This intervention by NATO in the former Yugoslavia, the occupation of Kosovo (Serbian province’s ethnic Albanian majority), the creation of a shield anti-missile on the territory of Poland and the Czech Republic and, therefore, joined the rush of Washington for hosting in the Alliance to two border countries Ukraine and Georgia located in the most sensitive confines for the defense of Russia. But there is more: the ultra-conservative circles of Washington not concealing his interest in facilitating the desrusificacion of the former Soviet provinces that boast a high percentage of people of Russian origin. It is the case of the Baltic States, but also of countries like Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan or Kyrgyzstan, where the percentage of Russian-speaking exceeds, in most cases, 5-10% of the population. Moscow is committed to defending the interests of these populations, which allows you to promote a so-called nationalist sentiment to facilitate the expansion of the zone of influence of the Federation. The thirst for greatness has little to do, however, with the nostalgia of the monolithic Soviet Union. In reality, Russian leaders want to regain the coveted reputation of the era of the tsars, the Russia that codeaba, without complexes, with the great colonial empires of the 19th century: Germany, France, or England. To understand the feelings of the Muscovite politicians, the kremlinologos should review history textbooks.

While Europeans continue to think in the most effective way of encircling the Russian bear, the hypothetical Chinese ally does not seem very prone to join the tactic of the tongs. Beijing has, in effect, their own strategic problems, call these Taiwan or Tibet. Without forgetting, of course, the fledgling but highly disturbing fundamentalist threat in most provinces Muslim. At the moment, the success of the encirclement of Russia seems unlikely. However, the Kremlin leaders warn their Western partners: make No mistake to choose its allies. Bet on the enemies of Russia would be a historic mistake. It remains to be see whether West is able to interpret and internalize the message.

In debates, workshops on the topic of leadership, Professor of managerial topics of the graduate of Faces of the UC., concerning quality and productivity program, noted, the personification of the real leader or development agent must combine knowledge and professionalism with human quality, as M. Desiato, emphasized an interest note, which indicates that: recovery of a strong institutional framework passes through the formation of a number of capable professional politicians and, of course, honest; men connoisseurs not only politics but also the economy, sociology, gifted of a healthy sense of reality and flexible when dealing with the pluralism of our collective (the national, 24/02/2002). In relation to the above above it is possible to say that, as regards the political environment, the Government of the current President of Venezuela, Hugo r. Chavez f., this must not neglect that you deteriorate which involves a participatory leadership, a leadership, which secure the union and not division, a democratic leadership, that unifies criteria, which not incidentally to which economic weaknesses are manifest, financial, cultural, educational, managerial, among others; We need a consistent team, with ethics, values, moral knowledge, able to unify efforts towards goals where everyone is committed, more, with the goal of building a socialism that ensures changes, justice, equity, transformation, development, participation, without affecting anyone else, all this on pro give Venezuela that course necessary to rewrite it in a real power that can be if actually manifests the will to collaborate and define programs that guarantee results. Is needed to encourage more the union, cooperation with various actors and national sectors in order to avoid contradictions, often manifested, even in officials who constitute his team, as very well knows the President in connection with the Venezuelan managerial aspect, both public and private sector, as participants, indicate the fundamental leadership weakness lies in demotivation and devaluation of the human resource to highlight the professional quality in detriment of human quality, promote individualism and economic profit sustained by falter and bureaucratic social welfare systems, which operate without a vision and shared a true strategic planning mission.