If you want peace, prepare for war. Who said “if you want peace, prepare for war”? Whoever wants peace should prepare for war
On the role of the fifth column in government bodies in the preparation of the color revolution in Russia
In recent years, the possibility of carrying out a color revolution in Russia has been constantly discussed in expert and political circles.
The relevance of this topic has especially increased in connection with the approaching elections to the State Duma of the Russian Federation this fall.
It is no coincidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin, speaking at the FSB board on February 26, noted that “ Our enemies “over the hill” are also preparing for these elections.
In this regard, he called on the security authorities “to suppress any external attempts to interfere in the course of elections, in our internal political life.”
The question naturally arises: how justified are the fears of the Russian leadership? Is a “color revolution” possible in Russia? To understand this, it is necessary to look at the phenomenon of the color revolution from a scientific point of view, to consider it in connection with other political phenomena and processes.
At the same time, it becomes obvious that any color revolution is one of the elements of a broader process known as hybrid war. Essentially, a color revolution is the final stage, the final chord of a “hybrid war,” when there is a change of power in a country that has been subjected to hybrid aggression.
The coming to power of collaborationist circles in this country essentially means a renunciation of sovereignty and complete submission to the aggressor, who, with the help of a puppet regime, is capable of solving any problems in relation to this state.
The fact that the West unleashed a hybrid war against Russia is probably now recognized by everyone who are somehow interested in international politics. Not everyone understands, however, that The West is pursuing the most radical political goals in this war.
Russia’s defeat in the hybrid war will mean not only the surrender of the most important geopolitical positions - Donbass, Crimea, Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. It will mean the liquidation of the Russian state and the further dismemberment of the Russian nation. At the first stage, Russia will be divided along national lines (starting with the North Caucasus), and then along territorial lines (Far East, Siberia, Ural).
For the first time since the German invasion in 1941, Russian civilization faced the threat of complete destruction. But this fact is not yet sufficiently realized in society; one might even say, it is not realized at all. One has to be surprised by the numerous examples of the frivolous attitude of representatives of the Russian elite towards the threat of a color revolution in Russia.
Most experts and politicians firmly believe that such a revolution simply cannot happen. They say that there is political stability in the country, the president’s rating is extremely high, there is a rigid vertical of power, and marginalized members of the non-systemic opposition do not enjoy public support. All this is true. But one important fact is not taken into account. Public sentiment can change dramatically, completely unexpectedly and unpredictably.
History knows many such examples.
The most obvious example from the recent past is the fate of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. It would seem that nothing foreshadowed the coming storm. Libya was quite a prosperous country even by European standards, not to mention Africa and the Middle East. Logically, the Libyans should be proud of their advantageous position compared to other states in the region. Moreover, there was a rigid vertical power structure in the country, and the leader of the Libyan revolution enjoyed enormous authority both abroad and within the country.
But the hybrid war of the West has done its job. The regime shook and fell.
Are there any guarantees that such a scenario is impossible in Russia? It seems that no one can give such guarantees.
The casual attitude towards the possibility of a color revolution in Russia is partly explained by the fact that many people mistakenly imagine a hybrid war solely as an information-psychological war.
And at the same time, they proceed from the fact that the spirit of the Russian people cannot be broken, that enemy propaganda will not be able to achieve its goals, since the people understand what is what and will not fall for the machinations of our geopolitical opponents. This assessment is partly correct, but only partly.
An information war, indeed, will not be able to shake a country that is in a state of economic and political stability. Propaganda has little effect on those who are satisfied with the policies of their leadership, and these people will never go to anti-government rallies.
Of course, in any country there are always dissatisfied, offended and even shocking people who are ready to take active action against the authorities. But in countries with a stable economic and political situation there are relatively few such people. And they are unable to form a sufficient social base for a color revolution.
There are such people in Russia too. They group themselves around the so-called non-systemic opposition and regularly attend rallies in Moscow of no more than 50 thousand people. This represents approximately 0.3% of the metropolitan area's population. In other cities there are even fewer such people. In the country as a whole, electoral support for these circles fluctuates around 1% of the population.
Meanwhile, a targeted information war against Russia has been waged since the end of 2013, that is, more than two years. It is obvious that Western propaganda has not yet achieved the desired result - the number of people ready to support the non-systemic opposition is not growing.
