Coursera-Princeton question on Ukrainia

B.II Coursera – Princeton: Question on Ukrainia

Posted on 06/06/2014 by bbuike (now reedited as chapter of a new upcoming book)

In June 2014 I took part in the course “Paradoxes of war” presented by Princeton University – the head of MIT somewhere in New Jersey – in coursera.org, in the peer-forums of which was put the following quite harmless looking statement and question, which I now will take as THINKING EXERCISE, in spite of the fact, that the Anglosaxon “peer-(review)-system” was felt sometimes a quite superfluent experience showing even tendencies in cases to PREVENT EARNEST STUDIES.

START of quotation from some coursera peer-community blog —-


“Russia send mercenary soldier to the Ukraine to cause chaos and violence.
Question: Is this terrorism? ”

END of quotation from coursera.org blog —-

If we remember the training in essay-writing from lessons in German language and literature, we perhaps would search for a DEFINITION, what IS or should be a “mercenary soldier”, what IS or should be “terrorism”, behind which IN OUR TIMES is the question and PROBLEM, WHAT WE should understand as “regular war” as opposed to “irregular war”.

However, there might be some sort of UNWILLINGLY giving a DEFINITION by the writer and author of this “haiku on war” in the Japanese style, which in my transformation would read like: “MERCENARY SOLDIERS ARE SUCH SORT OF SOLDIERS, THAT CAUSE CHAOS AND VIOLENCE – AND BY THIS PROCEDURE is “produced somehow” TERRORISM. ONE of possible consequences from this view would be, to question, whether the “terrorist” SHOULD “produce” “true terrorism”, which we might oppose for instance to the possibility, that perhaps the “mercenary soldier” normally would search for BOOTY or – more primitively put the words – “NETTO CASH”!

Now, if we consider my first approach, we would have a CLASSICAL DICHOTOMY OF HISTORY OF WAR to ponder upon. But if we take my SECOND approach, we get a LOT OF DEBATING with need of evaluation of different directions of possible argumentations.

We now may have look at FORMAL LOGICS, as follows.

We may take as example from lessons in formal logics as STUDY-OBJECT, the following, which is a FORMAL SENTENCE:

Green-elephants are flying.”

What makes this combination of words a SENTENCE is, that NATURAL LANGUAGE CAN PUT TOGETHER “things” or “items” and attribute to them FORMAL QUALITIES, like for instance subject, predication and so on.

We now would agree, that this REALLY is a SENTENCE by every FORMAL CRITERIA. BUT obviously something is QUEER here, which is, that we have NO FIELD OF APPLICATION in common 3-d-reality to give this sentence an UNDERSTANDABLE MEANING, which can be communicated to others or to an audience, at least not if not EVERYBODY “stoned” or under influence of cannabis / hashish.

If we were not in LESSON HOURS in “artificial laboratory”, we even would have to REJECT this sentence as NOT CONFORM with REALITY and even near to madman NONSENSE!

But there is a SECOND SENTENCE in our quotation under scrutiny, other than the first, which is a sentence in function of QUESTION.

This is even a SPECIAL TYPE of question, which is a “QUESTION WITHOUT ANSWER”. Such we would have to resume, that we have here a LANGUAGE-STRUCTURE WITH INCOMPLETENESS – and we very well, in RHETHORICS will have to think it over, WHAT MAY BE THE PURPOSE – good or evil – behind a QUESTION WITHOUT ANSWER!

Would a “question without answer” MEAN, that the author thinks, that “LIFE and history are A QUESTIONS WITHOUT ANSWER” – and if without answer, then perhaps without sense or God? Or had the author in mind on his backburner something similar to SEX WITHOUT ORGASM – or FAMILY WITHOUT CHILDREN – or PLUM WITHOUT STONE, which may be summarized to some sort of EXTRAVAGANCE?

There is something else: IF we have a QUESTION, an answer is EXPECTED. IF we have a LOGICAL SENTENCE a CONSEQUENCE IS EXPECTED – at least if you are not Descartes in person, who REALLY did it, and became FAMOUS because of an INCOMPLETE SYLLOGISM, which was his famous: “I am reasoning. THEREFORE I am!” (Missing is here the 2. proposition, so that there CANNOT BE a conclusion, even if the outer appearance of natural language may suggest such!)

