the Debate about history is always emotionally coloured, the past, especially the conflictual and tragic, everywhere is the Foundation of national self-awareness, and therefore of the policy. But it is not the feelings or ambitions, although without them does not happen. The main question – why remember the historical lessons? The answer is trivial, but that does not lose relevance – to try to avoid a repetition of the devastating events. Putin’s article is primarily about it.
the Result of the Second world war was not just somebody win and somebody lose. Is the creation of unique international relations mechanism for the preservation of peace, the institutional expression of which was the United Nations, and primarily its Security Council. The President rightly draws attention to the main thing: “What is a veto in the UN Security Council? To put it bluntly, this is the only reasonable alternative to the direct confrontation of major countries. This statement is one of the five powers that the solution for it is unacceptable, is contrary to the interests and views about the correct approach. And the rest of the country, even if they do not agree with this, take this position for granted, abandoning attempts to implement their unilateral aspirations. That is, one way or another, but you need to look for compromises”.
This had never happened before, the way to showdown the largest countries and the establishment of international hierarchy were invariably war. After 1945, the practice had stopped. There is much to criticize thoroughly the UN, its various departments and agencies, the apparatus, the bureaucracy, the inefficiency. But to understand that all this is accompanying material to the main: preserving peace through the principles of mutual relations, agreed in 1943 to 1945 by the victorious powers. And, despite drastic changes in the world system at the end of XX – beginning of XXI century, the basic principles continue to apply. And if you suddenly stop, because someone deems them obsolete, the world will return to the old bad time when military force was a legitimate argument in discussions between the most influential countries. What it may lead amid mounting global socio-political turmoil and the presence of nuclear weapons, think not want.
How it relates to historical memory in addition to the fact that lessons should we remember? Directly. The decisions were taken at the end of the war the leaders of the coalition, was comprehensive. Political and moral assessment of what happened in Europe and the world in the 1930s and first half of 1940-ies, is a part of all strategic design. Any major war – the phenomenon of large-scale, multidimensional, affecting all aspects of existence, impossibletva and the state. Exhibits – and best of all, and what is not necessary is proud. To suppress something means to undermine the credibility and persuasiveness of arguments, and this applies to all parties. But the coordinate system formed after the Second world war, self-sufficient. Moral and political relativism, as he increasingly prominent in historical interpretations (especially in Europe), is dangerous primarily because it leads to the erosion of the political foundations of international relations as they were established in 1945. Because the understanding of good and evil won in the bloodiest war in human history, made possible the preservation of the world system that works effectively for three quarters of a century. It is impossible to revise this understanding, while maintaining the integrity of the remaining institutions.
This also applies to global stability, and regional systems. In Europe, for example, absolutely do not see the connection between an increasingly sympathetic attitude toward Nazi collaborators from among the nationalists in the republics of the former USSR (it is necessary, they say, to understand their motivations and in what situation they found themselves) and the growing influence of extreme right-wing tendencies in the European Union, which worries most governments. And for good reason. If you can “get into position” nationalists in the Ukraine or in Latvia in 1940-e years, why not listen to the reasons POSTVASECTOMY national-populist parties in Belgium, Germany or Sweden?
Putin’s Article is a call not to forget about the collective role that those who have privileges (UNSC gives them permanent members), but has a special responsibility for global stability. Reminder important in today’s environment where more and more participants are willing to assert their rights, but less willing to be aware of the responsibilities.
