The Munic Agreement revisited

I blogged earlier in "Remember the Munich Agreement?"(October 06, 2009). that we should bear in mind this shameful agreement when we look at the international situation concerning Russia and Gerogia. Today I read an article written by Yulia Latynina (journalist Ekho Moskvy ) who makes a point in the similar direction. The artcile is strongly critical to Heidi Tagliavinis /EU's report on the Georgian war, which in principle blames the one who declares war as defence the guilty part, allthough this party only defend itself against growing agression and provocations from a more persistant agressor.

"Tagliavini has created nothing short of a revolution in global politics by introducing a new definition of war. It now turns out that wars are started by those who respond to the actions of aggressors. So, when the Red Army dropped bombs on Helsinki, that wasn’t war. But when Finland responded, it qualified as war".

"Tagliavini, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor-cum-Gazprom PR agent Gerhard Schröder did not build Europe. It was built by their fathers and grandfathers following the end of World War II. At that time, Western Europe was an alternative to the Soviet Union — an alternative to slavery and tyranny. Post-World War II Europe symbolized the importance of never again signing a Munich Agreement with a dictator".

I very much support Latynina's analysis. This is the way the Russian agression against Georgia should be viewd, and not be forgotten and implemented as some sort of new praxis, and excuse for Europe to do business as usual.