So we LEARN from DESCARTES, that just to get famous as PHILOSOPHER, it not is necessary to be overly concerned about LOGICS. And we INDEED know a second field of application, in which we not necessarily need EXACT LOGICS, which is POLITICS. There even is a third field, in which LOGICS may be defeated to disaster, which are the women!

Now go on: We have no DEFINITIONS, we have no ANSWERS, we have no CONCLUSION, but WHY IN GOOD HEAVENS NAME WE STARTET WITH THINKING?

Because the author was PLAYING with us?

It might be worse! It might be, that we have here FIELDS OF CONNOTATION only.

And what might it be, what we have “really”? Well, it might be, that we have here WIDE CONNOTATIVE FIELDS OF LEXICAL MEANINGS, which each may result in some sort of UNSPOKEN IMPLICATIONS.

And now, if you have met ever with Aristotle, Plato and Thomas of Aquinas, you perhaps remember some quality of CLARITY / Clarté, you even may go as far as to EXPECT from SCIENCE not to increase the number of IMPLICATIONS, but to give EXPLICITE EXPLANATIONS.

Or was this author intending, to start a CASE?

Well, I am from Continental Europe, and it took YEARS, until I eventually started to get, what may be “building a case” in anglosaxon surroundings. We may say: “building a case” in first place is a BEHAVIOR and NOT only giving EVIDENCE, which of course may not be mixed up with LOGICAL PROOF. We even may say, that “building a case” may be sometimes near to a SPORT, and certainly normally by Continental Europeans should not be mistaken as EVILMINDED action whatever. And very important: The ORIGIN of “building a case” may be a METHOD OF LAWYERS in court trial, and if so, near to METHODS OF SOPHISTICAL USE of rhetorics, to make a “weak case a strong and winning case”, resulting in appropriate INCOME for the lawyer., and NOT NECESSARELY serving TRUTH or JUSTICE in FIRST PLACE!

To give an example: It is not the point, to have a HARDCORE FACT, that Saddam Hussein, REALLY DID IT and USED POISON GAS on the battle field against the Kurds in few cases. The real thing was, that the U.S. tried to “build a case”, that with near to

90 % probability EVIDENCE “it could be SHOWN”, that the Hussein-Irak had weaponry of mass destruction. Now something STRANGE happened and the international press “somehow forced” the U.S. government to publicly ADMIT, that the EVIDENCE WAS FAKED, so that the option, that IRAK MIGHT HAVE HAD NO such weapons suddenly was in reach and could not be excluded with 100 % certainty. But most confusing to the Continental European observer was, that such DESASTER IN GIVING JUSTIFICATION, had NO EFFECT on the unfolding of REAL EVENTS in REAL WAR THEATER! And we LEARN something very important: Even if Saddam Hussein used poison gas on Kurds, this not necessarily does mean, that he had weapons on “mass destruction really”, say for instance, BECAUSE this application of gas against humans was “limited” in one way or other, which again in Continental European use of thinking, would be felt somewhat QUEER!

AND IF WE CONTINUE WITH SUCH USE OF LOGICS IN THE FIELD OF POWER POLITICS, we in the end may have openly to admit, THAT POWER POLITICS is the ABSENCE OF LOGICS! If you yourself are the elephant, why should you bother with LOGICS, especially IF IN JUNGLE?

So I have warned the audience: IF our quotation under scrutiny really was meant to “build a case” in some SPORTIF manner, we should not put into it, what cannot be within, which would be something BEYOND SPORT and PLAY?!

And I may say, that after these introductory remarks, there suddenly is some sort of FEELING for what is – perhaps – WILLINGLY UNSPOKEN in this short quotation, which is an UNSPOKEN GENERAL MORAL JUDGEMENT, that “this” and “somehow” SHOULD NOT BE SO, but CLEAR HINTS, to WHAT SHOULD BE INSTEAD missing, probably again WILLINGLY!

