A bad peace or a good quarrel. A bad peace is better than a good quarrel
In mid-September, there were hopes that it might be possible to end the civil war in Syria. On September 9, US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov agreed on the terms of a truce.
The truce never came into force, because another escalation of the war began. In order to understand whether the conditions for peace are ripe, it is worth looking at the principles formulated by the greatest military theorist of the Western world, Karl Clausewitz (1780-1831), for starting a war and making peace.
In 1832, the unfinished work of Karl Clausewitz "On War" (Vom Kriege) was published, in the creation of which a summary of the lectures read to the Crown Prince of Prussia was used. In the 20th century, the ideas and formulations of Clausewitz greatly influenced the decisions of the superpowers.
Among political leaders, who did not hide the fact that Clausewitz had a strong influence on them, it is necessary to mention both Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924), and Mao Zedong (1893-1976), and the commander of the Allied forces during World War II, and later the President of the United States (1953- 1961) Dwight Eisenhower (1890-1969).
According to the formulation of Karl Clausewitz, "war is a violent act, the purpose of which is to force the enemy to comply with your requirements." War usually has three main goals: to defeat and destroy the enemy's armed forces; take over (under control) material resources, which are necessary to maintain the combat capability of the enemy army; turn public opinion in their favor at home and in other countries.
Clausewitz also set out the conditions that must be met in order for a stable peace to be concluded. According to Clausewitz, as a rule, peace is concluded when the enemy has no opportunity to resist, when the chances of victory are uncertain, when the price of victory is too high.
Let's try to determine whether the conditions formulated by Clausewitz were fulfilled in September 2016, when the ceasefire agreement in Syria, concluded with the support of Moscow and Washington, was supposed to come into force.
After in civil war Russian aviation entered Syria, the strategic initiative went over to the forces of President Bashar al-Assad. The troops of President Assad are not defeated. They have the ability to resist.
After Russia's intervention in the Syrian military conflict, the condition of the uncertain chances of victory for Assad's forces and the too high price of victory for them was not fulfilled. By reaching a certain agreement with the Kurds, President Assad has a great opportunity to establish control over for the most part territory of Syria.
From a military point of view, a truce in Syria is beneficial and necessary for the forces of the so-called. moderate opposition to rest, improve the supply and armament of the army.
A long truce during which the opposition could gain modern installations air defense, sufficient supplies of ammunition, would eventually create the conditions necessary for concluding a stable peace: the price of victory would become too high, and the chances of victory would be illusory.
In turn, if the opposition is not allowed to strengthen and hostilities resume, Assad has the opportunity to achieve another condition for concluding peace - the enemy will no longer have the strength to resist. In this case, it will be possible to conclude peace without any other conditions.
Since the armistice is beneficial only to one of the parties involved in the civil war, it was enough just a pretext for the resumption of hostilities. The US air strike against Syrian government forces on September 17 - already after the ceasefire was signed - was a sufficient pretext for military operations to begin with renewed vigor.
In the event that the forces of the so-called. moderate opposition will not receive weapons, ammunition and replenishment of manpower, the fall of Aleppo will only be a matter of time.
The opposition, without air support and without serious air defense weapons, has little hope of holding out against the Russian-Syrian alliance. In turn, if the opposition receives air support, then the balance of power will even out, and the condition for concluding peace will be fulfilled - the price of victory will become illusory and too high.
Russia's response to the fact that the so-called. moderate opposition can be supported by an air force of unknown origin, was the deployment of S-300 missiles in Syria. If US or allied aircraft now launch air raids on Assad's troops, then the Syrian President's army has access to weapons to destroy the most advanced warplanes.
At the same time, there is a very high risk that clashes between the armed forces of Russia and the United States may begin on the Syrian front.
A question for the society of Latvia and Europe: is the overthrow of President Assad important enough to provoke a military clash between Russia and the United States because of it? May be, best solution refusal to try to impose by force on Syria a form of government that is beneficial to others - Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the United States and EU leaders?
Why would European states even get involved in an adventure in order to replace the secular Assad regime with a “moderate” Islamist system? In my opinion, even a “bad” peace with Assad is better than the risk of starting a global conflict.
Every family has conflicts from time to time. But they are all individual. Someone screams loudly, sorting things out, and someone accumulates resentment in himself. How often one hears the proverb: a bad peace is better than a good quarrel. And is it really so?
Why are we arguing?
It is interesting that one can argue over the most insignificant reasons. And even the smallest quarrel can turn into a scandal. Remember how often you find fault with your loved ones and because of what.
For example, the husband did not wipe the crumbs off the table when he drank coffee before work. I can calmly wash the table, but I can express dissatisfaction. Is it necessary?
