Integrated Strategy peace between Ukraine and Russia (Part 20, Revised)

There are four times that there has been the very best chance of peace between Russia and Ukraine.

1. Former Prime Minister Bennet of Israel cited that President Putin and Zelensky were in agreement with a peace process that was to discuss territory and yet Ukraine would forgo NATO membership in place of guaranteed protector countries. This had previously been written in Integrated Strategy Peace Roadmaps.

2. The next time was The Grain Deal, the most successful peace agreement in human history, keeping the worlds economy functioning and a population of people more or less amounting to the population of more than half the G7 countries out of a condition of dying of starvation. The amount of complete representation of this and it's origin amounting to zero, no full media coverage anywhere, The thinking behind this originating from my earlier win-win peace roadmaps.

3. A statement by President Putin. 'The peace process for talks between North and South Korea is the best format for successful negotiations between Russia and Ukraine.' This is not being considered today.

4. The peace proposal presented by China, is derived from the Integrated Strategy peace roadmaps.

Successful peace making requires effort and support.

Successful peace making requires a media that is prepared to have a media programming method that does allow for truly differing perspectives.?

Whilst the potential of the saving of civilisation and the human race from an irreversible chain of events that puts us on the collective global reasoning level of less than the 13th Century, I consider an important news story, seemingly no current media outlet in the world provides such considered importance to this issue. Super powers and how they enter into mediation and diplomacy and avoid massive impasses is an issue in this world today, no matter what youtube channels want to say. No matter what main media outlets consider normal and acceptable. The disparity between the real narrative and the fake narrative is vast, so much so, that it does effectively significantly determine if nations find there way through or if they engage in ways other than talks and diplomacy.

If they engage, then even the most contentious divorce case could seem simplistic in comparison to being able to put together peace roadmaps when they are neither supported by policy discussion in politics nor by a media conversation that's on the side of wanting peace making to be viable and therefore to remain in business.

To keep world diplomacy on a balanced way of reasoning is a juggling act that falls into failure sometimes significantly and yet there is the maintenance of differing opinions allowed, permitted and allowed to flow through the media. Some broader perspective on this, some opinions that are differing from the national perspective of any country that help provide a middle ground can be the basis of the very best of answers today. This was the basis of the best answers found previously too. The peace roadmap between USA and North and South Korea was not a 'politically obtained' result to begin with. That choice emerged from a 'culturally obtained' result that was first initiated by the USA and North Korea attending a sports even, the Winter Games together. ?

Two Ukrainian soldiers have been beheaded, whilst still alive. This is the level of depravity that does take leaders of countries into the very most unreserved ways of thinking in response. These were Europeans, they were doing the best they could in the positions that they were in, placed their to a significant extent by the reasoning capacity of their leaders with other leaders.?The necessity and the capacity to be able to relate beyond, our way of thinking and people like us is a survival strategy for civilisation in our world, a vital need and a requirement that is far more important than the conceptual paradigm of leaders and their countries alone.

Civilisation in this world is not a concept owned and defined by any country in the world. Civilisation is as much a thing of any one country as it is another. The disparity between differing perspectives of what civilisation is and which civilisation is right and which is wrong is the cause of more suffering of more people than any other factor.??

The Genocides of the Empires of the past are embedded into the psyche forever of so many civilisations that were doing nothing else other than being themselves, doing their thing in this world in the way they wanted to do that. That was enough to determine a death sentence by many of the 'the most civilised countries of today'. The change from tribes to nations came at a cost that cannot be explained, sensed, comprehended or even fathomed today. We have got to get beyond this paradigm of your people are of lesser value than our people. Your way of thinking is unacceptable and must be stifled, prevented, held back or destroyed.?

If we cannot get beyond the sabre and sheath reasoning of colonialism, my civilisation is better than yours mindset, then we go together to the belly of the beast, the swords of yesteryear become the nuclear weapons of today. A simple dual between the West and East over a single spat over any one bit of territory or piece of land is more than enough to end civilisation, diplomacy, negotiation and reasoning as we have known it for much more time than from now until the time that our great, great, great, great grandparents were born. They then had the capacity to resolve differences of opinion with pointed sticks made of metal, today the risks are of longer pointed sticks of plutonium, that can do so much more harm to continents.?

