Jed

I'd rather it be a hundred times worse than have Russia win than have Russia win

by Jed

Wednesday 28th December 2022 12:10 am (first posted Monday 21st March 2022 10:09 pm)

What was in the deal that Zelinsky turned down?

What was even worse than they bomb his home town?

What was in the deal What was on the table?

When they killed the deal they killed a new world fable

I read in the news how all the chaos ensues

Fire fired madness lit by his refuse

Would people on the streets of Kyiv really be in pain

To bare some Russian oversight yet keep aloof disdain?

What would be so bad in abject terms

To lose an illusory freedom or have reality burn?

What was in the deal that Zelinsky turned down?

After fifty thousand dead will the same deal come back around?

No NATO in west Ukraine an indi ref in the east

Are these demands so bad for the horrors of war released?

If the Russian army is a barbaric force crashing through Ukrainians door...

The CIA removed a latch that could have easily prevented war.

Zelinsky seems oh so good he looks good on my tv

The biggest mistake he ever made was to whoom he bent the knee

🌷 (1)

◄

Nan ►

Comments

Greg Freeman

Thu 24th Mar 2022 09:13

Thanks for your very detailed response to the concerns raised, Jed. You have obviously thought long and hard about all this. I apologise if my own response was intemperate. It's just that when you realise we have another fascist, genocidal dictator on the loose in Europe, it's hard to keep passions in check. Russia's war hero status is well and truly over. For the Great Patriotic War of 1941-45, read Putin's Great Genocidal War of 2022 ...

Jed

Thu 24th Mar 2022 00:29

you get me wrong I'm saying what I'm saying precisely not the baggage you may assume to associate with it. I appreciate that there are some circumstances where you can't help but take sides (good vs evil)but I cant help but look with what clarity I can at the last mechanism that led to war and I am baffled that the war was not averted by a concessionary agreement as it would have been by far the lesser of two evils but to pretend it would have been the same as kneeling to Hitler is obscuring thought with a two dimensional caricature. Although how the Ukraines are now fighting righteously for their homeland is obviously comparable.
I don’t have meticulous understanding of international politics so I would appreciate it if someone would delineate how Ukraine being controlled by Russia would be worse for the people in Ukraine than it would be with full blown warfare, as I don’t see or read much of this particular exact question being addressed in the papers or on TV. Please don’t base the answer or esoteric freedom, I mean in real manifest terms.

It’s easier to ask “what would be so bad for Russia and the average Russian if they didn’t invade?” If both countries suffered the woes of both these now hypothetical situations the harrowing would be barely noticeable compared to what is happening now. So what is the point in looking back to would have been possibilities? Because it is in variations of these scenarios that peace will eventually be found or wider possibly nuclear war will ensue.

It’s the difference between tolerance even when extreme hate and anger is involved) and something worse. In Columbia when a peace deal was possible to end the war between FARC and the government the agreement being starting positions, the forgiving of brutal murder on both sides, many affluent citizens in the city who were mostly personably removed from first hand experience of this conflict voted not to have peace as they could not forgive these crimes. Whereas most of the rural folk who experienced this conflict voted to end the pursuit of justice in order to have peace.

In the west we seem to assume that democracy is the greatest of things to bow down before in a secular society, but though democracy is needed, took thousands of years to achieve and hundreds more years to get half right it is not always the one thing to held above all others: in a town that is 20% Jews and 60% Nazis is democracy right to implement? It would have been better if Ukraine were raging for its right to join NATO for more independence deserving it and not yet getting it than this predicted barbaric invasion. What would be so bad for the average Ukrainian in real manifest terms if Russia had political oversight for a while? Please tell me.

As stated it is easier to ask what would have been so bad for Russia if they had let Ukraine be. What they now face, what will that be? Surely if they could go back they would have preferred to find a way to avoid the invasion and save face. Wars and mistakes happen because we forget to remind ourselves what the apex of the argument is and also what that is for. What is the reality of the invasion and what is the ideal that the invasion is supposed to be for? We must address the philosophy of intent to stop the evil that it engendered to ensue. To always paint the enemy as a 2d caricature only reducible to basest qualities doesn’t help when we need to recognise reality. To recognise it to improve it. The apex of their argument is the necessity to maintain and imbue a political cultural societal balance in this world to counter ways of doing things in the west. To have a balanced better world. Not to laugh wickedly thinking ha ha ha more power more glutinous control. We must look of the apex of the intention behind the disaster. Or follow what seems like the only plan: to keep fighting and see what happens.