This we need in other words: EVEN IF THE OUTER APPEARENCE FROM NATURAL LANGUAGE does not cover it, SOMEONE MIGHT READ IN THIS “haiku on war” quotation a MORAL JUDGEMENT, and even a MORAL JUDGEMENT AGAINST RUSSIA “in reach”, between the lines” or “unspoken”.

IF SO, if our analysis so far correct, we might even say, that to STIGMATISIZE one party of a problem RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING, is a RHETHORICAL TRICK – and in PRACTICAL DPOLOMACY SHOULD BE AVOIDED for quite obvious reasons, including the reason to AVOID BAD and CHILDISH BEHAVIOR!

We may however be WARNED from our lessons in essay-writing, that any author USING the RHETHORICAL TRICK, to “raise unspoken issues”, is AVOIDING CLARITY for some reason or other, among which PERHAPS THE REASON OF WILLINGLY MANIPULATING the UNCONSIOUS of the reader and consumer! At least we should become CAUTIOUS, that UNSPOKEN JUDGEMENTS are AGAINST THE MAIN PRINCIPLE OF SCIENCE, to POSE PROBLEMS, to ask DECISIVE QUESTIONS and to avoid OBSCURITY, with which latter nobody can SOLVE PROBLEMS!

We such may say, that this FIRST LOOK did not produce such a lot of ELEMENTS, that perhaps may be suitable to become PART of SCIENTIFIC CLEAR and OPEN argumentations or even SOLUTIONS!

And please note: I did NOT argue, that the writer was driven by EVIL MOTIFS or working for COUNTER-PROPAGANDA or for the special branch of psychological warfare with the goal to produce NEBOULOUS GAZE OF DESINFORMATION AND CONFUSION!

If we make a preliminary analysis more directed to the field of PROPAGANDA and POLITICS – far away from MILITARY in a TECHNICAL and PROFESSIONAL sense! – we may start like follows:

STATEMENT: Russia send mercenary soldier to Ukrainia.
TRUE or FALSE?
Please ask your reconnaissance.

And please ask yourself: IF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES in a state of declared national emergency would send SPECIAL DETACHMENTS from Washington/DC to – let`s say – Texas, WOULD THIS BE NORMALLY CALLED “sending mercenary soldiers”???

Please correct me, if I am mistaken, because I am foreigner to the situation in the U.S.: BUT IS THERE NOT IN ANY EMERGENCY ACTION INVOLVING THE NATIONAL GUARD of the U.S. an element of “military equipment”, as for instance in the case of the aftermath of hurricane “Catherina” hitting New Orleans?

So to say: It would be okay, if the writer of our short quotation has the PERSONAL MEANING expressed in UNBIASED WORDS, that he is AGAINST the RUSSIAN PRESIDENT, just acting very similar as the President of the U.S. MIGHT do. But it would be quite another thing, if such author just is trying to TRICK THE AUDIENCE!

But worst, it of course would be NOT ACCEPTABLE, if the author of our “haiku on war” had the intention, to introduce DOUBLE STANDARDS, because this would normally exclude him from EARNEST discussion!

Now we may CHECK and try some sort of OPPOSITE, for to evaluate, whether there might have been a REASON, for the STATED Russian action in Ukrainia. And IF there MIGHT be no such REASON, we at least would have to try the old ROMAN principle of “Audiatur et altera pars!”, which would translate similar to: THE OTHER PARTY SHOULD BE HEARD!

And such we may TRY hypothetically:


USA sent mercenary soldiers to Ukrainia???!!!
True or false?


Well, is engagement of BLACKWATER-similar US-groups from “Academi” “mercenary soldier”? Answer: PERHAPS! (Because Blackwater “does it for MONEY”, NOT FOR CONVICTION and because Blackwater is NOT THE OFFICIAL U.S. GOVERNMENT!!)
But is engagement of relatively small combat-groups of special forces whatever under COMMAND OF CIA “sending mercenary soldier”? We may perhaps tend to the answer: NO, not exactly! Or even worse: Can be something like “friendly overtaking” of ENTIRE UKRAINIA RECONNAISSANCE by CIA called “sending mercenary soldier”?

Well, ask yourself and stay honest! And don’t try to fuck the audience!

