One of the main problems of our country and the world is that we are usually envision the policy, as well as life generally as a game with zero sum. As it is in sports: one team took the victory over the other at 3:0, the other, of course, has lost at 0:3, adding together we get an absolute zero. I can bring other examples, which, as a rule, do not meet and will not meet in real life. Suppose, the couple gets divorced, one gets the kids, the house, the car and all the savings, the other end up in the street, in the status of homeless. Either we took a victory over Azerbaijan, capture Baku, where Aliyev signs the act of capitulation, by which the Karabakh is becoming part of Armenia. Or, the opposite in Yerevan. One more example, the opposition comes to power hanging its representatives from all possible trees.
On the contrary, all the opponents end up in jail, and the authorities makes a feast. The final example, the government decides not to deliver the pension and use up all the budget on production. On the contrary, the entire budget is spent on pensions. In all these games there are 100 percent winners and 100 percent losers.
But such game is only available in sports. In social life starting from household and ending with international relations, it is excluded. If anyone thinks that he has won his rival with “dry score”, then it is purely temporary phenomenon registered for the moment. As a talented military commander has said 24 centuries ago, “one more such victory and we will be left without soldiers”. The whole point is that unlike sports game, where the referee’s whistle declares the end of the game, all life goes on in the other ‘games’, the effects are manifold, and the “final score” can be performed only for given moment, and not for eternity, or even for nearby historical perspective.
For example, in 1996, Taliban hang the former head of Najibullah. Did it put an end with the history of Taliban or Afghan?
Read also
That is why rational people prefer a game with a positive outcome where the sum of one’s victory and the other’s defeat does not make a zero, a game, where both win this one way or another. The EU-Russia game should be just like that. Russia should not be put in two legs in one shoe and insist in a quite a paranoiac way that the European neighborhood project is aimed against it. The EU should not display an exaggerated susceptibility and announce, “Ah, you are with Russia, well, then …” As we know, the contradiction of two systems is solved in the condition of a larger, generalized system.
… Christ and his disciples had only 7 loafs of bread and a few small fish. Jesus broke the bread and gave to the disciples so that they divide among people. Thus, 4,000 people were fed. A game multiplied by the effect.
ARAM ABRAHAMYAN
