Isn't it interesting that sometimes decisions are made with complete assurance of their correctness and turn into incredible failures revealing that it was the worst option taken? There are many political mistakes in the history of politics and decision-making, but when it comes to a country like Ukraine, I sometimes feel that its policy looks like a mistake total and permanent. That is why I chose the theme of the recent Ukrainian political scandal regarding former Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, who was also appointed governor of Ukraine's Odessa region in 2015-2016. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”? Get an original essay Mr. Saakashvili's political journey is quite impressive. When he arrived in Ukraine after the Maidan Revolution, he was quite well received 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, devoid of corruption as a means of doing politics. . It was no secret that he received support from the United States and its advisors in his activity, but post-2014 Ukrainians were certainly Western-oriented and therefore 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. However, what happened so that in December 2017, Mr. Saakashvili not only became stateless, but was also wanted by the national police of Ukraine and Georgia? To explain that I first apply 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, precisely that of governor of the Odessa region (tourist region of southern Ukraine, near the sea). So, from 2015, Mr. Saakashvili pursued a policy in the region similar to the one he pursued in Georgia and basically the idea was “if he could transform Georgia, he could also help to transform it.” to do in Ukraine”. Saakashvili was rather supported as a new politician, although he was not without suspicion. The obvious question was whose interests he was playing for. At first, people thought he was in Poroshenko's interests, others simply did not trust him and considered him a "dark horse". There are therefore two perspectives: Mr. President Poroshenko and Mr. Saakashvili. The logic of the first was that he invite Saakashvili, obtain approval from the United States, publicly declare that the new government is working towards democratization and unification with the West (the EU in particular) and that M . Saakashvili can simply be there, far from kyiv. , doing a good job and not messing with the president. From the former Georgian president's point of view, he was given a second chance. Known for his excellent work in his own country, then marginalized in his own territory, he was given the opportunity to prove himself once again. He obtained citizenship which gave him status in Ukraine and of course created an image as a “fighter against corruption”. Now the turning point comes when Saakashvili suddenly appears and declares that Poroshenko is a thief, a liar, even worse than the previous criminal president, that he is the head of the entirecorruption in Ukraine and that he (Saakashvili) is now a fighter. The context of the time was characterized by extremely high social discontent with the government (only 5% of the population supported Poroshenko) and thus became a perfect environment for the growth of a leader such as Saakashvili. With his image, he created a figure “who is only an opposition capable of opposing the criminal president”. What was Poroshenko's logic and options for responding?1. Saakashvili does not gain public support, because he is a "dark horse" and people will not trust him enough to follow him. Poroshenko can feel safe and then easily silence “the rebel” and get rid of him without any problems.2. Saakashvili obtains the support of the population and presents himself in the next presidential elections (fall 2018) in Ukraine with a chance of being elected. Poroshenko needs to put all his affairs in order and make the most of his last year + get more support from the Western world.3. Saakashvili plays alone, without threat, pursuing his own affairs. Saakashvili's sudden threat surprises the government and, although he assumes that he will not gain the support of the people, Poroshenko decides to deprive the opponent of citizenship, which means that he will not have the base legal residence in the country. However, from my point of view, all subsequent events and sudden consequences are based only on a single reasoning on the part of Mr. Saakashvili. 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 has decided to regain his status and become president in Ukraine, or if he is just a political clown among others, his logic is absolutely the following: he has nothing to lose. He was abandoned from his own country, then from Ukraine by the president and fled. So, from his point of view, each of his decisions was rational: to get back up. He fled and in 2017 threatened President Poroshenko that he would return to Ukraine with millions of supporters and leave the Polish-Ukrainian border and no one could arrest him. However, the blind President underestimated Saakashvili when his supporters from Western Ukraine literally carried 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 is where the fun part begins: Western countries, largely dissatisfied with the Ukrainian government's policies recently (this is precisely the case with the anti-corruption committee and the fact that they do not act in accordance with the agreed path to Europeanization) did not support Poroshenko's measures to stop Saakashvili and his total deprivation of citizenship, demanding the former Georgian president's right to appeal in court. Mr. Poroshenko's decision-making becomes even more complicated after Saakashvili's unsuccessful arrest when his supporters literally stopped the national police and forced him out of the car. Saakashvili was accused of receiving money for his activities from the criminal gang of the former president ousted during the Maidan revolution and, in fact, the accusation was only announced on the same day in court. The whole situation seemed extremely stupid and Ukrainian politicians could not formulate their ideas, could not (and still cannot) find the evidence for the accusation and thus postponed the Saakashvili case until the new year 2018. Now this.