The Integrated Strategy for Peace Diplomacy Russia and Ukraine (Part4)

?Integrated Strategy For Peace in the Korea's, Russia and Ukraine (Part 4)

There have been meetings in Turkey and Nato meetings. In terms of the statements made there has been progress. Aspects written into my earlier Intergated Straregy documents, although written in haste have actually been used, ie the goodwill gestures cited verbally and also the guarentees, this has already been guarenteed by Germany, this shows the leadership of both Russia and Ukraine that Germany is onside a win-win outcome to this.

?The USA is also considering this. If there was a Germany and a USA guarentee protecting Ukraine then that is a massive step towards there being a good enough guarentee to Ukraine that they are completely protected and therefore can take a neutral status. However, what needs to come before that is a ceasefire as Ukraine cannot put down it's weapos whilst there are weapons being used in Ukraine.?

Russia also should have guarentees and that these in my opinion need to come from in my opinion ideally from Nato. I have written in the previous documents the fact that Nato as an organisation was saved from the most complicated of issues sincer forming in Syria by Russia. The reason was that Russia provided the essential mediation between Turkey, Israel and Syria. This prevented a scenario in 2017-2018 from Nato needing to have feasibly had to chosen sides between the allies of all allied countries. This was at the time of the allied exit from Syria. Therefore, it has got to be said that Nato does actually owe Russia a very big favour, goodwill gesture. What can that be during these times?

Nato goodwill gesture to all countries, what could it be?

Any of the following.

1. Full acknowledgement on the Nato website of all Integrated Strategy peace processes, which countries did what, when and how. This would include various entries from non Nato countries, however this would map out the fact there have been many interactions and substantive diplomacy from both Nato and non Nato members that have enabled the world to remain stable and much more at peace in recent years. President Trump said on Fox News that he may reveal how it was that during his Presidency the USA remained out of new wars and managed to exit various wars it had been involved in and the truth is by Intergated Strategy Roadmaps. There are now many of these and they did answer the most complicated of geo-political diplomacy issues until recently and were used in part or in full by various countries, so the acknowledgement of that creates a global re-set that shows that there has in fact very frequently in recent years been a team effort by many countries to help keep the world at peace and to be able to exit conflicts in a way that is viable, does not create vacuums and enables there to be a continuity into a more peace aligned process.?

An acknolwedgement of the possitve actions of many countries, that has gone until now not fully reported in the press woudl be a very good goodwill measure towards many countries which in itself keeps the subject of peace making top of the worlds geo-political agenda and also would show that at various times the USA and China and Russia has had a very effective foreign policy in terms of peace amking in the context of Korea's, Syria, Venezula, Azerbaijan and Armenia and Afghanistan.?

This presented and discussed in Nato ctually strengthens every countries position as it shows and proves that peace has been as important and at times more important than defence. The best form of defence has been proven to be good ideas that are win-win in terms of peace making and for countries to take the initiative in helping add to the grouping of peace making countries many times in recent years. So thankyou's given to all the many countries, some thirty countries that have added towards an agenda of International peacemaking creates a better atmosphere in terms of stability for all countries. If the Nato narrative is not 'containment' but of celebration of successful peacemaking then the agenda of if one country is attacked then thirty respond is actually in part replaced by the actual fact that when there were two, three or up to ten countries in recent years stuck in diplomatic quagmires frequently there was the positioning of many other countries that helped bring peace. Peace in the world between 2017-2021 was not maintained any longer by threat alone to any county, it was in fact maintained by a greater sesne of ressponsibility towards the interests of all of man and leadership in countries acknolwedging that themselves perhaps in private and yet in public positioning their geo-political agenda in alignment with that goal of maintaining calm and for the world to be able to carry on largely at peace.?

This acknolwedged by Nato is not only fairer to Ukraine as it demonstatably takes pressure off Russia, it's fair to many countries leadership which have been on the side of win-win diplomacy and yet the world has not adapted fast enough to have acknowledged this thus far. Having a sensible narrative of peace making may come at the cost of change within Nato and yet that is a lesser adaption than the EU being able to adjust to an ongoing refugee crisis caused by war with 4 million new refugees, which add to the previous refugee issues in Europe, the Middle East and the World. The greatest risk there is to Nato today is not from an outside power, it's more so from an internal non-agreement on the implications of ineffectively answered diplomacy. It's ineffective diplomacy and the non-effective use of peace processes that has caused the issues that have led to the existing war on the border of Russia and Ukraine becoming much worse. It's the much more effective, more broader steps towards win-win diplomacy which can help build trust, help bring conflicting sides ever more onto the same side and as a result of that create enough collective goodwill between countreis to be able to find a way through this that works for all.?