To a significant extent much more than I'm comfortable with there is a geo-political philosophy that has been helping keep things normal, has been well used, never fully nor properly represented. The leaders of all countries at war are making exactly the same mistake as each other. They have their national positions. This can be respected and acknowledged and yet none of them are putting enough sense of value or importance towards the position of the middle ground. The means, the capacity, the hope and the logistics of peace making.?

Integrated Strategies have been and are a part of the world scene in terms of geo-political reasoning and peace making. The philosophy is new, it is though tried, tested and proven and yet it's not perfect.

It's much less perfect when it is not allowed to stand up to scrutiny, to consideration, debate and discussion. There is not a single government in the world, nor a political, nor a philosophy that has helped keep the worlds super powers talking more so in the 21st century than integrated strategy peace writing.

The representation of this is nothing holy and yet it is wholly considering the perspectives of all people, all religions, all cultures. The value systems, the essential importance of allowing differences to be and yet finding enough of a middle ground into peace making. That is important today, that is what helps keep today, today in a world so dependent upon their being enough of the geo-political content that is towards 'our' way of thinking.?Our way of thinking being the interests of all to have a world largely at peace or at least enough to keep two sides of the whole functioning, talking and having business as usual.

This is a short interim document written that is a part of a much larger document that seeks to explore the paradigms of reasoning in the worlds current geo-political landscape and to generate answers. I have to publish this now, unfinished as the hotel staff want to go to bed after a long day working and there are no governments, nor wealthy individuals on this planet Earth that financially contribute towards the writing of peace strategies to help keep add to the necessary mediation efforts there have been in the recent past.

Therefore, the worlds leaders get only information related to integrated strategies in the context of the worlds most complicated situations, based upon the employment position of a hotel in what is considered a developing country.?Who ever thinks this is anything other than a crazy world must clearly be a bit crazy or incorrectly informed at best. ?

I can do only my best within the circumstances and conditions that the class system places me within. Good luck, I hope we keep world politics together, yet it seems very clearly evident to me that some countries need to change their position in order for the very best peace strategy work in the world to be known and to be able to play the service role it provides and that is to help keep things rational and normal.?

We live in a world that is dominated by three super powers. We have the USA that was discovered by a man who's name was Cristobal Colon, a man that left Europe the year after the reconquest of Southern Europe from the Moors to find a trade route from Europe to Asia that by-passed the silk route. We have a super power called China that is a country built entirely upon philosophies of balance, of reasoning, yet some of war and some of peace and yet finding paths of mediation being central to that. We have Russia and Ukraine, two countries affected by the stories of the Vikings. The successes as well as the failures and yet the eternal conquest for better ways of thinking and reasoning that can find itself influenced mostly by the narratives of greater physical power. The attempted containment of a country as large as Russia is folly. Yet, so too the expansion of Russia without the ballot box being fully considered and used also is. NATO troops on the border of Russia, Russian troops within the borders of Ukraine none of these actions have been conducive to improved relationships between countries.

Today we have a situation where these three philosophies mostly affected by words, mostly affected by agreements and ideas in the written form can be traced back to the first written words. The words of both Russia and the USA find their source in Asia. The Indio-European influence of language that spread out from India. To create Latin to create French, German, English and Russian. To produce the answers of today requires we dig deep into who we really are and how we got to where we are today. To really considering that all countries are a bit of a fusion of the influences of other countries in terms of thinking both past and present.

The linguistic differences between East and West are a good few, the conceptual differences today are also more than a few.

USA, China and Russia are all so much more than the independent political reasoning systems of the past one hundred years. They have mediated enough in the past to create the present, the recent present and the future. What is most important to consider is that these three political systems have never fully agreed upon anything. What also has to be considered is that humanity has never known everything about anything.

There are three times in the past one hundred years where there was West and East agreement enough to be able to progress beyond conflict, and war. The first time was the mediation between Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin. The second time was the mediation between Reagan, Thatcher and Gorbachev. The third time was the mediation between Presidents and Chairman Trump, Un, Moon, Putin, Xi Jong Ping and Abe. This also required the support of other leaders too. The most complicated of peace processes that there has ever been in one hundred years West and East has been completely, totally and utterly incorrectly referenced, explained, and presented in all media. The role my work played in defining via a peace roadmap explaining how a viable path to mediation was possible was excluded.

