Bücher von Blagovest Georgiev

La guerre que la Russie a menée en Ukraine semble étrange à bien des égards : on assiste à des opérations chancelantes de part et d'autre, à des batailles de terrain fastidieuses dans lesquelles la Russie et l'Ukraine s'efforcent de s'épuiser mutuellement, à des échanges de frappes prudentes visant à détruire des infrastructures, comme si les deux parties craignaient de ne pas aller trop loin, etc. D'autre part, il s'agit d'une guerre limitée "classique" ou d'une guerre de recalibrage, comme la définirait Kissinger, où l'une des parties est une superpuissance nucléaire. On ne peut la comprendre en dehors du contexte nucléaire qui engage l'Amérique et la Russie. La seule alternative possible pour éviter l'Armageddon est une solution d'équilibre des pouvoirs, c'est-à-dire un nouvel ordre mondial qui tienne compte des intérêts géostratégiques légitimes de la Russie au sens de la realpolitik. L'essentiel du problème est que la Russie doit atteindre ses objectifs stratégiques par le biais d'une guerre conventionnelle limitée. La question critique se pose d'elle-même : Poutine a-t-il l'intention de faire preuve de sérieux ou, même dans ce cas, n'a-t-il pas la capacité de remporter une victoire incontestable sur l'Ukraine ?

La guerra que Rusia libra en Ucrania parece extraña en muchos aspectos: uno es testigo de operaciones tambaleantes de ambos bandos, tediosas batallas campales con las que Rusia y Ucrania se esfuerzan por agotarse mutuamente, intercambio de cautelosos ataques de destrucción de infraestructuras como si ambos temieran no ir demasiado lejos, etc. Por otra parte, se trata de una "clásica" guerra limitada o de recalibración, como la definiría Kissinger, en la que uno de los bandos es una superpotencia nuclear. No se puede comprender fuera del contexto nuclear que compromete a Estados Unidos y Rusia. La única alternativa posible para evitar el Armagedón es una solución de equilibrio de poder, es decir, un nuevo orden mundial que tenga en cuenta los legítimos intereses geoestratégicos de Rusia en sentido realpolitik. La esencia del problema es que Rusia tiene que alcanzar objetivos estratégicos mediante una guerra convencional limitada. La cuestión crítica se plantea por sí misma: ¿tiene Putin la intención de hacerlo en serio o, aun así, no le falta capacidad para llevar a cabo una victoria incontestable sobre Ucrania?

A guerra que a Rússia travou na Ucrânia parece estranha em muitos aspectos - assiste-se a operações hesitantes de ambos os lados, a fastidiosas batalhas de campo em que a Rússia e a Ucrânia se esforçam por se esgotar mutuamente, à troca de ataques cautelosos de destruição de infra-estruturas, como se ambos receassem não ir longe demais, etc. Por outro lado, trata-se de uma guerra limitada "clássica" ou de recalibração, como a definiria Kissinger, em que uma das partes é uma superpotência nuclear. Não se pode compreendê-la fora do contexto nuclear que envolve a América e a Rússia. A única alternativa possível para evitar o Armagedão é uma solução de equilíbrio de poder, ou seja, uma nova ordem mundial que tenha em conta os interesses geoestratégicos legítimos da Rússia no sentido da realpolitik. A essência do problema é que a Rússia tem de atingir objectivos estratégicos através de uma guerra convencional limitada. A questão crítica vem à tona por si só - Putin tem a intenção de levar a sério ou, mesmo assim, não lhe falta capacidade para levar uma vitória sem reservas sobre a Ucrânia?

La guerra condotta dalla Russia in Ucraina appare strana sotto molti punti di vista: si assiste a operazioni traballanti da entrambe le parti, a noiose battaglie di campo con cui la Russia e l'Ucraina si sforzano di sfinirsi a vicenda, a scambi di cauti attacchi per distruggere le infrastrutture come se entrambe temessero di non spingersi troppo oltre, ecc. D'altra parte, questa è una "classica" guerra limitata o di ricalibrazione, come la definirebbe Kissinger, in cui una delle parti è una superpotenza nucleare. Non si può comprendere al di fuori del contesto nucleare che coinvolge America e Russia. L'unica alternativa possibile per evitare l'Armageddon è una soluzione di equilibrio di potenza, ovvero un nuovo ordine mondiale che tenga conto dei legittimi interessi geostrategici della Russia in senso realpolitik. Il succo del problema è che la Russia deve raggiungere gli obiettivi strategici attraverso una guerra convenzionale limitata. La questione critica si pone da sola: Putin è intenzionato a fare sul serio o, anche così, non ha la capacità di riportare una vittoria senza riserve sull'Ucraina?

Der Krieg, den Russland in der Ukraine geführt hat, erscheint in vielerlei Hinsicht seltsam - man wird Zeuge von schwankenden Operationen auf beiden Seiten, von langwierigen Grabenkämpfen, mit denen sich Russland und die Ukraine gegenseitig zu erschöpfen versuchen, vom Austausch vorsichtiger, die Infrastruktur zerstörender Schläge, als hätten beide Angst, nicht zu weit zu gehen, usw. Andererseits handelt es sich um einen "klassischen" begrenzten oder rekalibrierenden Krieg, wie Kissinger ihn definieren würde, bei dem eine der Seiten eine nukleare Supermacht ist. Man kann ihn nicht außerhalb des nuklearen Kontextes begreifen, in den Amerika und Russland verwickelt sind. Die einzig mögliche Alternative, um das Armageddon zu vermeiden, ist eine Gleichgewichtslösung, d.h. eine neue Weltordnung, die den legitimen geostrategischen Interessen Russlands im realpolitischen Sinne Rechnung trägt. Der Kern des Problems besteht darin, dass Russland seine strategischen Ziele durch einen begrenzten konventionellen Krieg erreichen muss. Die kritische Frage drängt sich von selbst auf: Ist Putin ernsthaft gewillt, oder fehlt ihm nicht die Fähigkeit, einen uneingeschränkten Sieg über die Ukraine zu erringen?