A lack of goodwill put into the collective pot is causing economic strains in the main economies of Europe already, which will affect the US economy, the economy of China and the world. So effective peacemaking is the only path out of a situation that will be a massive recession without an obvious way out in the more developed countries, whilst eighty of the least developed countries go into food insecurity and many into famine.?

At this stage it's well worth considering the words of Nostradamus who predicted a war and then a consequent worldwide famine. These preditions whether you beleive in Nastradamus or not are today being predicted in the media. To help get the world back onto a more stable footing we need to use any and every resource. Whilst I also predicted the complexities of this time in my 2009 film Ecoplaza Paradise Oasis, on Vimeo. i also explained in brief how to bring the world back to a more stable footing again. I depicted it as creating a mirror, a mirror effect. What I was alluding to in saying that is that it's a massive series or non goodwill gestures, ineffective communication and reasoning that would bring us to a crisis whilst there are converging issues that are a clear stress to all countries, so it's the mirro effect of both non-goodwill gestures and ineffective communication that can bring the world bach towards balance.?

So these measures are written into Intergated Strategy documents and are goodwill measures and good communication in the direction of peace making. That is already happening nd yet the more gestures of goodwill towards peacemaking by orignaisations such as Nato and the United Nations, this aligned by government actions of good will, company actions of goodwill and public actions of good will, all of this is adding to the more sensible naratvie of well we managed to get this far competing with each other so much, there is not much of a future for any of us if we keep doing that, the best way to interject that is to create a vast resource pool of goodwill and that comes from being more generous in praises towards many countries, as depicted in the film being able to see the glas half full rather than half empty. Whilst it is an inescapable human reaction to not see war as anything other than bad, that affects always the people the most that were the least to do with the ineffective decision making that caused the war in the first place, it's talking, it's communication, it's seeking that there is an essential need to get beyond the dysfunctionality of situations and find a way back to improved diplomacy and peace building, which is in fact a necessary prerequisite if there is to continue to be a good life in the world for almost all of us. The world is beaten down by the pandemic and climate anyway, having a war on top of that simply hastens our own systems and economies being unable to adjust to the changes in the world occuring fast enough and thats even if the war is contained as it is. The land mass of Russia and Ukraine is 1/7 of all the land in the entire world and that affectied by both wars and trade restictions is in fact just a few weeks away from being noticably bad for every country. So therefore, Nato as an organisation there to keep peace, in a way has an even mor eimportant role today and that is actually in keeping the world as we have known it functioning much longer as it's been. The world's economy and population to a very significant extent is split between worldbank and Brics nations, all in some ways and many ways dependent upon the other.?

If there is a division that is unfixable in world trade, then effectively the knock on effect of that is more than just a few banks failing which creates recessions. We are going into unchartered waters at a time when most people?do not know how to grow their own food, where one countries food supplies are dependnet upon so many others.?

Where there is a general accumilation of problems and a substantial speeding up of these. The wind today is again almost like near hurricane blasts and that is the seventh time I have counted this year alone where once in a decade winds or something close to that are occuring. To get through this effectively, we have to be adaptabel enough to be able to reposition institutions such as Nato and the United Nations, any countries to very much see that there own very progress requires being aware, much more aware of the interests of all other countries especially those on their borders. The United Nations Sustainability Goals were a very valid goal and they are increasingly an effective way to consider all the areas that Intergated strategy documents can help answer to a significant extent. Yes, every country will learn, use and extrpolate data in a different way, yet to make use of that requires firstly a mindset that wants to help other countries through these crisis' and by having that, then there are issues, a great many issues that are answered in the countries we live.

?A refugee crisis from one country becomes an issue for many. So the world has to get much samrter in being able to help in enabling the most basic living needs to be easier obtained than previously. An answer to the Ukraine crisis is an answer to a refugee crisis in at least twenty countries. So to answer the Ukraine situation requires doing everything possible to leverage good will and immproved relations between Russia and Ukraine. The only other option is a muh larger war that will create much more chaos in the first hour or two for the entire world. So we have effectively come to a cross roads in the development of man where selfishness alone on a country level is a path to defeat for all countries. The USA cannot function as it is without business with Europe, and Europe cannot function as it always has without peace. So the investment made in goodwill gestures by regional institutions, by countries, by the media, by companies and by people together can help create the mirror effect towards so many decades of only selfish actions being the actions considered more in the psych of politicians and the media.

