From the holy scripts of major religions we know there are the good and the evil. These definitions exist only in tandem: how could one judge if something is good or evil without knowledge of the both?
From the basic course of school physics we know there are always two poles, North and South, plus and minus, positive and negative. Here, terms 'positive' and 'negative' have no good-or-evil connotation, it's just a pair of physical effects, whether electric, or magnetic, or whatever else.
Sometimes you have to choose sides (or poles, for the matter). During the Civil War in Russia after the October Revolution, you could be either Red — a bolshevik/communist yourself, a conscripted soldier fighting for them and with them, or a peasant voluntarily or involuntarily feeding them, or, say, a worker helping them to build up a new state on the ruins of former Russian Empire, — or White, supported by the so called world community (the UK, the USA, Japan, Germany, Poland, etc.) and fighting against or supporting this fight.
During the WW2 the choice was different, yet there was one. One alternative; either you were with Hitler, or against him. At times of great challenges the choices are also great; so the UK, the USA and the USSR were wise enough became allies. (Those who say 'the USSR switched sides during the WW2' just loudly express their shameful, though understandable ignorance in history; I'll come back to the matter later.)
During the so called Cold War world was kind of 2.5-polar: the 'Capitalist World' fought against the "Socialist World' (for propaganda purposes usually called the 'communist' one), and both sides were trying to attract as many third-world-countries as possible; those did not form a general power by themselves, but were developing with assistance of their patrons.
Since the collapse and disintegration of the Warsaw Treaty (and the Council of Economic Mutual Assistance, kind of the EEC for the socialist countries) first and then the USSR itself, the world became monopolar, with the only real super power (with the greatest economy) atop.
Yet was it a time of succes on a global scale? Did the life of all billions of people improved? Or at least that of the Golden one? Did the world become a more peaceful place? Did the number of bloodsheds decreased?
I think there should be no surprise at all that the world tend to come back to a more stable stand, at leats bipolar. And definitely I am satisfied my country takes part in this movements, regaining its strength and weight on the political scene of the world.
And I am definitely dissatisfied with Obama/the USA desperately trying to convince the world they remain the one and only one political being on the world's map which meaning counts. By the way, I've heard the Chinese economy has outgrown that of the USA recently. If not yet, it will definitely do so in the nearest future. And as far as I know loosing its economic leadership is not the only trouble the USA facing now externally and internally. Looks like they desperately need war, as big and bloody as possible to keep thing going, still going monopolar.
However, the newest history knows examples of peaceful consolidation of people around their leaders. For us Russians the (re-)incorporation of Crimea in March, 2014 became such a point. It was done in so a peaceful and purely democratic way that future schoolbooks will definitely describe this incorporation as an exemplary way of settling territorial disputes. And the percentage of those who support our President now is already about 85% here in Russia; I believe your leaders do not even dare to dream of such a figure.
'The West' hypocritically calls the coup-d'etat in Ukraine 'the Revolution of Dignity'; if 'dignity' means blood of the innocent, shelling on the civilians and destruction of economy by Ukrainian nazis (no necessity to follow the CNN or Euronews or RT for the matter; just follow Graham Phillips, a brave and honest British journalist working on site) — we live in different worlds and definitely have opposite ideas of good and evil.
By the way, from my photography-connected background I, just like any photographer out there, know that the most stable support for a camera should have three legs; namely, tripods are such supports; even if the ground below is totally uneven, three legs stand absolutely stable and solid.
Should the world have three poles, to really be a better place?
From the basic course of school physics we know there are always two poles, North and South, plus and minus, positive and negative. Here, terms 'positive' and 'negative' have no good-or-evil connotation, it's just a pair of physical effects, whether electric, or magnetic, or whatever else.
Sometimes you have to choose sides (or poles, for the matter). During the Civil War in Russia after the October Revolution, you could be either Red — a bolshevik/communist yourself, a conscripted soldier fighting for them and with them, or a peasant voluntarily or involuntarily feeding them, or, say, a worker helping them to build up a new state on the ruins of former Russian Empire, — or White, supported by the so called world community (the UK, the USA, Japan, Germany, Poland, etc.) and fighting against or supporting this fight.
During the WW2 the choice was different, yet there was one. One alternative; either you were with Hitler, or against him. At times of great challenges the choices are also great; so the UK, the USA and the USSR were wise enough became allies. (Those who say 'the USSR switched sides during the WW2' just loudly express their shameful, though understandable ignorance in history; I'll come back to the matter later.)
During the so called Cold War world was kind of 2.5-polar: the 'Capitalist World' fought against the "Socialist World' (for propaganda purposes usually called the 'communist' one), and both sides were trying to attract as many third-world-countries as possible; those did not form a general power by themselves, but were developing with assistance of their patrons.
Since the collapse and disintegration of the Warsaw Treaty (and the Council of Economic Mutual Assistance, kind of the EEC for the socialist countries) first and then the USSR itself, the world became monopolar, with the only real super power (with the greatest economy) atop.
Yet was it a time of succes on a global scale? Did the life of all billions of people improved? Or at least that of the Golden one? Did the world become a more peaceful place? Did the number of bloodsheds decreased?
I think there should be no surprise at all that the world tend to come back to a more stable stand, at leats bipolar. And definitely I am satisfied my country takes part in this movements, regaining its strength and weight on the political scene of the world.
And I am definitely dissatisfied with Obama/the USA desperately trying to convince the world they remain the one and only one political being on the world's map which meaning counts. By the way, I've heard the Chinese economy has outgrown that of the USA recently. If not yet, it will definitely do so in the nearest future. And as far as I know loosing its economic leadership is not the only trouble the USA facing now externally and internally. Looks like they desperately need war, as big and bloody as possible to keep thing going, still going monopolar.
However, the newest history knows examples of peaceful consolidation of people around their leaders. For us Russians the (re-)incorporation of Crimea in March, 2014 became such a point. It was done in so a peaceful and purely democratic way that future schoolbooks will definitely describe this incorporation as an exemplary way of settling territorial disputes. And the percentage of those who support our President now is already about 85% here in Russia; I believe your leaders do not even dare to dream of such a figure.'The West' hypocritically calls the coup-d'etat in Ukraine 'the Revolution of Dignity'; if 'dignity' means blood of the innocent, shelling on the civilians and destruction of economy by Ukrainian nazis (no necessity to follow the CNN or Euronews or RT for the matter; just follow Graham Phillips, a brave and honest British journalist working on site) — we live in different worlds and definitely have opposite ideas of good and evil.
By the way, from my photography-connected background I, just like any photographer out there, know that the most stable support for a camera should have three legs; namely, tripods are such supports; even if the ground below is totally uneven, three legs stand absolutely stable and solid.
Should the world have three poles, to really be a better place?
No comments:
Post a Comment