The war Russia waged in Ukraine appears strange in many respects ¿ one witnesses teetering operations from both sides, tedious pitch battles Russia and Ukraine strive to exhaust each other with, exchange of cautious infrastructure destroying strikes as if both fear to not go too far, etc. On the other hand, this is a ¿classic¿ limited or re-calibrating war as Kissinger would define it, at that, one of the sides is a super nuclear power. One cannot comprehend it outside the nuclear context that engages America and Russia. The only possible alternative to avoid the Armageddon is a balance of power solution, to say, a new world order that takes into account legitimate Russiäs geostrategic interests in realpolitik sense. The gist of the problem is that Russia has to achieve strategic goals through a limited conventional war. The critical question comes to the fore by itself ¿ is Putin intent to seriously or, even so, does not he lack capacity to carry an unqualified victory over Ukraine?

This is a Malthusian book. Since its first publishing in 1798 his famous Essay on the Principles of Population has risen many questions, triggered harsh critiques and shed doubt on humans' hopes of cloudless and prosperous future. The more humanity relies on the civilization gains such as mass production and mass consumption the more manifest become the civilization's shaky groundworks. Simple but increasingly tormenting questions evolve: Are not people too numerous to keep sustainable, i.e. environment sparing, economy? Is not the very mass consumption based model of economic growth the main cause of unsustainable economic and social development and, hence, the main driving force of rising food insecurity? Based on Lester Brown's brilliant methodology the book attempts to put a slightly different spin on his mathematically sound food equation when handling the issue of absolute and relative food security/insecurity. The analysis produces a good example of how a world proven methodology can and should be applied to food security issues of Bulgaria - by its formal status an EU member; by its actual status a poor country, sharing the food security concerns of the developing world.

The UN is running aground. It manifests phenomenal ineffectiveness and inefficiency. Reform it is a top priority task, but what should one start with? It is highly likely that the subsequent ¿reforming project¿ will follow the fate of previous ones. The issue boils down to the organization¿s founding principles¿ irrelevance rather than poor managerial arrangements. Therefore, reform the UN must be tantamount to revisiting its basics. Revisit its basics would lead up to matching collective security premises with interest-power-based politics that is usually known as realpolitik. The outcome of such a showdown would not be consoling for collective-security order. The latter may prove quite notional as rebuffed by the factual world of fierce interest clashes among states. May the ascendancy of realism in politics cause the demise of the collective security concept itself? Certainly yes. If so, will not the UN prove redundant in a balance-of-power-seeking international environment?

The book tries to shed some new light on the origin of the present mass terrorist movements all over the world. Terrorism¿s deep-seated roots are sought in the nature of the present liberal system of production, market arrangements and political representation. Spread under the veil of ¿universal modern civilization¿ based on materialistic selfishness the liberal system destroys traditional communal channels of communication and ways of life both with societies ¿exporting¿ and ¿importing¿ its dispensation. Materialistic selfishness generates anomic individuals who, relapsing to moral relativism in extreme, prove incapacitated to stand what Fromm has defined as ¿horror of separateness¿. These individuals do consist of authentic grass root of mass terrorist activities. The use of armed force is a necessary but quite a limited in its effectiveness means to fight back terrorism. Terrorism has replaced Communism as the enemy; terrorism has been viewed as the ¿absolute evil¿. But what if the ¿absolute enemy¿ of terrorism was seen as human? Everything would change and, primarily and foremost, combating terrorism would start from healing our own home.

To jest maltuzjäska ksi¿¿ka. Od czasu jej pierwszego wydania w 1798 r. jego s¿ynny "Esej o zasadach ludowych" wzbudzi¿ wiele pytä, wywo¿ä ostr¿ krytyk¿ i zw¿tpienie w nadzieje ludzi na bezchmurn¿ i dostatni¿ przysz¿o¿¿. Im bardziej ludzko¿¿ polega na takich korzy¿ciach cywilizacyjnych jak masowa produkcja i masowa konsumpcja, tym bardziej oczywiste staj¿ si¿ chwiejne fundamenty cywilizacji. Ewoluuj¿ proste, ale coraz bardziej dr¿cz¿ce pytania: Czy ludzie nie s¿ zbyt liczni, aby utrzymä zrównowäony rozwój, tj. oszcz¿dno¿¿ ¿rodowiska, ekonomi¿? Czy model wzrostu gospodarczego oparty na masowej konsumpcji nie jest g¿ówn¿ przyczyn¿ niezrównowäonego rozwoju gospodarczego i spo¿ecznego, a tym samym g¿ówn¿ si¿¿ nap¿dow¿ rosn¿cego braku bezpiecze¿stwa ¿ywno¿ciowego? Opieraj¿c si¿ na genialnej metodologii Lestera Browna, ksi¿¿ka ta próbuje w nieco inny sposób wykorzystä jego matematycznie poprawne równanie dotycz¿ce ¿ywno¿ci podczas rozwi¿zywania kwestii bezwzgl¿dnego i wzgl¿dnego bezpiecze¿stwa ¿ywno¿ciowego/niebezpiecze¿stwa ¿ywno¿ciowego.