If there was a school teacher present they would question how did the West and East arrive at peace? Where are the working out in the margin that explains how the world went from A - H? If that question was asked to any media they would say, er, um there was a sort of 'Love In' between President Trump and Chairman Un? Really? If that's the seriousness in which peace making structure and strategy is assessed and analysed in the world then it's really not at all surprising that there has been a failure in diplomacy since then.

There are two people in the world, one type of person is the person that knows that they are the eternal student, the other is a person that thinks they know everything and therefore left the university of life long before the course was complete.

Yes, countries are important and yet what is much more important is civilisation and if it's required to keep the standards of civilisation to accept and admit that when someone spits in your face that it may be raining then there really is some hope for all 8 billion people of humanity, of the human family. Yes, we all make mistakes and errors, yes politicians have big egos, yes, there can be news that embellishes the truth or more consistently than that is reductionist with the facts as the real facts don't seemingly suit the editors ways of reasoning, Well diplomatic impasses don't fit the lines of reasoning of countries and yet it's the middle ground, the necessity for their to be enough agreement that wins through and keeps the world functioning and going.

The actions carried out in war are completely asymmetrical to the usual normal rational reasonings of people or of leaders. The actions carried out in war are wrong, so much more than wrong. Yet to take the world from where it is today, to take it to a place where there is something beyond this, beyond where we are today requires leaders of countries to exhibit the values of constraint in terms of how the people are affected by the war. It requires enough leaders seek to nudge peace making in the ways that they can. It's never too late for their to be progress that wins through at the last moment, until it really is too late.

The people of Ukraine/Russia are suffering due to the hold up of peace processes, that is the result of peace roadmaps of the past not being fully known and considered and it is this that is holding back progress today in peace making, that is then leading to leaders making more desperate choices and decisions. Tit for Tat, the awaited spring offensive, if only it's to say in no uncertain terms that war is offensive to the norms of civilisation and to get beyond this it's better to say we don't know how to end this war, yet really want to than to simply destroy more lives on the Russian and Ukrainian side which is exactly what will happen unless mediation wins through.

The fault is on all sides that do not allow for there to be the very best representation of previous peace processes. To break the cycle of ever more depraved war, requires nothing less than honesty in the context of peace processes and the capacity to be able to do that requires a real effort towards truth. Lets be one hundred percept honest here. The notion of a 'love In' in a term that originated in the 1960's peace movement in the USA and Internationally as a result of the war in Vietnam. That term was linked to people going to music festivals, dropping in and dropping out, growing their hair long, smoking Marijuana and linking their thinking towards Eastern esoteric way and fusing that with the knowledge of Indigenous people.

It seems fairly obvious to me that that explanation in the media about how President Trump and Chairman Un got together and mediated is really not an accurate representation of events. Yet that is the reductionist media and how they presented what in actual fact required many months and many years of really fully understanding and researching the cultural differences as well as the political differences East and West. To then finding a way for all to be able to find agreement through peace making. Yet, even the word peace in the media did not sound right to the Editors, so they called it a 'love in' and then created a completely different narrative about 'maximum pressure'. The analysis or in fact the failure of that then has created a scenario where the world has been left in fact ignorant to the fact that leaders on all sides wanted to protect the world as it is yet within the context of their being the ambition and the hope to move forward, to progress for both countries. To not have that analysis has put the world back into the same situation as before the peace process began.

The best effort that any country in the world can take today for it's own economy is to put the knowledge and use of middle ground peace making as a central priority. Integrated Strategy peace brokering is not any more on the side of the East as it is the West. it's a middle ground that represents and celebrates all people in all countries, that is a voice of reasoning that has to be known and heard and any country not pushing this to the forefront of consideration is an unwitting partner in keeping this war going.

We have no better choice other than the best use and the best represent past and recent peace roadmaps and peace processes. Any action contrary to this is a perpetuation of the non rational reasoning that is perpetuating this war.

The truth is that Ukriane had reasons for why it took it's line of reasoning as too did Russia. The skill of today is for helping them to find a path to peace making and that has to be built upon win-win through peace and diplomacy. A very good Western Media interview on all of this could be more than helpful.