We might even go as far, as to qualify such POSSIBLE U.S. and British actions in Ukrainia as AGAINST THE LAW OF THE NATIONS and even against the regulations of La Hague and the Geneva Conventions under terms of LAW OF WAR! BECAUSE there is NO DECLARED WAR ON UKRAINIA nor on RUSSIA and such EVERY U.S. and British use OF WEAPONRY in Ukrainia becomes ILLEGAL and IRREGULAR WARLIKE ACTION, FORBIDDEN BY the regulations of the United Nations, which was founded by the United States!

And I have to CRITISIZE here, that, IF our writer may be understood in that way, that he MIGHT have tried to express some sort of CONCERN on Russian, let`s say, paramilitary action in Ukrainia, this writer OBVIOUSLY SHOWS NO SUCH CONCERNS with regard to the U.S. and Britain. This again we would call DOUBLE STANDARDS, not acceptable in any court trial!

We may say: With such METHOD in writing, the author may impress the U.S. audience, but would be unable to convince any COURT, which he might not even be interested in, because with the today “full scale dominance” of the United States Armed Forces, such questions for to stand court trial simply have become SUPERFLUENT. Or was – to have an example – the use of “Agent Orange” – the name is leading sideway, because the real thing within is DIOXIN! – in Vietnam lately brought to international court criminal for crimes of war and escaped my attention?


Okay next step of analysis:

STATEMENT (somewhat camouflaged by grammar structure of language):
“Russia sent something, “to cause chaos and violence.”

The importance of this sentence would be, to get to know, WHAT ARE THE GOALS OF OFFICIAL RUSSIAN bodies – and clearly this sentence is not directly dealing with the MOTIVATION of the soldiers itself.

Well, if we go to the IMPLICATION, that Russia is a STATE, would anybody agree, that the GOALS of STATES may be DEFINED as CHAOS and/or VIOLENCE?

Answer here may be twofold: A REGULAR STATE in INTERIOR NORMALLY will AVOID CHAOS and instead seek some sort of ORGANIZATION and even “ORDER” (which in politics we find often used by right-winged people). BUT a STATE may be engaged to “bring chaos and violence” in its EXTERIOR politics, which we normally would call “WAR” respectively “warlike action”

Now go on: IF I PUT THE WORDS LIKE THIS – using “warlike action” – we may argue, that such may be indicating some sort of “IRREGULAR WAR-action”.

Question would be “irregular related to WHAT” (regular standard)? Answer may  be searched for in REGULATIONS OF The – Hague – Conventions of 1905-1907 or so, in GENEVA conventions, in UNO – conventions – and whatever it is you will come up with, you would have to SEEK FOR SOMEBODY, who not only can DECIDE, what is “regular or irregular”, but who would be able to set into effect ACTION, COUNTERACTION and – may be – some sort of “punishment”, in case the regular was missed, may be by criminal intent.
How much complicated things may seem now, the in any war PREFERRED METHOD to come to “solutions” is FIGHTING for to GAIN VICTORY and to AVOID DEFEAT.

Now it seems possible the following consideration: IF Russias actions in Ukrainia are CORRECTLY LABELED as some sort of “irregular war”, we then find in the educational and training books of the former COMMUNIST SOVIET ARMY BROAD chapters on socalled “GUERRILIA” – tactics.
But IF our reconnaissance would come up with the result, that US-CIA-ACTIONS or BLACKWATER-similar engagements TEND to the IMPRESSION of irregular as well, we in the end might see two little boys throwing MUD and DIRT.

HOWEVER if we would have a closer look to the EQUIPEMENT of those Russian “armed groups” and US “armed groups”, we would find, that there we have HIGHTECH-WEAPONRY of ANOTHER TYPE as in wars in history so far, so that we now may TRY THE THESIS:

RUSSIA AND THE US are in Ukrainia engaged in a NEARLY completely NEW TYPE of war, with which however we cannot deal here in more detail, because if we find ANOTHER TECHNOLOGY, this would lead to further complication, whether we will have to APPLY OTHER PRINCIPLES for engagements, tactics and strategy.