But we must understand that hybrid warfare is not limited to propaganda and information and psychological operations. It includes a whole range of means of influencing an enemy state. Here we can recall what the founder of the theory of hybrid war, E.E. Messner, wrote about this. He identified seven elements of such a war: propaganda, sabotage, sabotage, sabotage, terrorism, partisan actions, and uprising.
Let us immediately note that the uprising is the finale, the final act of the hybrid war, the very “color revolution” that we are now talking about. However, the experience of Libya and Syria shows that even in modern times, an uprising can occur in a classical form, and not in the form of a color revolution, as happened in Georgia in 2003.
Even the coup in Kyiv in February 2014 was an armed seizure of power, although the rebels used clubs, rebar, stones and Molotov cocktails. But this is also a weapon, although not a firearm.
It is also important to understand that all elements of hybrid warfare are closely interconnected, mutually support and complement each other. Only together can they lead to a color revolution, especially in a country characterized by acceptable economic conditions and political stability.
Sabotage and sabotage are precisely aimed at worsening the socio-economic situation in the state and discrediting the government in the eyes of the population. Moreover, sabotage and sabotage can be carried out in the most sophisticated, veiled forms. Long gone are the days when sabotage consisted of acts of disobedience to the orders of superiors, and sabotage was limited to the breakdown of machines and spoilage of food.
Currently, sabotage represents a persistent reluctance of officials and managers at various levels to take measures to improve the socio-economic situation in the country. And sabotage lies in making decisions that lead to an even greater deterioration of the situation in the economy and social life. Moreover, all this is masked by the best intentions, references to economic theory or objective circumstances.
Meanwhile, the enemy’s propaganda skillfully plays up these facts, proving to citizens that the government is not coping with its responsibilities, that it is corrupt, does not think about the population, and seeks only to satisfy its own selfish interests. Well, this leads to a change in people’s attitude towards the country’s leadership. Moreover, the negativity accumulates gradually and perhaps even unnoticed by sociological services.
However, any major negative event in the life of the country can give these sentiments a new quality and throw people off balance.
And from this point of view, sabotage and terror play an important role in a hybrid war. They sow panic among the population and cause chaos in government, which further discredits the government in the eyes of citizens. Thus, a picture is formed of the complete incapacity of the authorities, who have lost the threads of governing the country, hid behind high fences, leaving their people to be torn apart by the elements of the market, terrorists and murderers.
All this pushes the population towards opposition circles demanding the removal of the existing regime. In the end, the situation reaches a boiling point when people in a seemingly prosperous country are ready to support actions of disobedience to official authorities.
In the context of modern color revolutions, such actions can represent blocking of roads, government bodies, seizure of various government institutions and commercial organizations, moral and psychological terror against government officials, military personnel, police, etc.
In the current conditions, such actions can easily be equated to partisan actions. They further disorganize the situation in the country, causing discontent not only among the population, but also among a certain part of the elite, who begin to suffer economic losses and fear for their safety.
As a result, in these elite circles the idea of the need to replace the top leadership, which is unable to normalize the situation in the country, begins to mature. And then the process comes close to its final stage - the stage of uprising.
The most important condition for the success of a color revolution is the transition of government officials, especially security forces, to the side of the opposition or their neutrality, when there is no one to defend the government and this forces it to capitulate to the pressure of the rebellious crowd. A similar phenomenon can be observed in virtually all revolutions, both classical and modern.
A typical example is the events during the Kyiv Maidan, when the head of the presidential administration S.V. Levochkin actually played on the side of the opposition against his patron, which contributed to the success of the coup in Ukraine. Later, in one of his interviews, President Yanukovych directly stated that he suspected Lyovochkin of organizing a provocation to disperse students on the night of November 30, 2013.
The split in the ruling elite is ensured in two ways.
Firstly, through the advance implantation of agents of influence into the elite, that is, persons loyal not to their homeland, but to foreign sponsors. As the same Messner noted: “...Now even the stupidest government understands the need to have “fifth columns” in hostile and neutral lands, and perhaps in allied ones.”.
Secondly, by deliberately pulling part of the elite into the ranks of the “fifth column” through propaganda, psychological and economic pressure, as well as bribery. It is no coincidence that in this regard, the West has used targeted sanctions against high-ranking Russian officials, large entrepreneurs and their businesses. These measures are aimed at causing dissatisfaction with the policies of Vladimir Putin among part of the Russian elite and encouraging them to begin internal resistance to his policies.
Is it possible to say with 100% confidence that none of these people succumbed to Western pressure and will not betray the president at a critical moment? After all, the ancient truth is known: “they betray only their own.”
