Biography of Zhovnirenko Paul

Interview with Ukrainian political scientist Pavel Zhovnirenko: - How serious is the report that at the beginning of the year Russia can start a war against Ukraine? If we are talking about the probability of a large -scale invasion, then it is quite high. The Kremlin itself drives itself into a dead end, and Ukraine - in NATO, has recently existed by the concentration of troops near our border, Putin’s discussions about the “triune people” and Surkov that the condition for Russia's survival is its constant entropy, that is, the seizure of the territory of neighboring countries.

How do you evaluate this step? I do not think that he will succeed in without a comprehensive solution to the issue of de -Ukrainian de -knowledge and part of the Donbass. After all, citizens of Ukraine are hostages, due to which Moscow is trying to bargain political concessions. And Crimean Tatars, she also takes revenge on their firm rejection of the occupation of Crimea and fidelity to Ukraine.

These three countries, which issued us the “insurance policy” in exchange for the rejection of nuclear weapons, are obliged to fulfill what they were entrusted for. Any other formats will not ensure the obligation of the de -Ukrainian discovery of all territories that are not controlled by Kyiv - Moscow will not include Crimea there, as it happened in the “Minsk process” or ignores such a format as in the case of the “Crimean platform”.

Each of the parties considers the world exclusively as that which can only come after a complete victory over the opponent. But this will not happen - even with the help of "arbitrators" or "allies". Experience, including the South Caucasus, indicates that their “support” is often aimed at weakening or absorption of countries of the conflict, and their “peacekeeping” ends with treason and disappointment of “pacified”.

I am an outsider for both participants in the conflict, I am not and I do not want to be on the side of any of them and that is why I will allow myself to express my thoughts and sentences. The thirty -year -old armed confrontation did not bring the world closer. The war takes young lives, resources and perspective for subsequent generations.

The most important thing is that it does not work. And not only in the Caucasus. She does not work anywhere. This in the middle of the last century was understood by the enemies of Germany and France, which signed the Champs Elysees in the year, no less sworn before. Neither two local nor two world wars, nor millions of deaths helped these two countries to solve the territorial and interethnic dispute - this was simply understanding, a look into the future and its general creature.

Under the Champs Elysees, France and Germany agreed to consult with each other on all important issues of foreign policy, defense, education and culture. The agreement involved regular meetings between the heads of government, ministers, and other high officials of both countries. 25 years after its signing and success in implementation, the French and Germans created common bodies: the defense council, economic and financial councils, the Council on Culture and the Council of Protection of the Natural Environment.

On the basis of the German-French military brigade, a Eurocorpus was created, which, in addition to the French and Germans, entered the military from other European countries. Special clauses of the agreement concerned culture and cooperation in the field of youth policy, in particular, creating a special German-French youth forum and initiating the German-French youth exchange program, which turned out to be very successful: thanks to it, millions of young Germans and French visited the country and made close and prolonged contacts.

All this made eternal enemies the most devoted allies and ensured their general economic and political progress. France and Germany were then incomparably difficult to find a solution because they were the first to get on this path, because there were no international legal documents that balance and make relations both between countries and between citizens. Now the experience and relevant international agreements have been developed, the participants of which are both Azerbaijan and Armenia.

This is, first of all, the final act of a conference on security and cooperation in Europe, several contracts under the Council of Europe, which guarantee the rights of national minorities and local communities, as well as the Copenhagen document of June 29. Summing up, I emphasize once again: for Azerbaijanis and Armenians, a strategic victory is possible only when it will be common to both countries.

When they are reformatting mutual programming for war in doomed to a peaceful, happy life for everyone, the need to free the territory of the conflict not from “others”, but from the shots. Even if one of the sides of the military victory, it will turn out to be a strategic defeat of both, because it will not lay the foundations of a fair and constant world. Such grounds, as the German-French experience proves, can only lay one thing: a common victory for two-victory over the past.