Isn't it interesting how sometimes decisions are made with complete confidence in their correctness and turn into incredible failures revealing that it was the worst option taken? There are numerous political mistakes in the history of politics and decision-making, however, when it comes to a country like Ukraine, I sometimes have the feeling that its policy is like a total never-ending mistake. This is why I chose the topic of the recent scandal in Ukrainian politics regarding former Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili, who was also appointed governor of the Odessa region of Ukraine in 2015-2016. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Saakashvili's political background is quite impressive. When he arrived in Ukraine after the Maidan Revolution he was welcomed and well known for his incredible transformation of Georgia from an underdeveloped post-Soviet state to a rapidly developing state with friendly relations with the West, deprived of corruption as a means to do politics. . It was no secret that in his activities he received support from the United States and their advisors, but Ukrainians after 2014 were certainly oriented towards the West, so they had nothing against it. The former Georgian president came as a supporter of Poroshenko and was even granted Ukrainian citizenship to become a legal governor by the Ukrainian president. Now, what happened that in December 2017 Mr. Saakashvili was not only left stateless, but was also wanted by the national police of Ukraine and Georgia? To explain that I am initially applying the rational actor model. So, when Petro Poroshenko became president, he was legally elected and promoted the path “to the West”. On the recommendation of the United States he invited Saakashvili (Western support was very important), gave him Ukrainian citizenship and appointed him to a good post, namely governor of the Odessa region (tourist region in the south of Ukraine near the sea ). So since 2015 Saakashvili has been pursuing a policy in the region similar to the one he has been pursuing in Georgia and, basically, the idea was “if he could transform Georgia, he could help do the same in Ukraine”. Saakashvili was rather supported as a new politician, although not without suspicion. The obvious question was in the interests of those who are playing. At first people thought it was in Poroshenko's interests, others simply did not trust him and considered him a “dark horse”. So there are two perspectives: President Poroshenko and President Saakashvili. The logic of the first was to invite Saakashvili, get US approval, publicly declare that the new government is working for democratization and unification with the West (EU in particular) and Mr. Saakashvili can simply be there , far from Kiev. , doing a good job and not messing with the president. From the point of view of the former Georgian president, he was given a second chance. Being known for great work in his country and then being marginalized in his homeland, he had the chance to prove himself once again. He received citizenship which granted him status in Ukraine and, of course, created an image as a "fighter against corruption". Now the turning point comes when Saakashvili suddenly comes to light and declares that Poroshenko is a thief, a liar, even worse than the previous criminal president, who is the head of all corruption in Ukraine and that he (Saakashvili)from now on he will be a fighter. against this. The context at that time was characterized by enormous social dissatisfaction with the government (only 5% of the population supported Poroshenko) and therefore became a perfect environment for the growth of a leader like Saakashvili. With his image he created a figure "who is the only opposition capable of opposing the criminal president." What were Poroshenko's rationale and options for responding? Saakashvili does not get public support, because he is a “dark horse” and people do not trust him enough to follow him, so Poroshenko can feel confident and then easily silence “the rebel” and get rid of him without problems.2. Saakashvili gains the support of the population and runs in the next presidential elections (autumn 2018) in Ukraine with the possibility of being elected. Poroshenko needs to clean up all his affairs and make most of his last year + get more support from the Western world.3 . Saakashvili plays alone without threat, continuing with his own business. Saakashvili's sudden threat surprises the government and despite thinking that he will not gain the support of the people, Poroshenko decides to deprive his opponent of citizenship, which means that he will not have the legal basis of legal residence in the country. Now, from my point of view, all subsequent events and sudden outcomes have only one line of reasoning on Saakashvili's part. If we think about his position for a moment we will see a clear point behind all his activity: he simply has nothing to lose. It doesn't matter if there is someone behind him and he is just a puppet or if he decided to regain his status and become president in Ukraine, or if he is just another political clown, his logic is absolutely as follows: he has nothing to lose. He was abandoned by his country, then he was abandoned by Ukraine by the President and he fled. So from his point of view, every decision he made was rational: to get back up. He escapes and in 2017 threatens President Poroshenko to return to Ukraine with millions of supporters and leave the Polish-Ukrainian border and not one would be able to stop him. The most blinding thing of Mr. President, however, was to underestimate Saakashvili when his Western Ukrainian supporters literally took him across the border and no border police dared to stop them. Realizing his mistake, the president must change his strategy and now come up with an idea on how to get rid of the former governor. And here the funny part begins: Western countries, largely dissatisfied with the policies of the Ukrainian government in recent times (precisely in the case of the anti-corruption committee and the fact that they did not act in accordance with the agreed path towards Europeanization), did not support Poroshenko's measures to arrest Saakashvili and his total group. deprivation of citizenship, demanding the right of the former Georgian president to appeal to court. Poroshenko's decision-making becomes even more complicated after the unsuccessful arrest of Saakashvili when his supporters literally stopped the national police and took him out of the car. Saakashvili was accused of receiving money for his activities from the criminal gang of the former president, overthrown in the Maidan revolution, and essentially the accusation was announced only on the same day in court. The whole situation looked extremely stupid and Ukrainian politicians failed to formulate their ideas, failed (and still fail) to find the prosecution evidence and therefore postponed the Saakashvili case to the new year 2018. Now, this what would have been logical (rational) is to see Poroshenko try to remain president until legal elections, Saakashvili demonstrate his “dedication to.