Meanwhile, in Russia, the fifth column is identified mainly by representatives of the non-systemic opposition - Kasyanov, Navalny, Yashin and other similar figures and their few supporters.
But this is precisely the weakest and most harmless part of the fifth column, which distracts the attention of the public and law enforcement agencies. In fact, this entire extra-systemic party can be easily and quickly decapitated by the actions of the special services.
The main danger is not they, but those who have recently been called the “sixth column”. In fact, the use of this term is erroneous. The constant increase in the number of different “columns” only confuses people.
We must talk about the same “fifth column,” but only its hidden part, entrenched in government bodies and cleverly masquerading as supporters of Vladimir Putin’s course. It is this group that performs the functions of the West’s hybrid war against Russia, which are associated with sabotage and sabotage, and it is this group that has the financial and material resources to organize a “color revolution.”
It is on this segment of the fifth column that Russian intelligence services and law enforcement agencies should focus their main attention.
Russian citizens are constantly confronted with the activities of this fifth column, everywhere and, one might even say, on a massive scale.
One of the clear examples of such activities is the construction of an energy bridge to Crimea. The President spoke in favor of the construction of this bridge back in mid-2014. However, it began to be built only at the end of 2015, only when Ukraine began the energy blockade of Crimea.
The question is, why did they wait so long, why couldn’t construction begin immediately after the president’s words? I am sure that the officials immediately found a lot of excuses - they began to blame each other and refer to objective circumstances, they say, they didn’t give money, they didn’t deliver materials, the weather let us down. But this is nothing more than a disguise for sabotage of the president’s policies.
A similar situation arose with the construction of the Vostochny cosmodrome. In the current conditions of growing confrontation with the West, this spaceport is of utmost importance for national security, primarily for launching satellites into geostationary orbit.
However, the construction of Vostochny stalled, the commissioning of the cosmodrome was constantly postponed, despite the fact that President Putin designated this project as a priority.
Some might say that the reason for the slowdown in construction was simply corruption among contractors. However, we must understand that corruption always goes hand in hand with sabotage and sabotage. After all, a representative of the fifth column seated in the authorities cannot single-handedly carry out large-scale actions to disrupt production. To do this, he needs to attract many people.
It is clear that honest and decent people will not engage in sabotage and sabotage. Therefore, the most logical solution is to attract corrupt officials and give them the green light to steal public funds, which objectively leads to the failure of any creative work.
You can find examples of sabotage at the regional level. Thus, the Moscow City Hall’s policy of expanding the paid parking zone beyond the city center caused justifiable indignation among Muscovites. The same can be said about the policy of the Moscow authorities in the field of education related to the creation of school conglomerates and the scattering of children between various school buildings. And mergers and acquisitions of hospitals and a clinic sparked protests from the city’s medical workers. Even the Minister of Health V.I. Skvortsova was forced to distance herself from these decisions.
Well, the actions of city hall officials, seemingly aimed at a good cause - the construction of new Orthodox churches, actually led to confrontation between the Russian Orthodox Church and residents of a number of districts of the capital. The fact is that land plots for the construction of churches, as if on purpose, are allocated in parks, green areas and recreation areas for Muscovites. Naturally, this causes dissatisfaction among the residents of these areas.
Taken together, these and some other decisions of the Moscow authorities lead to an increase in public discontent in the capital, pushing Muscovites into the arms of the non-systemic opposition. It should be recalled in this regard that Moscow Mayor Sobyanin did not in any way interfere with the protest actions of the non-systemic opposition against President Putin at the end of 2011 - beginning of 2012. Is there any confidence that he will be on the side of the president in the event of an attempt at a color revolution in Russia?
However, the greatest danger to socio-political stability in the country comes from the activities of the economic bloc of the government and the Central Bank of Russia. In the two years since the West introduced sanctions against the Russian Federation, the government and the Central Bank have not proposed a single significant solution to improve the economic situation in the country.
The only useful measure is a ban on the import of Western food, and that was proposed by the president himself. However, the country's economic situation continues to deteriorate, and GDP is falling. But this doesn't seem to bother the government much.
Ulyukaev, who is responsible for the economy, instead of proposing measures to stimulate economic growth, constantly talks about how the crisis will only deepen. They say these are objective circumstances - oil prices have fallen, and the West has imposed sanctions. What can I do in this situation? ( In this position one can read the idea that if the president had not annexed Crimea, then everything would have been fine. And now, they say, unwind).
