Russian Invasion of Crimea (2014)
Similarities Revealed in Lord of the Flies’ Character Jack and Russia’s President Vladimir Putin
Lord of the Flies Final Essay Assignment
“We need meat,” – Jack, from Lord of the Flies. “Crimea has always been an integral part of Russia in the hearts and minds of people,” – Vladimir Putin, in his address on March 18th, 2014 (Myers, New York Times). Just as Jack chanted “Kill the pig, cut her throat, spill its blood,” (Chapter 4, Paragraphs 197-206) in a thirst for power and glory, Putin leads his people in chanting “Russia! Russia!” (Myers, New York Times), expressing excitement for the reconstruction of the Russian Empire. President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, uses political myth to control people (Oleg, Daily Beast) and build his empire in the same way that Jack in Lord of the Flies uses his ceaseless goals of hunting pigs and having fun to gain power over the other children and build his tribe.
After Russia annexed Crimea on March 21st, Vladimir Putin’s popularity rating rose to a whopping 75 percent. People were willing to forgive him for all of the disorder that surged through Russia’s government and economy if he could return the previously Russian-owned land, which dissolved to a state of Ukraine after the fall of the Soviet Union in the 1990’s. A senior researcher of the International Law Department of the Russian Federation government argues that all the territories of the Soviet Union should return. “The next step is Moldova and all Ukraine!!! (Daily Beast)” he said, and writes that the Baltics, Finland, Poland, and even Alaska will be returned “because all these lands are Russian.” A political scientist writes that Putin isn’t concerned with rational, Western values like cooperation and trade. Now, he has a revolutionary mindset, causing him to disregard risking the loss of Russia’s capital, and the risk of Russia’s assets being frozen and rendered useless for generating the income that Russia needs. The Russian President puts most of his focus on gaining as much public support as he can. He does this by putting emphasis on the impending glory of Russia and endorsing the sacrifice of practical matters. Putin weaves a web around Russia of what is essentially brainwash, making Russian citizens incredibly nationalistic to the point that they believe their country is superior to all others and that Russia deserves much more than they necessarily need. Russia is, in terms of politics as well as within the mind of the average Russian, being divided farther and farther from the West and the rest of Europe, calling many Western countries “venal and perverted”. Putin preaches glory over logic. With the revolutionary mindset of Russia, they can, and may try to take much more than Crimea–even without the approval of the United Nations.
Despite one being fictional, and the other being extremely non-fictional (unfortunately), there is undoubtable similarity between Jack in Lord of the Flies and the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin. Throughout the whole story, Jack’s goal is to gain more power. He does this by denouncing the other children in the group, like Ralph, Piggy, and Simon, and creating an obsession for hunting (Chapter 3, Paragraphs 37-40) that transcends to many of the group. Jack and the others simply want to have fun and satisfy their desires. For this, Jack would even sacrifice rescue. This is obvious when Jack and his hunters allow the signal fire to go out so that they can leave and kill the pig, just as a ship appears in the ocean. Jack’s rash actions centered around immediate reward, with no thought of future consequences, nullify the chances of the ship rescuing them. In addition to this, Jack would even sacrifice the sustenance he and his tribe of course needs because he sets the forest aflame, consequently destroying all of the vegetation and fruit on the island as well as killing the last of the pigs. Had they not been rescued at that moment, everyone likely would have starved to death. This is all because Jack and his boys like to have fun. They find glory and pride in hunting and killing (Chapter 4, Paragraph 121) those they can eat, and those they don’t like. So what is the difference between exciting a group of children with the prospect of delicious food (Chapter 4, Paragraph 191) and happiness in order for Jack to achieve power, and Vladimir Putin promising millions of people the land and pride that they haven’t had for decades? Jack and his pigs is simply Vladimir Putin to Crimea and other lands. Not just within their adamant desire for these resources, but because of how they use them as goals for the people they lead, and the sacrifices they make to achieve them. Just as Jack lets the signal fire go out to hunt the pig and destroys all of their food to kill Ralph, Vladimir Putin annexes Crimea without United Nations consent, approaches the prospect of annexing other old Soviet lands, spreads his desires throughout the government and his people, and denounces the West as a corrupt entity. Which, in turn, risks Putin’s relationship with other countries that assist Russia, risks losing Russia’s capital, and risks rendering Russia’s assets totally frozen and unsellable. This is considerably like destroying a possibility for rescue and destroying desperately needed food. Call the rescue economic rescue for Russia, and call the food the resources Russia needs. Vladimir Putin is paying a massive price for his increased approval rating, his new land, and the glory of Russia that really isn’t as present as it seems.
