Ukraine and the Importance of Accuracy

Recently, an article was published on The Despatch Box regarding the wider context of the West vs. Russia series which has unfortunately been renewed for another season on the world stage. Like the writer of this article, the idea of making Russia angry is not one that appeals to me, but the article had another dimension connected to the events unfolding in Ukraine over the last year. It is this element of the article that left me troubled, and writing as I do now.

The most obvious thing of note when reading the article in question is how unashamedly loathsome the writer finds the EU to be. It actually becomes amusing at a point, particularly given how large of an effort it requires to make the EU look like the bad guys of the Ukrainian Revolution, but he finds a way.

After making some amusingly ludicrous comments regarding Russian foreign policy, “Russia is a power that is actively opposed to the principle of interventionism…” we get into one of the more hurtful and serious elements of the article, which I feel needs to be addressed and corrected.

When entering the topic of Ukraine at the beginning of the article, the writer makes clear his belief that In [his] view the EU is the aggressor in the Ukraine affair,” and goes on to accuse the EU of funding the Euromaidan protests. Something which neither makes sense nor has any evidence backing it up.

That’s right, the group that was building barricades out of snow and using wooden shields to try and stop bullets must have been so grateful for all that EU funding they got. You can really see where it went when you watch the footage of Ukrainian security forces gunning down citizens as they attempt to carry their dying comrades down the Maidan Nezalezhnosti.

This is where I got angry, and where I feel some corrections are necessary. The idea that the brave souls who stood up for what they believed in and were killed and wounded for it were an “EU funded mob” overthrowing a democratically elected President is an outright lie, and as such a blatant and horrendous insult to those who died standing against the tyranny of their apparently democratic leader.

If a leader cannot see the need to take action when there are 800,000 of their citizens marching in their nation’s capital demanding action, then I do not see what right they have to call themselves a democratic leader. Let’s not even get into the use of violence during these protests, which alone I would dare say could be a legitimacy destroying act for the Yanukovich government if I even believed that there was no foul play during the election that made that government, which I don’t.

Now, I will concede that the Euromaidan’s movements could themselves be considered undemocratic. The rebels of Donetsk and other critics of the movement have frequently described them as a junta which would be accurate if the Euromaidan protesters had ever even attempted to take control of the Ukrainian government, but they didn’t. Instead, they set up democratic elections and elected a new leader as fairly and democratically as they could manage. If you’re still arguing that this new government is somehow illegitimate, then I’d question whether you’re paying attention.

But of course, the author of this piece is not concerned with what actually caused and sustained the revolution, he is instead at this point in his article waxing poetic on how bloody awful the EU is for democracy, because, as we have seen, he is an expert on the matter of democratic mandates.

My issues with this blog run much deeper than what I’ve stated here, but that is not why I wrote this article, I wrote it to clear up a central lie pertaining to an issue which I am very attached to and hopefully I have been successful.

Ultimately, the thought that I would like us all to go away with is that the events happening around us affect real people, they may seem distant and unreal but for a lot of people they are not. With this in mind I’d like to propose that we do our very best to understand our fellow humans’ actions, be informed on their reasons, and not allow bullshit to propagate for the sake of our partisan ideals.

By Greg Harrison

[Image Credit: Ivan Bandura]


3 thoughts on “Ukraine and the Importance of Accuracy

  1. Thank you for taking the time to reply, it is much appreciated. I’d have replied quicker but curricular and extra-curricular activity constrained.

    Your passion for the ‘Ukrainian affair’ is obvious, although you really do cry a river in places. I don’t know what is ‘hurtful’ about the points I make. Are you really that thin-skinned? People disagree with me all the time, I don’t whine that I’m hurt. I construct a forensic, logical and reasoned argument which does not persistently appeal to people’s emotions as a counter. Yes I think those who overthrew Yanukovich were a mob, I’ll say it again, a mob. I won’t lose any sleep if you think what I say is horrendous. That is my view, take it or leave it.

    Another quick point on tedious outrage. Just because you are offended or hurt it does not mean you have the right to be so. You are perturbed by my viewpoint, but that does not make you anymore right than me. Again, I really couldn’t-care-less if you are outraged or not, just construct an argument.

    ‘The most obvious thing of note when reading the article in question is how unashamedly loathsome the writer finds the EU to be.’ Well done, glad you noticed.
    ‘After making some amusingly ludicrous comments regarding Russian foreign policy.’ Ad-hominem and school-boy debate. Why are they ludicrous?