I have wanted to progress this work, this document, yet events have been playing out too fast and if what had been written in my earlier documents for example NATO accepting some responsibility for the tensions of this and re-positioning to include in all of their publicity past successful peace processes that were multi-polar and were cooperative, then they would be more honest that defining if countries are in their family of countries or not.

The plan to include Ukraine into NATO after the war ends has been presented and yet a plan of how to end that war has not been presented. Instead there is the progress of the Grain Deal, the most successful peace process in history that has been running alongside a war that is not being openly considered or discussed and as a result of their being a go-slow on the conversation of peace making, there is a time that has been set to the 18th of May where the Grain Deal could end.

If there is an end to the Grain Deal then many countries will have unviable economies all at the same time as the scarcity of food supplies will cause food costs to rise beyond the affordability of the least economically well off people. Inn other worlds the war between Russia and Ukraine, unless resolved in a peace process could become a social conflict in every country. The cost of living crisis i being kept where it is today and not a much worse place by the fact the Grain Deal Is functioning.

In the picture above is a man called Abbas In Firnas. He is the first man to have taken flight in the 9th Century, 1000 years before motorised flight. The ambitions of Turkyie today are for an end to the war and by having that there can be a chain of events that once again perpetuate and help answer ore economic and social issues for the entire world than even the effect of flight has had. In order to get the Grain Deal to that position to enable the Grain Deal to answer and solve the multitudes of issues that 23 years of wars have had on the entire world requires that there is adequate representation of peace roadmaps, and all the progress mentioned above considered more and better by leaders of countries that think that they won't give peace a chance at the moment.

What's abundantly clear is a peace process is a process and a part of that begins by leaders wanting that peace process to occur. To enable that requires that the whole idea of spin doctoring the past for the benefit of singular leaders political careers stops and to be able to have that requires having more opinion not less. The Chinese peace Proposal is the best peace proposal document that there is today. It makes sense enough to start a peace process. If Ukraine said that they support the China peace proposal in principle, then that would put Russia into a position of having to do the same. If that statement was made and in the context of saying that there was so nearly peace making achieved in the past and that there are ways to progress at least in theory into talks then there could be the chance of their being a better answer for the entire world than there has ever been previously generated through the mediations even if both countries at the time of having these discussions were not in agreement with each other on every aspect of the deal.

Why would Ukraine or Russia has such a strong position that they do not help facilitate better food and farming methods for Afghanistan for example? Well they don't have an objection to that and yet that can be a part of the mediation that occurs within efforts within the Grain Deal to help reduce the refugee crisis for all. This is one of potentially up to one thousand initiatives that can enable their to be cooperation in terms of knowledge shared, helped and resources through The Grain Deal. The massive ambitions of the Grain Deal can be as advanced and can be as profound as the first ever consideration that it really was possible for human beings to be able to master the elements enough and to be able to fly.

The deadlock in the world in terms of mediation between Russia and Ukraine, is not only a Russian and Ukraine caused problem, nor is it only Russia and Ukrainian leadership that can answer and solve this. For the world to keep looking to President Putin for the answer and then President Zelensky and then keep repeating this is ridiculous.

The truth is that the World order has changed more in the past ten days than the past one hundred years. 19 new countries wanting to join Brics, five Arab countries joining, Indonesia the most populous Muslim country in the world. A country that together with the Philippines will be amongst the most affected countries in Asia with the Grain Deal stopping. Then there are conversations about Canada and Mexico potentially joining Brics.

Where could this go from here? The competition to be the best peace making organisation perhaps? If Brics countries were to guarentee Russia's security if Ukraine join NATO then there is for the first time ever no reason in the world to ever think that there is any real credence to the idea that Russia could ever be invaded. With that consideration make then the war in Ukraine between Russia and Ukraine could go back to being a cold war and that is at least better than the current situation. I speculate the above part in jest as I really do not think that countries that are so allied to the West would want to do that and if you had a NATO country that is also in Brics and there was the same rule as their is in NATo ie if a member country is attacked then to support them then Canada would be in an impossible situation as it would need to be at war against itself which is of course absurd and of course about the most illogical position any country could have.

