No, I had in mind not only Berkut and titushki, but exactly that majority you define.

They’re the same “mass men”, and their – I know about whom I talk you, I’m familiar and see there personages always – their consciousness is derived from soviet experience. Paternalism, desire of strong hand, adoration of Stalin and memory of USSR’s epoch. A St George ribbon, at last. There’s a confrontation of the modern Ukr.nation according to western kind, and the Soviet-Empire’s quasi-nation, with Russian language as communication way. I believe you know it, but say these culturological things, for clarify even more the situation.

These men born in 50-80th can’t imagine itself other life except as in paternalist regime. Their common stereotypes are “our great motherland USSR-Russia, we won in II WW”, in general homophobia, banderophobia, aggressive ressentment toward nationalism (“that’s all fascism, Hitler!!!”) and – malignant americanophobia. Tell them “there’s American help to Maidan” is the same as tell “they sold a soul to devil there”. Could you imagine what happened in their brains when Nuland has appeared on Maidan? Almost a half of a country became scared by it! Do you know that a half of country mocks the Nuland’s cakes and sees in it a terrible mark of intervention by “the bad cowboys”?”.

There’s no any imputation to you, sir. It is only explanation, what and how they think. It’s their education, it’s their habit, and as the saying is: “Consuetudo altera natura”. A habit is an another nature.

Than I would say there are exactly problems of sociology and cultural inheritance that could pass only over time. They’re the past of Ukr.nation, rudiments of the USSR that should go away.

But a trend was overturned only in 2004-2010 when it was a qualitative changes in social thought. That’s all easily explained – new generations have grown up. The experience of Russia and Belarus’ illustrate how this process can be returned as well.

Then I only would you understand that this “majority” of budget users (civil employees) are par excellence a vestigium of Soviet epoch (except scientists, priests and teachers with students). We, hopefully, are talking not only about changing structure of political regime, but (primarily) about changing social mentality, isn’t it so?

They don’t believe in that they can change anything and get influence in the politics.
They had not been taught them what rights they have and how they may stand up for their rights.
Just now in the school teach “sit down and do not jump, do not meddle!”
And they fear as in a panic to lose work for not banally not having money. But the civ.society is the community of free men who have sufficient means for life and can accumulate them for the necessary political activity.

You’ll answer: well, but where are young men? But who educate them? Aren’t the same old buffers formatted in USSR? It’s the continued generation, the POST-Sovietic mass-men.

I would to emphasize: of course all that cannot be a justification of idleness. But all these cultur.details need to realize what really is happening here.