    ‘The writer makes clear his belief that “In [his] view the EU is the aggressor in the Ukraine affair,” and goes on to accuse the EU of funding the Euromaidan protests. Something which neither makes sense nor has any evidence backing it up.’ *Nope* I said why do we not ask the *question* as to whether the EU was involved in funding, encouraging mobs and revolution. Furthermore, if the EU was not involved, why did it not condemn or at least show scepticism for the way in which the government was overthrown. I did not present the idea that the EU funded the Ukrainian revolution as objective fact.
    Most of my article did not deal with Ukraine at all, it was a side issue, but as you wish to argue about Ukraine I’ll give you an *actual* argument.

    ‘This is where I got angry, and where I feel some corrections are necessary. The idea that the brave souls who stood up for what they believed in and were killed and wounded for it were an “EU funded mob” overthrowing a democratically elected President is an outright lie, and as such a blatant and horrendous insult to those who died standing against the tyranny of their apparently democratic leader.’

    This is such twaddle. ‘Brave souls’, do you have a violin and a box of Kleenex? Yanukovich *was* a democratically elected leader (albeit a corrupt one, but there is many of them), if you don’t like it vote for a new leader. All you provide is emotion and hyperbole. Why don’t we look at the Kiev governments record, that ‘legitimate’ government, which is not tyrannical in the slightest.

    So far as observers have been able to make out, a large number of these casualties are non-combatant civilians who have died in indiscriminate Ukrainian bombardments of Kramatorsk, Lugansk and Donetsk. Reports from an OSCE team in the area have made it plain that this is happening. Reliable figures in such circumstances are impossible to get, and nobody claims to have any. But it seems to me that the Kiev government’s forces are doing the thing known as ‘killing their own people’, an action which invariably de-legitimizes any government which world liberal opinion dislikes. Why then, in this instance, does it not affect the standing of the Kiev government among right-think persons in the civilized capitals of the world? Such deaths are not directly intended (at least one hopes not ) but they are predictably inevitable if artillery or rocket fire is used on crowded urban areas, and I believe such warfare is frowned on by international law. Are you aware of this, do you know the nuances of the subject, or is it just the rage of a youthful idealist?

    Over one-million people marched against the Iraq war, that did nothing. We live in a parliamentary democracy (with obvious aspects of delegation), not a direct system. Ukraine has a similar system. Don’t like it do something that doesn’t involve rioting, throwing stones and being a general nuisance. There are plenty of corrupt-dictators who are far worse than Yanukovich was, do you not see the geopolitics behind it all? Revolutions often throw the baby out with bath water. They also often end in gulags and guillotines.

    The Kiev government, installed after a violent mob putsch backed by the West (implicit or explicitly), has no doubt come under pressure from various quarters to pursue a policy of confrontation with Russia which it has duly done, to the great loss of millions in the east of the country. But Ukraine, being virtually bankrupt and lacking serious armed forces, could not possibly have pursued such a policy without promises, explicit or more likely implicit, of foreign aid, both guns and money.

    Supporters of this policy always pretend that they are acting against corruption and in favour of democracy. But this is just foolish boasting. The substantive difference between the pre-Maidan Ukraine and the post-Maidan Ukraine is purely one of foreign policy orientation. The rest continues pretty much as before . Claims of improved democracy are self-evidently ludicrous. The existing Kiev government (which has sought to ban at least one legitimate political party) came to power through extra-constitutional means and cannot possibly claim to speak for democracy. A for corruption, do we see any evidence that it has ceased? Is Ukraine’s government, or indeed any part of that country, currently in the hands of poor men, of practitioners of the career open to all the talents who have worked their way to the top purely on merit? It doesn’t look that way to me. I’ve answered everything I thought worth replying to.

    I don’t see the need for profanity in intellectual debate either.

    • Uh, you’re the worst.

      As you may or may not be aware, the first draft of this was essentially me going through all your points in the order you brought them and pointing out the glaring inaccuracies that you apparently couldn’t be bothered to fact check or proof read. This was the main thing that made me angry and would have been what the article was, but it ended up being too long and had a frightfully underwhelming structure, so I rewrote it to focus on the central issue of Ukraine.

