Integrated strategy for peace, diplomacy Russia & Ukraine (Part 13)

The Russian and the rest of the worlds scientific community cannot cooperate any more on the melting of permafrost due to the war in Ukraine. What this means is that the most important data on the increase of climate change is being litterally stopped by the war.?

And so this is Christmas, we do need to accept that some governments have not done nothing to protect the worlds winter wonderland.?With temperatures last year achieved by Canada higher than human beings can live within, soon the North Pole will be dreaming of a white Christmas?unless very good action is taken now to avert disaster.?

The limited economics thinking of Conservatives bypasses the greatest economic trend in one hundred years which is towards a collaborative economy. Is it becoming increasingly the case where the Torys are the party of the Blue chip economy and the Greens are the party of the collaborative economy simply due to the fact that the other parties are economically dyslexic when it comes to the fact that people working together can help each other, seemingly it's only the greens that really appreciate this.?The notion of more austerity measures, reducing services to cover the furlough costs of business is a chronic betrayal in the making for the wellbeing of the UK. they keep putting into office clueless bureaucrats that have no concept of the idea that if they take money from services they take away the spending capacity of a very substantial sector of society and that creates more recession. The inflexibility to even have an informed discussion about this anywhere in Uk politics is pushing the country into a completely unchartered place. In terms of effective resource management and planning the Tories are utterly hopeless, clueless. Dangerously incompetent for the welfare of the country. I have travelled the world and the UK is the most clearly evident example of a post capitalist country. The rules for everything are strangling the people and the countries potential.

What could that action look like??

1. Collaborative?economy, worth $3.4 trillion in investment from one source alone, crowd funding, that's the same as the UK's GDP. That adapted properly can very easily meet the mere 40 billion hole in the Uk economy. This prospect is ignored 100% by the government and has been since the time that crowd funding was worth zero right up until the time it was worth $3.4 trillion.?

?2. Tell the truth on peace roadmaps. That can help end the war in Ukraine.

3 Fund peace organisations not war machines. The only reason that there is even the consideration of funding more war is due to the fact there are complete lies about peacemaking of the past.

4.?There is no defence against?no water, every water source is drying up due to non-effective action in linking diplomacy, drought, famine, peacemaking in the West more so than the East.?

The world is in the midst of an emergency that was prevented in 2017 by the use of integrated strategy work, this is the content of the files at Mar A Largo relating to the peace process between the USA, North and South Korea.

Most countries of the world want?and need peace to be able to deal with the cost of living crisis. The only way to be able to answer this issue globally is by answering climate, famine, drought simultaneously. The only reason that has not happened is in the words of Daivd Cameron. 'We are all in it together'.??

An extraordinary achievement?of governments simply not being able to lead by using ways to answer issues in the same way that inventors always have.?

Every problem throughout mans development solved by pioneering new thinking by one or two and then the rest of the people following the better way of thinking when presented and demonstrated. 10th Monkey Syndrome etc. That's how it's always been for everything almost until the biggest issue of all climate. It did though happen with peace making from 2017 onwards, until 2021, yet stopped as like with climate the press could only accept the notion that it's 'governments that are the ones that come up with the answers. Yet, no government invented the horse and cart, the car, the space rocket, the video recorder, the fact, electricity or the internet. These were all invented by one or two people, then added ontoo by others and then others and replicated and improved upon so why are we trying to find the answer for climate on a global level in another way.??

No, no, no we are just going to have to sit in the dark for half the time each day, until governments have discovered how they all in their own ways can invent electricity. Someone may think, well electricity has already been invented, yes very true, yet so too an answer of how to answer climate. Whilst the answer to electricity just appeared by magic, the answer to climate did not. It had to go through governments that then said this is interesting we will do this like this, effectively trying to reinvent the wheel in the context of their own agenda which was not solving the climate issues at all, just helping only their cronies. That is where climate action and the collaborative economy has been for 30 years. More people calling for more action, more action held back by the incoherent consideration of how best to align the incredible human intellect to the challence coherently, collectively.

The first thesis presentation attempt was made to Margaret Thatcher's government twice. The answer then was 'there is no such thing as society' said publicly, the other answer via a local councilor was if it's a scheme for environment?and community the Conservatives are not going to like either.?From the first months of the first term original work was copied, passed to Labour under Brown, passed to Cameron and Johnson to try and consider this all more Tory or more Labour inequality is wrong. Inequality ie work without pay, work without rights work without free press, feels exactly the same whichever side of the political spectrum is doing this.?

As we enter into the worst recession since the trading of salt unless there is effective peace making, the answers that can be structured?with the community helping the community, the people the people?on a local level are still very few and far between.?

The pandemic was survived by the community looking after and helping each other, that too is the basis of a climate answer, yet rather than having lock downs, there are open-ups. I have materials, I have ideas, I have finance, I networking ability that's the ingredients for more than one hundred million concepts that can reduce fossil fuel use by the adaption of business. Helped along by communications systems between inter-governmental organisations, by governments, universities etc. The trickle down approach to we have all the answers, no we don't therefore?cuts to services is archaic in thinking, pre internet, pre network, pre pandemic solved by enlightened self and mutual interest combining??

In order to be able to encourage a culture of business?adapting more beyond a me paradigm to a we paradigm there needs to be a very close relationship between government and business that goes far beyond cronyism of recent years, in fact is the complete opposite of cronyism, where those in office help only themselves and others, there needs to be a universalism where deals are made, choices occurring?that align all at once to local, national and international interests.?

The concept of helping just a few friends at the loss to the actual country and the world is a travesty that has occurred in politics on a continual level for decades. The me ness or politics is a meaness that will be short lived if continued much more.?

There has to be and there is a vast conceptual infrastructure to be able to help business and governments change track onto a path to sustainability that's feasible and a part of that is the peace roadmaps, that there have already been. That were successful.?the rise of the Integrated peace strategy combined with the social infrastructure that aligns?to the greatest shift in economic perpetuations for one hundred years, ie the collaborative economy, ie crowd funding and microfinance, if adapted within systems of governments in countries that are more social orientated than they have been throughout the development of capitalism or socialism, these factors combined together can help generate?the latent capacity hiding just below the surface in solving climate, by solving wars, solving this by solving famine, by solving drought in integrated thinking and action systems. One good action feeding into that system perpetuating three more that then perpetuate thirty more.?

A country, company, community working together in a way in which there is win-win occurring?on multiples of levels at once. an ecosystem of thinking, resources and action to prop up the world's?ecosystem.?

Would there be such a thing as climate change if there were 100 times the tree and plant cover than there is today in the world? The answer to this question is very simple, I don't know, neither does anyone else.

?Yet, there is not the land available to plant 100 times more trees and plants? Well there is plenty of space in some countries for many more trees and plants, there are plenty of people that could be part of this new global industry of massive tree planting, what's?missing from this is the funding.?