We may however give in, that IT SEEMS on the surface, that in the UKRAINIAN THEATER the US-TECHNOHNOLOGY engaged in ARMS and METHODS is near to OVERWHELMING – but POLTICS not catching up.
It would be however quite natural, for US-personnel, to have a solid self-esteem.
It only – according to the rules of war as in Sun-Tsu – may be there the possibility, that Russians tend to be UNDERRATED.

The world has LOUGHED as the Russians sent in 1905 or so in the Russian-Japanese-War a FLEET from the BALTIC SEA to TSUSHIMA in seas near CHINA, and even ventilated in the papers, that this fleet never would be able to round Africa (which by the way is near to INSULT).
The PRUSSIANS had a view on Russians and Polish as QUITE INFERIOR in FIRST WORLD war, which was similar in Austria-Hungary.
The GERMAN NAZIS especially had some objections against Russians and Polish as being “PRIMITIVE SLAVES”, not counting in NAZI-ideology as HUMAN BEEINGS.

From these observations in history of war, I NOW INTRODUCE THE NEW THESIS in REWRITING the HISTORY OF 20th century, that we find in ALL THE GREAT WARS OF THE 20th CENTURY A RASSIST FACTOR AGAINST THE SLAVES – (or as I prefer to put the words: the SLAVONIC people) – and the Russians.

I not only put a NEW THESIS, but may hint to another lesson from history, which is the following principle of war:

DO NOT OVERESTIMATE NOR UNDERRATE YOUR ENEMY!
And – at least – TRY to build in your mind a relation to TRUTH, EVEN IF dealing with your enemy, whatever your emotions may come between that.

Well, it is not widely known in the public, but it may be, that the Russians have developed in a SLIGHTLY OTHER direction, with regard to VERY ADVANCED NEW WEAPONRY, which may be due to the fact, that Russia after World War II, was not ON THE SAME SCALE subject to NAZI-INFILTRATION of the ENTIRE SCIENTIFIC SECTOR, especially to the science sector related to war and space. This is not MY idea of a GERMAN student, but it is in books of English speaking folks like, Joseph P. Farrell, Richard Hoagland, Anthony Sutton, Jim Marrs.

Last part of the quotation, with which this reflection began, was and is the following quotation:


“Question: Is this terrorism?”

 

Well, obviously the PREVALENT party may not be quite aware, that there are SEVERAL DEFINITIONS and CONCEPTS out there, what is and what might be “terrorism”. Secondly my considerations above, insofar they are trying to get a CLEAR PICTURE OF RECONNAISSANCE and of WHAT IS FACTUAL SITUATION may have a bearing, whether PROBABLY BOTH SIDES in Ukrainia are acting IRREGULAR – and irregular by purpose.

Meaning in effect: We cannot make the Russians the “devils” and the US-folks the “angels” – at least not outside the next US-Army camp for psychological warfare.

Cautious and suspicious as the modern student is, we may even go as far in mulling it all over:
IS THE QUESTION WHETHER TERRORISM OR NOT A SOLID ALTERNATIVE?
OR IS THE PERSON, who kept us busy with only a very SHORT STATEMENT LEADING US SIDEWAY and INTO WRONG DIRECTION, so that we may become BLINDFOLDED?

So, please: THE QUESTION MAY NOT BE AT ALL, WHAT IS OR IS NOT TERRORISM!
The Question even might not be EXACTLY “Russia or USA”!
And please note: If I put the alternative “Russia or USA”, there would be something MISSING. which is “Ukrainia”, so indicating perhaps how cold hearted WE ALL are, if dealing with DEATH OR LIVE of a – at moment – POOR COUNTRY in great development-difficulties.

And PLEASE, WHAT IS the theater in Ukrainia about?

Well, most people may have escaped the VERY little news telling, that the son or a near relative of the US-Vicepresident BIDEN in course of Ukrainian crisis SUDDENLY became member of staff – in the juristic department – of a Ukrainian company engaged in the PETRO-INDUSTRY.

AND THAT IS, WHAT IT ALL IS REALLY ABOUT IN MY PERSONAL ESTIMATION.