      I will say, you should probably learn to proof read some time soon because the province is called Luhansk, not Lugansk. It would have taken a single google search, less than a minute of your time, to get rid of yet another inaccurate statement.

      “You are perturbed by my viewpoint, but that does not make you anymore right than me”. Well, given the inaccuracies in your article I would have to put in some serious effort to be more wrong than you, let’s list some of them off, shall we?

      “Russia is a power that is actively opposed to the principle of interventionism…” I thought this one didn’t need an explanation but evidently I was wrong. What you are saying here is that the nation who invaded and continues to occupy areas of Georgia, annexed a rather large landmass known as Crimea, and secretly sent troops into Ukraine, all in the last 6 years, is actively opposed to doing any of those things. Hopefully you see how that makes literally no sense. Again, that information’s a google search away.

      I’m hoping at this point that your view is a little more nuanced than assuming that these protests were entirely about the EU so we can skip that.

      Other stuff, technically they didn’t overthrow Yanukovich, he was removed after a vote by the Parliament when it became evident that he was woefully under equipped to deal with the situation that had emerged.

      I am willing to concede (and I believe I did in the actual article above, which I’m glad you glossed over because god forbid we ever agree on anything) that the protesters actions can be criticised, but they claim to have only begun using violent tactics after the security personnel began to do the same, and there’s a pretty significant amount of evidence for this. Also, stones are a little less efficient than guns when it comes to violence wouldn’t you agree? All we have to do is look at the body counts on each side to see that, but apparently you don’t know how to use a search engine so you may just have to take my word for it.
      And now we enter the whole EU thing, which we both know is what your article was really about, and that’s one of the main things that upset me. I thought I’d expressed this, but again it apparently went over your head so let’s unpack it. You took the events in Ukraine, a year long affair that has been truly horrible for people on both sides of the conflict, a lot of people have died and a lot of destruction has occurred. These events affected and continue to affect real people in many ways, with this in mind, I think it’s important that we don’t allow glaring inaccuracies like what I’ve pointed out above and will continue to point out below (Btw I don’t think we’re even halfway with all the shit you got wrong, hopefully that gives you an idea of how long this whole thing initially was) to be presented as truth just because you want to let everybody know how much you dislike the EU. It’s disingenuous and does a massive disservice to those real people whom these issues effect, perhaps it won’t do any real harm to anybody, but it certainly can’t do them any good, and personally I can’t help but feel that exploiting the situation and the public’s general lack of knowledge regarding it for the sake of something so tangentially connected to it and ultimately unimportant when compared to the events that are being exploited is something that everybody should object to on principle. I don’t like when people allow partisanship to cloud the truth, it’s one of my biggest problems with politics and I’m pretty confident it’s unjustifiable except on an individual level, which I also dislike, because selfishness is probably on of, if not the, most harmful aspect of the human condition.

      Right then, back to your mistakes, this is the other reason I cut all this out of the article, because your article makes it’s central issue clear about midway through, rather than at the end, so in rebuking it point by point my article ended up with an extremely underwhelming ending, so I decided to focus on the central problem because it made everything flow better, and as you probably know being some kind of an English student (Which is another reason why you should learn to proof read btw) structure in writing is pretty important. But structure be damned here, I’ve got problems to point out!

      Now, you make it clear that you feel the EU is just as bad, if not worse, than Russia in terms of the way it takes some amount of control over countries etc. etc. which is a viewpoint I guess I could get behind if you weren’t comparing them to Russia. Having studied Russia a little, I know that it is a land with an extremely violent history, and that’s a tradition that they’ve continued with gusto throughout their political systems. This, dear Matthew, is why in a debate between the EU and Russia, I’m a little more inclined to side with the EU. Last time I checked, entering the EU requires consent from the entering nation, Russia, on the other hand, has a rather long history of not giving a damn whether the nations it absorbs and controls have consented to such action or not. Now, yes, that was more true during the days of the Soviets, but we don’t have to look far for modern examples, we’re even already in the area; Crimea. Annexed by the Russian Federation nearly a year ago, as I recall they just sort of showed up and took it, yes there was a vote in Crimea but the guarantee of that being carried out legitimately is non-existent, because, after all it is Russia.