Every character in Lord of the Flies symbolizes a different type of person in this world. Every event symbolizes the changes that occur within society; the rise, the fall, and the reasons why both happen. Because the story is an assortment of symbols of human history, the characters in Lord of the Flies will always be like humans, yesterday, today, and tomorrow. This is why Jack and Vladimir Putin are so alike. It’s why their goals and their methods for gaining power are so similar. At the worst of human beings, we are selfish, corrupt, and irrational. People have desires, and some of us, or all of us sometimes, will do anything to achieve them. It happens, and unfortunately, it always will–until the end of us. You can double, triple, quadruple the sixty years that have passed since the publication of the Lord of the Flies. Even if the book is forgotten some day, human personality won’t change enough for people to be unlike the characters in the story and what they do to each other. Lord of the Flies was meant to be an allegory, and judging by how people still continue to be so similar to the characters within the novel, and how the events that occur within the story seem to be repeated by history, it is an incredibly successful allegory. True to history, true to the future, and most importantly, true to you and I.
Arguments in Favor of Monitoring Devices Be Placed in Vehicles
Have ever wondered how your teenage kid drives? Well this write up of mine may help you figure out how fast or dangerous your kid is going. Tracking devices are needed to be put in cars because they help reduce the deaths of teens, they notify parents if their son or daughter are good or reckless drivers, and lastly seat belt usage rose 1/3 when having these devices installed in the car. Have you know that the leading cause of death in teenage kids is reckless driving? Due to these interesting reasons I will now give you some more detail on in my following passages.
First, I will talk to you today about how these monitoring devices can save many teenagers lives. In the passage (Article 1) it states that “During the trial, students’ near misses, swerve and hard breaking that trigger the camera drop from 24 a week to nearly zero.”This being said means that with the cameras installed in the cars the kids will drive more safely. Also in (Article 1) it states that “the camera as help reduce truckers’ accident rate as much as 70 percent.” This being true also shows that with the cameras being installed into the truck it reduces the danger of the trucks hitting other vehicles. With these monitoring cameras/systems in the all cars increases the amount lives saved. This is one reason why I believe these cameras should be in all registered vehicles on the road, especially teens.
Secondly, these amazing devices can notify their parents when they are speeding or driving recklessly. In (Article 2) it states that “It records a couple days’ worth of data, such as when your teen started the car, how far when and what speeds. To see the data, a user must unplug the device from the car and hook it up to a PC.” If the parents can see all the data and their child’s driving abilities then they would know if their children were responsible drivers or not. If the parents found out that there children were driving recklessly then they would have proof to punish them, and if the children were smart enough they wouldn’t do it again. In (Article 2) a lady reported that even a basic model solved her son’s problem with reckless driving. These two quotes being true, if parents or guardians new that their child was a reckless driver they can teach him or her a lesson and most likely the child won’t repeat it again. This is the second reason why I believe these cameras should be put in the cars.
Lastly, the last reason why these devices should be put in cars is because it increases the amount of seat belt use. In (Article 1) it states “seat belt use rose from one third of the students to nearly all.” If we were to have all the students contribute and use their seatbelts kids would live a longer life and being safe conditions. Also in (Article 1) a girl named Joanne Devens said “harder than watching a video of an accident her daughter Stephanie had, she said, was establishing consequences for Stephanie’s careless driving.” If Stephanie where to use her seatbelt she would increase your life percentage by 40 percent which is a huge deal when it comes to crashing vehicles. This is the third and finally reason why I believe these devices should be put into all cars.