However, there is a serious point to what's being said here and that is that there has been some alignment either as neutral countries or on the side of Russia in terms of weapons or military drills. Neither NATO nor The United Nations fully and correctly representing past peace processes properly and fully are leaving the door wide open for another International organisation to either actually represent these better or to become a rival block.

So if NATO as an organisation was today to really do it's due diligence fully in terms of properly representing the security issues of all of it's member states, then it would see the logic in terms of realising that in order to be able to bring the world back into a position of peace making and diplomacy, to be able to end wars, to be able to prvent countries from making such drastic decisions as to side with one side or another, the middle ground in terms of the sensible peace making done previously by sides that can be today described as being more to the West to the East or neutral in all of this certainly, clearly and urgently require correct and proper representation in the good diplomacy and peace making they have done in the past.

For the world to have had a World Policeman policy of Obama, flip to a Make America great again bring the troops home, to something like it's not a war of our making in any way, shape or form, we will just supply weapons is a policy flip that is far too much for the world to be able to adapt too. The simple truth is that countries require consistency, balance and a geo-political landscape that does not jump about and change due to the whims of the voters of any one country in the world. Of course the USA has massive influence and yet that is a problem if the script keeps changing. What will the script be in twenty four months time? The truth is that many countries did take a responsible role in maintaining International relations and peace making in the years from 2017-2021. These were countries all over the world whose leaders all think in ways differently from either the Republican or Democrat mindset in the USA. The way peace and order was maintained in so many scenarios was by their being geo-political maps made that helped show ways out of an impasse. That is what I produced with my peace roadmaps, yet the not acknowledgement of these and simply the banter of leaders wanting to use the win-win events that played out for domestic mileage at home. Whether it's to try and win elections or whether it's to try and be perceived as being like past leaders is complete nonsensical tactics when the true complexity of International relations is really fully factored in.

If I'm going to be completely direct about the rejection of the Chinese Peace Proposal within 24 hours by the USA I have to say that that response is completely laughable. How can there be proper and full analysis over a peace proposal that determines whether or not the world remains at peace, that there is a future to the world economy, world communications and food supplies within just twenty four hours? The fact that there was any response in less that one week at the very minimum simply presents a perception of ignorant arrogance than it does rational logical thinking.

The same rationale to the immediate rejection of the China Peace Proposal is the same levels of thinking that did not have an answer to the complicated issues between the USA and North Korea in 2016 and as a result of that in part simply had the basis of this West and East rivalry evolving which at the time made the critically wrong choice to put NATO troops onto the border of Russia in much the same way as Operation Barbarossa had done so previously.

In my opinion a 24 hour response which is also derived from not having even a full understanding of the peace process that was referred to by President Putin as being the best potential way to be able to negotiate between Russia and Ukraine to end the war is simply a whole type of reasoning that is anything other than well reasoned.

So the question has to be asked why is it that so many countries are either joining Brics or considering joining Brics? In my opinion, the greatest motivating factor is not due to the fact they don't like the dollar any more. It's not due to the fact that 'countries dislike America' no on the 6th January countries were all supportive and wanted the USA to get through that situation and were supportive absolutely of the democratic election system of the USA being proper and correct. The world had faith in the USA then to be able to sort that situation out. Yet since then what has the world observed? The exit from Afghanistan, was that Trump or Biden's fault? Well that's the question in the USA, yet really the issue was the incorrect media representation of previous peace processes. If there would have been a better analysis of these there would have been resources put into the thinking and effort required to design peace processes that not only work for the countries exiting the war yet also provide a way forward for the country, much in the same way the Grain Deal can potentially do today if used properly and fully to it's maximum capacity.

Pope Francis has just met with Metropolitan Hilarion, the meeting was cordial. The background to this within the context of peace processes of recent years is that the worlds most complicated issues do not only get solved by political leaders. There was a cultural answer linking North and South Korea by culture and by family that goes back much further than the eighty year impasse and a gesture of peace making in the way of a hug between leaders showed that not matter what is said in the way of politics their is a human connection that goes beyond current positions. In the same way the religious bond between two leaders of the Christian faith has faith in common and that faith is two thousand years old, built upon faith that is many thousands of years before that. A war which is the result of diplomatic non alignment that has a significant part of that derived from wider affects and influences of other regions, countries and organisations is only today a part again of a far larger and greater picture.

