Integrated Strategy For Peace, Diplomacy Russia & Ukraine(Part 7)
To not know how specifically and exactly it's even feasible to end the war in Ukraine is the current global standard so it seems. There is no up to date ten step plan that can possibly answer all the issues in the same way that other peace roadmap documents have for various reasons.
1. The war is ongoing and direct mediation between peace roadmap authors and all sides has not been permitted, due to the fact that the successful peace roadmaps of previous scenarios have not been recognised, only the actual peace processes they helped enable to occur.?
2. The more the war continues without there being the chance to directly have third party peace roadmap writing mediation, the more of the worst information emerges about war crimes. Therefore the implications in terms of how to be able to end the war get ever more complicated. The chance of their being enough goodwill to be able to mediate any form of answer reduces each day.?
3. All other diplomatic impasses that this work provided a way out of could be produced without having actual mediation as there was enough information in the media in terms of intention of all sides. In this case it's different. I have no way of knowing what really has been the intention of Nato getting ever closer to Russian border since the 80's nor others either.
a. Was there really forgiveness at the end of the cold war on all sides. If there was not that then, then surely today we can see that paths towards reconciliation, towards better understanding are frequently never simple and yet are almost always obtainable with enough effort put in from all sides.
?b. No way of knowing why the whole Ukraine/Russia language issue began Ie people in some parts of Ukraine not being permitted to speak the language they have spoken for generations. This creates a situation where no matter how th emedia report it, there are differences in what the people of Ukraine actually want. The media reporting that some Ukrainians when 'liberated by Ukraininans' are citing that they prefer Russian control of their region. Whilst the Western media are citing that they must by 'brainwashed' that does not make any sense at all. Any person of course wants to speak the language they choose. Why would any people 'liberated by an army' who's laws are to prevent you from speaking your original language be pleased about that 'liberation'. So in actual fact the Western media not providing more of a balanced reporting that does actually represent all Ukrainian people, is actually not helping any of the Ukrainian people be able to find a middle ground to peace. If Russia, dropped arms and walked out of Ukraine tomorrow morning then there is then one country not at war in Europe where the people are being told which language by law they are able to speak.?The Ukrainian flag has two colours and the country two main languages, it's had the two coloured flag since 1848. However, the issue with languages goes back to about 1240 at the time of what' known as The Golden Hoarde, ie the invasion by the Mogols from central Asia into Ukraine and Europe. Russian is a the common language used in Kiey, the Capital of Ukraine. To try and outlaw the language that is spoken in the capital city and by such a proportion of the countries population is clearly the first human rights issue to consider. It's been a right for hundreds and hundred of years to speak a language that has been recently been banned in legislation. When almost half the population use the language. Of course such an insane policy is going to cause a war. It would do in any country. For the worlds media to actually go along with the notion that it's perfectly normal to try and stop half the people in a country speaking in the language of their choice is completely ridiculous. The language that even 1% of any population choose to speak should be their choice to make under the most basic human rights concepts in existence. The right to be able to express yourslef as a human being. Learning a language is incredibly difficult, imagine 90 year old people being told they can no llonger speak the language they always have. No government in the world has the right to tell it's population by law the language that they 'have to speak and communicate in, especially when the President and the Parliament is also using that language. The fact that there are threats of nuclear war, based upon the implications that have evolved due to one lot of people trying to tell another group of people how to communicate is more like a caracature of political reason, than real political reasoning.?The debate on the rights to free expression in this way should really not even be a conversation today, let alone a major factor within the context of a war.?If we are going to look at this from a USA perspecitve for a moment, there is a war that is affecting the entire world and a major part of the reason for that is due to a law that would never be acceptable in any country where various languages are spoken.?
To be honest I'm perplexed and saddened that there are people at risk of starvation in some countries due to the conditions that have created this war and yet there is clearly and evidently an answer to some of this that requires only more flexibility, in the consideration of language. Russia has intervened firstly as people speaking it's language have been affected by laws that are anti-European, anti-American, Anti-freedom, Anti-human rights. How Russia has intervened I do not agree with, however the fact that the United Nations Assembly which is comprised of countries where the leaders of each of those countries are allowed to speak their own langauge and yet the truth that Ukraine is the onw country in the world where there have been laws to prevent the speaking of a language goes unnoticed, unrecognised. How can such a group of seemingly intellegent people not see the absurdity of the situation. If you don't think that this has been caused by an absurd law, then lets consider what it would be like if all countries in the world have the same lingusitc standards that have been put through the Parliament of Ukraine. Ok.?from now every country in the United Nations has to speak English, do away with their ridiculous regional dialects and speak English only. That kind of law would of course never be permitted Internationally, so why is this same mindset allowed to go unchallenged within one country??
Why are billions of dollars being spent on supporting a war that has been largely caused by a language issue by countries that themselves support the freedom to be able to speak any language people choose in their own countries. This whole war makes no sense at all. Sorry Spanish should be legislated into non use the USA. English not spoken in Belize. Cantonese not used in China. French stopped in Belguim, German stopped in Swizerland.?Australians should speak the Andegerebinha Aboriginal language from now on.?The English should speak Welsh, the Americans Algonquian. In fact if the level of Wisdom in the world is consistent to this then why not have all the world's population simply stop using the language they use and instead create a law so that everyone needs to learn to use another language as their ne language. At the same time, these regional accents are the next thing.?Northern accents in Spain, France and the UK should be changed to being Southern accents. Accents in the East swapped with accents in the West etc. How can it possibly be that in a 'fair minded world' there is such a situation where the only people actually politically standing up for a population of people that choose to speak the language of their choice is not The International Council of Humna Rights. It's not the United Nations. It's not Nato, it's not Amnesty International, It's not any country or organisation in the world other than the country of Russia.?
If the language issue cannot be resolved in a way that is in alignment to all the International norms of every other county in the world in Ukraine then there is no way to end the war in Ukraine even if Russia leaves tomorrow morning and never goes back. The problem before Russia intervened should have been stopped and prevented on a global level, it shoudl have been an Issue that the great peace making organisation of Nato could see causing instability in the world. It shoudl have been an issue that Human RIghts Watch made a priority issue, it shold have been an issue discussed by the EU not just Russia. It should have been an issue that the United Nations should have considered.?
What I have to say is that the difference between a country and a law in a country are vast, every country has some stupid laws that do not work in practice, most of these laws are ignored as common sense prevails in terms of the application of the law. For example it's technically illegal to eat a mince pie in the UK on Christmas day. However that law is not enforced for good reason. If it was then the UK would have proportionately the same amount of people breaking the law as Ukraine would have if the language issue was actually fully instigated. Whilst there are of course other issues, the truth is that if you put into Google, the start of the war in Ukraine the first pages all say Feburary 2022, and yet from Feburary 2014 there were 14,200-14,400 civilians killed in Ukraine before 2022. (Reference OHCHR). That's more than twelve times more people than died on both sides in The Falklands War. Yet, the war between Russia and Ukraine is not being called a war before 2022 by the main authors of news on the internet. This is a massive loss to all the Ukrainian and Russian people. If we are going to try to end this war, then there has to be an intollenrence to propaganda on any side and a real craving and need to get to the facts, all and any facts that can help us effectively decode, deactivate the pressures that caused tension, that caused disagreement, that caused conflict, death and suffering on all sides in this. We cannot be llase with the truth, we have to be meticulous with understanding the facts, and the reasons, the core reasons for tensions in order for these to be resolved. The truth is that Ukraine can help Russia and Russia can help Ukraine in reducing the 'anger of the situation' on both sides. Whilst this is difficult almost impossibly difficult to do when the losses, the suffering that has already occured is only just being fully discovered by the press, the reality is that it's much harder to end a war than start a war and that's why there have been so many. Some of which were avoidable such as this war. If any Prime Minister or leader of any country in 2014 would have questioned the logic of a law that prevents a sizable proportion of a countries population speaking their native language, then this war could have been avoided. By going back to that one issue today it's feasible to start to end the war.?
What has to be considered is that this war was many years into happening before President Zelensky became President.?