The people today – even the learned ones – they do NOT KNOW, that Ukrainia is a VIRTUALLY RICH COUNTRY with for instance the BEST SOIL in Europe; nearly nobody today remembers, that Ukrainia under the TZAR before First World War was an EXPORTEUR IN CROPS. Nearly nobody knows, that DIRECTLY BEFORE FIRST WORLD WAR, we saw STRANGE ROCKEFELLER-INTERESTS working in BAKU at the Caspian Sea, which I herewith introduce as suggestion, that it were US-OIL-INTERESTS that were DECISIVE CAUSES for the BREAK OUT OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR and even for outbreak of the Bolshewiki-revolution in 1917. And there was but one reason to remove the TSAR, which was, that the TSAR otherwise would have had PROTECTED Russia from FOREIGN EXPLOITATION by an ENEMY COUNTRY full of GREED, we may say, of even SENSELESS greed!

Now go on, IF YOU WOULD BE A RUSSIAN, say a KOSSACK FROM UKRAINIA and even Crimea, and especially a COSSACK in SPECIAL DUTY FOR THE IMPERIAL CROWN AND THE TSAR, would you have another option, then to STUMBLE UPON strange observations, AS IF ALL EVIL WAS IMPORT TO RUSSIA – that the Karl-Marx-Import from Germany WAS NOT AT ALL GENUIN RUSSIAN?

IF SO, go on: is socalled US-American concept of “democratical freedom” an IMPORT AGAIN of a FICTIONAL IDEA far away from truth and even at moment showing TENDENCIES OF  FAILURE EVEN WITHIN THE US ITSELF, say for instance in the Detroit -aerea, where it seems, that “urban-civilization” is breaking away???!!!

Clearly, I am a Continental European and have some SYMPATHY – inmidst of all the troubles of real life – with especially UKRAINIA, which is even near to my heart because of FAMILY – history. So if you REJECT MY considerations, may I invite you, to learn from my analysis, HOW TRICKY the use of words becomes, especially if we are DEALING WITH THE FATE AND LIFE of socalled “underdeveloped countries” and FAR AWAY from all their sufferings??!!

So in the end, I even may TURN AROUND the direction of view, which was given by the quotation as dealing somehow with RUSSIA:

NO, we are dealing here NOT with Russia, but with the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and with the GEOSTRATEGICAL POLITICS FOR US-WORLD-DOMINATION
– to in first place KEEP DOWN FUTURE COMPETITION ON CROPS AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS FROM UKRAINIA, that is: to PREVENT Ukrainia from becoming WHEAT-EXPORTEUR and to FORCE Ukrainia, to BUY US and Canadian wheat,
– to in second place TAKE FIRM GRIP ON INDUSTRIAL RESSOURCES IN NATURAL RICHES as for instance especially OIL and GAS, especially if all these terrible IDEALISTS in some other countries shy away from “fracking”-methods as too dangerous for the environment – at least in their own countries.

The last objection here would be: May be that the public is told, that the US is very THIRSTY for OIL and ENERGY and therefor has some sort of NATURAL INTEREST in EXPANDING its oils interests.
May be that “thirst for oil” nearly can justify EVERYTHING, even a WORLD WAR!?

But think it over:Do you really believe, that we have an ENERGY-crisis with OIL – and COAL- and GAS-SHORTAGE?

Do you think so?
Never heard of NEW Russian-Cuba joint venture on NEW oil-ressources offshore Cuba?
Never heard of possible new oil-findings in nearby HAITI, which are the REASON for the STRANGE US-reactions to the great Haiti-earthquake recently?
Never heard of new oil – findings offshore BRASILIA, offshore ARGENTINIA?
Never heard of new oil-prospects in the entire ARCTIC, which are to a great part offshore RUSSIAN-Siberian coasts?

Never heard of the huge field from Cyprus to Israel in the Mediterranean, to which just on 31st of August 2015 was added the finding of GAS in Egyptian offshore territories?

In very short:


All these new oil findings EXCEED by far the known reserves in the Near East – and we REALLY need not worry about energy shortages within the next 300 years!

To sum it up little bit, I may put here an idea, which became some sort of standard within my thinking-exercises:

It may very well be, that FINANCIAL CLUBS, be they British-US based or Russian or ELITE-Frenchman-German, today REALLY CAN DO IT and dispatch SMALL ARMED GROUPS EVERYWHERE on this globe, regardless of the OLD NATIONALSTATE LOYALTIES.

