თუ ვინმე აფიქსირებს მაიდანზე ნულანდისგან განსხვავებულ პოზიციას, ეს ავტომატურად პუტინის და რუსეთის ქებას რატომ ნიშნავს?
ასე მარტივად აზროვნებას როდის უნდა გადავეჩციოთ?!
ესეც კანადური მედიიდან საინტერესო სტატია...
საქართველოზეც წერს ავტორი, ალბერტას უნივერსიტეტის პროფესორი...
Opinion: A new Cold War making itself felt
BY SRDJA PAVLOVIC, EDMONTON JOURNAL JANUARY 2, 2015
We are living a new Cold War. While it would be up to future historians to determine the exact date it started, the reality of it should not be downplayed by anyone.
It is a new Cold War because ideology does not play a dominant role in it. It is no longer about capitalism versus socialism. It is about the controlling of energy resources such as oil and natural gas, for example.
This new Cold War teaches us a frightening lesson: politics had lost its essential ability to solve problems. It is the force and economic calculation that now has the primacy. One goes to war if there are resources to be acquired or protected. If not, crises linger for decades.
We have recently witnessed numerous “coloured” revolutions and spring uprisings against established regimes. They all featured different degrees of poor planning, unrealistic expectations by democracy activists, absence of mechanisms for measuring progress, or the lack of it, betrayed hopes of local populations and the bitterness that comes with it, and unfulfilled promises made by Western governments. Most of those were a sideshow in this new Cold War.
The gradual and bloody dissolution of Ukraine is a perfect example of an advance phase of the new Cold War. It has further deepened the most serious crisis in the East-West relations since both real and symbolic changes happened on the streets of Berlin in 1989.
At the behest of the U.S. administration, Western allies have attempted to test Russia’s military strength and political resolve, following the start of the Ukrainian crisis. After the initial reluctance of the EU to join economic sanctions against Russia, the crisis has now entered a crucial, and the most dangerous phase.
Once again, Western policy-makers have failed to learn from past mistakes.
Who still remembers Georgia? In the summer of 2008, this picturesque country on the edge of the Asian continent became a pawn in wider West vs. Russia turf wars. During the Five Day War with Georgia, Russian President Vladimir Putin had demonstrated his readiness to prevent NATO from coming closer to Russia’s borders. Why would anyone expect him to act differently in Ukraine?
The lessons from Georgia have been lost on the politicians in Kyiv as well. It was clear that the West had no intentions of going to war with Russia in defence of a political gambler like the Georgian president at the time, Mikheil Saakashvili. It is also obvious that it will not go to war with Russia over Ukraine. No amount of belligerent rhetoric, publicity stunts at international forums, and chest-pounding by Western leaders can change that fact.
Such behaviour only deepens the crisis. It disrupts and closes the very few remaining lines of communication between Moscow and Western capitals. There is no dialogue, while political and diplomatic solutions to the crisis in Ukraine seem out of reach. At the same time, the language of international politics is dominated by harsh words. The word enemy has re-entered the vocabulary of East-West relations.
The system created by Putin is authoritarian and even dictatorial. But we should not forget that one of its building blocks was Putin’s fear that Russia would be squeezed by NATO from all sides. One would hope that such understanding might help deal with Russia. Instead, British Prime Minister David Cameron likens Russia’s actions in Ukraine to those of Nazi Germany. Putin did invade and annex Crimea, but that was a far cry from the events of 1936 Rhineland, or 1938 Sudetenland. Moreover, Cameron is certainly no Winston Churchill.
The Canadian contribution is notable. By issuing a warning to Putin to get out of Ukraine, Prime Minister Stephen Harper joined a political club that is using Ukraine for domestic purposes. By instrumentalizing the war in Ukraine, he is courting possible voters for the upcoming federal election. This hurts Canada’s credibility on the international scene: Tough talk is cheap when it is not backed by battalions, as historian Micheal Bliss recently noted.
The former West German chancellor, Willy Brandt, and his way of practicing the craft of politics, comes to mind. Brandt did not view his political opponent as an enemy, but as someone with whom he must talk, and whose aspirations and fears he should understand. Above all, Brandt was prepared for lengthy negotiations and any setbacks that might come along the way.
We are yet to see a Western politician capable of such an approach and brave enough to implement it.
Srdja Pavlovic teaches modern European and Balkan history at the University of Alberta.
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/touch/story.html?id=10694699 
ჩეხეთის პრეზიდენტის კრიტიკული შეფასებები მაიდანზე