It would seem that you cannot offer anything, resign, give way to someone who can. But Ulyukaev does not want to leave. And it’s clear why. If another person comes, he can propose real measures to stimulate the economy. But this is precisely what the West does not need. He is very pleased with Ulyukaev’s inactivity as Minister of Economic Development.
Another economic guru, Finance Minister Siluanov, also has nothing to offer except to increase collections from the population and small businesses. Thanks to his efforts, the price of compulsory motor insurance and excise taxes on gasoline have already been increased. He constantly proposes to raise the retirement age, stop indexing pensions and benefits, and imposes funded pensions on citizens, which no one in the country believes in.
All these measures and proposals not only cause increased discontent among the population, but also affect people’s purchasing power, slowing down economic growth.
At the same time, he rejects obvious steps lying on the surface, such as the introduction of a progressive tax, a currency exchange tax, and the issuance of domestic loan bonds. Moreover, Siluanov constantly declares a lack of money, while according to the Accounts Chamber, huge unused resources amounting to trillions of rubles are concentrated in the accounts of various ministries, state-owned enterprises and organizations. But Siluanov doesn’t seem to see this money and doesn’t let it into the economy. That is, on the one hand, it slows down economic activity, and on the other hand, it provokes dissatisfaction among the population with ever new extortions.
The Central Bank also acts synchronously. Having robbed the Russian population twice by devaluing the ruble, this institution has not taken any measures to normalize the financial situation for two years, nodding to some objective market factors. Various measures proposed by economists, such as restrictions on currency speculation and an increase in the target issue of the ruble, are immediately rejected as allegedly provoking inflation.
In fact, inflation is provoked precisely by the inaction of the Central Bank, its reluctance to use instruments of currency regulation, to fight currency speculators, as well as its unwillingness to issue the ruble without pegging it to the dollar.
Most people view this behavior of the Russian economic and financial authorities as some kind of mistake, negligence, and indecisiveness. But how then can we explain that these leaders persist in their delusions for so long?
Suppose that the manager made a mistake, but he cannot help but see that the measures he has taken are not working, and not only do not give the desired result, but are even worsening the situation. Under these conditions, a conscientious leader begins to look for ways to correct the situation and offers new moves and solutions. And if such solutions are not proposed and it is pretended that the situation simply cannot be corrected, then this can only be explained by a reluctance to improve anything.
Most likely, the fifth column intends to bring the situation to a boiling point before the Duma elections in the fall of 2016. Well, the elections themselves will serve as a catalyst for a massive protest surge, which will be caused by accusations of the authorities of election fraud.
There is no doubt that such surges will occur, even if the elections are held with utmost fairness. After all, what is important is not what actually happened, but what was said in the media and the Internet. Then it will be possible to figure it out, but it will be too late. In addition, we must expect that the fifth column will not limit itself to information injections and will carry out real provocations in the elections. That is, with one hand to give orders to rig the voting results, and with the other hand to expose these frauds, causing discontent among citizens and spontaneous protests.
In a word, the situation is dramatic. And if everything is left as it is, then by the time of the Duma elections in the country a situation may actually develop that is favorable to a color revolution.
To prevent this from happening, we must now take decisive steps to cleanse the authorities and state media of representatives of the fifth column.
If you want peace, defeat the rebel war! Creative heritage of E.E. Messner / Ed. IN AND. Marchenkova. Moscow: Military University, Russian Way, 2005. pp. 90−91.
Right there. P. 109.
Mikhail Alexandrov
From Latin: Si vispacem, para bellum (si vis pacem, para bellum).
The author of the expression was the Roman historian Cornelius Jepotus (94-24 BC), who used it in his biography of the Theban commander of the 4th century. BC e. Epaminondas.
Already in antiquity, this Latin phrase became a catchphrase. It was repeated, slightly modified, by the Roman military writer Vegetius (IV century) in his work “A Brief Instruction in Military Affairs”: “Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum” (qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum) - “Whoever desires peace prepares war” .
The meaning of the expression: peace for a country is guaranteed only by its reliable defense, powerful armed forces that discourage possible aggressors from any desire to attack; there are no other guarantees of peace objectively.Encyclopedic dictionary of popular words and expressions. - M.: “Lockeed-Press”.Vadim Serov .2003.
