There is a counterculture against ambition I know. 

I have been told indirectly that I am ambitious. 

I have no problem with ambition. The world needs ambitious lawyers, engineers, scientists, surgeons, and humanitarians to make it a better and safer place. 

Well, for one, if you're an entrepreneur, you need that to keep going against all odds.

Second, when it not for ambition, I wouldn't be where I am right now given the cause-effect logic of how things emanate from something.

I cannot place this kind of remark, although I maybe too slow sometimes too.

It's okay to be ambitious but don't show it too much, meaning enthusiasm, energy, optimism, high level of resilience, and spartan confidence. 

Well, that for me are dead give-aways. I exude them, capture, and claim them because these are good stuff you need to survive and thrive, in big doses the better. 

Therefore, I am completely helplessly ambitious. I don't trample on people, have sharp elbows, and do all kinds of sleazy, unethical methods to get business. I just do the way a soldier, a tactician, a master planner, and a faithful one will do. 

Are you ambitious? Do you take this comment negatively or do you take the meaning back?

Do you lack ambition or do you lack the courage to be ambitious? 

Like the Black See Grain initiative powered by the UN between Ukraine, Russia and Turkey to free up the grains to address the growing food insecurity in many parts of the world, this deal is highly contentious.

While currently warring, the two factions managed to put aside their strife to think about how the grains from Ukraine could solve another world problem. Albeit, for very selfish reasons, they came together, debated endlessly, sought side deals and concessions, and almost broke down the negotiations. So much for what UN calls 'restricted diplomacy.'

While highly volatile and unpredictable, when pulled together, enemies can be brought to the table with very clear political or economic objective, facilitated by multilateral actors who are perceived as neutral or non-partial to the central conflict. It seemed that limited trust can be fostered on a very narrow set of targets with disincentive for non-cooperation and rewards for its maintenance.

The world is fraught with conflicts and war-mongering. The stances of governments and politicians are more towards creating division and polarization rather than creating a pathway towards reconciliation and unity within a diverse framework. Negotiations seldom accomplish their purpose because of the insistence that all wrongs and disagreements on all fronts had to be taken down first which is not the way to go. 

This initiative proves that with a strong political will, enemies can sign the same accord separately without the face-to-face interaction but still agree on the document. Even though the terms are fairly slim, that could be start of more talks and less fighting on the ground. This is possible but very hard to put together and maintain, but do we have a choice? 

We know for a fact that not everyone will like what you do and will believe what you say and stand for. That's very obvious.

But there's a class of people who will never believe and will not be persuaded even in the face of great supporting evidence or contrarian evidence.

We call these people unpersuadable. They will dig on their heels but will never capitulate maybe because of ego, apathy, lack of trust with the other person or their leaders, or merely because they want to play that way.

What is insidious is the fact that this attitude is totally annoying and a barrier to engagement. Organizations dealing with these kinds of people are reluctant to confront the unpersuadable for fear that they could be more entrenched with an extreme position or lack thereof.

Change management analytics will determine that a different strategy should be employed for the unpersuadable such as keeping them at arm's length and providing information that they need without the urge to win them over.

Realistically, let them know that it's not okay to be unpersuadable. It's a character flaw and by acting that way, shows you their real worth. If it's someone you have no relations or context with, walk away.