Mathematics are based on very precise formulae, whereby, e.g., 2+2 = 4, and you can then divide the 4 by 2 and get 2 as the answer, thereby confirming that you have gotten your calculation correct.
But, does 2+2 really equals 4, or should it be more like 5 or more?
Why do I want to talk about maths, you might be thinking, especially when I am not good at it? Well, the truth is that I do not want to talk about maths, but something happened today that causes me to ponder on how somethings have a significance greater than that of their sum.
I was watching Bloomsberg's John Micklethwait, when, in ending the interview, John asked President Putin about his take on how one could best help themselves to understand Russia and, presumably, the Russian people, noting that, on his way to Russia, Korean Airlines had offered a choice of two films, Dr Zhivago or The Godfather. to him.
President Putin's first response, before he elaborated, was that: You know, we have a well-known phrase. “Russia cannot be understood with the mind alone. No ordinary yardstick can span her greatness: She stands alone, unique. In Russia, one can only believe.”
Yet, despite President Putin's care in responding to John's question, it did not prevent him from concluding thus - That sounds like Doctor Zhivago to me.
Which might suggest that, like the western stereotype - and yes, probably all people and nations have their stereotypes of other people and nations, on which they/we, inaccurately formulate our perceptions of them - of his hosts. That of the criminal type, or the historic and fictionalised type portrayed in Dr Zhivago.
And so it seems to me that we humans, some of us more than others, try too hard to simplify complex issues, and end up presenting an oversimplified and erroneous presentation of them. And that we also, sometimes, knowingly or unknowingly, making simple and straightforward issues complex, because we cannot or refuse to believe that they are not complicated. Resulting in us making them more difficult to resolve.
I was impressed with how President Putin presented himself and responded to the questions in what, for the most part - after we make the necessary allowances for some omissions and economisation with the truths - appeared to have been honest and genuine. It was clear that John Micklethwait's questions and his reception of some of President Putin's responses were weighted with the standard west's political mistrust of of the President and the Russian people, whom the west have characterised as 'the enemy', inspite of Putin's persistent attempts to put the past to rest and work with the west for greater understanding and cooperation.
It would appear that the west's 'enemisation' of Putin and the Russians, is a necessary and sufficient condition for the industrial-military-political complex, which would lose a great deal of it relevance, but for it and its supporters doing all they can to ensure that Russia, not just under President Putin, but under any truly pro-Russian leader, remain firmly in its designated role of 'being the enemy of the west.'
This is why, whether it is about the Ukranian conflict, the Syrian proxy war, Libya, Yemen or Iraq, things are never as they appear to be, and the sum of them will never match their actual significance. Because the international and even national affairs of governments and nations, are not predicated upon virtue, or honesty, or altruism, but on expediency, power and money.
No comments:
Post a Comment