What also has to be considered is that the language issue without even considering Russia in this at all for a moment is an issue of contention amongst the people of Ukraine. If Ukraine were to change the law ensure that the Russian language is fully protected within the country and that people feel completely certain that there rights in this are protected in law, then this would be a victory for Ukraine as much as for Russia in this situation, if not more for Ukraine as it would cause many people in Ukraine to once again believe in the country. To not have to even consider the need or the desire fro sepratist regions. This then aligns the sepratist regions to being able to have elections. Going back to the examples with languages, if we considered that hypothetically Spanish speaking areas in the USA were being made to speak English and not Spanish, considering that these areas tend to be on or near the border of Mexico a similar scenario could play out their in this hypothetical consideration. If there was the prospect of the these Spanish Speaking regions being able to keep their language by voting to be assimilated into Mexico then there would certainly be more voters for that if there was that law introduced in the USA than if there was not. Yet, of course people in the USA whether they are Spanish of English speakers would never vote for their areas to be assimilated into Mexico as the USA would never create such a scenario and people are free to speak the language of their choice. Yet, if there was this hypothetic scenario there would clearly be a massive change in terms of the vote based upon whether that law existed or not. What's clearly evident is that a very, very high proportion of people worldwide are actually fearful of trying to learn or having to learn a second language, let alone haveing a challenge made on their ability to speak their native language.?
The question the reader should ask themselves is how would you feel if there was a restiction made on your language choice. Would you fight for you own freedom of expression, you right to speak your language as far as writing a letter, protesting, voting, or actually fighting in a war? I believe the vast majority of any population in the world would do the first three, which is what the vast majority of the sepratist areas did. So in my opinion, if Ukraine made it absolutely clear that the language in the seperatist areas remains fully and completely protected by law that Ukraine will continue as every other country does where there is no limitation made at all on this subject, then there very well could be a democratic answer to the issues in the seperatist areas. I beleive isn freedom and democracy and I believe that voting is a way through this situation. There is another aspect to this. If there was the law fully made known that there is protection on the language then that does automatically remove one of the most contentious of issues between Ukraine and Russia. There then is not actually any real justification for the continuation of the war. These are some statistics taken from Wikipedia that present the linguistic conundum in Ukraine with the use of both langauges. I'm not writing this document in favour of one country or another, it's about people, people in both countries and every country should not have restrictions and laws made in terms of language. If the Ukrainian Language is going to be used more in some respects then that's fine, yet restricting language that is used by people in law, is wrong. It' morally wrong and a danger to the world. Like with other human rights issues, we have to help protect other peoples human rights to ensure the rights of all are protected.?
Linguistic Statistics in Ukraine.
In 1994, a referendum took place in the Donetsk Oblast and the Luhansk Oblast, with around 90% supporting the Russian language gaining status of an official language alongside Ukrainian, and for the Russian language to be an official language on a regional level, but it was ignored by Parliament.?
Current usage statistics
Percentage of people with Russian as their native language according to 2001 census (in regions).
Map of people who declare Russian as their native language for each district or city (in circles)
(according to?2001 census )
Map of majority declared native language by city, town or village council according to?2001 census
There is a large difference between the numbers of people whose native language is Russian and people who adopted Russian as their everyday?communication language . Another thing to keep in mind is that the percentage of Russian-speaking citizens is significantly higher in cities than in rural areas across the whole country.
2001 Census[edit ]
According to official data from the?2001 Ukrainian census , the Russian language is native for 29.6% of Ukraine's population (about 14.3 million people).[28] ?Ethnic?Russians ?form 56% of the total Russian-native-language population, while the remainder are people of other ethnic background: 5,545,000?Ukrainians , 172,000?Belarusians , 86,000?Jews , 81,000?Greeks , 62,000?Bulgarians , 46,000?Moldovans , 43,000?Tatars , 43,000?Armenians , 22,000?Poles , 21,000?Germans , 15,000?Crimean Tatars .
Therefore, the Russian-speaking population in Ukraine forms the largest linguistic group in modern Europe with its language being non-official in the state.[citation needed ]?The Russian-speaking population of Ukraine constitutes the largest?Russophone ?community outside the?Russian Federation .[citation needed ]
Polls
According to July 2012 polling by?RATING , 50% of the surveyed adult residents over 18 years of age considered their native language to be Ukrainian, 29% said Russian, 20% identified both Russian and Ukrainian as their native language, 1% gave another language.[29] ?5% could not decide which language is their native one.[29] ?Almost 80% of respondents stated they did not have any problems using their native language in 2011.[29] ?8% stated they had experienced difficulty in the execution (understanding) of official documents; mostly middle-aged and elderly people in?South Ukraine ?and the?Donbass .[29]
According to a 2004 public opinion poll by the?Kyiv International Institute of Sociology , the number of people using Russian language in their homes considerably exceeds the number of those who declared Russian as their native language in the census. According to the survey, Russian is used at home by 43–46% of the population of the country (in other words a similar proportion to Ukrainian) and Russophones make a majority of the population in Eastern and Southern regions of Ukraine:[30]
Russian language dominates in informal communication in the capital of Ukraine, Kyiv.[31] [32] ?It is also used by a sizeable linguistic minority (4-5% of the total population) in Central and Western Ukraine.[33] ?83% of Ukrainians responding to a 2008 Gallup poll preferred to use Russian instead of Ukrainian to take the survey.[34]
According to data obtained by the "Public opinion" foundation (2002), the population of the?oblast ?centres prefers to use Russian (75%).[35] ?Continuous Russian linguistic areas occupy certain regions of Crimea, Donbas,?Slobozhanshchyna , southern parts of Odessa and Zaporizhia oblasts, while Russian linguistic enclaves exist in central and northern Ukraine.
Refering back to my previous content;
c. No way of knowing what President Putins real intention was in increasing the scale of the war.?
d. I've been unable to get official support for my peace roadmap work officially by any government.?
e. I'm completely limited in obtaining any more of the information above as I have been unable to travel there after the first time my travel to Turkey, Russia, Ukraine in order to get more information, even from the sidelines, observing what was going on, even by sensing the different ways of thinking in both countries. Toi assume that either President Zelensky or President Putin's line of reasoning on this war is the only reasoning within both countries is as wrong as assuming that 'the entire population of any country all think in exactly the same way about anything'.
F. No Uk media, no International media, no Uk politicians, no International politicians, no Uk leadership, no International leadership outwardly and fully honestly acknowledges just how influential my work has been previously to peace making and diplomacy. So effectively in attempting to stop this war, by putting pen to paper,
If I was as well equiped in the wilderness, as I am to be able to write peace roadmaps under these conditions I would simply have only a pen. The amount of trillions spent on weapons, war, fighting and planning to theoretically fight called defence there are trillions and trillions spent worldwide. In terms of the most effective peace roadmap method, with the highest success rate, the most effective way of improving the mechanics of diplomatic and rational limitations in thinking that prevents war, there are no resources at all put into that at all, zero.?
The truth about peace roadmaps written by me and how they have kept the 'new normal' normal enough is the subject that is most neglected in all consideration of all these so considered very important decision makers in the world. However, from my perspecitve after keeping diplomacy propped up since 2017 enough is enough. This document is the last peace process I will ever write without getting the resources to do this properly that I have requested on a continual basis since 2017 and the first use of my work to reolve differences between countries. The situaton I have been put into wriitng these documents without help from others is over, no matter what the consequences are.??
My work has provided the answers to that that have ben used and dependended upon by the super powers and yet, I have no resources other than my own to continue. Well enough is enough, I have written in documents since 2017 that I required help and this has been ignored. If leaders of countries are unable to be able to adapt their thinking enough to a win-win paradigm of peace making way of thinking, with the levels of issues of today, then there is simply no hope left for the continuity of the world as it's been.?
There has been a nuclear threat to Europe and yet the conversation in the media is about some serious issues and yet mostly trivia, the conversation of how to improve relations, reduce fears and concerns of so many seems so seperate, so unincluded. Not a single paragraph written on the methodology that has been used in order to have been able to have kept the world calm enough and out of major wars, and due to this vacuum in terms of the really most important information and data to be known is simply lost. The gap between what people believe has provided International security and stability and what really has is vastly different.?
