Is it enough time to ask the world's leading politicians, why they can not agree?

   We know about the good result of cooperation of the Soviet Union, the US, Britain, France, Czechoslovakia and other countries in the fight against Hitler and his allies. Then, these were states, officially based on contradictory principles and the collaboration only began due to the common existential threat from Hitler's world-conquering ambitions. Now we have organized terrorists instead of Nazis and the situation is even more critical because technology and the organization of destruction has reached the status when too many people can easily trigger slaying all of us and all the living things on Earth. Indeed, do we just passively watch how world leaders can not agree? Indeed, can we only look silly how people in Syria suffer because of it and solve, what about those millions of people in this situation desperately fleeing into the unknown?  

   Individuals make decisions by their feelings and it is generally accepted that they can negotiate with a potential enemy far better than politicians who decide according to general aspects and who are constrained by the need to maintain the support of many people in their charge. Therefore, the politicians hold old clichés used among the large number of people, which is very inertial in principle. That is very dangerous in a situation such as that after WW1 and now, when people in a significant portion of the world feel deceived/defeated. Russians remember strongly their cooperation with the West in defeating their common mortal enemy in the WW2 and then Reagan embracing with Gorbachev during perestroika attempt to introduce a more open society, which could not prevent the collapse of the Soviet empire. Had the democratization effort then really improved their living standards so that it could compensate for their feeling that they had lost their influence on the development of a malignant world? And that they have got otherwise the same enemy trying again to get to neck by violating the military balance? And that the enemy, with an excuse for their defensive response, worses their living by sanctions and so prepares the final assault? There is the cliché clear: We with Germany in NATO are suspected of just such a treacherous intent with which German Nazis attacked; that suspecting is confirmed by Ukraine's announcement that it fails to comply with an agreement on neutrality with Russia and vice-versa will seek links with NATO. Therefore, both sides should strive to improve mutual trust, the more that we are at war against a common enemy. In the West we tend to perceive Russians' sense that they are at risk and their supporting demonstration of Russian force only as symptoms of dictatorship and hold the cliché: the Russia is a dictatorship, and dictatorship must be vanquished without worry what it costs; still, we are stronger and every concession to Russia is only 'appeasement'. But:
   Is the absolute black and white image of their system against our quite good and the superiority of our forces and therefore the probability of our victory so clear? And do we really want to make that last experiment? Leading US politicians say clearly: the nuclear war with Russia is not possible, because that would be the end of life on Earth. The result is summarized in red words above, up to now "only" for the Syria, Ukraine and Afghanistan.

   What if the world tried to build on the cooperation between people in the Russian-American teams of astronauts and to let the society control system to be tested by competition while gradually improving mostly the system that suits worse the needs and feelings of the population?
   This means to build further joint teams, if possible for the most serious challenges: Ending the war in Syria and surroundings and settling situation in Ukraine. And to gather the ideas for solution to which those politicians still are not able to grow and lead the world to ruin.

   Politics is the art of what is possible. Let's check if some people are willing to get a bit involved and organize a debate and vote on a query that needs to be asked those politicians and on a challenge to world media to ask the questions and to publicly debate the answers. We call those people for establishing the 'Movement for question on global cooperation' in countries of the UN and to future cooperation of them; we propose a theme for World Leaders in that text. But maybe now it is not time enough to build an effective movement; Chancellor Merkel propaganda requiring crackdown on information from Russia reminds us strikingly of the situation before World War II. Therefore high-level leaders of the main forces are needed who, following the example of President Wilson, find officially the viewpoint of the other one, now concerning cooperation, and begin to actively authenticate the cooperation. I hope our idea of creating the joint forces to be inspiration.
                   Tomáš Pečený on behalf of authors of a possible scenario for development of the world

(Please for the proposals for the theme (the presented solution) and of the query, and for drafts of a charter of the emerging Movement. I am ready to publish all of it according to the rules (now Czech only) at a list of correspondence; you can ask for anonymization, especially in the case of a communication on a petition requesting origin of this Movement, if
-a/ you support the efforts from abroad or if you are a citizen of the Czech Republic and you seriously think about its signing;
-b/ you are a citizen of the Czech Republic and you have decided to sign the petition; 1000 signs are necessary in the Czech Republic.
I shall deem these communications as private under the rules. I will continuously publish the numbers of both those categories for each country. (The further tentative detail relates to the Czechs only.) I will let posted all the dated versions of this article and of the first approach to the challenge; those challenges with the designation 'theme for World Leaders'.