Trees affect climate we know this if we go to Tenerife on holiday The South of the Island as like a desert, not a cloud in the sky, the island La Gomera, a forested island a few miles away has almost continuous rain. God, the world, the Universe, Providence, good fortune, serendipity?has blessed up with the perfect example to demonstrate and to prove just how much power man can have over the climate. Oh the climate issue, it's all so big, what can I do? Well,?if you and your small rural village of people find a desert island and plant trees there all day eveyday, by the time fifty years have passed you will have changed the climate there, you and twenty other people. You will have created rain, by creating clouds, that were created by trees, look to the rainforest for confirmation of this, the clouds in the forest present the optimal, the healthiest climate there is in the world, for the world.??

However, if you go the same way as the cave drawings in the Sahara, supported by the fossils?there of showing trees and rich forest in what was once The Sahara Rainforest. What you find is that deforestation combined with the grazing of some animals which ate the roots of the plants, thus preventing them from growing back again created the desert. The Amazon Desert has been littered with trees for centuries and thus it's not possible to perceive that all that is required to take that land back to desert is to deforest.?

The Amazon Desert and The Sahara Rainforest are one in the same if there is man's?intervention in either a positive or negative way in either. We have proven that rainforests can be recreated, we have proven that deserts can be created from Rainforest. We can and should be taking control of the vital natural resources and transferring the harmful activities of the rainforest climatically to the beneficial activities of the desert. What the essential requirement is to do that is we need people to plant trees, we need intermediate technology, soil knowledge?and we need finance. If mankind nurtures nature in one way, we get desert, in another?way we get forest. We are all deserting our positions of power and capacity in the world by thinking, it's someone else's job to regenerate.?

Whilst Christianity is based upon the books of the Bible. The messages of then in that book have more than 100 references relating to the importance of protecting?and nurturing the soil, looking after people and animals. The good news ia that the message of the Good News is more relevant than the message of the Dailly News so often, which only provides perspective mostly what's going wrong, rather?than what can go better and how..

So the story of the New Testament?is of a man that gave his life to save others, to save all of humanity. We hear of the theme of tithing, a portion of trade going to those in need. The idea of tithing?going to governments, to the Romans in those days to perpetuate The Roman Empire is historically where things were then more or less 1990 years ago. The resources going one way into government. A form of centralisation of resources, where government used this for the administration of the land, resources and people.?

To say that the notion that governments are the organisations considered the most important in answering the infrastructural issues in our lives is very well established is an under statement. It's a thousands of years old idea and practice.?The whole issue of climate though turns that long established principle of how human civilisations work into something else. The truth is no matter how or what governments do alone, they alone cannot solve the issue of climate. It's way too complicated for that there has to be a multi-layered?approach so that governments, councils, people, organisations in this take the central position and yet that central position is only capacitated?enough if trade, and communities, and individuals and groups work effectively to capacitize?that process enough and do so fast enough.?

By now anyone thinking that this is a peace roadmap, what's that got to do with climate the answer is that in the last century climate had not much seemingly to do with war, this century climate and war are inseparable. The most destructive action possible for the environment?is war, whichever side started it and for whatever reasons. A war pushes the climate can so far down the road that what was once a can became a can not.

War is created by the thinking that neither people, forests, rivers, fields and sky matter as much as the notions and ambitions of one or two people. War is the most extreme version of meism, over the universalism requirements?of today. I added the ism as that sounds more normal when considering the accepted formats of political thought.

President Putin and President Zelenskyy are unable?to agree, therefore there is an unagreeable situation for everyone else on the planet. To cite that either one in this situation is completely right and the other completely wrong is something I have explored very?in earlier aspects of this document.??

In my opinion not either of them is working as much as they can to try and find a way to end this war at it's soonest. Yet, the result?of this war is already very predictable either Ukraine or Russia obtains a win and that comes at the cost of the rest of the world, every other country in the world having a permanent?loss. This is due to the time lost, every second counts in being able to not only talk about but instigate a plan that works for all given the entirety?of the complexity, the vastness of the issue and the so many multiples of factors that are implicated. What's the most annoying thing about this situation is that seemingly neither President Putin nor President Zelensky even seemingly dislike each other that much that they cannot possibly mediate. I have not heard even one statement made by either of them where they have said that the other man is actually more correct that they are over any one issue that has perpetuated this war. What the problem is that both leaders are stuck in 20th century thinking with this. Ie all that matters is 'national interest thinking first'. There is a risk that President Putin is making the same error that Boris Johnson made, reverting back to the thinking of previous leaders, yet when the previous leaders were in fact in conditions and situations that are entirely different from those of today.?

Yet, world diplomacy has reached a new low also when a world leader threatened to slap President Putin firstly that would take the concept of being able to talk to a new low. Secondly, it has to be said?that President Putin is a judo expert and thirdly?if we cannot become more dignified in the way in which the most complicated issues in the world are answered, then standards are going to slip. Whilst we had never seen a punch up in a Parliament until recent years, this then continued. We should look to the example of the Roger Bannister and the running of the four minute mile. From the year dot until 1954 there had never been anyone in the world that was recorded to have been able to run one mile in four minutes. Roger Bannister broke that record in 1954 and since then 1,497 people have broken the four minute mile since. Before Bannister?broke that record, it was widely considered to be impossible to run one mile in four minutes.

Today the record stands at 3.43. This was achieved by Hicham El Guerrouj of Morrocco.?However, after breaking the four minute mile Sir Roger Bannister became a neurologist and wrote extensively?on the subject on the physiology of exercise. It's clearly evident to see that human capacity and ability are perpetuated by belief and also by templates. Roger Bannister making the four minute mile a possible reality for him, advanced all human potential forward by proving in practice that whatever the human mind perceives and believes?it can achieve. By one person achieving the extraordinary there is the chance, a new prospect that opens up for all of humanity. We as a human race together can either race to the top or race to the bottom very easily indeed whilst living on a planet where the lifes systems are falling away from the control of?any of us unless we learn to work better as an organism, being like swifts all changing direction all at once, being like fish in the sea that form a big unit in order to appear and to be bigger than we are. Of course we can together break the four minute mile in restoring?the planet, if we do not have any leaders slowing us all down. Human bees setting up hives to help the planet, human ants connecting our systems to a power grid that help the planet cope better with us. Human performance?the best and to the worst is something that we only have snippets of evidence about. We don't know it all, we have only hints at just how smart we can become simply by factoring in the universal interest of others more into our actions.?

'Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the Universe. 'Albert Einstein.

Einstein was one of the most vocal peace activists of the 20th Century and yet his work was frustrated by power politics of the time. He described himself as an absolute pacifist. He wrote;

'Man is at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. …Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting strivings account for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can contribute to the well-being of society.'?