In a world that is so deluded from the reality of just how fragile relations have been and how mediation was achieved is in what appears to be a 'politically stable' enviornment and yet geo-politically there is a massive logic gap missing. Where the most important data and information about how to prevent wholesale destruction is considered the least important information and the information that is of little consequence to even a billion people, let alone 8 billion people is considered the only information and data worthy of reporting there really is no hope left for there being able to be the levels of wisdom to get the world through the unique and unequalled pressures of this century.?
The fact I have not been helped in this for 30 years, by a system that is stuck in the diplomacy paradigms of a bygone era when all that is actually required is to be able to look at the real problems and match these to the real solutions simply shows that the quality of leadership in the world,?with all factors considered is unable to meet the complexity of all issues today. There is a type of wishful thinking that is based upon the past and not even the recent past, let alone the present or the future.?
So we are living in a world where there is no complete truth about the most tired, tested, proven ways to be able to maintain the sense of continuity via diplomacy that all systems want and depend upon. So in terms of human relations there is a massive void, yet beyond that, we are living in a world where all of the major fresh water sources are drying up at an exponential rate. A world where billion or two people serving glacias are failing, where climatic conditions are bringing towns, villages and cities to their knees. We are living in a time that is between a post consumer world and a pre-apocalyptical world if we are not so very much careful as we can be and yet the focus of the media is on mostly trivia and the conversations between the most influential countries is from a me first perspective in ways that unless there is a new way of thinking applied is clearly and evidently unrecocilable.??
?Yet, there is more to this. Much more. I'm trying to produce the answer to the worst war in Europe for a hundred years. Yet, too much of what I write due to the way in which peace roadmaps have been ignored, due to the way that this war has played out as a result of diplomatic failures, there is never going to be the 'perfect answer' in any case for both sides as there is no perfect or even very good answer from such a horendous situation that in actual fact would never had happened had any leader of any county in the world actually been fully honest about peace processes from 2017. The best that can happen, that can be the result of the current situation in Europe is that from this geo-political mess there can be a better way created to answer and resolve many issues in the world both diplomatic issues in terms of human relations and in terms of environmental and resource based pressures. Yet, to be able to get to that perspective requires that there is less rivalry between superpowers over land and territory issues. The issue in terms of Taiwan is a replication of the issue over Crimea and look where that is today and the implications of that tiny place called Crimea and yet the implications to the entire world's economic viability, supply chain system, economy, food security etc. Somehow leaders of countries have got to get beyond this concept of a small piece of territory creating these unresolvable issues. Does Crimea belong to Russia or Ukraine? Lets stop the world economy, create 10 million refugees, have a war that causes tension between leaders of many countries in order to find out. With that left unresolved, rather than realising the failure in the diplomatic pattern, the same pattern is being repeated in Asia in the context of Taiwan. So the two of those scenarios combined amount at worse to the end of modern civilisation as we know it. Will that happen this day, the next day or the day after. Well that all depends upon what and how the USA and China relate to each other. If there is the same quality of relations between the USA and China, the same lack of middleground being obtained that was obtained previously in Crimea, then the differences over the beautiful island affect beautiful world and beautiful human civilisation. Whilst I write more about Taiwan from various perspecitves further in this document, who am I to say that the USA is more right than China or that China is more right than the USA in their assertions. All I can say though is that unless those two find a way to be able to create a middle ground in terms of Taiwan then all of the peace making work I have done for years, may have propped up failing world relations many times previously, yet simply the non adaption on both an East and West basis to the philosophy and methodology that my work has produced and defined has failed. It's failed to win over the thinking in two contrasting in opinion super powers on a consistent enough basis to be able to keep the world in good relations enough consistently enough. As a result of tit for tat in terms of thinking, in terms of one leader not being able to see the situation from the perspective of the other leader too we are in a place where there is a seeming unresolvable difference. It's the same between President Putin and President Zelensky and between President Biden and President Xi. Whilst the other countries have their own views and opinions, they will not have been as forthright in their thinking and clear enough in their communication to have leveraged a position of peace making, middle ground to have been obtained enough. In my opinion, the voice of Prime Minister Modi calling for peace as a priority, the voice of President Erdogan of Turkey, of President Macron of France of President Bolsonaro need other leaders to support and help them to put to the highest value the continuity of diplomacy as a priority. Reality on planet Earth is always many more shade of colour than simply red lines. If that's the extent of the thinking by leadership, that cannot get beyond the 'imperialistic, feudal system based mindsets of previous centuries then we have reached a time of unresolvable differences. Leadership is paradigms, that's all it is paradigms of thinking. The paradigms of thinking cannot be only black and white, cannot be only rigidity in a world that is in perpetual change and development. In my opinion leaders have to work on themselves more, they need to question what it is about them personally that makes them have this drive that continually wants to strive for more for them, whether it's for them personally or for their country. If what they want is coming at a cost to 8 billion people then they do have to reassess their own thinking. The position of Russia and Ukraine, of the USA and China at the moment is very clearly coming at a cost to 8 billion people. So each of these leaders if they consider what can I do a little differently, that helps smooth over the current situations, how can I help my counterpart find an answer that works for them and by doing so find a good enough answer for me, then there is a chance that we can obtain a way through this. If this mindset, this new way of thinking is not applied enough then at best we remain in a situation where there is enough ambiguity today to at least keep the world functioning mostly effectively. That is not a postion of strength nor of wisdom for anyone. How can it be that the most intellegent species on the planet, when all the distractions are stripped away have collectively put themsleves into the most vulnerable postion of any species to have ever lived on this planet. We are the only species in the world even that have put ourselves into a situation of losing just about everything we collectively over 10,000 years or more have achieved based only upon a level of vulnerability created by just singular concepts.?
Crimea Russia or Ukraine? Taiwan USA or China. 8 words, two concepts in the minds of four people that affect all of the concepts in the minds of 8 billion people today and that being only a small proportion of those that have been before or shoudl have the god given right to be here in future if the quality of thinking today is as good as it can be.?Somehow, lets hope leaders can realise the level of change any choices away from mediation can make. A better middle ground answer that redefines how countries are considered is better than an unresolvable issue.
So where does the real responsible for this war in Ukraine rest?
To consider it's only one or two people, one or two motives alone is clearly not evidently true, is there a part of the responsibility that goes much further.
Could it be all leaders of all countries as they have not valued proper legitimate truth on peace roadmap use, who else is responsible? Nato as they have not told the full truth about theses peace roadmaps and they purport to be the 'leading capacity in the world in terms of keeping peace'. However, they did not write any of the peace roadmaps I wrote, that were used and if they would have been more honest about the use of them then there would have been no reason in the first place for Russia to have been able to believe that Nato was planning to invade their country as there would have been acknowledgement of the former peace road maps and peace processes from 2017,2018,2019,2020,2021 known and cited and the constructive positions that many countries had taken would be known to have perpetuated peace and that in various cases included Russia. So if there would have been the truth about peace making, then Russia would not have felt as insecure for the simple reason that Nato's narrative would be aligned to what had really occcured.?
In actual fact when you know the facts of how particiaption in peace roadmaps has been completely incorrectly represented and their participants within this, there is one very easy aspect to the current war that emerges. If you go onto the Nato website today, then from the way information is presented, it's all effectively information that pressures the 'out countries' those not allowed in to Nato.?
In Nato documentation, the word peace is almost impossible to find, it's all information that is geared towards 'threat' 'danger' 'pressure', counter pressure'?'our side look how big we are'.?
The information on the website is all about one sided diplomacy. There are no thank you's to any country any people for peacemaking.?
In the paradigm of Nato, it's only Nato that have prevented the world from having diplomatic crisis' upon crisis' that would otherwise have led to war. They are according to them the onky voice of reason in the world for peace keeping.?
Simply a front page on their website dedicated to one paradigm of thinking, to trillion dollar industries that seemingly have only two reasons for existing, one to put pressure onto Russia, the second reason is to put pressure onto Russia.?
If you consider looking at the website and if you were the President of Russia and had been looking at this everyday for the past twenty years and seeing how no matter what mediation or diplomatic endeavour you make anywhere in the world, there is only one conversation that comes back, Russian agression.?
So looking at the website of Nato I question if there is a single person working for Nato that is actually trained in psychology, and if they are why they are not actually communicating the message to their bosses that all you need to do to create violence is to continually threaten violence. That is all that the Nato website does. In one way or another it threatens violence towards a single country in the world called Russia. and China better watch out too.?
