three more great revolutionary periods and finally the year 1918, and there were enough elected institutions of power for those in power to understand the need for change and in the middle of the 20th century, more democratic systems were established in European countries. In Asia and Africa, there are very few such experiences and the belief in the "bright hero" who will lead to the sun through the beautiful glass mountain is very high. Therefore, the democratic system can win there only by observing these three principles - nothing will happen with ordinary demonstrations.

And in conclusion - if a representative of Russia says that he wants to change the power in Russia, but does not call for compliance with these three principles - it is empty nonsense. Hopeless, pointless and distracting.

In the picture - Ukrainian Maidan, also relatively bloody, but an example of how a tyrannical government can be changed to a democratic one. For anyone who thinks that the number of victims was high, it is worth comparing it with how many Russians are now dying in Ukraine and when dozens of people are shot in demonstrations in Iran every day. And there are other countries where exactly the same thing is happening.