According to psychologists, the reason for the quarrel is trifles, since the real reason is hidden much deeper. And it is she who needs to be found and eliminated in order to avoid conflicts. It is best to do this together with your spouse, you do not need to shout, but you need to talk.
My husband reproaches me that I knit a lot of time, but in fact he simply does not have enough attention. After all, when he comes home, instead of talking to him, I go about my business. Now I try to listen to him more often, there are fewer quarrels.
The Perfect Argument
Sounds tempting, but is it possible? As German scientists found out, if a woman screams, breaks dishes, then by doing so she relieves stress, but such scandals have a negative effect on men.
It happens, and vice versa, when a woman tries by all means to avoid conflicts. He accumulates all the resentment in himself, which can achieve the exact opposite result. You should not accumulate everything in yourself, it is better to express grievances and reproaches right away.
Dispute Rules
Interesting, but in order to achieve the best conflict resolution, you should adhere to certain rules. Agree, sometimes it is difficult to avoid quarrels, so you need to make sure that they are beneficial. And it depends on the participants. conflict situations, that is, from ourselves.
The main thing in a dispute is to hear the interlocutor, not just listen and nod your head, but you need to hear what they say to you. There is no need to find out who is right and who is wrong, the main thing is to discuss the problem.
It is also very important not just to blame, but to express specific reasons for your dissatisfaction. By the way, do not insult people. It is very difficult sometimes to restrain emotions, but everything can be learned. I try to talk to my husband in a calm tone, if I start to scream, I fall silent.
By the way, if the interlocutor starts screaming, you should try to answer in a whisper, then he will not want to scream either. Checked on myself.
And psychologists also advise not to get away from problems by slamming the door. My husband used to do this a lot in the past, and as a result, the conflict only gets bigger. It is better to express everything that does not suit you, then the person will have a reason to think about his behavior.
"Bad World"
Psychologists believe that it is much more dangerous for family relations apparent calm. It happens that people keep everything in themselves, in the end it turns out that they seem to live together, they have perfect family, and in fact everyone lives their own lives.
If you can’t talk to each other, then maybe you should contact a psychologist. Or go on vacation. Although vacation brings you closer, a good relationship can only be temporary.
Conflict and children
Even when conflicts are unavoidable, care must be taken to ensure that children do not witness them. It is very difficult. It's stressful for kids when their parents fight.
If my husband and I start to cry, we are always stopped by the fact that our daughters are nearby. The husband offers to send them to their grandmother, then swear. But often, when they are not at home, we no longer have time for quarrels.
For myself, I made several conclusions:
- I try to hear the interlocutor;
- I try to talk less emotionally, I do not offend the person;
- And I try not to leave the conversation, not to accumulate resentment in myself.
To receive the best articles, subscribe to Alimero's pages in
The quarrel, to which the conflict of interests has led, can be both at the everyday interpersonal level, and between groups of people, countries and even associations of countries. What is the difference between a family quarrel and an international conflict? Is it in all cases folk wisdom applicable and relevant?
Family conflicts
Family life is a difficult and thorny path, when two separate individuals live together, adjusting to each other. Often, one of the spouses, contrary to their interests, has to go towards the other. However, this is not always easy. Of course, it is best to try to abstract away when a family quarrel is brewing. You can go to the cinema, take a walk in the park, chat with friends on extraneous topics. Such a distraction from the overdue conflict will allow the spouses to some extent cool their ardor and think: is it worth it? After all, quite often quarrels are born because of trifles, not noteworthy. Here the wisdom “a bad peace is better than a good quarrel” is perfectly applicable here.
However, this method is not applicable to all couples. And it's all about temperament. For some spouses, letting off steam is simply a vital event. Big Scandal with breaking dishes brings peace and tranquility to their family hearth. From the outside it seems that this is not life, but a complete nightmare. But they express their feelings in quarrels. In this case, a quarrel is preferable, since its function is not to break off relations, but to strengthen them.
Sometimes the situation is so tense and causes such suffering and anguish to the parties that a “bad peace” is simply impossible here, and a “good quarrel” is likely to end in the collapse of the family.
Large-scale conflicts
So-called "good quarrels" can also arise between individual countries or their unions. But unlike family quarrels, they entail serious consequences associated with large-scale human and other losses. And if the death of several hundred thousand people does not play a special role for the country, then for the people themselves it is a big one. And the restoration of the economy and political stability in the country after such conflicts, usually resulting in wars, takes a lot of time and effort. The question often arises: did the victorious country really win a brilliant victory or did it suffer a defeat? IN international relations folk wisdom, according to which a bad peace is preferable to the kindest quarrel, is most welcome.
The words “The best is the enemy of the good”, at first glance, seem illogical: after all, the more of this very “good” and the higher its quality, the better! But our ancestors had something in mind, repeating these words generation after generation! And, perhaps, common sense can also be found in them.