In conclusion, in this passage I wrote to you today I explained why cameras should be put into cars. My reasons where they reduce teen deaths, they send to data to all parents to show their parents their driving abilities, and lastly the systems force kids to use their seat belts. The reasons are the most important because there diverse all back up my reasoning of the cameras being put in all of the cars. Thank you for listening to me today and I believe you should take my side and put these cameras in all upcoming model cars.
Why the Presidents of the United States and Russia Should Meet
After the severe allegations that Russia had interfered with the US 2016 presidential election, President Trump wishes to invite the Russian President Putin for a visit to Washington. Though these two presidents are ruling powerful nations on earth, most sensible, fair-minded individuals or groups of individuals believe that the appointment should not happen since it may somehow interfere with the ongoing investigation about the matter. The Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats believes that Trump and Putin should not have had the two hours private meeting and that it is not appropriate for them to meet one on one during this period. In this essay, I reject Coats response since I believe that Trump and Putin have to meet since they rule powerful nations and they have to strategize on more important things, like future cooperation, rather than dwelling on the past misdoings.
However, the meeting was cancelled, and relations do not look good. A few of the reasons for the meeting to be scrapped were: Some senators, like Sen. Jack Reed, D-Rhode Island, supported the cancellation of the meeting on the basis that it was happening in the times of indictments of (agents) 12 Russian in Justice Departments for election interference. Top-ranked persons in Trump’s party as well as member of the Democratic Party, made their opinions on the potential meeting known to the president, insisting it should be canceled due to the Russian indictments.
Most reasonable American citizens responded negatively towards the Putin visit to Washington since they believe that Putin and Trump collaborated in the 2016 election hackings. However, they did not just arrive at their decisions and opinions blindly, but instead, they were convinced from the many sources that explain what they believed must have happened during the 2016 US presidential election. The United States intelligence officials believe that Russian hackers made several trials prior to the 2016 election to invade main United State organizations even the White House and the state unit. The strategies were easy: distribute volleys of phishing emails and expected that any citizen clicked. One of the people who clicked was John Podesta, the head of Hillary Clinton’s campaign. The New York Times search showed that Podesta aide noticed the dodgy email and sent it to his technician for more investigation. The aide mistakenly wrote that the email was just okay. This gave room to Moscow reach approximately 60,000 of Podesta’s emails. The attackers also penetrated the Democratic National Committee. The emails were then sent to the WikiLeaks website, which printed them prior to the US poll. These publications were all over the press bulletins and destroyed Clinton’s campaign. Security professionals trust that two Kremlin-linked groups were also part of the hacks. One was from the FSB spy agency, and the other one was from Russian military intelligence. Surprisingly, they seem not to have worked together.
My opinion is that President Trump and Russian President Putin should meet since the two nations have many trade agreements. Additionally, their meeting may not in any way affect the already existing evidence about the hacking. The United States intelligence officials, particularly the director Dan Coats argue that Trump and Putin should not meet one on one as the investigation is still in progress. He goes further and claims that if he had the chance of advising President Trump, he would advise him not to meet behind the doors with President Putin. He argues this way since he believes that this meeting might raise some questions or suspicion about the whereabouts of the two presidents and why the meeting must be private. Additionally, the United States intelligence officials believe that from the information they already have it is clear that Russia had interfered with the 2016 US election. The intelligence officials argue this way since in their entire lives they usually analyze some things that people may take to be normal or common but in the real sense have a hidden agenda in them. US intelligence officials believe that democracy can be compromised cyber voter interference.
My argument is that President Trump and the Russian President Putin should meet. It does matter what they are going to discuss during the meeting, but I believe that the meeting cannot change in the way the already existing evidence about the interference of the US election. Additionally, the investigation and news might raise some tension between the two nations and this meeting might help them clarify everything and be back to the usually good relationship that the two nations used to have. About the meeting being behind the doors, these are presidents of two powerful nations. What is wrong with them meeting privately? They might be having some important issues to discuss and which cannot be made public because of national security matters.