Einsteins thinking of thinking of then links to my thinking of today in terms of how there can be systems of thinking, systems of infrastructure, systems of communication that can enable the social being aspect of people to over ride, to counteract to compensate for the losses of the world that are occurring?due mostly to solitary ambition. What was solitary ambition in the 20th century was not as detectable last century as being evidently contrasting to the needs of all in the 21st Century, the solitary ambitions of individuals combined in improved ways can produce the quantities of cooperation required in order to transform so much of what's wrong into being so much better if given a chance. If there is the chance to be able to put to the side this issue of war in Ukraine somehow, exactly how I do not know, yet if that can be obtained then the systems of thinking and action required can take for the first time a central position?in the narrative of the world. The climate issue is complicated and yet an answer can be of equal match or more if we put our thinking, actions, resources together in new?ways. Ways that were unimagined in the 20th Century by most did actually occur for the first time with peace in the Korea's in 2017. Where man is going wrong the most in the world today is that our successes are not etched permanently?into marble of our conscious awareness and yet our failures are programmed into the television news consciousness each and every day.?If all you knew of people and politics was what you saw on the tv each night, if that was your sole understanding of what humanity consists of. If that is all that some extra terrestrial race can obtain from our terrestrial media signals the other side of the world then they would consider that the human race is mostly stupid, evil and mad.?We would appear to them to fighting each other over tiny bits of land whilst the world we are all living on is in conflict to us over our capacity to even exist in the world.?They would look at how rivers are drying up and consider well water that's not very important?to man, they don't seemingly even care if all of that resource is lost. They would believe that we are hopeless at building structures as the buildings we build can't even stand up to the weather. They would likely perceive?us as being a planet ripe for a take over as we simply produce more and more evidence that collectively we don't know what we are doing. If a restaurant?was run as chaotically as Planet Earth is run, it would be out of business.

Why we cannot organise oursleves better in the context of 21st century requirements not in terms of 20th Century repeats?of mistakes is so very much to do with how recent history has been incorrectly interpreted. The edging towards having the right conversations due to the overtly obvious manifestation of a climate out of control and yet the truth of what to do about this together, bypassed in favor of the continual over riding belief?that if we think today like we thought yesterday then everything will be okay when in fact all evidence suggests it won't be. We do need to adjust our thinking and priorities and consider that for a moment there are only 100 problems in the world and they are mostly repeats?of other problems. One of the biggest of those comes from the delusion in leadership that it's possible to solve issues via fighting better than by talking. There is a red line, and that red line goes from The South Pole to the North Pole and the name of that red line is The Climate Emergency. Leaders of countries can create as many or as few red lines as they want in terms of squabbling over countries, yet as the years and decades play out the leaders that did not fully wake up and realise fast enough that the world was in an emergency situation and the amount of capacity required to answer that had to include faster and better ways for diplomacy to work.?

So,?the truth is that in 2017 there was a massive change in peace making between capitalist and communist, West East countries, it happened, yet slipped through being?known of fully and considered. The implications of that have put the world where it is today into a famine emergency that is part of a drought emergency that is a part of a war emergency which is a part of possibly other potential?war emergencies that is within a global climate emergency that affects 8 billions people to day and all those ever born in future if not properly and fully answered properly and fully. Whilst the emphasis is mostly on two leaders to help fund a way out of this, there are many other leaders that know something or more about this.?

So there is a vitally important need for the first time ever in world history for their to be a retrospective re consideration of the events that happened worldwide from 2017 until now in the context of peace processes. If there is not that, then there is a massive chance that the entire human race is doomed to very much worse geopolitics than are actually required to be able to answer the level of inter- connected issues that there are today.??

If anything is going to work, then it has to be win-win. Win-win today requires being fully knowledgeable about what was win-win previously, how and why it worked. By understanding that there is then the chance to be able to see enough perspectives from different countries leadership perspective?in the recent past to be able to get relations back towards being better again. Where we are today, there is not actually a choice, we like to consider that we live in a world of choice, and yet that has been and is maintained only by the fact that the super powers of the world have gotten on well enough in the past to keep things stable enough for there to be such a thing as a world economy. Whilst there is no guarentee that any one army can defeat another what there is complete certainty of is the fact that the worlds economy can be ruined for ever by many different armies and if that happened then effectively every country is in so many ways defeated all at once. We are in a place where we need to be having leaders that are drawing upon the wisdom of the Roger Bannisters of the world that advanced all together not the despots and tyrants of last century with their over inflated sense of the purpose of their country over the requirements of every other country. Effectively?we need to be able to make every country great again, or every country will simply fail more and more. Relations affected, by simply leaders beign not flexible enough in their thinking between each other.??

Changing the culture from win-lose is a massive paradigm shift in a world that for 5000 years has been in a win-lose paradigm mostly, and yet where the continuation of that takes us into the next 5 years is lose-lose for everyone.?

The entire premise that brought the Vikings to the UK and France, the Angles to England, the Portugues to the USA, the Spanish to South America, The French to Algeria, the Romans to the border to Scotland is about as relevant to the healthy interests of any of these countries today as dodo counting competitions are in Zoology. We are in another age, it's either align to cooperate more or exterminate and the extermin8 is for all of us as time is running out.?

We have the greatest technologies, information age, capacities and abilities and it's all worth net zero unless we factor in climate to everything. factor in climate to diplomacy, factor in climate to economics, factor in climate to social and government relationships and to all inter-governmental relationships. The war between Russi and Ukraine is actually much more than that, it's a conflict between a 20th Century paradigm of thinking and a 21st century paradigm requirement.?President Zelenskyy and President Putin are opposite sides when perceived from a 20th Century perspective of win-lose, yet from a required 21st century perspecitve they are both on exactly the same side. The disruption of global relations, the putting of the national interest before the Universal global interest. How they got to be in this position however, is everything other than the fault of either one of them when all facts are considered. Ie President Putin wanted to unite and work with other countries as did his predecessors as Presidents of Russia. In 20th Century thinking the requests made to want to participate, to cooperate were left unanswered, effectively ignored, as too were the peace processes that Russia played such an important part within. Yet, where we are today, the not seeing the good in the actions of many countries has caused loss of standing in the minds of the leaders of various countries and that has caused the ego to be hurt. To be a leader of a country requires great abilities and yet when good actions are taken and these are not perceived that's the world effectively undermining the core belief system a leader has, so of course they are going to respond to that. This is where we got into the tit for tat that has put us into the position we are in today. The war in Ukraine is the result of there not having been allowed a narrative of the I'm ok, you're ok paradigm to have bene able to have got through into the psyche of people, of leaders Internationally for not only years, but of decades and then when there were advancements in relations that we from a win-win perspective these were incorrectly interpreted in the media and politics of being of a win-lose dynamic, rather than the true win-win dynamic that they in actual fact, with all facts considered most certainly were.?

We are racing against time to be able to moderate global diplomacy and that is the most critical of issues.??

The actions, the brave actions taken today in the name of leadership and climate together are the actions that in future will be seen as the most important, the most required, the most no other choice in fact actually with all the best wisdom of today considered.?Whilst a war, win or lose was the focus of so many civilisations that went before us, the biggest issue today the conversation is infinitely more broad, how is the conquest or the attempted conquest or brave defence of your own notable civilisation costing every other civilisation in terms of the delays wise leadership? Ukraine, Russia, yes great countries, yes the people of each country are very special, yes so too is the culture, the nature, the wonder of both countries. Yes, that's all so important and yet the attempted domination of one country over the other is coming at a cost way too high for the whole of humanity to be able to cope with and continue to live well or even relatively well in the world as it is today.??