I however very sharp may CONTRADICT, that if we find US-troops dispatched on RUSSIAN SOIL, this with some DEADLY consequence may result in the long run in WAR.

The OFFICIAL BODIES of the US of America have no problems, if dispatching during Olympic games just few miles outside Sotchi a very special WARSHIP, probably because “it`s just COOL”. But if ANYBODY would do the same in the same distance off New York or Boston, this very probably would be sufficient for very unbalanced hard reactions of the US-Governmental Apparatus (and its black departments and budgets).

In HISTORY writing we see here VERY CLEARLY the PROBLEM OF DOUBLE STANDARDS – and its relations to POWER and WAR.

So my RESULT with regard to the entrance-quotation of a fellow student from Coursera would be:

The TRICKY use of LANGUAGE in the quotation is CAMOUFLAGING a WELLKNOWN problem from history writing, which is the problem of DOUBLE STANDARDS.

You normally would make such a use of language, if you have a CAMOUFLAGED PROPOSAL or TARGET or GAOL, which however here cannot be determined easily nor clearly.
Was the speaker showing off his RHETHORICAL SKILLS only, or is he an employee of a DEPARTMENT for Political Propaganda or is he a member of the Security Community both Russian or US or EUROPEAN engaged in DESINFORMATION operations to CONFUSE the public perception?

Or at least: it seems, that PROBLEM-SOLVING nor DESCRIBING REAL SITUATION was not the STRONGEST motivation, to put the quoted statement.

And it may have escaped the mind of the discussion-participant, that in RUSSIAN PSYCHOLOGY Ukrainia is an “interior” problem and in US – psycholgy an EXTERIOR problem.

And in the end: The competition of ideas has had time since 1990 and the socalled “breakdown of Communism”, to PROVE by ACTION and DEVELOPMENT, that the socalled “WESTERN DEMOCRATIC CONCEPTS” are the “better” and “more effective” concepts.

The entrance-quotation seemingly would not have been quite possible at all, if THE WORLD WOULD NOT HAVE EXPERIENCED THE FAILURE OF WESTERN IDEAS for to IMPROVE the situation of nations and people especially in Eastern Europa, but elsewhere as well. We even say, that it is NOT “nation building”, what we see today prevalent, but spreading of CHAOS and DESTABILIZATION and DESORGANIZATION of STATE.

In example: The US forces are so much overwhelming, that they EASILY won Afghanistan and Irak. What is missing there however is, that NOBODY had a concept for the DAY AFTER, that really worked, so that we today in Irak and Afghanistan see some sort of “modified STONE AGE”.

So my question to all Coursera would be:

WILL WE ALL HAVE TO FACE IN NEAR FUTURE MODIFIED STONE AGE, and if so, WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM HISTORY OF STONE AGE to get PREPARED?

But to cope with stone age successfully, we perhaps better should avoid certain BEHAVIORS, like “building a case” and “to have a deal”, which are so much wide spread in the United States of America!

Sincerely
Bruno Antonio Buike
Continental Europe

 

 

 

Advertisements

About bbuike

- *1953 in Bremen / Germany - since decennia in Neuss / Germany - classical composer (registered since 2005) - scientific freelance writer - registered to German National Library "Deutsche Bibliothek", search "Bruno Buike", with 246 items in 2013 1996-97 - 5000 qm Rekultivierung Obstwiese mit Kleintierhaltung 2004/05 - 3 Wochen Gartenpflege in einem orthodoxen Kloster in Deutschland 2009 - 3 Wochen Katastrophenhilfe Einsturz des Kölner Stadtarchivs 2011 - journey to Przemysl/Poland - and learning of basic Polish vocabulary and reading/pronounciation 2013 University of Tokyo - Conditions of war and peace - Coursera - Certificate 2013, December - after 15 years in mainly Russian-orthodox and Greek-orthodox affairs return to Roman-Catholic church 2014 National University of Singapur, Conservatory - Write like Mozart. Introduction to classical composition - Coursera Certifikate "with distinction"
This entry was posted in foreign affairs, history, military and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.