If you want peace, prepare for war
This expression, often quoted in Latin form: “Si vis pacem, para bellum,” belongs to the Roman historian Cornelius Nepos (94-24 BC) and is found in the biography of the Theban commander of the 4th century. BC. Epaminondas. A similar formula: “Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum (He who desires peace prepares war)” is found in a Roman military writer of the 4th century. AD Flavia Vegetia ("Epitome institutorum rei militaris", 3, Prolog).
Dictionary of catch words.Plutex .2004 .
See more words in ""
Prepare for war - para bellum
If you want peace, prepare for war (if you want peace, prepare for war), in Latin Si visraeet, para bellum - the words of the Roman historian Cornelius Nepos (94-24 BC), written by him in an essay dedicated to the biography of the Theban commander IV century BC e. Epaminondas.In the 5th century AD, they were reproduced in a modified form by the Roman writer Vegetius in the book “A Summary of Military Affairs” (Flavius Vegetius Renatus “Epitome institutionum rei militaris”: “Whoever desires peace, let him prepare for war”(“Qui desiderat pasem, praepaet bellum”)
Variants of the phraseological unit “if you want peace, prepare for war”
- For those who do not want peace, war is a foregone conclusion (Chi la pace non vuol, la guerra s’abbia) (Torquato Tasso’s knightly poem “Jerusalem Liberated”)
- If we want to enjoy peace, we must fight (Quare si pace frui volumus, bellum gerendum ist) (Marcus Tullius Cicero “Philippics”)
- Wars strengthen peace (έκ πολέμου μεν γαρ ειρήνη μάλλον βεβαιουται) (ancient Greek historian Thucydides “History of the Peloponnesian War”)
- There is no peace without war (Suspicienda quidem bella sunt ob eam causam ut sine injuria in pace vivatur) (Cicero “The Greatest Good and the Greatest Evil”)
- In times of peace, one must take care of what is needed for war (Prospicere in pase oportet, guod bellum iuvet) (Publius Sirus “Sentences”)
- Who, satisfied with little, with little hope for the future, could, like a sage, be ready for war in the continuation of peace (an qui contentus parvo metuensque futuri 110 in pace, ut sapiens, aptarit idonea bello) (Quintus Horace Flaccus “Satires”)
The name of the famous Parabellum pistol (or Luger-Parabellum after the name of the inventor) uses the last words of “our” expression para bellum
Application of the expression in literature
-
“In appearance, it was as if nothing had happened... only some kind of string broke inside... a businesslike, dry relationship ensued according to the formula Si visraeet, para bellum”(V.I. Lenin “How the Spark almost went out”)
-
“Arnold’s eyes, usually radiating goodwill and peace, suddenly became stern: Why Vytak? I understand: if you want peace, prepare for war, but not to the same extent.”(T. Severin “Shadows on the asphalt”)
-
“Ha ha ha! If you want peace, prepare for war? Great! But you can't fool us. Bits, interrupted"(I. Sinobonidze “The Tournament That Wasn’t”)
If you want peace, prepare for war
From Latin: Si vispacem, para bellum (si vis pacem, para bellum).
The author of the expression was the Roman historian Cornelius Jepotus (94-24 BC), who used it in his biography of the Theban commander of the 4th century. BC e. Epaminondas.
Already in antiquity, this Latin phrase became a catchphrase. It was repeated, slightly modified, by the Roman military writer Vegetius (IV century) in his work “A Brief Instruction in Military Affairs”: “Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum” (qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum) - “Whoever desires peace prepares war” .
The meaning of the expression: peace for a country is guaranteed only by its reliable defense, powerful armed forces that discourage possible aggressors from any desire to attack; there are no other guarantees of peace objectively.
Encyclopedic Dictionary of winged words and expressions. - M.: “Locked-Press”. Vadim Serov. 2003.
If you want peace, prepare for war
This expression, often quoted in Latin form: “Si vis pacem, para bellum,” belongs to the Roman historian Cornelius Nepos (94-24 BC) and is found in the biography of the Theban commander of the 4th century. BC. Epaminondas. A similar formula: “Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum (He who desires peace prepares war)” is found in a Roman military writer of the 4th century. AD Flavia Vegetia ("Epitome institutorum rei militaris", 3, Prolog).
Dictionary of catch words. Plutex. 2004.