The concept of being able to turn the other cheek in terms of forgiveness is always essential to reconciliation in terms of war, yet having the dualistic sense that there is another perspective that can be considered and taken is also respectful to the fact that we as individuals can have more than one perspective on any given issue, and it's also representative that if we can have two perspectives then other can too.

In life generally there are always different ways of reasoning to each and every paradigm we actually have on most aspects to life and so the same is true with other people too. We don't think exactly the same way about everything as we thought yesterday or this would equate to the fact that we do not grow and change and yet everything in life suggests that we do. We are in much more of a knowledgeable world today than one hundred years ago or a thousand years ago in many ways, yet in contrast to that we are more aware of our limitations to have even been able to have fully explored this planet and to have found and named the seemingly near infinite life forms on the planet. In the same way that there is always more for us to be able to learn and discover and that that is a part of the quality of existence in the world, that means also that there is a very important and central place in life for faith.

just in the same way the facts can be added and improved upon, the perspectives can become clearer, the ways of thinking improve we obtain all of that from faith and belief. Having a sense of who we are and our purpose within the wider context.

The wider context of good relations and progress in terms of the most simple as well as the most complicated or influential relationships require that we have a belief in other people as well as in ourselves enough to believe that together we can have answers or find, obtain and work towards answers.

The gesture of wanting to have a peace proposal that works by China was a noble act. The fact that the USA could not see how that was possible was their assessment of the situation at that moment in time. In actual fact that was possibly the opinion of a small group of very influential experts that I happen to know for a fact did not have all of the information and all the knowledge available to them in the context of past successful peace processes and peace roadmaps.

The FBI finding information pertaining to the peace process between North Korea and the USA, finding that in a garage does allude to the fact that there is information not known, not being considered. The truth is that peace making was obtained West and East in ways that are only really fully known by those who have the expertise in the original writing of that peace roadmap that helped perpetuate that peace process.

Just like with the China Peace Proposal, the peace roadmap I wrote was not completed in one go, it had to be put together and added too and reconsidered as the events played out in practice. The difference between the response then and now in the USA can be summed up in one word.

That word is faith. The leadership at the time of the Trump administration had enough faith in the peace process working to try that peace process. So too did the leadership of Russia, China, North and South Korea. That is how and why it was as effective as it was. It's better to try and to fail than to have never tried at all. Yet, when we interrupt theory with facts we can actually see that there have been many efforts that have nearly succeeded in peace making.

So the difference in terms of approach is this. There is a cultural connection that helped make peace work in the context of the Korea's. There is today a spiritual connection where the leaders of these two churches know that 'thou Shalt not Kill' is the central part of their faith. The actual logistical process of how to actually generate a situation where there is no more fighting and there is agreement in terms of peace making is not specifically known. Yet if there is something that is so much more important that cold, logistical analysis of the current situation. If there is that vitally important element of faith allowed to come into the situation, if there is an element of allowing there to be another cheek in terms of their being forgiveness and another chance enough to start to agree more, and if there is the allowance in realising that the whole situation, dysfunctional as it is does not serve man well anywhere in the world.

Mankind is more that man-opinion. It's man-opinion that says that the peace proposal presented by China is not good enough to be attempted, it's mankind that can enable events so that the vital element of faith can go into that peace process. There is not one organisation, nor one country that has the right to say yes or no peace in the world is obtainable or not. That is a shared effort and responsibility as it's always been.

My hope is that NATO can have an emergency meeting and in that meeting the participants can all turn their cheek to a position that questions what they would do if they were the leaders of a non NATO country, who's people could face famine as a result of not enough effort made by NATO to being fully open and truthful about past peace processes. If for a moment they position themselves into a position of considering that there really does need to be no matter what a food deal for the world that continues, then they will see that by them not making enough effort to change their own narrative they are creating a narrative of chaos and the need for change in the minds of leaders of many other countries.

What has to be said is that the current situation is caused by an accumulation of thoughts and actions taken by people that believed what they believed and other people supported there thinking. If the thinking today is in the context of an imperfect peace proposal in an imperfect world is about the best we are ever going to have to work from then the one vital ingredient that makes that the best it can be is faith.