Yes of course your civilisation is special you have your own language, your own words, your own thinking, your own costumes, your own dances, your own history, your own ways to deal with success and fortune, your own ways to deal with loss, sadness and failures. Yes, celebrate your flag, your culture, your people, your own sense of place and purpose with where you are from, yet don't let the value your place on country affect you perception of just how many other things there are also to be appreciated, valued and protected in this world.?

?Yes, every civilisation that has survived the trials of time has it's fair share of successes and failures. The Incas, the biggest empire in the world defeated by a virus, thirty Spanish, an empire so much bigger than the Roman Empire which was defeated by a pandemic, and the disparity of rights between citizens and slaves combined with over expansion.?

What is the biggest lesson of the 20th Century? The biggest loss of life was not a war but pandemic. WW1?though spread that pandemic at an exponential rate. So in fact the war added content that produced a perfect storm of destruction the wars got remembered much better than what was called Spanish Flu, yet originated in the USA at the time of parades of men leaving to join the war in Europe. What this shows is that no matter how bad the choices of man can be, the choices that are the worst if influenced and affected by natures phenomenon can massively extrapolate a crisis, make it multipronged and that can take down up to 1/3 of the entire planets human population and this not only occurred, it did so in the living memory of many of our parents and grandparents. Man making bad choices for the 100%, people and planet in one part of the world can have implications for the entire worlds population and this is not new, this happened exactly 100 years ago. Imagine 1/3 of all the people on the planet leaving the world. Of course man wanted to think and remember the wars and not this, the wars had a human cause and effect. This meant we had at least some sort of control over the outcome. Yet for a pandemic, there was no control this was nature dictating to us in a way that no leader can do or will ever do. We human people have a tendency to dismiss and write out of history anything that affects us the most where there is not some element of human control that came into play. Yes, WW2 massive loss, massive tragedy, should never have happened did happen as we were collectively not wise enough with peace processes in those days and before. Was it avoidable? Debatably yes. Yet, what needs to be considered is the very fact that the representation of WW2 and WW1 in our minds is just so much greater than the pandemic and yet the pandemic was so much more costly to human life than both of those wars combined. So therefore, there is a natural propensity within human beings to want to define both the past and the future in a way that presents the notion, that we had some sort of control, some sort of power over the situation, it was all about a person or people going 'rogue' not the fact that the Earth burped with a pandemic and caused the loss of one in every three people in the entire world.

The fact we write in the human control aspect as being the big chief issue, is ok, or it was ok in the 20th Century. It helped us use this as a way to navigate the narrative of human ability and that all fitted in with the talking up of our great achievements and consumerism, and the human happiness machine paradigm that Edward Bernays bestowed upon us, inherited and edited a bit from his Uncle Sigmond Freud's work that realigned the human brain circuitry to prove time and time again that large groups of free flowing seemingly independent thinking people can be manipulated into thinking how the organism thinks and this can be done in a way that is negative. Yes, if I buy this new outfit I will be happy, next day I would like to buy a new outfit to make me happy. The same type of thinking that aligned whole countries into believing that the only way to restore 'our sense of respect and national identity' is to go and have a war, a false flag covering the justification of an invasion and an entire multitude of other errors that made 20th Century man potentially much more naive than 21st Century mankind.?

That is only though if 21st century man is brave enough to do a bit of self and collective soul searching and reflection on 20th Century man and think, hold on we are not going to make those same mistakes again, oh no we have wised up enough to think in a better way. Yet, for that to happen when leaders themselves are so pre-programmed with the ideas and ideals of leaders including despot leaders that got into power on the back of crisis.?

Lets use the Khmer Rogue as the first example. They got into power in Cambodia and created the most authoritarian murderous regime, where children would report on their parents and vice versa. Where people were murdered due to the fact that they wore glasses which meant they were intellectual and read too many books and therefore a threat to the regime. The identification marks for one of those 'dangerous spectacle wearers' was a small mark on the side of the nose that identified them as a secret spectacle wearer even if they denied the fact. The wearing of glasses in their paradigm of thinking deserved the death penalty. The killing fields of Cambodia, created by a political regime that got into power after the bombing of Cambodia. When people are in a state of fear, they act in ways they never ever would previously consider. Cambodia today is a very different country to the country it was in the 1970's. The country needs healing and help. It needs a new vision, it needs regional stability that can only be obtained by further reaching peace deals. The future of Cambodia lies in the capacity for mediation between all nearby countries that are currently in a position of difficulty. The idea that one country gets pulled into the crisis in another country is simply wrong ,it's got to be avoidable in the world of today, even if this was not a part of the world of the last century. That certainly is possible via win-win peace making agreements. The country of Cambodia has been through trauma, the country of Vietnam has been too and so too the Korea's to propoerly solve the issues of one country is best done by resolving the issues of all countries..?

Example two is the example I have cited previously where The bad peace agreement after WW1 between the Allied and Germany was predicted in 1920's Downing Street to produce a crisis just a few years on in the way of an 'oppressed German population' looking for scape goats within their own population rather than actually looking at the truth of that situation then, which was the fact that the people had felt they had been massively underappreciated due to a peace agreement based upon the loss of WW1.??

Today, despite all of the words in peace documents we find ourselves in exactly the same place. We have to learn from history and guess what, we didn't the under valuing, the lack of consideration made towards peace agreements in 2017 has put us back to a very similar place as we were in the 1930's. A war justified due to the fact that there was not a fair representation of leadership to ensure balance could be maintained.?

The public get chapter 5 logic in the media. IE Chapter 1. The economy is shot to pieces we are all going to be huddled around a candle to keep warm and eating the cheapest food each day as there is no money left and we are going into recession. That paradigm is based upon Chapter 4 logic. That paradigm is that Ukraine takes another city, Ukraine is winning against Russia. Yet that is based upon Chapter 3 logic. Russia has been and is a very bad country for invading Ukraine. That is derived from Chapter 2 logic that Russia did this due to the fact that?1. Russia thought it was going to be invaded. How ridiculously paranoid that sounds, however the last days of President Obama saw troops from many Nato countries on the border. of Russia, they were there for a picnic. No, they were there as a show of force from the West that the West today could do to Russia the same as what happened previously which was well within the living memory of many people in that region and that was what Hitler called Operation Barbarossa. The troops on the border there was a national trauma relived in the minds of the people of Russia, whilst the world news moved on. How would Russians have reacted to invasion, in the same way that Ukraine is today.?

The events that took place after the penultimate gathering of troops on the border of Russia resulted in there being the most bloody and horrific chapter in Russian history where cities such as Leningrad were for the best part under siege and the population left starving. So it's as insensitive to Russians to have large troop build ups on the border of their county as it would be for there to be line ups of nuclear weapons on the border of Mexico to the USA or as difficult to emotionally reconcile n a population, as so too would be having thousands of French having annual celebrations in Hastings.?