See what “If you want peace, prepare for war” in other dictionaries:
If you want peace, prepare for war. Wed. Chi la pace non vuol, la guerra s'abbia. Tasso. Gerusalemme liberata. 2, 88. Wed. Si vis pacem, para bellum. Wed. Paritur pax bello. Corn. Nepos. Epamin. 5, 4. Wed. Suspicienda quidem bella sunt ob eam causam…
Wed. Chi la pace non vuol, la guerra s abbia. Tasso. Gerusalemme liberata. 2, 88. Wed. Si vis pacem, para bellum. Wed. Paritur pax bello. Corn. Nepos. Epamin. 5, 4. Wed. Suspicienda quidem bella sunt ob eam causam ut sine injuria in pace vivatur. Cic...
If you want peace, prepare for war- wing. sl. This expression, often quoted in Latin form: “Si vis pacem, para bellum,” belongs to the Roman historian Cornelius Nepos (94 24 BC) and is found in the biography of the Theban commander of the 4th century. BC e. Epaminondas. Similar... ... Universal additional practical explanatory dictionary by I. Mostitsky
- (apt translation word) Wed. Si vis pacem, para bellum. If you want peace, prepare for war. Wed. Qui desiderai pacem, praeparet bellum. Vegetius (late 4th century BC). Ep. rei militar. 3 prolog. Wed. Suscipienda quidem bella sunt ob eam causam, ut… Michelson's Large Explanatory and Phraseological Dictionary
SI VIS PACEM, PARA BELLUM- - if you want peace, prepare for war. This formula is often used in capitalist countries to justify the militaristic arms race and preparation for aggression. strong wars... Soviet legal dictionary
See: If you want peace, prepare for war. Paritur pax bello. See: If you want peace, prepare for battle... Michelson's Large Explanatory and Phraseological Dictionary (original spelling)
See: If you want peace, prepare for war. Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum. See: If you want peace, prepare for battle... Michelson's Large Explanatory and Phraseological Dictionary (original spelling)
See: If you want peace, prepare for war. Si vis pacem, para bellum. See: If you want peace, prepare for battle... Michelson's Large Explanatory and Phraseological Dictionary (original spelling)
Michelson's Large Explanatory and Phraseological Dictionary (original spelling)
See: If you want peace, prepare for war... Michelson's Large Explanatory and Phraseological Dictionary (original spelling)
Books
- The World of Captain Toot, Vladimir Sverzhin, “Officers are never former” - it seemed that no one, but the hereditary military man Attair Toot, needed to explain this simple truth. And yet, after a successful coup in the capital and... Category: Action fiction Series: Captain Toot Publisher: Vladimir Sverzhin, eBook(fb2, fb3, epub, mobi, pdf, html, pdb, lit, doc, rtf, txt)
- S. T. A. L. K. E. R: HABITAT ISLAND. Sverzhin Mir, Vladimir Sverzhin, “Officers are never former” - it seemed that no one, but the hereditary military man Attair Toot, needed to explain this simple truth. And yet, after a successful coup in the capital and... Category: Science Fiction Series: Inhabited Island Publisher:
When you have an enemy by the balls, there is only one way to keep him from breaking free - to hold him over the abyss.
Once in my childhood, during the period of boy fights, I found myself in a situation that later taught me a lot...
Got a gun - get ready to shoot
We fought with one kid, as often happened, for the amusement of the other. It all started as a game of sparring, but the intensity of aggression grew, and the blows became more powerful and cruel. We were on equal terms for a long time, but after his next series it was my turn to hit back, and I didn’t. Not out of any nobility, but because I was scared. That fight was much more serious for him than for me, and at some point I saw madness in his eyes. I realized that he would not stop, no matter how far things went, and at that moment I was not ready for that.
I chose to lose then, and it tormented me for a long time. But not so much because my self-esteem suffered, but because I did not know what to do in such a situation. And in this sense, my choice was, of course, correct.
The decision came later, in adulthood. Although my unconscious learned a lesson about it back then, during school.
Once, one guy from our class got into a fight with a scumbag known throughout the school. Well, due to the weight, my classmate lifted it and went to class. The “scumbag” stood up, dusted himself off and rushed into the fight again. Got hit in the neck again. He got up again, rushed into the fight again and got hit again, this time stronger.
And here we are sitting in a physics lesson, writing something, and suddenly, in the middle of a test, that guy comes in, and like a terminator, without reacting to anything, he walks through the entire class, approaches his offender and starts beating him. The next round of fighting continues in the classroom.
As a result, he was pulled away by the entire teachers' council and the forces of high school students. I don’t remember what stopped him - either the fact that he managed to return his amount of aggression to the enemy, or they somehow settled this issue in the teachers’ room... But the moment he appeared in our class, everyone understood one thing: Despite the difference in weight and his guaranteed defeat, he will never stop.