If every bar in the world had 195 revellers in and the same proportion of these people were 'as aggressive in what they said and how they acted towards' a group of others in the pub, all day, every day perminently?then there would be chaos in the pub, in a similar way as to there is now chaos in the world today in terms of relations.??
Nato and Nato's way of relating to Russia has been historically wrong, very wrong, it's historically adding more and more and more and more pressure to Russia.
Russia responded by wanting to join, no not allowed. Russian aggresion, Russia is a threat. Please can we join the EU? No no Russia is too big, Russia is a threat. The continual pressure, pressure, pressure a bit more pressure and then some more. Russia as a country being pressured simply for being too big and that not fitting into a pre-conceived idea of what Western thinking in terms of what's managable worldwide actually looks like. So how had President Putin responded? What he has done is similar to how a person responds if the environment is their home where they are under such continual pressure, they fight back. They turn around and say enough. No more pressure, no more put downs, no more troops on the border, no more media nonseence that put's the question of Prince Harry's badges as a higher priority than the stability and wellfare of the entire world. Yet that's were we are today. Where we are exactly and specifically is a world that is militarily quite equal between East and West, with all factors considered there is not one side that has a massive advantage over the other, yet in terms of 'narrative' the West has a much more advanced media machine and a much more advanced story teling method and practice and yet the response to all of this by the East is this, we remain at source. The response by the very vast majority of countries in the world is that we are not going to get involved in this one and the response from many other very influential countries is that we have to find a middle ground, they are in alignment with my thinking. They are in alignment with a paradigm of thought that is not the with us or against us irrational paradigm of recent years, they are on the side of the middle ground, rational thinking of win-win through peacemaking for all.?
Yet the pressure, bit more pressure a bit of maximum pressure and then a bit more pressure has resulted in some countries taking a completely resistent wy of thinking and most other countries a resilient way of thinking. I have not seen a single country of Africa, Asia or South America come out and say that Russia is completely wrong in what it's doing. Hello put the populations of those continents together and we are talking about the vast majority of the worlds population, add to that the Middle East, Central Asia and the far East. Reality is today that there is not in actual fact a clear us and them paradigm to be had in terms of the situation in Europe. Most of the leaders, representative of their populations simply want the war to end. There has not been a single hour long speach from the leaders of Asian, South American, Middle Eastern or Asian countries that goes specifcally against Russia. There is a general consensus that President Zelensky should be heard at the UN and yet not much more. The reason of course for this is due to the fact that the leaders of most countries realise that there is one view nd another view in contrast and yet neither of those views are taking on board all the facts and truths of this time. It's difficult to back a horse that has been lame and in terms of the real and true moral highground each and every country involved in one way or another with Ukraine and the isues of Russia there, which of course is much more complicated than simply the issues in and around Ukraine have been lame. They have been lame in acknowledging the peace making, the peace road maps that hav kept the world together in recent years. The truth is there is a lie, a very, very big lie that is central to all world diplomacy. Without that li being made public there is no chance that the vast majority of countries will follow one line or another line. So what in fact happens is that both the West and the East get not much more than a shrugging of shoulers today from othwr countries and yet if the worst potential outcome becomes that then countires will immediately pick sides.?
领英推荐
If we are going to try and guess, surmise as to which countries would pick which side we would be wrong and delusional to think we have the answer. The pressures of today, the deals of yesterday and yester decade produce a geopolitical landscape where our best friends are also best friends with our greatest enemies. Thats how the world really is in our ever more interconnnected world. So in terms of loyalties, there has never been a time on planet Earth where there is in fact less real knowledge, real certainty in this. So that then takes us back to a place where peace making is king. The USA against either China or Russia in war could cause at least fifty countries to actually behave in a way that cannot possibly be predicted. Therefore in fact geopolitically we are all in actual fact in the weakest postion that we could possibly be in and yet this is not realised or considered. So whilst the Western media narrative is of Russia being issolated, All I can say on this is yes that fits the narrative of how things are, and yet if everything craks up we are in the realms clearly and evidently of the most accurate and true interpretatiuon of events that anyone could have being simply, I do not know. Anyone that does know should be sacked immediately for incompetence. The reality of the situation is that we are ten months into a war and of the 195 or so countries in the world less than 5% have actually stated which side of the war they are actually really on.?
There are just so many, more so than ever ambiguous areas in terms of world relations. Will we find a way through? Well all the people thinking about Harry's badges think we will, yet is that really enough? Is that actually grounded in reality? All I can say to this is the same I have said for two years. If you do not ackowledge and respect the work of peace processes, then that is all that is required to produce war. If there is war then the parameters of this are actually unknown. So if we are to consider the best path to be able to 'keep calm and carry on' then this has inevitably to include both peace processes of today and also acknolwedgement of peace processes of the recent past. Without that there is no narrative in the media at all of what and how enough stability has been obtained in recent years to have the luxury to be able to muse and consider the choices we as individuals make today.
I look at the reports of war crimes in Ukraine and I'm so deeply frustrated, saddened, shocked, angry, knowing that each and every person had their lives stopped early by conditions far beyond their control, the us and them mindset of ignorance played out in their lives and the implications of this will affect there friends and families for years and decades and the next one hundred years at least to come.
There is no excusing what has happened, there is no justification, there is a terrible situation of the worst aspects of leadership thinking causing tit for tat in terms of actions and non effective verbal communication path allowed that is playing out in Ukraine today and affecting millions of people. This is not an intellegent situation at all.??
My sympathy is with them, each and all of them and I write this today to try and reverse the thinking that has put the desires of leaders of countires before the needs of the people that they are in office to help protect.?
Yet trying to rationalise what's happened from a peace roadmap author perspective, I struggle, of course,?there were of course better options than what has occured and has been occuring. There have been better choices for all sides since 2017. There was from then the first successful East and West negotiation that avoided a war, rather than build upon that the gains and benefits of that for all have been reduced in recent years due to an ineffective and very much incomplete conversation worldwide about peace roadmaps and the potential of leaders from the most diverse political systems in the world to be able to find and make enough of a path through to peace and maintaining a sense of balance and order in the world.?
Yet, trying to unravel this complexity of complexities and find a path through is incredibly difficult and yet I feel I have no choice other than to at least try as if nobody actually tries then there is no chance, no hope, no prospect of ever having peace again in Ukraine and that to me is the most unacceptable of scenarios.?
So someone has to make an effort, put in the hours, days, months, years of thinking into trying to find a way, any way to stop this war.I do this hampered only by the so called leaders that fail to acknolwedge my work. The reality is that on the basis of what my work and my work alone has doen there is nobody of the 20th century more deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize and the 500k that goes with that than myself. That is due to Korea;s, Syria, Iran, Indian and Pakistan and other scenarios too, yet if those judges only look to limited information in terms of peace making then they make themsleves more vulnerable too. Sweeden today has changed it's position from being a neutral country to being a country trying to court nato member ship due to it's population being scared of what they call 'Russian aggression', which is created due to the fact that there has been a non validation of the peace processes that Russia helped, which is due to the fact that there has been only biased media repoirting in peace processes. President Obama did put troops on the border of |Russia after an agreement between Reagan and Gorbachev had made that seemingly impossible.?