The truth is that President Obama, a good President in so many ways for the USA. True believer in US democracy created a scenario that was and is just too much for the people of Russia to accept and to live with. He created a modern day operation Barbarossa memory revisitation on the border of Russia. Whilst to say that that action then caused this action today would actually be an exaggeration, the non correct representation of peace roadmaps from 2017 are as much a part of what's created the sense of injustice in leadership, the not allowing of Russia to be a part of Nato another, the EU simply citing that Russia is too big to join the EU. Whilst that may have been true there was no other suggestion made of how and where an allied to Europe Russia could be. Whilst the relationship between President Putin and Angela Merkel has been glue that kept relations cordial enough for all of Europe, her retirement could also be a factor. The actual choice that President Putin made though to go over the border into Ukraine however, has been and is the turning point. Yet, what's more though to this is that win the battle lose the war is an additional consideration here. By apportioning the understanding of what has happened, how and why and speculating on this can be seen from a 20th Century perspective to be trying to build up a case in favour of one or more sides and yet in contrast to others the real reason I do so is so that from a 21st Century perspective, it's at least feasible to be able to consider the situation from various contradictory perspectives, to consider the big picture that we?do need a better answer than simply a win to one and a loss to another or that again puts us into the same place as the end of WW1 was. I present these other paradigms of thinking, and yes they are retrospective. it' very easy to criticise choices made in the past in the context of today, sometimes it's of benefits and use to us now and sometimes not. however, no matter what we need to be able to rationally consider how we can get through and out of this situation today and right now without there being the chance of a worse situation emerging afterwards.?

When it's considered how many single parents there are now in Ukraine and Russia. We know that children that grow up without a parent have a more difficult life. How many of these children in future will be angry? All of them, where will that anger get directed? Towards other people towards leaders. Whilst the words of war play out in the press, the images of war play out in people's minds, war is the most extreme form of abuse. Even if the war stops now, the images of war will continue on in Europe for decades and in the minds of some people their entire lives. A sense of injustice, resentment, a questioning of how their time on this planet could have been so much very badly affected by the choices and the decisions made beyond their control by leaders that could have made so much better choices. These people whichever side they are on will be actually on the side of peace, trying to make peace in their own minds, trying to be able to sleep without experiencing nightmares, no having to substituate their own inner losses by anesthetizing their own inner trauma and feelings with alcohol or drugs, and make sense of their own lives due to the choices and decisions of those that were unable to lead well enough through diplomacy.?

It's an act of courage to run from a battle field that should have been a field of sustainability and not of senseless destruction. What say did the inhabitants of those fields have of choices made to destroy their habitat? What chance has nature got when man is lead by man that do not even acknowledge that nature has the right to exist?. That simply do not factor in the implications of the much more complicated world of the 21st Century, where survival is only possible for any of us by putting to the side the thinking of the past and reinventing a whole new more resource wise frame of reference for the here and now.??

President Putin has done more for world peace than almost any leader between 2017-2021. Yet, more harm to world relations than any other leader in 2022.

President Zelensky during his career has done more to inspire and entertain and yet equally as much to not want to fully embrace and consider diplomacy. President Trump and President Biden have been without full information of peace processes and Nato does not represent these properly and hasn't done so for years. We are all caught in an echo chamber bubble of a politicians media presentations that bounce off each other. None of the situation today is completely the making of any one individual yet a mirror effect of tit for tat.?This has very clearly brought out not the best but the worst in people. Yet, this has been and is playing out on the world stage firstly, secondly it's creating implications that when fully considered if too much time is lost no matter what the outcome is of this war, then the whole of humanity is in a crisis that there may not be a way out of.?

It's very easy to see how President Putin and President Zelensky will be remembered by history, the same way every leader will be if we are not very careful. There won't be a memory of history unless the biggest issue in the world today is brought under control and that is the runaway changes of our climate. We do not have even the slightest idea of what we can together accomplish with climate as we have never had the human narrative space to be able to fully consider what could be possible, what could be obtained if we tried. What instead we do have evidence of is just how hopelessly complete the destruction of all that is of value in peoples lives can become by leadership not prioritising climate and all the issues surrounding.?

There are three sides to any war and the most important one is the peace making as that's ultimately the way wars end. For all of the losses due to the choices of WW2 there was a peace agreement at the end. it's the peace making agreement that can be the negotiation tool to help stop and end this war so that another human life is not lost.?

The lack of respect for peace making and peace processes is the biggest design fault in the modern world.?

There is no such thing as cowardice in not fighting a war that should have been solved by diplomacy in the first place.?

A design fault that could have such wide implications as to bring an end to the modern world, yet rather than this be considered and appreciated, the world simply moves on in an ever more dysfunctional way when considered globally towards the day when life would have changed irreversibly for all.?

Soldiers learn to throw themselves onto a grenade, to save their unit. There are just so many high expectations made towards the average Joe, and yet it's rare if not unknown for a leader to do the same either literally or figuratively speaking to save their country or even the world, like in this scenario. Whilst this action is considered to be of the greatest act of courage. The truth is this war should have never have happened. It should have been resolved. Integrity Initiative information released and the public informed of the truth in terms of peace processes from 2017. In terms of vital information that is sitting somewhere in government to confirm exactly what I write here, we are in the midst of an information famine. leading to incorrect interpretation situations that has caused two sides to not reoslve issues of what was a civil war and for that to now become an issue that's worldwide?

There has been a massive failure in the correct representation of peace processes, that has and is affecting diplomacy, by explaining the truth of what's happened. How this has happened there is a chance to talk back the situation to peace via The Grain Deal which is already based in principle on this new, tried, tested proven peace making method. There has been fear on the side of the West for acknowledging the good diplomatic work of many countries, history in the past was always written by the winners, yet unless there is a rewriting of history today with that then standing at least some chance to bring this war to an early end then history will have been written by those that deludedly thought they were winners, only for that to create implications so that the entire humanity in future could become losers.

There is a way to progress from here into a peace process that causes the least of all harm. For that to be properly embraced is today the greatest act of courage for leaders as it allows for all those people who would sooner be doing anything other than fight in a war to be able to have a better life than they will otherwise have via peace making. If there is a peace process, there will also be a better chance to understand what has gone wrong, what events led up to this and by doing that there is the chance that the entire situation can be completely resolved, yet by simply one country taking territory from another then the best future choices are prevented from being realised. There is more to this war than simply whether Ukraine of Russia control a town or a region.????

Whilst I have great respect for President Obama in many ways, he completely did something that makes the word insensitive seem reductionist. The simple truth is that the people of the USA were not on the front line in their own towns in WW2. To the American's world war 2 happened over there, across the big pond. Yet the populations affected by this in their own countries feel so very, very much more attuned to the issue than American's.?

Whilst it may work saying to the US electorate Russia is a threat therefore stationing Nato troops on the border of Russia, a viable agreement a new development model for Russia would have allowed Russia to progress beyond where it had been left after the end of the cold war.??