From the discussions, I had with my classmates and home mates, I realized that most of them considered my argument to be blind and insensitive. They claim that Trump meeting in person with Putin must be having some hidden agendas. But again I defend by asking whether Trump and Putin are not humans. If they are humans, then it is obvious they will wish to make things right so as to be good with everyone. However, still, there is no way I see this interfering with the ongoing investigation and the already found evidence.
In conclusion, the visit of President Putin to Washington has raised a lot of questions and debate. The US intelligence officials believe that the meeting should not happen. I reject this response and support the meetings since two powerful nations have to interact for them to be at peace with each other and do more business together.
Post-soviet Russia Caught in Between Two Leadership Styles: Yeltsin Versus Putin
Boris Yeltsin, the first democratically elected president of post-Soviet Russia in 1990,strove to serve Russia’s national interestsbyenforcing his pro-Western ideas. On the other hand, Vladimir Putin, Yeltsin’s successor in 2000,reinforced traditional ideas and was much more passionate about the current situation in Russian society and its domesticissues. In Yeltsin’s address to the United States Congress in 1992, he revealed his intentions for economic and political reforms and his expectancy for Russia to transition “from a socialist dictatorship to a capitalist democratic regime.” In Putin’s Annual Address to Russia’s Federal Assembly on May 10, 2006, he focused on “areas that directly determine the quality of life” of the Russian people. In theiraddresses, it was evident that Yeltsin and Putin’s policies were comparable with regard to developing democracy and a civil society, but they also differed in important aspects of economic reforms and foreign policy.
Boris Yeltsin highlightedthe importance of strengthening the partnership between Russiaand the United States and its allies. This partnership would“help integrate Russia into the Western world and… guarantee a flow of Western aid that would help Russia rebuild.” This “mutually advantageous cooperation” could lead to efficient solutions to Russia’s problems and even provide new jobs to both the people of Russia and the United States. Yeltsin expressed a great deal of gratitude towards President Bush and the American people for their unwavering support of Russia.
According to Yeltsin, Russian relations with the U.S. and the establishment of democracy could also restore the rule of law, guarantee domestic, social, and political stability, and provide maintenance of civil peace. Liberty—an inherent characteristic of democracy—would encourage freedom and a market economy. But liberty certainly “does not offer instant prosperity or happiness and wealth to everyone. This is something that politicians in particular must keep in mind.” Yeltsin believed that achievingdesired resultstookeffort in everyday action. However, he called to mind that Russia’spredecessors have used their power for corruption, thereby depleting hopes forsecond chances and “[we] have no right to fail.” Waiting any longer to try and establish democracy would cause delays in the progress of Russian society. Additionally, Yeltsin insisted that there was a collective responsibility, “not only toward the people of Russia, but also towards the citizens of America and of the entire world. Today the freedom of America is being upheld in Russia.” Realizing reforms were a promising step toward Russia’s improvement, and the United States would also share Russia’s successes and failures; thus, “the reforms must succeed.”
Nonetheless, the Russian people wereaware of the weakness of their state in comparison to the superpower status enjoyed by the Soviet Union at the height of its power. Yeltsin acknowledged the vulnerability of Russian national identity and articulated a sense of national purpose in his foreign and economic reforms.He wanted to bring Russia’s legal practice up to world standards and join the world community in its prestige, but highlighted the value of preserving and strengthening Russia’s identity, culture, and moral standards. He asserted that“It is the tradition of the Russian people to repay kindness with kindness. This is the bedrock of the Russian lifestyle, the underlying truth revealed by the great Russian culture.” He invitednew Russia toopenly extend a hand of friendship to the people of America. By joining this partnership, Russia would promote“the quest for freedom and justice in the 21st century.”