Whilst some people can consider that Spiritual leaders put too much faith in what is not actually readily seen, it's true to say that Pope Francis in the context of the situation in the world of 2017 saw very clearly what no political leader could see. That being that 50% of the worlds population could die in a war between West and East.

This may sound strange, however USA has one disadvantage to all the countries of Europe, many of Asia, many of Africa and many of South America. Whilst this is perceived as an advantage, where the disadvantage is however is there is a different perceptual awareness between countries that have been invaded and those that haven't. It's the same with countries like Thailand. Whilst there can be the general perception that invasion is impossible. Whilst it could well be the truth every country requires an economic system that works largely worldwide and allies there are pressures today as a result of the war in Ukraine on both allies and the economic system. whilst the USA is very food self sufficient and therefore the implications of the Grain Deal failing would not seem as obvious in the USA, the fact is many to most allies are food import dependent. The prospect of any country running out of food or prices substantially increasing are of course a concern to any leaders. This can cause internal pressures.

Enough pressures to force choices that would otherwise never previously be considered.

I believe that the shift towards Brics country membership is like what happens when there are democratic elections and too many bad choices have been made by a party and the voters think, we will vote for any other party other than that party.

That choice is being made not due to the fact in my opinion that the world is more democrat or republican or more behind this party or that. The world cannot perceive in my opinion a good way forward in the immediate future, back to the sense of stability that the USA has in so many ways provided for the world. The USA was essential in the saving of Europe and that is something that every European knows and is aware of. However, today Europe is in great jeopardy, so too is Africa, so too is Asia. This is all due to the war and so the currency of peace making as a process, with a sense of faith within that is an absolute must.

If peacemaking and the capacity to be able to achieve that is not negotiable today then the question has to be asked what will be negotiable in future? Countries without food is not a good option for any country either next to them in terms of neighbour or connected to them in terms of social media.

In my opinion, countries joining Brics is understandable, if something is not working then look to change that, yet what's better is that the USA or at least some countries in the West change their thinking, allow themselves to have a new perspective and add in some real faith into the peace proposal by China.

If they do this, this way there is of course great honour and respect globally for the peace making efforts that China has made, a 5,000 year old country does have a good share of wisdom to be able to provide and offer the world. As a result of that we can get another few steps beyond this capitalist vs communist types of mindset that caused so many issues of the past century and for the first time this century really define a new way forward that works better for all.

The world will not ever agree on everything, yet if there is just one thing that its essential for the most influential of leaders to be able to agree upon then it's that imperfect peace processes can be started and improved and by doing so they can become potentially more perfect than could have ever been imagined for more people in the world.

In my opinion the underlying shift toward Brics is that the thinking in the West does not appeal as much as the East, even with the faults of the East, it's better from here to call out the positives more so than the negatives and from there is possible to progress beyond where the world is today.

Trust, there has to be trust in the idea that peace making can work again and better than before to have that trust in the process requires that there is a more open conversation about how peace has been lost in the recent past and how peace has been obtained in the recent past. When it comes to having a world mostly at peace we are all beginners in this and like with anything new, there has to be a sense that what has been considered impossible today can be proven possible tomorrow if we only have a bigger leap of faith in peace making.

In my opinion based upon seven years of writing peace roadmaps there is the chance today to make a peace process work between Russia and Ukraine. Where there is fault in thinking is to believe that this can be obtained simply by providing a list of to do actions by any country or even inter country organisation. The reality is that the ethos of peace making needs to be endorsed, there needs to be investment of faith, economic investment and logistical investment. There needs to be a better representation of past peace processes, a more intelligent conversation and there needs to be a management structure so that conclusions made in 24 hours that a peace proposal is not possible have informed discussion to present at least one counter thesis prior to conclusions which in my opinion are completely, totally and utterly wrong are presented as the only possible option.

Whilst the media are reporting the war in terms of losses everyday for not one day have they properly reported the gains that would certainly be made worldwide by peace making. In my opinion where the situation is today this would be very much to the advantage of the UK and the USA as much as to Europe and the rest of the world. The collective interest of all today is to have an end to the cost of living crisis, not a massive increase in that which is inevitable if the war continues. That's the situation in the developed world and in much of the developing world the chance of famine is obvious with one of the most important sources of food in the world no longer supplying food exports.