What about the ancient Chinese and The Britons with the plague, of course, yes. Disease and Immunity helped Europe conquer the Americas, yet this concept of Imperialism of the 20th Century is just not possible in a world which is changing by the month. The indifference to allowing for change of the system today within the system itself is the cause of it's own potential failure. The biggest risk to normality on the planet is wars and climate. The funding wars and not funding climate is creating a perfect storm of consequences where the real victims of this non-sensible?thinking are now already throughout the world. yet, to be able to get to a more logical and rational perspective requires at the very least truth and openness in the press and politics, which has been missing for years.?

If there was free press in the Western world then it would be known that a major war was prevented twice in 2017, how that occured would be known and world politics would had adjusted to that new paradigm.?

?I believe in everyone having the freedom to agree or disagree with their own interpretation of the facts. Yet facts are facts and if they never make it to being known, then there is only free speech based upon misinformation and lies. That is the position the western world has been in. How it got there is the selective media and the politician echo chamber.???

Free speech is a good and a very powerful idea for a country to be built upon, its a very special idea. The, you have to think like me more or less does not apply to the USA and other democracies and that is what makes potentially for a more intelligent society, uilt up with free thought. When stability and continuity is held together by the narrative of being able to disagree that is a modality of thinking that does in fact align to the thinking of the world, truth is the world has never agreed on anything specifically. yet, if there was to be something then it would be on the want for a better future than now.?

If there is something that stands the chance of getting agreement it could be the idea that food, water and shelter are important to all people. When considered these are more important to people than any consumer item.?

We may not find much else to agree upon, although if we were to try and find agreement for anything then perhaps that's a good place to start. In order for any of us to have those three basic ingredients safe and secure then we have to say, yes there is this residual imperialism paradigm continuing, the, my country is better than yours paradigm, yet beyond that there is the simple truth food, water, shelter, security.?

Something that each and every one of us crave, want and need.?Our security is taken at the cost of yours is the narrative of the next one hundred years in consequences, up until the time the climate takes that from all of us, if we do not get our act together fast. So in 2122 the people then will be saying that all of those civilisation that adapted to the conditions the world created socially, environmentally continued, those that could not failed.

If adaptions do not happen fast enough away from conflict into peace and climate then there will be the general narrative in the future that all these countries believed themselves invincible and that our people not your people matter more that will have ruined the future for all. So the countries in future that were associated with not wanting to make compromise and as a result holding every other country back will not be perceived as the glorious victors of anything. The only way there will be survival of the human race is via adaption to way the world really is away from these grand images of empire of the past. Yes, keep the history, culture and tradition but trying to invade other countries creates only global instability at a time where stability is vital.?

In fact they will only be perceived as having had not very good management or leadership at the time. Leaders that put themselves first, second and third. It's really all about meaning, about content, it's about being able to look beyond the concept of self. The idea that a leader of a country is a guardian of the interests of many countries far beyond their own. that's how it is when President Macron enters the room and says what he says, he does so representing the interests far, far beyond the opinion, the representation of the French people.. A leader of Europe. A close ally to Angela Merkle who literally held the world together at times.?

The public via the media have obtained more than10% of the real information, yet the real information is more fully more widely known worldwide by an ever more surveillance orientated world, than some would opt to admit. The advantages of this surveillance orientated world is the fact that us and those that agree with us have so much access to information that helps us, so too do all the other sides. If that information what is widely known and what is not widely known in some ways finds a way to maintain balance in International diplomacy then that is one consideration and yet when the gulfs in terms of what's known are too great then there is only the creation of ideas to fill in the gaps and a sense of fear, of each person in the world not actually knowing how secure they really are as the sense of not properly knowing what has been and to some extent still is helping maintain balance and order in some important ways not fully known creates a sense of insecurity deep within people that no amount of surveillance cameras can change. People want real and proper security and that is certainly not produced by people simply sensing that they don't really know fully what's been going on. It's better for there to be an outward projection f truth, of facts and then people and governments to readjust to that. On the subject of Julian Assange, that is what he did and his bringing of the truth out, helped bring in an awareness that the wars of the early 21st century were wrong and of no benefit to anyone and in fact he has indeed helped the world in ways Julain Assange supporters do not even properly fully know. Wikileaks has been and is a vital resource for peace making. For mediation, for even understanding what's not been in the media and for getting some more truths into the media.?

?Just in the same way that most animals will adapt their behaviour depending upon whether or not they are being monitored by others, it's the same with people.?I'm being watched, that means I either have to become more secretive or become more honest, more open, more truthful. However, can democracy even cope with that? Not very well, when the information the media put out is a complete under representation of the truth. What then happens is that other countries governments have much more information about a country than it's own people. That is exactly where things have been. That then created bargaining chips that get used, that then creates differing positions of countries, making one country feel more vulnerable and therefore more likely to go in opposition to another and into conflict. So in actual fact the overtly servaylanced country does not create more security, if the media is not up to date with information and if truths are being prevented from being known this simply creates more complexity between countries.??

Embrace free speech, freedom of expression, freedom to think differently, freedom to be ourselves in a world that we are in which tends to try to define us as who we are based upon such very limited information. We are all, just so much bigger than the sum total of our actions, let alone by an action or few.?Whats more we are physically different regenerated people every few months physiologically. the only part of us that can be the most resistant to change can be in our thinking.??

So, from here, there really is so much to be said in the context of honesty. In terms of truth, speaking our own truth in a world so observed, so conditioned and so controlled, so incorrectly interpreted upon limited information amid a perception that there is so much information out there. Speaking out whilst begin observed so much is an act of courage and yet can at times be an act of desperation. A government being continually disingenuous in terms of what truths are allowed to be heard is actually more vulnerable, not less as both the real and the incorrectly interpreted information are both known by other countries. A continually observed population is a population that is inwardly self-reflective, more self-critical more paranoid, more prone to mental illness. The increase in costs to the NHS for coping with depression run parallel with the increase of an overtly monitored society. If we are not able to perceive the good in others then it makes it harder to perceive this in ourselves and having faith in politics. How to rebuild faith when there is just so much reason for fear in so many ways is in contrast. Is it normal to write hundreds of page documents on peace making? Yes, it is when you know fully just how sellotaped together world relations have been in recent years. That is especially in the midst of geopolitics failing so much recently.??

There is mostly a history of conquest and defeat, of tribal then national ideas winning through over those others. That's the main narrative for all leaders to usually consider and yet in the context of where the world will be in one hundred, forty or ten years that way of thinking is as wrong as it gets. The failure of leadership today is not in how well a country fights against it's neighbour, it's in how well it can mediate to be able to create mutual security and stability.

If we are to progress from here, soon enough, fast enough then we have to take on the belief that the vast majority of people in the world want peace, want to be able to afford to live in the country they are in, want substantial real climate action and that they feel protected by governments that are more interested in mediating with other countries rather than putting so many resources into monitoring their own population. Overtly monitoring a population does not create trust but suspicion. When those that are the ones being monitored are the ones that have a sense of civic duty and are helping each other and civil?society like during the pandemic and yet those doing the monitoring at the top are being the least careful with their sense of civic duty.?