      We’re actually getting into my favourite part now, I was really quite sad that I couldn’t fit this into the article. Basically, I did some maths to get an exact numerical idea of how hilariously dumb your talking points were in regards to the EU vs. Russia, which I would finally like to share with you now. It’s in regards to you talking about the EU gobbling up other nations, using this to grow exponentially in size like the blob in the movie The Blob, and this being something that Russia has every right to be threatened by, so I decided to look up the relative geographical sizes of Russia compared to the combined EU. The EU weighs in at 4,423,147 square kilometers total, Russia weighs in at 17,098,242 square kilometers. Yep, Russia is very nearly 4 times the size of a union of nations. Think about that for a minute, a union of 28 nations is not even half of the size of the single Russian nation, and you are implying that in this scenario Russia should feel intimidated? It’s basically impossible at this point to even invade Russia without suffering significant losses, even if you’re Napoleon and the EU ain’t no Napoleon.

      This is another big problem I have with your article, you approach Russia like there’s nothing to criticise going on over there. Yes you make the point early on that we in the West aren’t exactly flawless, but at least we admit it, at least we allow for civilised discourse regarding our governments failings, after the whole debacle with Putin’s re-election in 2012 and the protests that cropped up around that do you what the government did? That’s right, pushed through a law neutering the citizens right to protest so that they could arrest and shoot people next time they complain about their sham democracy. Now I’m sure you’d be fine with that, but I’m not. This all plays back into the central issue, you downplayed one evil to emphasise another that if we looked objectively at we’d see that the comparison is flimsy at best and down right one sided at worst. I cannot abide twisting of the facts for the sake of your comparably petty dislikes, and that is exactly what you were doing throughout your article.

      Nearly done now, just a bunch of incorrect stuff to quote and laugh at. “Russia does not have an all encompassing ideology set against western capitalism, and has no interest in ‘going west’” the annexation of Crimea is an example of Russia LITERALLY going West, they may not have any interest in continuing this trajectory, but your statement is still contradicted by fact.

      If you can’t see any correlations between The Russian Federation and the Soviet Union, then I really think you weren’t paying attention in history class, I’d rather not go in depth here because this is already way too long but if you just look at the internal propaganda machine of Russia you’ll see they haven’t really changed it at all since the bloody Romanovs were in charge. And this point I can’t tell if you’re deliberately ignoring facts that contradict your views or if you’re just lazy, but I implore you to educate yourself on this matter if for no other reason other than it being incredibly interesting.

      “how would America react if Russia began meddling in the affairs of Mexican politics?” false equivalency, Mexico is 6,000 miles from Russia and part of a whole other continental landmass, the European Union on the other hand has four nations bordering Ukraine (Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, and Poland). Exactly how much closer does the EU need to be before they have the same rights of influence as Russia does? I feel like your answer will just be never because it conflicts with your preexisting ideals, and since those can stand up to both logic and facts I don’t really see how this is going to get through.

      “most of Ukraine (for example) speak Russian” Wrong, most Ukrainians speak Ukrainian, which I would have thought was obvious but I thought that was the case with most of this and somehow you missed it all so I guess I’ll need some statistics again. 2001 census says 87.8% of people living in Ukraine communicate in Ukrainian with 17.3% of the population being ethnic Russians. I know those aren’t the most up to date statistics but it’s the best I could find, and they reckon the number of Ukrainian speakers has only gone up since then, although I imagine the secessionists and pro-Russians may have stopped speaking Ukrainian all together, hopefully you can at least figure out why that would be on your own.

      And that’s all I’ve got regarding your article, I was going to go ahead and rip apart your actual comment but this is really too long and I’m bored of writing it, so I’ll end here. I don’t encourage you to reply but I won’t be surprised if you do.

      Also, this was not an intellectual debate, it was a rebuke, hence the profanity.

      • Of course I am going to reply, just sorry it’s so late.

        ‘Uh, you’re the worst’. Your such a flirt.

        It is amazing how you think you are so unbelievably right, it is actually astounding. Your even advising me not to respond, no chance sweetie-pie.

        ‘Lugansk’/’Luhansk’, it was a typo, the ‘G’ and the ‘H’ are next to each other on the keyboard darling, I can’t afford to employ a proof reader at the moment but it is certainly an aim of mine.

        To the language issue which you are of course so unbelievably right about: In an October 2009 poll by FOM-Ukraine of 1,000 respondents, 52% stated they use Russian as their ‘Language of communication’; while 41% of the respondents state they use Ukrainian and 8% stated they use a mixture of both.