In the90s the American sanctions on Iraq killed half a million children. Madeleine Albright was asked live on TV if these sanctions were worth it, she replied it was a tough decision but yes it was worth it. What was gained? Nothing, not a thing. Sadam did not suffer from those sanctions, his strangle hold on the people was worse and he kept his luxuries. What is the point of these sanctions on Russia? What is the difference between what the sanctions intend and what they actually do? There it is the big Question none of us like to answer because we have the wind of righteousness in our sails.The difference between what an action intends and what it does. To hurt Putin to show he is wrong and to starve people in Bangladesh. To put sanctions on Sadam because he is evil and to kill half a million Iraqi children. To counter American hegemony western new world order and to invade an independent nation causing mayhem and death.

Only by genuinely trying to understand the best of your enemy’s intentions can any prospect of peace be found. If you understand your enemy’s most valid posture better than they do then you have probably already won half the battle. If in your mind you obfuscate it or refuse to consider what it really is then the lessons to learn may be hard. And it was oh so easy too. The peace deal that was available back then compared to what is feasible in the future.

In the future what with the rise of China and all it would have been good for the globe if Russia had been closer to the best it can be. It meant to do a lot of good things in the future, but now this is what its become.

There is a question that I haven’t seen or heard asked before that I believe is of importance. I tried asking this question to the foreign office in a series of correspondences but they always avoided answering the question specifically as it seems answering it would elucidate a deep failure in British Foreign policy. Around ten years ago on the BBC program Hard Talk General Robert Moody announced that the war in Syria would end with Assad as the victor. The interviewer acted surprised and said what with Saddam and Gaddafi being toppled most people expected the same to happen with Assad in Syria, how would the British take this? General Moody responded saying that anyone in position already knew this to be so and the public would have to gradually get used to it. So my naturally occurring question was “Why support the opposition prolonging the war If you know they will lose, when we should aid ending the war guarantying protection for those that rose up against Assad?”

The foreign Office responded by telling me things like “Assad cannot be trusted” and that “Assad is a tyrant”. I had already taken these arguments into account and they made no difference to my point of question. Syria wouldn’t be Nazi Germany and nowhere as bad as Afghanistan under Isis. It certainly would have been much better in peace for the last ten years even under Assad than at war. Maybe if there had been ten years of peace some of the expectations of humanitarian progress that the west expects would have been achieved.

So what is the real answer to my question long and short “why perpetuate a war for over a decade when you know who the victor will be? Ultimately what would this answer elucidate?

So back to Ukraine. It seems that we are so confident that we are on side and right and that the cause is right that our actions may inadvertently engender more chaos. I watched on the BBC in one breath the reporter said "The UK has supplied weapons to the Ukraine, this will of course force the Russians to use heavier weapons and artillery themselves". I'm asking if this is right. As for sides there is ending the war to achieve peace and good living or the other side being all that apposes that..
As for writing bad poetry I have no defence but at least its brief.

Russell Jacklin

Tue 22nd Mar 2022 09:34

Is this Ganda as in to have a look, or should it be Panda as in Pandering,
If Churchill had taken the knee back in 1940 then A. the world would be in two halves, communist and Nazi backed non-communists ready to blow each other up other than the diverse community we are now in, B, there would be no Jews, possibly no Christians, No Muslims all of which add to our rich tapestry, just look at the diversity on this site and the wonderful words that diversity brings. and importantly, C you would not be writing poetry and be able to put your viewpoint across, you would have one viewpoint, the states.
It is directly because Churchill didn't take the knee that you have that freedom and people with freedom should support others wanting it, that includes those unfortunate souls inside Russia, Putin excepted.
I do like the line ' When he lit the refuse' a good bit of wordplay.

Greg Freeman

Tue 22nd Mar 2022 06:21

Not sure what your point is here, Jed. There is at least one line that I agree with - "The only error he ever made was not to bend the knee." As our country refused to bend the knee to Nazism in the second world war. A word of warning, though. I've said it before on this site, and I'll say it again. We will not tolerate the spreading of Russian disinformation that comes from conspiracy-theory websites. Anyone who doesn't support Ukraine, and instead thinks that a murderous, genocidal dictator has a fair point, we don't want you on this site. Just as we wouldn't tolerate any apologists for Hitler. That should be simple enough to understand for anyone.

Telboy

Mon 21st Mar 2022 22:39

A controversial viewpoint Jed which many, including me, would not subscribe to. But you are entitled to put your views, though I feel the piece itself could have been better constructed. Just my view.

If you wish to post a comment you must login.

Please consider supporting us

Donations from our supporters are essential to keep Write Out Loud going

Bringing poetry to people

Click here to donate now