I hated him then. Just like everyone else at school. Because his manners were not ice, and, probably, there was no person whom he would somehow offend. But I will never forget how he appeared in the middle of the lesson and calmly walked through the entire class - no one even flinched. And my unconscious made him its master.
So, now let’s return to the question: what to do when you understand that if you continue to “hit”, in response you will again receive a blow, even stronger, and the aggression will increase indefinitely... But you can’t not hit - your boundaries have been violated, oh They wipe your feet and think that your name can be rinsed in any way.
The solution is actually obvious. It’s just very unpleasant and, at first, a little scary.
If you want peace, prepare for war
All the stories about “a bad peace is better than a good quarrel” are bullshit. It has long been known that if “you want peace, prepare for war.” One Gestaltist I know said differently: “to make good friends, you must first fight well.” In other words, if you are unable to respond, you will not be considered an equal to respect and befriend. This is inherent in us at the level of instincts of the reptilian brain, and appeals to “reasonableness” make no sense here. Reasonableness is needed when choosing methods of struggle and the type of “weapon”.
The answer is very simple - the enemy needs to inflict such a blow that it stops him once and for all. Or, if this is not possible, make it clear that you will fight as long as you live.
And the most important thing. When striking, you must know what you will do next, instantly, if this one does not lead to a result. Guns must be loaded and decisions must be made.
This will certainly require more effort than you were willing to put in when the battle began. Therefore, it makes sense to assess your readiness for war at the moment of decision. And strike when the enemy is most vulnerable.
In that situation as a child, I did the right thing; I was not mentally prepared to beat a guy in a play fight so that he wouldn’t get up. And he was. For him, this battle was not a game. Later I found myself in his place more than once, and now I understand him perfectly. And this makes him my master instead of an enemy.
Fear is just an indicator
Fear is what stops people. From attacking and from defending. But fear is a very rational thing. He is present when you have something to lose. And he leaves when you have lost everything. Within the context, of course.
The guy we fought with understood that if he didn’t beat me, he would be bullied, because I was one of the weakest in the class. I wasn’t even allowed to go to physical education because of a stupid medical exemption, so I sneaked in secretly and passed all the standards purely for myself. And in the evenings, like many at that age, I went to karate. I had a good shot.
And he was the main scapegoat in the class. He was not lucky. He was not skinny to the point of transparency like me, but he was quite stupid. And so they beat him for fun and mocked him in every possible way. And so they put us in the ring. None of us really wanted to fight, but to refuse meant to be pissed. And this is a shame. It's better to lose in a sports fight. And in my case, losing did not mean any losses at all, but in his case it meant a broken nose in the same place and a series of new humiliations. In our fight he had nothing to lose, and therefore he went to the end like a crazy person.
Take any situation in your life where you stepped back and you will realize that you saved something by doing so. Remember when you rushed into battle without sparing yourself, and alas, you will see that at that moment everything was already lost.
Is there any point in heroism then? Yes. But it is not personal, it goes beyond the boundaries of the person himself and is based on his values.
And if we are not talking about a mortal fight, then the question is the scale of losses from which we are protecting ourselves or with which we are threatening the enemy. Everything is dryly rational, emotions are just indicators. But there is, of course, an overly generalized experience that shapes a person’s character in one direction or another. True, for the time being.
Know when to stop
We grow up, but we never stop fighting. We're just moving from fists to other tools. But on a psychological level, everything is controlled by the same skills that we either develop or lose: knowing when to hit, knowing when to stop, and knowing who not to touch.
Once I happened to argue with yet another troll on the Internet, who wrote harsh slander about me under an anonymous nickname. However, I was not his only target - this is a person’s hobby. Apparently, he was so taken by the text of the announcement of one of my courses (which was not even taught by me) that he, like an overexcited teenager, poured slop on me in his LiveJournal.
At first, I foolishly got involved in a discussion with him, thinking that I could prove something to someone. But with a person who twists the facts and leaves out everyone who disagrees with him, this is a meaningless and endless process. Even if your clients stand up for you. Then I retreated - I didn’t want to waste time and effort, but a couple of years later I came across that recording again, and clearing my name became a matter of principle. Having let off steam in the air, I realized that I didn’t need to execute anyone, I just needed to make sure that their page disappeared from the Internet.