        A March 2010 poll by Research & Branding Group showed that 65% considered Ukrainian as their native language and 33% Russian. This poll also showed the standard of knowledge of the Russian language (free conversational language, writing and reading) in current Ukraine is higher (76%) than the standard of knowledge of the Ukrainian language (69%). More respondents preferred to speak Ukrainian (46%) than Russian (38%) with 16% preferring to speak both in equal manner. This is all a Google search away baby-cakes. I’ve actually tried Bing, can you believe it?

        My point was not that most Ukrainian’s speak Russian *exclusively*, the point was about how most Ukrainian’s *can* speak Russian, which was about highlighting cultural commonality. The evidence of Ukrainian’s capacity to read and write Russian only furthers this point. Within the borders of modern Ukraine there are many millions, who speak Russian, whose roots are in Orthodoxy rather than in Catholicism, who look to Moscow as their capital, who read Russian books and newspapers and watch and listen to Russian TV and radio stations, and whose relatives are in Russia. These live mostly in the east of the country. Many also live in the Crimea, that strategically vital peninsula (containing the indispensable naval station at Sevastopol). Crimea, formerly part of the Russian Soviet Republic was given to the Soviet Republic of Ukraine by Khrushchev. As I am sure you know.

        Try to be a little more modest and accommodating of others views, they may have a point. Do you understand dear? I don’t think ‘you are the worst’, (whatever that means) I just think you are misplaced in your opinions. I have tolerance. As my opinions are rare in the current climate I understand the difficulty in comprehending that someone may think what I think but give it a go.

        I’ll now take you through my position on Russia and the Ukrainian conflict in a bit more detail because you clearly know *what* to think but not *how* to think about this issue. And no I was not lucky enough to be able to study Russia and the Soviet Union at school or College which is disappointing. I was educated in the state sector which is lacking to say the least. Modern history teaching is nothing but propaganda for notions of equality and diversity. Which I think is a totalitarian idea. But let’s leave that for now.

        Ukraine is naturally dominated by Russia and *is* part of Russia’s sphere of influence, the conflict is an old one (I’m sure you know this given your wondrous grasp on history and Google searching.) It was originally a German conflict and given Germany now operates its foreign policy through the E.U instead of in an explicitly nationalistic one, it still is, (think about this point and my coming explanation, don’t just throw your dolls out of the pram.)

        The conflict dates back to the First World War and to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (between Russia and Germany) when a puppet state was created in Ukraine. Then there was the second episode in World War Two when Germany invaded Ukraine in 1941 as part of the Barbarossa operation and occupied Ukraine, these are the only instance of Ukrainian separation from Russia in modern times, but neither of them can be truly described as independence. Then upon the dismantling of the Soviet Union, Ukrainian independence was almost accidently created at point where Russia was in turmoil and the west exploited that for its own ends. There is a real disconnect between how the west talks about this issue and the history of the region, there is also the insane strata of thought which proposes Russia is somehow the inheritor of the Soviet Union they cannot be equated in policy, international ambition and ideology, it really is not true.

        This idea of a new cold war which many people propose does immense damage to foreign policy. It *is* just as reasonable for Russia to be concerned about what goes on in Georgia and Ukraine as it is for America to be concerned about what goes on in New Mexico and Southern California; those parts which it grabbed from Mexico in 1848. If Russian politicians started making speeches to crowds of people in Albuquerque and El Paso trying to inculcate some idea that they had a claim for independence and democratic rights then wouldn’t we agree it to be a stupid belligerent move, and wouldn’t the United States be rightly annoyed? Do you understand, can you see there may be slight possibility I may have a legitimate point of view? Think really hard sugar-cake.

        Upon the Soviet Union breaking up; disbanding the Warsaw pact then giving up its Communist ideology, the west found that this was not enough. Russia believed that would be sufficient and western powers and Nato would not expand up to its borders, but this has not been the case at all. Under George Bush senior there was a particularly bullish secretary of state; James Baker who wished Russia, (who was already in an embarrassing situation) to give up all its influence in central Europe, this is taking the biscuit. Vladimir Putin made a speech in Munich in 2007 explicitly stating that the E.U had gone far enough, so it was well known that expansion into Ukraine would be an issue. None the less the E.U expands creating political and military alliances and setting up Nato bases in complete disrespect of Russia. The E.U *did* fund what are called Civil Society Organizations and it is also known the director of the CIA John O. Brennan was in Kiev at the time of the Ukrainian revolution. Does this say nothing?