Unfortunately, however, at the end of Yeltsin’s rule, democracy had become of little importance for the majority ofRussians, and Vladimir Putin was determined to restore the strong state that Russia always had. An issue that Putin addressed was the Russian people’s“low levels of public trust in some of the institutions of state power and in big business.” The unprecedented personal enrichment of the few at the expense of citizensfueled this distrust. Putin supported Russian business, but stressed that the state would not ignore attempts by businesses to gain illegal profit by creating special relations with each other; this was corruption. The businesses, as well as civil servants, must avoid corruption by acknowledging their social responsibility to the well-being and prosperity of the Russian people. Putin repeated in his addressU.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s notion that, “toes of some people are being stepped on and are going to be stepped on.” Putin, a man who was unafraid of doing what he set out to do, refused to tolerate those who used their power to take advantage of citizens for their own personal gain. He seemed to fit Yeltsin’s description of an ideal politician in his awareness that intentions must be translated into everyday actions. Putin thought it was a priority “to ensure that this principle is reflected in deed and not just in word.” Putin’s ways of solving domestic issues weresomewhat similar to Yeltsin’s; he triedensuring citizens’ rights and liberties, organizing the state itself effectively, and developing democracy (although not a Western-style democracy) and civil society.
Like Yeltsin, Putin also thought that Russia needed economic growth. However, Putin viewed Russia’s extreme demographic problem, or as he described it, “the issue of ‘conserving the people’” as a major threat to economic reform, as it would mean nothing unless the country turned its attention to such basic things as “values of love and care for family and home.” Putin acknowledged that love, family, and progress wereinevitably linked. He even reasserted a sense of nationality and instilledshame in the Russian people when stated, “It seems to me that foreigners are adopting more of our children than we ourselves are.” He spelled out the needed policies for reversing Russia’s demographic collapse and increasing the birth rate by supplying more monthly cash supplements (rubles) that families should have upon the birth of a second or third child.However, Putin also proposed lowering the death rate and further constituted Russia’s demographic problem to the significant amount of young men who“suffer from chronic diseases and have problems with drinking, smoking.” Moreover, combating the deterioration of young men required patriotic education, which influenced “physical and patriotic development.” Putin realized that Russia needed stronger national security, and these men had the potential to serve and ensure their country’s safety.
Putin was conscious that Russia’s key threats to its safety came from terrorist activities and those nations falling behind in economic development. The emergence of new transnational threats to the United States and Western interests, especially terrorism emerging from Afghanistan and the Middle East, shifted international priorities. Yeltsin proudly stood by disarmament during his presidency and eliminated the “heavy SS-18 missiles targeted on the United States of America,” but Putin decided that “disarmament issues are all but off the international agenda… it is too early to speak of an end to the arm’s race.” Putin advised Russians to be keen of their local conflicts in the world today and compared the United States’ defense budget to Russia’s, which was “25 times bigger.” This statistic supported Putin’s argument that Russia’s armed forces must be modernized in order to counter threats and “weapons of mass destruction,” (a reference to Putin’s suspicion of NATO). Although he thoughtthat Russia and the United States should be on good terms, he indicated, “We see, after all, that the wolf knows what to eat.” Putin alluded to the U.S. as “the wolf” andbelieved thatRussia must know its place in the world to “ensure [its] security in a situation of disparitywith the other leading powers.” It was apparent that Putin was not nearly as concerned with having a strong relationship with the U.S. as much as Yeltsin was.
Boris Yeltsin shattered the previous state and tried to erect, although without a real concrete plan, a new Russia. At the end of his presidency,he confessed that he was “naïve” and underestimated the extent of Russia’s problems. As a result, Vladimir Putin became a kind of stabilizer by trying to strengthen Russia’s state and bring social order. He seemed confident in his endeavors and proudly stated that“Without question we realize the full scale of the work at hand.” Yeltsin and Putin both expressed their desire to improve Russian civilization in their addresses, but perhaps their differences in opinions on how to successfully achieve this were made even more prevalent.