Whether or not we are all really protected we have to look to the best science both is terms of the problem and the potential answers. Most of the smartest men would admit to being stupid rather than go without food, water and shelter for even just one week, and yet we are setting ourselves up to go without these three for what could be an eternity. Oh, some will be ok, they wouldn't have been had I not written my Integrated Peace Strategies in the past. That's how precarious in fact the world has been in recent years and yet that truth is simply not believed. Not helped, nor supported in any way shape or form. only more and more pressures. More expectations, more fear from people that know not much more than 10% of what's really happened as they although purporting to stand on one side of politics over another are unable to question their own thinking enough. There will one day be the truth known, there are just far, far too many files in far too many governments for the truth not to one day be properly known and when it is there will be many people that whilst they think today, they are in the know, will realise very much more fully how they have been duped as well. The methodology of Integrated Strategies to answer and solve the most complicated of International issues, is tried, tested and proven, its in the history of this world, it's in the data picked up by governments, it's in the awareness of people in governments and yet there is a distortion of the truth that continues. There is not another philosophy in the wordl that is as well tired, tested and proven as mine to be able to answer the scale and levels of issues my work has answered and can answer in future. All that is mising from this is the cognitive catch up.?

??It's not the fault of this leader or that leader, or even that leader who is friends with this leader, no it's the fault of all leaders unable to agree to be even reasonable with each other when considering the combined three most basic requirements of people.?

My country is bigger and better than yours, is reductionist at best when considering the complexity of issues now, losing the plot and just thinking about cronies is not effective leadership, it's not even leadership.?If there is proper conversation then the human race can be saved if not then the human race cannot be saved and the loss that occurs is not going to put any leader that has worked against the universal, the global interest as being any type of role model for the future.?

Whilst the war in Ukraine, is something that so many would wish is over, it continues and whilst this may be due to this idea or that, the truth is that the entire world's population pays the price of leadership on any side just saying lets, stop this war, lets change our thinking from 20th to 21st Century requirements.?

Russia has endevoured to talk openly to obtain an agreement with the West for many years, decades. Whilst I in no way support nor endorse any of the actions of this war. I do have a better insight than most as to why this war has evolved in the way it has. I would encourage the West to be much more open of peace processes from 2017, that is I believe the best hope of once again obtaining a better diplomatic form of reasoning. My hope is that this war ends as soon as possible. What has to be considered s that there is no immediate exit plan or way for this war to end fast. The best hope is that restraint is shown by both sides and that there can be the emergence of a narrative that presents a broader perspective on this war and the events that led to where thew world is today.

Positive and positive equal negative.

lose lose diplomacy between President Biden, Xi, Putin Zelensky, ?-+- x 4 = - 8 Billion + 0 = everything for climate 0 for superpowers, powers, almost powers, minimal powers, no powers and the rest of humanity?in-between.?

-++ = broader?perspective?universally,?seeing new perspectives on the past, review the past, thus win-win.?Yes, President Putin has done wrong in Ukraine and yet did right twice or more in the past and this went unconsidered properly.

Seeking to get a + +- by continuing fighting = continual war, win to one side at the cost of more losses, loss to the other side at the cost of more losses to both that side and the other side too. Therefore, through continuing fighting there is no chance, no hope ofr a complete win, that's not possible. What's mroe delayed time with climate is a loss to the world, potentially and compounding loss.

Big 20th century paradigms perpetuated The West is?bigger?and better than the East, the East is bigger and better than the West.

Therefore, this leading to a continuation of all the -'s and to divide and rule.

Humanity divided, ruled over by the climate. Trying to win a war either the war in Ukraine or another East West war comes at the cost of thousands, millions or billions of lives and a total loss of economy, climate and creating a world losers.?

Extreme Imperialistic notions and positions of four people in countries in the world of politics are making extreme positions of the planet against all man one hundred percent inevitable. Truly winning a war one major country in the world over another has just become logistically impossible. There is no such thing as winning a war any longer as the losses obtained inevitably are infinitely greater than any victory obtained. In the 21st Century the pen has to become mightier than the sword or the consequence of not allowing for that is the end of civilisation. A civilisation that is up held by either working cooperatively to uphold the needs of the environment or is struggling to exist in a post economic world. Every electronic good you have is a result of International trade and agreements, the continuation of war, makes those agreements that allowed for that possibility to become unviable for the future.

Forget 2+2 = 4, that kind of maths could become almost irrelevant, the implications that four world leaders take only a 'my piece of the cake position in global diplomacy' as being 'their only possible truth' no chance for mediation or revision of recent history is enough to make the subject of mathamatics in it's theoretical form become seemingly almost irrelevant. Who needs maths in a world that's reverted back to a completely upturned environment, without a functioning economy, caused by a lack of foresight, no chance of hindsight caused by to a lack of emotional intelligence, to look clearly at all the facts and relating. Thinking broader of the vast implications of neglect towards wanting to obtain the very best answer for all is the only real option in a world that very much can be turned around by not having the optimal climate action as soon as possible and countries around the world really uniting together in this combined mission.

Leadership worldwide has never been in such a tight position, the leadership of these four people needs to be exceptional to realise that the interest of all these four countries together is in the interest of each of the four. The leaders need to be able to relate to each others issues and needs in a more honest way than four leaders of countries have ever needed to do in the past.

If one person in society could not relate to the needs of other people in society and all were like that there would never have been civilisation, no such thing as culture as we know it, advancement of people's in the plural in any way significantly. There would be only competition of the fittest and absolute greed.?This on a primitive level may have been more or less how it was at times in the past, yet in the present with all factors considered we need a climate answer, can have a climate answer and yet having that without changing the rules of competitive countries in terms of conflict is not on the radar of possibility any more.

So when there is a mindset of imperialistic thinking, from a countries own perspective only and if this is the predominant mindset of leaders of countries in opposition to the thinking of other countries, there is conflict. More so than that there is division in thinking with many other countries too. There are various perspectives of countries on the Russia and Ukraine issue, the votes of ASEAN countries show and prove this. The only way to bring back complete agreement and restore diplomacy to it's best potential is to consider the interest of all, to find and be able to navigate a way through such a complexity of issues into a win-win scenario by peace making.

When there is not enough middle ground considered as being of use and value then there is no progress in peace making. All that's required to ruin eveything is for this type of thinking to not advance. President Biden unable to relate well enough to the thinking and needs of XI, Zelensky unable to relate well enough to the thinking and needs of Putin. That's all that's required to make this Christmas either a good or bad Christmas.

The war can be stopped by four men, three of which are either meeting in the next few days or their senior officials are. How to end this war, best begins as a process where President Putin can have enough assurance to realise that there are other truths that will come out in his favour in the context to his policy making from 2017-2021, they have to as they are so interwoven within the real back story of what happened in these years. So making a dramatic move towards peace making for him would show in future that he made brilliant decisions in 2017,2018,2019,2020,2021 in five years. Very bad choice and decision one year afterwards.