The reality is that it's my Integrated Peace Strategies that from 2017 provided some signficant aspects of the stability in the world for Sweeden and it's Noble Prize committee to be able to fund and award people and countires that in actual fact had little or no connection to what was really keeping the world at peace. So in actual fact the distraction, the?lack of looking at all the facts which is a part of the Nobel Peace Prize is not only perpetuating wars, it's actually directly obstructing the very peace processes that have helped keep the world functioning. The geopolitical implications of this are that Sweden has had to change it's natioanl policy away from peace keeping, from being a neutral country to being a country trying to join nato which in itself communicates a lack of faith in the capacity for peace making which is contrary to what's actually required today. There has to be much more faith put into peace making not less. Yet, I do understand the fear and concern of countries brodering Russia, and yet these countries themsleves need to spend some time thinking about the fact that Russia is the only country in modern history that was provided with a promise, no Nato countries past Germany and yet this is exactly what has happened since. How many of these countries fearful of Russia have actually said well hold on a moment the West has hardly been consistent in it's promise made towards Russia from the time of the 80's until now. So in actual fact if Sweden would have taken the line of the peace maker as a country and actually said wait a minute, Russia does have some justification to feeling like there could have been a plan to invade, based upon the thinking that the Nato troops on the border did not go there simply to have a picnic but to send a message to Russia. If Scandanavian countries would have said lets look not just at one of the countries and make a judgement, lets look at the whole situation and see this from both or all perspectives, then they would have been in a position where there would have been no concern for themselves as they would be helping bring to the open international conversation the issues that Russia has. It's the same analogy that I have used in peace processes previously that on the play ground the two that are the most protected are usually the strongest and the most popular. By Scandanavian countries simply telling the truth, by being open that there is more of a six of one and half a dozen of the other scenario playing out and that the whole situation shoucls be considered rather than simply picking sides, then there is a strengthening of the middle ground, the position from which to be able to mediate and negotiated and in fact the best way to have stability is to not be with one side or another in this situation but there to not be a conflcit in the first place.?
So the middle ground position, of simply acknowledging all perspectives in the current situation is the best situation. It puts leadership in all countries into a higher modality of thinking than simply policies of brutality and instead there are policies of improved reasoning, of seeing the situation as the problem mostly and not the actual people and sides within the situation. We have to have compassion for those that don't think like us. For those that are different in their ways of approaching situations. The truth is that the situation in terms of Russia and it's borders did not begin 100 or so days ago, it began in 1985 and the fact that what was said then and what was done ever since were different. In 1985 when the start of that way of thinking began their was a drought in one country in Africa, there is now a drought worldwide. We have to change our thinking to align to the changes of our time and the only way we are going to effectively get through either human interactions failing or human relationships with the planet failing is to do more listening, more relating, more considering of the difficulties others are in, whether they are leaders or people. Without doing that we are simply not qualified enough to live well much longer within the conditions of the world we are in today. We have got to do better.?
So the lack of relating to the needs of others is something that was normal throughout colonial times, in terms of the times we live today that is a recipe for collective collapse of all norms, we have to eithr leap forward be better and wiser than ever before or the conditions on which all of our thinking, all of our norms that we have are shaken potentially beyond repair.?
So the concept of rational thinking and discussion and the practice of taking up weapons to cause harm to the people of another territory in the world do not reconcile with each other at all in the world of today, although one may have followed the other so many times for the thousands of years previously. Today there has got to be a looking at all of the facts of a situation and looking at these within the context of what we actually really need to day in terms of 21st Century leadership capacities, abilities and needs.?
So if you are looking for a good way to stop this war, there is only one good way and that is for it just to stop, troops to return home and then resolve the diplomatic issues by talking based specifically upon maximum good will, with few demands and simply the acknowledgement that this was had been as much an exercise of harm to both countries as anything else, its almost been masachistic as anything to each and every participant within in and a vast swathe of the worlds entire population that are also affected by the implications of the war too.?
So anybody accused by their partner of being unfaithful, when they have been faithful eventually often results in therir partner playing that out and being more likly to be unfaithful. The war today has been created by a lack of leders of all countries being able to see and recognise the best qualities in the leaders of other countries. Scandanavia's best defence is not a alliance of guns it's aligning itself to a more neuanced truth than is widely recognised. Trying to go along with the line of with us or against us, failed erlier this century, we need to learn from the distant past and yet in such a fast moving world from the immediate past too.?
Whilst the actions of Russia in Ukraine are wrong and questionable in so many ways we can consider, this situation has been much longer in the making than any other war in the world for more than one hundred years. It's the non effective human relating that is the actual cause.?
It was obvious that if there was continually more and more and more pressure put onto Russia then there would have been a break eventually in the way in which Russia was going to act. The continual pressure put onto Russia going back to the former Yugoslavia situation has been a continual external psychological pressure put onto Russia by Nato. Nato has effectively 'projected an interpretation of Russia, onto Russia, that Russia has since the increase of this war played out onto Ukraine. What Russia has done to Ukraine is what Russia thought Nato planned to do to Russia. There has been a form of psychological torture put onto Russia for years, for decades. A temporary let up of that with the Trump administration and Russia diplomatically resolving between them many issues in the world, Russia helping cover the back of Western Allies when exiting both Syria and Afghanistan. Yet, whilst the West were prepared to lose billions if not trillions in terms of military equipment, just leaving it behind they were unable to acknowledge or say thank you to Russia. Two words could have done more for the stability and security of Europe than any amount of money could be spent or lost on weapons.?
Ukraine as a country today is in such a mess and yet whilst this has elements of civil war, it's also a proxy war in a way as I don't believe that the original issue starts and stops in Ukraine, the underlying issue is really about the relationship between Nato and Russia. So whilst Nato countries Presidents may all want the war to end. They need to realise that it's the collective action between them in not creating a better position in terms of a sense of security for Russia that keeps the pressure on Russia, and this is being responded to by the pressure Russia is putting onto Ukraine and the West through the war. Yet, whilst the Ukrainian troops may be retaking land, it's actually vital that the ground in terms of diplomatic potential to resolve this all, is actually mustered, created and presented and that is an issue that Ukraine is not in control of, it's Nato countries that are in control of this. So really what needs to happen is a change of policy by Nato to end this war is one, if not the best first steps that can be taken. We cannot depend upon their being a simple choce to end the war and figure out the diplomacy after, that although could happen, it would seem to be a loss of a bargaining postion, yet in actual fact that is not actually the case at all. A realisation that the war is not good for any country in the world, an acknowledgment of this and stating that the time has come for a new focus beyond any form of 'imperialism idea's' of any country could mark the first and most important landmark choice any world leader has ever taken.?
President Putin simply pulling his troops out and stating that he now believes in full cooperation with all countries in order to meet the collecitve economical crisis which will bring down the whole of humanity if ignorred any longer would create a completely different conversation, a conversation that the populations of a significant amount of countries in the world would evidently and obviously support. Whilst this could be percieved as a distraction, like in the scenario of the Western Allies pulling out of Afghanistan it would be clear both the USA and it's allies lost a war. Now Russia has lost a war, then after that if China was prepared to say no matter what maintaining peace for the people of Taiwan is priority so we will only talk on Taiwan. That then transfers the entire world population into a new postion. A place where the three biggest military powers have all lost in different ways to something that they with their 'imperialistic' thinking and ambitions of the past really specifically wanted. So we are in a world of Superpower losers, wouldn't that be liberating for all of humanity, for all of the people. All of us knowing that unrestrained ambition of any one country over other countries is actually a weakness of the thinking of the past.?
It's a type of last century thinking of a time where there were not 1/4 of the worlds population running out of fresh drinking water. There's no army in the world that can function without water, there is no civilisation that can remain civil either without water. There is no man in world strong enough to hold back even half a litre of water and that reminded comes each and every day. Water is what gives us strength and yet at times it's capacity is beyond our strength, water demands to be facotred into our lives each and every day we are on Earth. To not factor in the water needs of 1/4 of the worlds population well enough as we are too busy thinking about disagreement in terms of territory is a failure in understanding some of the very most fundamental aspects of what it really is to be human, to be a life form on this planet. What has to be considered is that man has not mastered water ever, neither has any other being. Water controls us, whether we know it or like that fact, it's a reminder that we need to factor into our reasoning external factors, life is not only about how any of us think, there is always so much more at play and therefore the 'addiction to dangerous mindsets of more land for our way of thinking, has to be put into the values system that works with the limits of the world and in terms of relations.??
So by the USA having the exit of Afgahanistan in fact created a step towards peace for the world, for Russia to take an exit on Ukraine creates a win for the world, for the USA and China to then at least re-frame relations with Taiwan to being vocal and diplomatic, no matter what the three biggest super powers in the world would have aligned themsleves for the first time in human history to the Universal needs of all mankind.?