"Too much is good, too bad"
This expression partly explains the first saying. And if it seems to someone that there is never too much good, it is enough to recall the tale of the Golden Antelope: in it, the greedy raja caught a wonderful antelope and forced it to knock out gold coins with its hooves (the magical animal had such an ability). There was only one condition: as soon as the rajah says “Enough!”, all the gold will turn into clay shards. The story ended sadly for the self-confident and greedy raja: he was covered with gold up to the top of his head, and he had to ask the antelope to stop - as a result, he died under a pile of clay shards.
So is the person in Everyday life, who does not know how to limit his desires, eventually becomes a situation, because any benefit received from life requires a “payback”: you get a high position and Good work- be ready to work much harder and devote less time to your family and your hobbies, if you want fame - get ready for scandals and gossip around your person, etc.
In addition, any good that has become everyday turns into, ceases to please and excite, and, in the end, becomes boring. To understand this, it is enough to cook your favorite dish every day and eat nothing but this food. How soon will she get bored?
Ups and downs, failures and victories - this is what makes life emotionally rich, brings variety to it, makes a person solve new and new tasks, and therefore develop.
“They don’t look for good from good”
Another saying, the meaning of which explains a lot. It would seem that having achieved something in life, a person understands that this is not the limit, that there may be something better and more than what he has.
But it is far from always worth giving up what has already been achieved for the sake of an illusory goal. Remember another expression "A tit in the hands is better in the sky"? Achieving goals, striving for this, is it worth evaluating how much the resulting gain will be more significant than what you have to give up?
Yes, sometimes both risk and sacrifice are justified, but it also happens that the goal turns out to be unattainable, and those resources and treasures that a person had are lost forever ...
Work for the future
And one more explanation of why the best is the enemy of the good can be found if you study books on psychology. Yes, and life experience will confirm the theory of psychologists. Often a person, reaching a goal, feels not satisfaction from the result, but emptiness and even disappointment. There may be several reasons for this:
Too much effort spent on the way to the "top";
- the result was not as impressive as expected;
- the goal is achieved and there is nothing more to strive for.
It is the last reason that oppresses a person the most: it turns out that he experienced more joy when he went to the goal, achieved intermediate results, i.e. had "good". And when I reached the “best”, I realized that there was nowhere to go further.
Sometimes the goal and its achievement are not important initially, and a person simply enjoys the process of activity.To prevent this from happening, it’s not bad, setting goals for yourself, to think: what prospects does their achievement open up? What can be done with this result? And then the peak reached will not be the end point, but a step in order to move on.
Better a lychny peace than a belt court. A straw world is better than an iron fight. Wed A bad peace is better than a good quarrel. Wed Chemnitzer. Two neighbors. Wed As you will not be able to flounder, so you involuntarily remember the Russian proverb: a bad world is better than a good fight. M... Michelson's Big Explanatory Phraseological Dictionary
Dictionary Ushakov
1. WORLD1, world, pl. worlds, m. 1. only units. the universe in its totality; the system of the universe as a whole. Theories about the origin of the world. The myth of the creation of the world. Ptolemaic system of the world. Copernican system of the world. || All life is in infinity; everything, that… … Explanatory Dictionary of Ushakov
THIN, thin, thin; bad, bad, bad. 1. Skinny, lean, with dry, lean muscles; ant. fat, full. "He was terribly pale and thin." Lermontov. "She was as thin as a skeleton." Dostoevsky. “Under the blue Cossacks were clearly outlined ... ... Explanatory Dictionary of Ushakov
1. THIN, oh, oh; thin, ah, oh; thinner. 1. Having a thin, lean body (about a person and an animal); skinny. Haha brunette. H. boy. Get skinny. What a th dog! Hood, like a match, a sliver, a knitting needle. 2. Deprived of the subcutaneous fat layer (about the body or ... ... encyclopedic Dictionary
App., use. often Morphology: thin, thin, thin, thin and thin; thinner 1. A thin person is called a person who has a naturally thin, lean body, or an animal that, due to hunger or illness, has sunken sides, a small fat layer, etc. ... ... Dictionary of Dmitriev
thin- I a / i, o / e; thin, a /, o; thin / e see also. thinness 1) Having a thin, lean body (about a person and an animal); skinny. Haha brunette. Bad boy. Get skinny... Dictionary of many expressions
THIN 2, oh, oh; thin, thin, bad, worse and thin; worse; worst (obsolete and colloquial). Same as bad (in 1 value). Bad times. H. peace is better than a good quarrel (last). Bad (adv.) hears. Without saying a bad word (about something bad, undesirable: nothing ... ... Explanatory dictionary of Ozhegov
THIN, oh, oh; thin, thin, bad, thin and thin; thinner. Not fat, not plump. Thin body, face. Skinny hands. | reduce skinny, oh, oh. II. THIN, oh, oh; thin, thin, bad, thin and thin; worse; worst (obsolete and colloquial). Same as bad (in 1 value) ... Explanatory dictionary of Ozhegov
Main article: Repertoire of the Moscow Maly Theater Here is a list of productions of the Moscow Academic Maly Theater of Russia for the 19th century ... Wikipedia
Books
- Veles Key, Elizabeth Dvoretskaya. Year 998 from the Nativity of Christ. Northern Russia, with its center in ancient Novgorod, is going through a very difficult period in its history, trying to establish itself in the White and especially the Baltic (Varangian) ...
