The commission created by President Dmitry Medvedev will make decisions that will have a recommendatory, even might say, methodological nature. It should explain to the authorities and all of us how to deal with the falsifiers of history. But it is difficult for me to introduce an official who will not listen to such recommendations and will not prohibit the corresponding historical work.

From the editorial office. In the light of the actualized conversations about the "rebooting" of Russian-American relations, the RG decided to seek a commentary on Kennet Waltsa, a famous American scientist, one of the creators of the "theory of structural realism." We asked Professor Walts about how he evaluates the results of the Cold War and what he thinks about the future relations of Russia and the USA. * * * RG: Dear Mr.

Everyone knows the statement of Karl Marx, who was supposedly spied on Hegel that all events in history occur twice - first as a tragedy, and then like a farce. It may well be that in history it really is. But I wonder if you can say the same about the movie? Having watched the other day the film "The Last House on the left", decisively came to the conclusion that in the cinema, at least in this case, everything is exactly the opposite.

If a new cold war was possible, it would be happiness for us. After all, it was she who saved at one time the Soviet Union from the hot war. With its beginning, it became clear that atomic weapons would not be used. Of course, the USSR lost the Cold War. And this entailed a systemic disaster. A geopolitical catastrophe, as Vladimir Putin said. I repeated many times that it was a historiosophical catastrophe. Did it occur due to the fault of the United States?

Calls of global safety that arose after the Cold War and aggravated during the current crisis are double. On the one hand, the crisis sharply enhances the nationalist sentiments that lead to protectionism. Protectionism leads to tension in interstate relationships and is able to at a dead end the entire world economic system. During the crisis, the politicians great temptation to inflate distrust and hostility to other countries in order to switch attention from internal problems.

Review of: Russian translation of the "grammar of civilizations" by Fernana Brodel. (Fernan Brodel, grammar of civilizations. M.: The whole world, 2008). * * * Bad foul published foreign books are a thing, alas, familiar, almost routine. Perhaps this time it was worth a wave of a hand. If such a book had not undergone corruption and if the damage had not been so glaring.

Today, twenty years after the destruction of the Berlin wall, raising the question of who won and who lost in the Cold War would be vulgar. The winner is obvious-this is the socio-political system that was better organized and which managed to better ensure the standard of living of an average citizen. And ideology has nothing to do with it. In the end, the authoritarian Chinese communist system is flourishing, although the ashes of its Soviet analogue has long been dispelled in the wind.

During the Cold War, the world order was both very stable and very dangerous. On the one hand, international relations were quite predictable, But on the other hand, the world was on the verge of universal destruction. I do not think that we can talk about the winners and the vanquished - the Soviet Union committed war in one -sided order . The rise of radical Islamism, for example, is one of the evidence that there were no winners in the Cold War.

The collapse of the USSR, finally, made it possible to release Russia from the role of the metropolis adopted by it, which distracted not only its economic potential to maintain the integrity of the rest of the former empire, but also postponed the process of ripening of national identity. With the formation of the Russian Federation, the question of its own national-cultural, historical and socio-political self-determination was first raised.