The Universal needs of all mankind is the starting position of a good future in the world. Humanity has always tried to obtain winner over loser positions, and whilst that got us to where we are today, on the brink of losing everything if worst case scenarios play out. If ego is put to the side and President Putin announced that he is as much of a loser in Ukraine as The West has been in the war in Afgahnistan, no less, no more and yet his only demand is that Nato get off the case of his country for now and forever more and on the basis of that he is prepared to leave Ukraine, and yet will do that only if Zalensiky insists to the Parliament of Ukraine that the rights of all Russian speakers in Ukraine are protected now and forever more, then there could be a simple way out of this war. What has to be considered is that we are all pre-programmed like robots from television to think and beleive in terms of winning and losing. One being good the other being bad. Yet, in the case of a thing called reality, most if not all of the best successes that have ever occured happened through the correction of previous errors. So in other words to be a 'winner' in anything we have to be a loser in many things previously too and the difference between winning and losing is knowing when we need to change our postion. We don't need to chnage our postion always to cover up the errors of past mistakes, that's sort of how it is in politics, but not in reality. Everyone does actually make mistakes and errors and therefore that is something everyone can relate too. So therefore, there is more of an inner empathy in others when this occurs. When we see someone else lose, a part of us goes with that loss too, and yet if there is a much greater gain to be obatined and achieved for all, then these loses in history ternd to get put to the side. Whilst we saw twenty years of media headlines over the going into Afghanistan, there were not even twenty days of media analysing what went wrong. In the context of Ukraine, there is only media coverage of what's gone wrong for Russia and Ukraine and not enough on what could go right and how to potentially mediate and find a way out of this. The truth is there is no such thing as winning a war, the losses last for generations for both sides. There is only loss. Did anyone really win WW2? Yes, we won the peace for many years, that gave many people the chance to make their own choices in their own lives. It's the same today, stopping the war and reframing it within the fact that there is a need much greater than any terriotory in terms of country and that is the need for all countries to be able to work together is the higher need. Therefore, there could be a new paradigm created in terms of all global relations that aligns humanity towards the real greatest needs.?
The fires in California created by the weather patterns affected by the loss of forest in Canada, in Russia, in the Amazon. This is where we are a much more interdependent world than either Napoleon or Monty ever needed to consider. We are is a different world today, one where we are 12 to 18 months away from the most exciting and amazing famine the world has ever seen. Is it exciting and amazing to see our fellow inhabitants enmass dying through no food, no of course not, yet we live in a world that's so completely taken by the paradigm of thinking of?'the latest exciting thing, staying postive and not realistic with the most important issues, I thought there needs to be a few words that wake people up to the situation of the bread basket of the world failing, added of course by a bit more perfect storm input of the biggest drought in 500 years in Europe, and drought around the world, add in an extra bit of more land lost to fires than ever before, a few trade complications like ships lining up at harbours unable to deliver, the Suez canal drying up a bit more so another ship or two gets stranded, The Rhine less able to be navigated by supplies, etc, etc, etc, here we have the perfect storm of conditions to potentially go beyond simply fracturing the norms of 'the modern world' this century to effectively causing the break in a whole domino effect of systems.?
There has never been in human development a time more important than for the leaders, the principle decision makers in the world to actually realise that all 'conventional thinking' up until now requires a very sincere re-think.
This whole notion of increasing countries, contested land is a post collonial, fuedalistic hang over of a bygone era. I believe all countries have something in common. They are made up of rivers, mountains, deserts, forests, homes, places of work, places of leisure. If we make the concept of 'countries' a secondary consideration in terms of prioirty for a moment, just temporarily, long enough to be able to get foccussed on combined needs, combined resources, combined abilities then there is a way out of this ever evolving global natural disaster that occures each day. If we keep up the winners and losers paradigm in terms of conflict, then everything is lost to all.?
Walking away from a fight is the best form of defence at times other than running away in a world where the whole subject of fighting between countries is the single greatest issue that is jeopardising the future for all.
If the intention of all of this is to make Russia, America, France, the UK or anywhere great, as they were previously what's for certain is that without cooperation much better today none of these countries will be as great in the future as they were in the past. Without improved relations every country is in retreat, evey country becoming a bit more of a shadow of it's previous glory. We compete oursleves into weakness or cooperate oursleves into a place where all countries can become the best they have been.?Sometimes avoiding conflict is the only real choice there is. I know that myself and see that in the wider world with diplomacy. There are so many ways that the issues of territory can be described and explained by leaders and yet in reality all people want is for there not to be these issues, thes potential differences.
The balance of the world is vital for man and yet to obtain that requires a level of balance in the mind. In order to obtain that balance requires appreciating the fact that we today, each and everyone of us are facing questions, issues, challenges that no other set of people that have ever lived on this planet have had to cope with in the way in which we have to collectively as an entire species. There is no other way, we are all losers of stability or winners of a good future, and conflcits and wars have to become so very much of the side show to the vital need and capacity required for man to engage and participate in it's most essential mission ever. That mission is to find a way to get on better today than in the past.?
So we have to consider what's more important, famine in much of the world or the website of Nato. The position that Nato takes as an organisation? There is one very simple exercise that works every time in being able to detemine what really are the most important national and international security issues. Put your top advisors into a building to discus all the ins and outs of national and international security, put together all your allies and have them discus this in great detail on a continuous basis for a week with only enough water for one day. What you will find by the end of the week is that there is only one word on their minds water and that those of the most allied countries in the world would do anything for a drink of water. The type of behaviour that would play out is abundantly obvious, desperate times, desperate measures. Yet the current trajectroty is of that level of crisis not only in a room, but very much worldwide unless we reclaim the weather. The only way to reclaim the weather is by massive replanting of trees combined with reductions. Yet asside from this if Nato leaders did go even for a day without water, then they would very clearly see that the biggest threat to world security is not a country, it's a way of thinking. That way of thinking is that continuous expansion of any country in terms of territory is not possible as it disrupts the flow of thinking that enables geopolitics to finally grow up and think and act in the interests fully and properly of the universal interest of mankind with at least the very most basic of issues ie water and food.?
So in actual fact, whilst it can be considered that Russia is issolated, the truth is even having this type of conversation is wrong, Russia needs to be included as do all countries in a plan that works for all countries. The carrot and stick, pressure in this way or that way is creating in fact only ineffective discussion and conversations between too many countries to be able to create and generate enough goodwill in the world to be able to create and define a good viable future for any. With the largest water reserves in the world drying up or melting we are all in that room with ever dwindling water supplies and yet we are more interested in considering who what and why bits of paper are getting thrown around the room rather than actually committing to a viable plan to escape collectively from the conditions in the room.?
The easiest thing to blame on the world stage is not firstly any leader but a paradigm or paradigms of past thinking. Yet, it's updating that really is required, looking at peace making from a post VHS Video recorder type of mindset as before. The concept of this outward expansion into other countires. What Russia has done to Ukraine is as wrong as what could have happened had the troops on the border of Russia that were put there during the Obama administration have been given one single wrong order and that would have been to cross the border, so the truth is there are not just goodies and badies in all of this, it's complicated. Yet as the condidtions and circumstances that have led up to this can be traced back years, decades and hundreds of years as The Oliver Stone Film, Ukraine on Fire did, what's more urgent and important is simply to accept that the whole situation today is wrong and that we need out of this a right, a good situaiton to emerge. Even as a 'loser' in the war in 'Ukraine' Russia and in fact President Putin is potentially a winner in the whole situation if within the peace process there are measures in their that make it physically not possible for Nato countries to be able to invade Russia under any circumstances. Having that written into Nato, agreed by leaders of all countries within Nato would be a victory for peacemaking that provides both Ukraine and Russia with the sense of stability and security to be able to have productive, and real mutual interest conversations.?
There is a story of an angry big man on a train in Asia that is angry and shouting. he is scaring other passengers and they are all staying silent to avoid being involved in any way. A young child does not see so much the aggression, but the sadness behind what's causing the aggression. The child says to the man, you must be feeling very sad to have become so angry. The people on the train sit in silence unsure of how the man will react to this. The man says, 'well actually yes, I had some very bad news yesterday and I have not known how to actually cope, process or deal with that.' The whole mood on the train then went from people not wanting to understand, but to wanting to understand the problems and after that it was found that although the behviour of the man was wrong, there were reasons, underlying reasons for his behiviour. The truthis we tend to first see the external behaviour and consider that, yet there are reasons behind so many wrong actions. The concpet of there being a 'good intention behind every behaviour' is a concept in psychology. Whilst the whole way the events in Ukraine have played out is a tragedy of the highest order to see, in order to be able to get out of the scenario that this scenario can create, it's of vital importance that there is some effort put into, more effort put into there being potentially a viable outcome for all sides.??