- The Smell of Evil, Glenda Lark. The world of the Islands, whose peoples never mix... The world of tiny kingdoms, endlessly making alliances and waging wars... A world in which from time immemorial there have been two magical…
M Many of you are familiar with the proverb “A bad peace is better than a good quarrel,” but hardly anyone has thought about its meaning enough to decide whether he agrees with it or not. Therefore, reasoning on the topic of its meaning can not only expand your horizons and replenish your knowledge base with useful and interesting information, but it will also help you to define your life position understand yourself and your priorities. Because this proverb, in fact, is fraught with a much deeper essence than most of these statements. And then, whether you agree with it completely, partially or categorically disagree, can serve as an evaluation criterion for your character and even point out some qualities. Let's see what the above words express.
In order to understand the proverb as a whole, first we will analyze separately each word used in it, because such a choice is rarely random.
The Old Slavonic word "thin" means fragile, shaky; and the word "kind" also in the outdated version means good. That is, as you may have noticed, they are used as antonyms. Such concepts as "peace" and "quarrel" are similarly contrasted. Therefore, the proverb is built on antithesis, and, like a good old fairy tale, it affirms the victory of good (in any of its manifestations) over evil, good over bad.
But each person himself defines things as good and bad. We ourselves draw the line between good and evil. How are the roles distributed in our case and what is put in the best light?
It's not hard to guess that main idea proverbs are to convey to us: any peace, even if it is shaky and contrary to our foundations and does not fully satisfy us, is better than a quarrel in which we would defend our position. The question is quite controversial and ambiguous. This statement is intended to bring peace to the world, and encourages not to disturb the natural balance and harmony. But can we call this way of achieving the goal - patience and ignoring the problem - the only true one? Hardly.
On the one hand, wouldn't it be great if life was arranged in this way? If everyone yielded in a dispute, if they kept their tongues shut, each gave up their position, and the world would certainly become much calmer. And how many wars, demonstrations and other disasters, provoked by the human impulse to fight for their beliefs, could have been avoided! How many lives could be saved! We cannot deny the correctness of these words in any way. And to categorically state that they are wrong would be simply a denial of the obvious. But this is only one side of the coin.
On the other hand, it is difficult not to pay attention to the shortcomings of such a position. Human nature has always been distinguished by the desire to move forward, the desire to progress, to express one's opinion and not so much to seek a better life how much to create it. Yes, this is not true for all people. But always, at all times, in all situations, there will be rebels with fiery speech and passion in their eyes, ready to raise questions that cannot leave anyone indifferent, ready to stir up the souls of people, wake them up from sleep. Such people completely contradict the purpose of the proverb, but we consider them our heroes, we take them as an example to follow. Why? So, they still bring something good to our world, although they risk its peace, violate its foundations?
Let's try to answer the question. A man differs from an animal in that, in addition to instincts, he is guided by the call of the heart; in addition to material values, he has high, spiritual. Therefore, to justify the suppression of one's need for self-expression, in disputes, in contradictions with the instinct of self-preservation, the desire to save one's own skin, can be considered a betrayal of oneself. After all, living in a world that is safe, but hypocritical and imperfect, is not the best of options development of events. Realizing how categorically these words sound, I would like to note that this opinion is deeply subjective. But if you read these words and look at this problem from this point of view, you certainly cannot disagree.
It is impossible to deny after all the above arguments that this proverb can be classified as controversial. Discussions on its subject will continue forever, and it will never be possible to come to a compromise or a general conclusion, because any point of view has its pluses and minuses and has the right to be called correct.
But the only important thing is that we clearly understand that the proverb carries a positive meaning and, although formulated in such a way that it cannot satisfy absolutely everyone, calls to keep our home, the Earth, safe and sound for ourselves and our children. A striving truly worthy special attention and effort.
But, perhaps, we will be able to achieve peace and harmony among all mankind not in the way that the words “A bad peace is better than a good quarrel” assert, but with the help of open discussions, freedom of speech and a tolerant attitude towards others, respect for other people's opinions. To do this, it is important to remember: do not judge the correctness of someone's judgments until you look at the situation from his side.
On this page: about the meaning (meaning) of such an expression as "A bad peace is better than a good quarrel."