Another coup attempt in Kyrgyzstan was perceived by the outside world rather calmly.
Although, of course, many local citizens perceive all this somewhat differently - more dramatically.
The reason for this indifference is that every sneeze is not good news.
For the third time in 15 years, moreover, in the God-forsaken small Central Asian republic (it was once called the Central Asian Switzerland, but that was a long time ago and not to say the truth), from where you have been jumping for three years - you will not be able to get to any state.
Well - to know, such is the fate.
But, of course, the fate of Kyrgyzstan is not only sad, but also instructive.
Sharpe's spirit can rejoice, for the recommended transition from dictatorship to democracy is taking place for the third time in a very short period of time.
The transition is standard.
Elections take place, their results are challenged by the people (equally opposing clan), the dictator flees, a democratic ruler comes to replace him, after which the cycle repeats.
And not even to say that everything here is a lie.
A dictator is not a dictator, but he is certainly a thief.
By itself or against your clan - you can’t trample.
In the elections, there are corrections of Fortune's mistakes.
The assault on the local Tuileries followed by plundering - was it different with the Parisian Tuileries?
And even a new democratic ruler does not immediately start stealing, but with a certain time lag.
And the turnover of power is generally a sacred thing, and somehow it is not very clearly stated: without a pogrom, go with a pogrom.
In Serbia, Georgia, in Ukraine, everything was exactly like this - and all this was warmly welcomed by the world community, which saw in this the life-giving force of democracy.
With some effort (the enlightened Akayev was a little sorry), the Kyrgyz "Tulip Revolution" of 2005 was also welcomed.
The only failure is that the Kyrgyz liked it all and new revolutions occur with the monotony of Latin American pronunciamentos.
Although quite a long time ago it was said to some Russians (albeit of Jewish origin): "Do not wake a Kirghiz in me."
They did not obey.
But it would seem that the permanent Kyrgyz revolution can be ignored.
Kyrgyzstan as a sovereign state is not yet 30 years old.
By historical standards, the state-forming people have recently led a nomadic lifestyle.
That, on the one hand, does not contribute to the emergence of despotism (this requires agriculture and a "hydraulic society"), and on the other hand, contributes to anarchist principles.
Which we see in all its glory.
Be that as it may, this is a very specific case, and there seems to be no reason to draw far-reaching conclusions from it, applicable also to developed countries with a centuries-old tradition of stable democracy.
And even more so to the Shining City, promoting democracy throughout the ecumene.
But that's how to say it.
Kyrgyzstan has not yet flared up, and observers - including not Russian ones (who can be accused of interfering in the US elections in order to undermine democracy), but quite American ones - wrote with alarm about what would happen after November 3 of this year.
They feared (and still fear) that the split in American society is very large: Republicans and Democrats are rapidly evolving to a state where people do not communicate with each other in food, drink, or prayer.
And with such a split, any announced election result can serve as a detonator for a forceful showdown.
Moreover, everyone saw a rehearsal of such a clarification in the summer during the struggle to promote the progress of the colored population (BLM), and in terms of the weaponry of citizens with firearms, that is, in terms of the number of trunks per capita, the United States is covering Kyrgyzstan like a bull a sheep.
Hillary Clinton has already ordered not to recognize Trump's victory under any circumstances.
But what does it mean not to recognize?
It means acting like the Kyrgyz.
For non-recognition in the family circle at the tea table has long been taking place and Trump is not in the least afraid.
Hillary needs hardcore, and she calls for it openly.
And the fact that after such appeals the Americans did not seem to have to flee to peaceful and safe Kyrgyzstan - it does not occur to the disagreeing gander.
The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.