Unfortunately, LiveJournal is not an organization (at least as they position themselves) and this complicates normal legal communication with them, so I had to take the long road.
I spent a couple of days and found who was hiding under an anonymous nickname, figured out his name, place of study, place of work, social network profile and photograph. Imagine my amazement when I saw that the institute teacher, over 60 years of age, was swearing at his colleagues and behaving like a dissatisfied teenager.
I had everything to deliver a crushing blow by sending a revealing letter to his superiors and applicants demonstrating what their saint was doing in his free time... And my hands were wildly itching to do it. But, fortunately, I am a rational and legally savvy person, so I acted differently.
Through the LiveJournal administration, I sent him an official charge of libel with reference to the relevant article of the civil code and the amount of the fine with the grounds that I would sue him for if the case came to court. In the same message, I asked the LiveJournal administration to record the text that violates my civil rights and, if necessary, provide it in court as a third party, confirming that the text was written by their defendant’s account. And in the end he asked to delete the page within three days in order to resolve the conflict within the framework of pre-trial proceedings.
The page has disappeared, but that's not the point. The fact is that when I sent this message, I was ready for a full-scale war. I contacted a lawyer, collected information, recorded all the necessary evidence, reserved money and time for the trial, and even thought about how I would present it online if I had to.
At the moment when the sniper makes a shot, a mobilized army is already standing behind him in full combat readiness. Bluffing wouldn't work.
I admit, I even felt sorry that I didn’t have to use everything that I had prepared. But the second important point in battle is the ability to stop in time. If the goal is achieved, there is no point in war. And the enemy must be given the opportunity to retreat without saving face. Otherwise, he may turn into a madman, and then two armies will have to be mobilized.
You can't really smile without showing your teeth.
In a fight, people are often driven by emotions, and, carried away by bloodthirstiness and vindictiveness, they sometimes cross the line after which it will no longer be possible to call everything a “defensive reaction.” Then retribution is inevitable. And it’s only a matter of time before the enemy gathers his strength and attracts allies.
But we live in the modern world, where adults negotiate with adults and educate teenagers. No matter how old this teenager is. So no matter how friendly we are, we will have to take out the belt more than once, and it’s good to have it.
In military policy there are two classes of weapons: weapons of destruction and weapons of deterrence. Nobody wants to use a nuclear bomb, but everyone wants to have one. Because, as my karate teacher said: “The best fight is the one that doesn’t happen.” And to prevent it from happening, he practiced karate and taught it to others. His sparring was wonderful.
How many battles can you lose to win a war?
At one of the on-site trainings simulating social life, I received an unexpected experience. When it was time for my turn, I had to choose someone and attack. The guy was stronger than me... everyone there was generally stronger than me, but it was necessary to attack someone. He chose tug of war as his competition because it was obvious that I couldn't support his weight.
I dug into the ground as best I could, fought with all the strength I had, with all that I didn’t have, and with all that I could reach with my energy practice skills. I was heavier than usual and my opponent could barely cope... But the laws of physics are a stubborn thing, the middle of the rope was slowly moving into his territory. Then I showed cunning. Pulling back the rope, I wrapped it around the tree and blocked its movement in any direction. There were no rules about this, and technically I created a draw where there could not be one.
The whole group watched the competition with furious cheering. And the ambiguous situation caused a storm of emotions and disputes about what is possible and what is not, who is right, and what the “Gods” should do.
Then the “Gods of the Game,” in order to bring the competition to a result, but to act honestly, ordered the rope to be returned to the field and not to be done that way again. But they allowed all willing group members to join the chosen side. I joined the training a day later than the others and was a new person to everyone, so the majority joined my opponent. However, some people in the larger weight category took my side.
The battle continued and ultimately the majority won. I lost the competition. And during the debriefing, he was about to sign his defeat: “I myself could not overpower the enemy, and fewer people followed me... I failed.”
But the moderators looked at me and asked: “Did you even notice who followed you?”
“No,” I said, “I haven’t remembered who is who yet.”
Then they showed me these people, and it turned out that these were all the leaders of the group. The only leader who was not on my side was the one with whom we were tug-of-war. In the evening of that day, he approached me and proposed a strategic alliance. And the next day I united all the leaders and we formed a ruling elite, which no one managed to either break or enter throughout the entire game. By the end of the training, I took the highest management position. I lost the first battle then, and during the training there were many more different battles. But I won the "war". Not at the expense of his physical qualities, but with the help of those whom he rallied around.