        This E.U expansion is all because the west (European Union and Washington) wishes to impose itself on that region and Russia is an obstacle in that. It is a game of power not some pie-in-the-sky cry for democracy, a look at the history of the region shows that it has never been that about that. I’m really not interested in annoying Russia and persistently undermining its sphere of influence which is naturally *Russia’s* as history shows, it’s so stupid and diplomatically not worth the trouble. This is how wars start it is just not worth it, let Putin have his victories in Georgia and Crimea.

        Russia is a country with a long history of invasion and conflicts, it has an inherent anxiety about its borders, so when Nato and the E.U set up satraps along its frontiers, it gets annoyed, like most countries would. It will meet aggression with aggression, this is what happens. Putin is friendly to people who are friendly to him and will be belligerent to those who do the same, this Russia-E.U/Germany conflict is not new it is just under a different guise, can you see this, or even entertain the possibility? It is not the spread of democracy because as I hope I have explained before, it is ridiculous to think the new Ukraine government is any more democratic. Russia’s economy is virtually entirely reliant on oil and gas and has numerous problems, not least caused by Yeltsin letting the west rape Russia’s economy. We of course hate Putin because he is not a pushover. We should treat it as a country with anxieties and needs not as the Soviet Union. Does Russia seek to spread a global ideology? No. Does Russia like the Soviet Union wish to create a global navy? No. Has Russia rejected Communism? Yes. Does Russia have more civil liberties than the Soviet Union. Yes. The list goes on. One should not underestimate the shadow the USSR casts but Russia really is not the Soviet Union. Russia is increasingly a Christian country and there is no reason it could not move towards liberty and freedom given time, but in mounting putsches upon its borders we create a real enemy. The size of Russia does not matter, that really is not the point, it is about power, history, culture and influence. Russia could be our ally, when China inevitably becomes the biggest superpower in the world it will meddle in our affairs and will repeat the list of stupid things we did back to us and we will have no answer.

        Is it really wise to stir up conflict between these two parts of the Ukrainian population, in a manoeuvre to drag Ukraine into the orbit of Brussels (which, as we well know in Britain, is not a trading bloc but a political formation) rather than of Moscow? Ukraine’s independent existence is surely a pretty big concession by Moscow in the first place, made at a moment of unique weakness and still resented. Must this now be pushed further, establishing an E.U bridgehead right up against Russia’s border? Could such an arrangement last? How might it end?

        I might add that E.U expansion into (for example) Romania and Bulgaria has not, as it turned out, transformed those countries into fully modern law-governed states. There is no magic wrought by the blue flag with its circle of yellow stars. Corruption, misgovernment, stupidity, do not flee at the sight of it. Ukraine linked to the E.U will not suddenly become like Austria.

        Also, as the world has many times found, sometimes it just makes sense to have neutral cordons between power blocs, rather than to strain loyalties to breaking point by alliances and connections which are disliked as much as they are liked.

        This sort of foolishness, the quest to have an outright victory on this issue, reminds me of two things – first of the stupidities of the 1920s and 1930s, the unrealistic, idealistic borders of Versailles which in the end brought death and ruin to the regions in which they were drawn. Secondly, it reminds me of the encouragement of protest without any careful thought as to where it might end, in Syria, three years ago.

        Un-tune that string, of stable government, and see what discord follows.

        Very few governments have much true legitimacy. Ours is one of the few that has reliable title deeds, going back more or less continuously to 1688 (though that revolution was marked by an outbreak of terrifying unrestrained violence, looting and arson in London, and there are some who will argue that the removal of the Stuarts from the throne, and the flight of James II, were and remain technically illegitimate). The USA was established by the violent seizure of other people’s land, followed by an armed revolt. Most governments in Europe were installed, or re-installed by invaders in one form or another, having earlier been removed by other invaders, or trace themselves back to bloodshed regicide and riot. The horrors of civil war and revolution are never very far away, and they are terrible. Who, knowing this, would stir the cauldron of revolt? Can such a person truly be said to care about the people? They are the ones who always suffer. Is a sensible, reasonable compromise not on the cards, that is all I wish for, could it be some people want war?

        That is all I have to say on the subject now I don’t harbour ambitions to change your mind I only wish for you to accept I have a legitimate point of view but that you disagree.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s