The issue of language in the region of Eastern Ukraine, Russia has been correct to defend. A one year war ending, considered an error retrospectively is better than a war that continues to compound errors. A loss to Putin in pulling back is a win to the world, yet the diplomacy of Putin was a win to the world in the Korea's, Syria, Venezuela, Azerbaijan and Armenia and Afghanistan, so there needs to be a revision of history from 2017 until 2021 and that can generate enough goodwill hopefully from Russia to want to immediately stop seeking any form of military answer, but a diplomatic answer. A diplomatic answer to two issues. 1. The people of the Eastern Ukraine regions maintaining their rights to speak any language they want. 2. That there is an International recognition of the good peace work that Russia did from 2017-2021, saving the world twice from a global war. 3. That as a resutl of that the status of Russia is protected in the world so that there is absolutely no chance, no possibility of their ever being a Nato invasion of Russia. On the basis of that Russia pulling back troops from it's special operation.

Therefore the win for Ukraine is the fact it gets its territory back by discussion with Russia.

Therefore the win for Russia is the fact it never has to experience invasion or the threat of it, the cold war in all of it's under handed ways is completely over. No more edging towards Russia as Russia is cited as an ally to Nato for Russia helping Nato in Syria, that is publicly put onto the Nato website and there is a full revision of history from 2017 until the start of 2022

The truth is that Russia can lose the battle in Ukraine, and yet Russia in actual fact won the war why? Due to the fact when the truth is known, which is inevitably going to be known anyway is heard the truth is President Putin helped save the world twice during the Trump time in office and that although not widely known does put President Putin into a unique place in history as being the most incorrectly represented leader for stopping a major war twice and this going unknown. The reason this is unknown is that in hindsight it was not considered to be in the interest of the West for this to be known, however as the events of the past year have played out it most certainly is in the interests of the world, not only the interest of Russia and the Russian people or the interests of Ukraine and the Ukrainian people for this broader truth to be known, it's in the interests of all.

The narrow paradigms of the media, which are always on the side of the countries the most that the media are based in has actually created from 2017 a narrative that was incomplete. By revised media of that, there is the very best chance to end this war in Ukraine. However, whilst this is disruptive to the way in which people may think, the truth is that the first way to stop to start to heal this war is to revise the truth.

To even fully explain what has really, really happened, to recall the wise choices made by various leaders in the way of peace building, bridging the differences between countries is a major task, yet if retelling of the news can bring this war to an end then that gives all of mankind another chance with climate, another chance with all diplomacy and relations.

The war crimes in Ukraine as always are wrong. In order to be able to perceive them in their fullness is something that will never be fully possible to do. In the broader context its the same in the context of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libia, Syria. It's the same when countries turn away refugees, many of them war refugees, it's the same when countries allow for the creation of climate refugees. The issues of human rights is an issue the moment that a country goes into a war. Have there been human rights abuses in the past five wars, yes. Have there been prosecutions no. That's the truth and if we are going to take this further the time there have been prosecutions were only of countries that were considered smaller and less influential in the world countries. The truth is there have been human rights abuses by all the superpowers and many of the major powers this century. The supply of weapons is that a human rights abuse, when it's known these end up in the hands of child soldiers. For every child soldier in Africa none of them made their own guns.

We live in what most people consider a very incredibly complicated world, in many ways it is and the biggest complications are the fact that it's in so many ways such an unfair world that needs to become much fairer.

We are at a stage in human development, where literally everything we have ever known to be the normality we have had could change for the worse. What's more it inevitably will change for the worse as a part of an ongoing process that has already began if we think only how we have thought previously. In order to be able to progress from here. There has to be new more responsible thinking that really does align to the thinking of Reagan and Gorbachev that the security and stability of one country is dependent upon that of the other, though this time there are four countries to have to consider not only two.

The problem of resolving the war in Ukraine is the issue of human rights abuses. If Ukraine demands this of Russia, then Russia can demand this of Ukraine and then other countries demanding this from so many other countries too. The issue of reparations is enough to keep the world fighting and at war. Whilst it can be easy to see the answers to problems, seeing the answers from the vantage point of the disgraceful way in which leaders of many countries have acted towards their fellow man makes a very large measure of forgiveness an essential part of the survival kit of humanity into this incredibly hard to navigate world. What can be considered on the upside is that all leaders are aware that nuclear war cannot be won, and yet also the continued neglect of the environment due to any war taking centre stage cannot do anything other than massively restrain the full potential of humanity to be able to deal and cope with the climate crisis.

This war has got to be stopped as first, second, third and forth priority and every other issues dealt with via a process that begins by the acknowledgment that the countries of USA, China, Ukraine and Russia need a way to progress from here and the people of these countries need the best chance and hope to the best possible future. A future of peace and a of stability. A future of hope where built up from the Grain deal we can answer the issues of many countries through that simultaneously. The complete answer to Ukraine and Russia is a process that begins by both leaders making peace making absolute priority. If this increase of the war is contained within one year and there is a recovery plan built into a peace agreement then there is the chance for at least some levels of forgiveness to become a part of what can help bring about a much faster and lasting peace. How to do that exactly, I don't know, yet in order to make peace viable it's better perceived as a process. That process best begins by perceiving not only the wrongful actions or considerations of any one side, but seeing the situation from a vantage point of what's actually required. What's required is that the main powers in the world find a way to a middle ground and from there it's possible to rebuild our stability on a planet, where this is otherwise wobbling more and more so by the moment. A win win in this scenario via diplomacy is a chance that has been lost, if events over the past five years would have been better communicated, then the situation today would have been better. However, there is still a chance from here to a good future and that is what should be best considered the immediate priority, so therefore the chance for forgiveness of any kind in such as scenario should be worked on immediately.

It requires great courage to admit being wrong, openly publicly but if that is the best way or even the only good way through this for all the people, then there can be and is reason for hope and this can be built upon. We honestly have vast problems in the world and yet to answer these requires choosing battles very wisely and the only battle that is with all factor considered worth having is the battle against our own inner limitations. We can be a better version of ourselves from yesterday to today, making Comparisions to other people is like comparing circles to squares, however we got here, found oursleves on this mysterious planet its true to say that we all look different to each other, we have our own unique way about us, but its the way in which we think which can be the greatest difference in what makes us who we actually are. In terms of the biggest issues in the world there is no mistaking it, we have to learn to think in ways people have never had to think ever in the past, we need to think more synergistically, more in a complimentary way to each other if we are to progress from here. If we can do that, then the way in which 20th Century leaders thought in terms of conquest for imperialistic reasons over other countries will soon become perceived as old fashioned in thinking, and counter productive for all.

For each day of progress in the world not one of them has ever been exactly like the other, however realistically there has not been enough diversity in a whole day of thinking about the biggest issues in the world to have yet made as much progress as is required to be made.