What the short story above shows is that there was a reframe in thinking that occured by the child percieving differently the behaviour of the man on the train. In a way the rest of the passengers were locked into their immediate survivial mode of thinking, the stay out of the situation way of thinking, yet it was the 'state breaker' of a child being able to see at least partly, showing interest in understanding what had caused the events to occur on the train. In the context of today, we can guess at, surmise what exiactly has caused the chain of events that has led to the situation in Ukraine, we can also observe better than before the implications and the potential implications of what's actually occured and has been occuring.?
With all facts considered the world today is in a crisis situation that has been caused by many different circumstances, conditions and conversations, development patterns that have played out worldwide as a result of thinking of the past affecting today more so than is healthy for any country or any people in actual fact. The action, reaction, leading to action leading to more reaction has created a narowing of choices down to just two, more peace or more war. The second, is not what the world wants, needs nor in fact can cope with, not the human world.?
The limitations of the situation is that no one person is actually in control of the situation, it's all action and reaction based. Therefore, whilst there is a place to state red lines, there has got to be an appreciation that without enough 'generosity by each side to bring better scenarios as options their is effectively a narrowing of the path of hope out of this each day. The way to counteract that narrowing of choices, is to create resets of the situation, effectively re-frames. It's clearly evident that more anger, fear and negative emotions take away the chance to resolve this. The only way to be able to get beyond that is that there are brave steps taken in the way of both calling for peace and postioning for peace. I believe that Prime Minister Modi's line of reasoning that this is not 'the time for war' is correct.?If there was an near immediate end to the war, or even an immediate end to the war, then there would be a vast open space for there to be a full explanation as to why and how, the conditions that have created this situation and the more important consideration of why and how its feasible to progress from here. This problem in Ukraine is a shared problem by many and yet it's implications are those that affect everyone. So everyone is better off, no matter what with this war ended. The cycle of the West arming Ukraine is of course coming at a cost of human life on all sides that is more than if there was a ceasfire that holds and the first really fully serious talks that look properly and fully at answering and solving all issues.?
There has not been that effort made yet. There has not been the questioning of paradigms that went from 'action' to 'reaction' to action to reaction. Has Nato spoken with Russia to try and mediate? That I don't know. However, what I do know is that Russia's actions in Ukraine are caused mostly by the implications of Nato to Russia in the thinking of President Putin.?
What I know of the current situation is that much of the thinking on all sides will be similar if not a lot like the thinking of yesterday and recent weeks. It's this deadlock in thinking that I hope to be able to progress forward in some ways with the continuation of this document. There are in fact many ways to feasibly bring this war to a close however, what's also true to say is that there are only a limited amount of parites that can do that. If President Biden, President Putin, President Zelenski, President Xi want a peace roadmap written that is based specifically on the actual postions, needs, wants and requirments of both sides then that is possible. In that document there could be easy ways to resolve issues there could be issues that simply cannot be resolved, however at least then for the first time there is a legitimate process based upon having full data and information. Yet, the other way which is better is to realise that the war can be stopped as it is, from there there would be the greatest of goodwill gestures possible and that is that both President Putin and Zelensky are puting faith in each other enough to be able to navigate a way through that is reasonable for all sides. This leap of faith method of ending a war has never occured before in history, and yet in terms of the implications of this war as I have said before each day it continues affects the entuire world, so that would be the most selfless way of seeking to put an end to this.?
This would create the most reasonable of discussions afterwards, which in turn would then provide the best hope for the people of all sides to be able to have the best chance and potential for the fastest feasible recovery from the situation.?
The inescapable truth of all of this is that had there been more openness, honesty and truth about peace processes in recent years this war could have feasibly been stopped before it got anywhere as far in terms of how destructive it's been and continues to be. There is little sense or logic in the perpetuation of what is known to simply not be functional for humanity in any good way. That is this, this war is like a collective punishment to the whole of humanity caused by failures in logic, thinking and ethics in the past. This war is the greatrest challenge there is in the world to a normal future for any. This war ended in any way that frees man from the fear of a nuclear war, the greatest relief there can be. So ending this war either through a more rational and well reasoned peace process based upon much more data is one way. Ending this war based upon a leap of faith in a peace process between two leaders that simply put the future first in terms of their priorities is a way out of this for all.?
As far as I'm concerned the continual pressure of the Nato website caused by the non acknolwedgment of peace processes in the past that Russia and China and many other countries played vital and essential parts in is completely illogical. To the extent where it's almost possible to say that this is as much a war between Nato thinking and Russian thinking as it is between Russia and Ukraine.?Nato can reduce tensions in the world today simply by being more inclussive in it's acnowledgement of countries which have helped keep and improve peace amkign that are not Nato countries. Peace is held together by people that think differently and not always the same, as no two people really think the same, neither too do two countries.
I sincerely feel for the positon that President Zelensky, nothing could have prepared him for the choices and decisions that he has had to make as a result of this war. I also sincerely feel for the position of President Putin, he has had twenty years of Nato gathering closer and closer to his border when that choice was made in complete contrast to the promise made by President Reagan to President Gorbachev that Nato would not expland beyond Germany as a part of the deal that brought down the Iron curtain and therefore allowed for the creation of the EU, which Russia was not permitted to join. So no matter what, in this whole situaiton there is a myrad of complicated issues and in order to be able to find and track a feasible path through this the best option, perhaps the only way is to admit that yes we got it wrong in some ways too. By every leader taking a small measure of responsibility in the conditions that created this action, and reaciton war there is the chance and the real hope for building up the middle ground enough in order to put away the thoughts, the fears so many millions of people have by having a very clear escallation of a peace process.
We have the chance to a viable peace process due to the fact that we are able to see that it's possible. To have a perfect peace process is very far from possible, to have one that is good enough to provide a viable future for people is possible. What has to be considered though is that this document, this writing, this work is seeking to find 'an answer' to what is effectively the most dysfunctional of situations in the world today, there is no other reference even to the potential harm that can be done to all without their being peace. So whilst I have tried in every way I can, like in all my peace roadmap documents to find a way through that is genuine win-win in all ways, this is a possibilty here, yet an outright win and lose is as impossible as it is unproductive. It's better that there is some give on all sides and one of those sides in this is Nato, and really for Nato to acknowledge that it's been it's expanssion and none recognition of good diplomacy that is certainly a part of how this situation has got like it is today.?
The reality is that the Obama and Trump years were very different in terms of foreign policy, whilst the situation with the exit of Afghanistan was something both administrations were a part of. Trying to blame one administration over the other is nonsence, again it was the fact that 'the new science of peace roadmap' creating and writing was not discussed fully and openly either in Nato, in politics or in public. So if there is such reductionist logic in terms of understanding peace making, if there are the conversations about how this can and has been done then there is simple a void, a vacant space in the narratvie in politics in terms of what's been helping, contributing very signficantly to peace making. We need to be more interested in how we made peace in the past to be best able to make that peace today.???
Why this document had to be rushed to be finished.
The European Union recently made what could be the biggest mistake that any block of countries has ever made. It's trying to get the one principle country in the world that stands a chance of being able to mediate peace more onto one side in opposition to Russia than being neutral. What the EU has to be reminded of is that in times of war countries that are neutral are essential for people on all sides to have a chance. A country, the only country that has put so much into the concept of win-win peace making, that has obtained the best result of any country in the way of peacemaking, that successfully negotiated on behalf of the United Nations something that the United Nations could not have done alone, that enabled millions of tonnes of food to be released to the world through their negotiating ability should not be pressured out of that position.?
For the EU to firstly go to China and ask China to mediate peace, then for all European media to give so little coverage to the peace deal that Turkey obtained, and now to seek out a position that jeopardises the best chance, the best hope their is for a diplomatic end to this war is a wrong?position?for the EU to take to put it in the mildest way possible. Without the chance and hope for a mediated end to this war, what options are left. The EU depending upon the poor Ukrainians to fight and win. To expect Russia to not escallate this in response. What on Earth are the EU thinking? Are the EU now more about all or nothing, keep forget mediation and diplomacy lets just keep fighting, sanctioning. This whole miximum pressure nonsence is the paradigm of the delusional with too much power and not enough common sense.?The EU looking towards China as being a mediator and yet trying to pressure Turkey out of mediation is completely illogical. If China can mediate and help resolve this matter then, yes please and thank you very much for any progress made. However, Turkey has already got the best result o fany country so far in mediation, it would have been able to have achieved much more had Europe been or be more vocally in support of the peace process.?
