Note that a banker is sitting in the presidential chair. And it looks pretty helpless. While management strategies that have been shown to Yushchenko, are: 1) Build a work based on the administration of President Administration, 2) put their own people to key positions. This is not enough to manage the development of economy, culture, science and the military. However, Yushchenko did not understand and do not want to understand it. Wants to know whether it Tigipko? 2.
Anatoly Gritsenko, with its slogan "For the order!", In my view, has no chance of any in the 2010 elections, no election of 2015. Too many things need to finish in his understanding of the challenges before President of Ukraine, problems that he could claim to have to take this place. 3. Yatsenyuk. He has no chance to score in 2010 in any way a significant number of votes. He could count on the support Youth voters, however, this requires, first, the mass youth participation in elections, and secondly, he must say something, something he can really interested in young people. Speaking today with a completely strange position, Yatsenyuk allegedly wants some changes. But reading the pamphlet he had created "Front zmin", you realize that the "front of change" in fact no change is not wanted.
And it can not cause the sympathy of young people who in oligarchic and corrupt society, is still based on the primacy of family ties (not to say tribal relations) to 40-45 years of age will be considered "minor" and "do not have the influence and prestige." Young wanted changes Yatsenyuk declares them, but no real change does not want to because it all personally comfortable with. And young voters understand this. On top of that, Yatsenyuk came under the influence of political consultants, who adhere to the well-known among advertisers (but can not say that is very popular) view that the advertisement should arouse emotions, whether positive or negative.
And not without surprise, observed that while other republics in the majority more or less discreetly watched the disturbing events in splitting a huge state of Georgia too prolonged bursts of gunfire, killed people, dressed in mourning clothes mother and sister. And all because of that came from the streets of arrogant political radicals urgently demanded independence. Not shrinking at the same marginal outbursts against Moscow and its the same company, late, alas, recognizing the deep essence of pernicious nationalist extremist movement. AND without regard to reality, with the interests and destinies of the peoples living in the autonomous regions, or, say, a long-standing propensity to Abkhaz independence. As if on arms was taken motto: "At least – care, maximum – madness! ". What of all this happened, is widely known.
Today increasingly have to meet people from the circle of educated, modern and energetic, who say they stand for "world peace". That is: the idea of global pacifism touching slogan states beauty contest moves into the category of social ideals and becomes the property of the vector directions. Have a question. That's be honest: You are the educated, sophisticated and active-not you think that "world peace" there is not nothing but a modern fallacy, if not – a myth? If only because the world has never been installed by other means than war, violence and oppression. The theory of social contract is only a good basis of associating an already formed a society in need of civilized and equitable foundations of its existence and ready to accept them.