What's clear is that the EU is desperate due to the economic and the fuel security issues, and yet that in itself is not justification for having lost faith in a peace process. The EU needs to remember that it was the mediation between Russia and Turkey, Israel and Syria that enabled the EU to get out from the biggest geopolitical challenge the EU has ever had. That was during the pulling out of Syria by the West. The vacuum that ensued was resolved by sensible diplomacy between these countries and the greatest beneficiary of their mediation was the EU. At the time many countries in the EU had very high pressured dmestic politics due to the issue of migration and yet Turkey, Russia, Israel helped prevent that chaotic situation getting worse and resolving the issues to a significant extent and therefore helping the EU countries to, with their different factions at the time find some level of calmer and more balanced politics.
Lets just remember that time. There were various factions in Germany either pro or anti imigration and that was affecting Angela Merkel. There was one welcoming policy of refugees in Spain and the opposite in Italy at the time. There were the former Eastern European countries out of kilter with the rest of the EU on the issue. There were issues in France, ie The Jungle, there were the issues linked with Brexit and issues in Scandanavian countries too. Had it not been for Turkey, Vice President Pence, Russia, and Israel at the time finding enough common ground the EU would have changed beyone recognition in In fact had the situation in Syria got worse in bringing countries into conflict the entire EU could have broken up at that time, had it not been for the mediation that occurred. So the EU has a very short memory of those that helped the EU so much at the time.?
So today, in my opinion Turkey should remind the EU that it was the wise diplomacy of Turkey that has in fact helped the EU more in the past ten years than almost any other country outside of the block.?So I say to the EU, respect the peace makers, don't criticise their position in terms of believing in the power of diplomacy and peace making , support this. The truth is that Russia cannot be pressured into a worse situation, without that worse situation again affecting people way beyond the shores of Russia. Whilst the EU may not be dependent upon the grain deal for keeping their cities, towns and villages stocked with food, many people and countries around the world are. So EU, please more respect towards peace makers if there is to be found a way out of this for each and everyone of us. All of which are affected in one way or another by this war. All benefit from increasingly more successful peace making. EU don't just give peace a chance, give it a platform and support.??
In order to obtain and acheive peace in the fastest and most effective way possible there can not be any undervaluing of peace processes. The European Union has more of an interest in peace in Europe than any other factor and countries such as Turkey, India and Israel that are on the side of peace making have got to be supported in that effort even if that is in contrast to the policies of other countries. The only possible good way out of this from here is for there to be three solid sides in this conflict and the only one that counts the most is the middle ground to peace making.?
Why there has been a delay in producing the rest of this document.
I have been profoundly concerned that there is a risk my writing could be getting too depended upon by leadership in one country or another and yet as I'm firstly not in a position to fully know, discus or expain potential options and choices. I'm very limited in what I can know or say specifically in terms of details and yet it's these that are required to be able to find middle ground, together with a willingness for peace building on both sides and many more sides that that too.??
I like to provide and consider best case scenarios and yet in a limited postion in terms of information I'm able to obtain, more of this document is based upon supposition and educated guess work than I'm happy with. I like to really know a subject before speaking and yet I have not had the level of opportunity I have had in order to be able to listen. Listen to the real facts, the full data. So I write this with the hope that those in a better postion than me to make sense of this do so with their better access to data, and yet hope that this in some way hopefuly contributes for them towards a path of viable peacemaking.?
I believe that all of the most serious of scenarios affecting the world are best resolved as incrimental processes, interplay between people and countries rather than by any singular decisions as I'm not directly involved in these processes, there are not clear ways through the myrad of many issues, their reactions, their counter reactions etc. It's as if humanity is stuck in a forest and the existing path we can see is only one or two steps in front. There can be a path through for all of these situations and yet it's one choice, one decision at a time, and then the reactions to that themsleves can be so many. All I can say is though what helps the most is to blame the situation, more so than the people. So much of what happens in the world that is negative is due to reaction upon reaction that usually first began by people other than the people that are actually in conflict with each other. In therapy they say that there is a positive intention behind every action. That's a big idea to take on board, however if there really is some truth to it then this does in some ways put leaders that on the face of it are in opposite positions signficantly into similar positions.?
Both President Putin and President Zelensky are leaders that want to do their job well, they want to serve their people, they want to protect the interests of their people and their countries. They have found themsleves on opposite sides and yet in fact like the leaders of all countries and I mean all countries they actually have much more in common with their counterpart than they do with most other people in the world. More in common than with many of the people that they would consider closest to them. They have both got to their positions by being good, very good at what they did in government. If they can see both differences and similarities with equal balance, then there is much for them to be able to talk about and the differences between their countires is only one conversation of many that they could under other circumstances be having. They did put the differences to the side and did produce a grain deal and that is something that the world is so appreciative of, ie the people of the world, even if some other leaders have not fully taken on board just how much the difference between having food and not having food matters to many people, to everyone.?
So there is the potential for the leaders of any countries to be able to talk about common themes between them and yet sometimes having signposts, potential logic spelt out that is non biased to any particular loyalty other than peace making for all, also can hopefully contrinute towards better outcomes, better clearer thinking. There will be some that read this document that take a very different view on anything or possibly everything within it. However, in the context of such serious issues, it's better to have more opinion, even if its countrary to some existing thinking rather than to have simplistic percpetions.?
Every thought written down almost anywhere is incomplete as it can always be added too. Each thought is therefore incomplete and yet contributes meaningfully towards ever more complete lines of reasoning and thinking. This is due to the fact that every thought is as much a conclussion as a seed towards the next better thought. So with the intention of increasing the intellegence in terms of the thinking and reasoning towards peacemaking I provide all the content in this document.
A book or a docuement equates to the borrowing of a percpetion, a contrbution towards examoning the dusty corners of thinking that may otherwise have not been readily considered. We thrive via better context, clear thinking, we add, we build onto this. In this way I do hope to offer some first steps that I hope are improved upon. I hope they open up channels of thinking to people and leaders to be able to consider, do you know what? There is a way out of this. There is a way we can get through. Yes, it could require throwing out the 20th century rule book of how to end wars, and yet peace is in itslef sacred and that is the reward for having the determination to think harder and better than ever before previously in order to meet and match the issues of today and to produce from all of this geopolitical messiness a way forwards for all.??
The recent posts I have made have had the theme of me being directly involved in the peace process via talking, negotiation or diplomacy. I have been waiting and hoping that my participation and involvement that could feasibly affect a more positive outcome to this would occure and yet there is no call, no support no endorsement for this scenario and yet I believe based upon the fact I have produced more effective peace roadmap strategies to the issues of the most complicated of issues in the world for the past ten years that there would be a voice of endorsement and reason out their somewhere that knows this and therefore enables me to be able to do what I do best. My work finds the way to peace, middle ground, yet that is only possible if leadership on all sides want that middle ground to be found. If they do then that is the new territory that needs to be properly and fully explored. So I can do only what I can with the information and the levels of help and support I have and at them moment that's nowhere near enough. There are dozens more pages to this, however I don't have the resources to complete this and yet hope that some or any of the insights here can help find better answers to where things are today. Increase the capacity of the middleground for mediation to be better more complete is the best answer I have.?
If collectively we don't have more effort put into middle ground mediation, more resoruces put into being able to try to find answers to issues that are ongoing then the chances of finding good ways through are very much limited. To create the best chances for diplomacy by one side or another requires people able to think in terms of both sides at once. The limited thinking of previous centuries has been only from an us and them perspecitive and yet the issues of today increasingly require being able to go across borders in our own thinking to being able to see better and clearer from the perspecitve of other people, other leaders and in terms of media we are all leaders in our own small ways.
This document is not complete, and I hope that by the time more is published there is more resource help for being abel to produce this work. In a sentance, direct involvement in mediation is the best chance for the fastest end to the war in Ukraine.