There have been actions of goodwill between countries in recent years and this has been written out of the media script, unless that changes, and does so within days or weeks at most then I predict everything will change and not for the better. There has to be a concerted effort made by many countries towards a win win agenda in peacemaking and this I consider is the only bes tpath through here. The recovery of Ukraine and for the Ukraininan people is going to require a vast concerted effort by many in any case, the best way to start that is for there to be the most effort put towards seeing this whole situation from all perspectives and not some. When I see press headlines that effectively present the idea that this side or that side is winning or losing in this way or that way, this is non sensicle media. We are all losing, we are all losing the capacity to have the types of lives we have had before this occurred and if this is not very evidently clear to the hindseight focussed media today, then I can assure them it will be very evidently clear in a few days, weeks or months at most. We are interdependent upon the stability and security of both sides of the world both the East and the West, and the North and the South for that matter. A crisis in one is a crisis for all. The only way any side can 'win this' is by every side 'winning this' and finding a way to reverse back all the conditions that created this situation in the first place.?

If there is a narrative of win-win generated, perhaps from Turkey or Germany, to begin with. An attitude where we really do need to sort this all out and Nato and The United Nations, the EU, The USA are all on board then there can be a rewriting of diplomatic decisions made in recent years particularly from the time of the situation in the Korea's that puts many or all of us back onto the same side, that same side is having a vested interest in a normal and functioning system, society and world where all of the countries in the world feel much more protected from each other than in previous years sicne the end of the cold war.??

There has been a movement of Nato towards Russia as cited in earlier documents, whilst Nato in it's current form has been the concern of Russia, changing 'the meaning' of what Nato actually is, what it's purpose is, could be a deciding factor in bringing back peace to Europe. If Nato really is established to maintian peace, the recognising the choices made both by Nato and non Nato countries could be the very most significant way in providing a gesture of peace, security and stability for all countries so that they know their position is really genuinely safe and protected. Fear is something that non of us really know very well how to contain, and the results of this can and do lead to choices and decisions that are made and regretted afterwards. Fear is a survival instinct in all animals and what calms that is accurances. Feeling that there are threats and dangers towards any one country on an ongoing basis creates more fear. This creates more uncertainty.?

President Zelensky has cited that for Ukraine to have a non militarised status does require guarentees, there is one from Germany, and it would be ideal if there were many other countries providing that guarentee too, even or especially if they are non Nato countries. What the difficulty in the referendum issue is though a public in the midst of a war are very unlikly to vote for a neutral status. Why? Their fear circuits are on maximum and the first natureal reaction to anyone is to want to protect themsleves, so therefore, the only possible way is assurances. The assurance have got to be real, vast and massive guarentees. The broader the guarentees the better for Ukraine and yet that is only going to be possible if there are equally substantialied guarentees for Russia that there will be no possible risk to Russia. The very best way to do that is to begin with the 30 countries of Nato agreeing that if Russia withdrawls from Ukraine then they will support a change to Nato that does fully represent the diplomacy and the work for peace Russia did in the years 2017, 2018, 2029, 2020, 2021. the world did benefit from this and the world should know this and the best way for the world to know this is for the organisation that has been cited as being 'the opposite to Russia for so long extending it's hand of conditional connection and alliance to Russia, today and always as was stated by President Clinton And Boris Yeltisn for the long term.?The reaility is that it's 'the story' that has mapped out reality that is the problem. It's not actually the reality in terms of the years of 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021. The telling of 'the story' was that Russia was a concern when it was peacemaking in many cases. So the acknowledgement of that by Nato is an assurance to Russia that 'the story' has in fact changed and done so in a way that enables Russia to feel secure enough to no longer see Nato as a threat, in fact Nato is a middle ground organisation that is actually presenting what actually occured in a fair way that many countries benefit.

?In fact Nato beign a vehicle that explains and presents all geo-political moves made towards greater safety stability and peace for all is a benefit to the whole of man. By doing this there is no actual loss, there is only a gain, a win-win gain for all.?

The stages of peace between West and East.

Win win discussions between President Regan and President Gorbechev

The verbal agreement not to expand into the USSR, yet the consequent expansion of nato towards Russia through the new member states.

The USA and allies having a policy of exiting wars throughout the Trump and Biden Presidency.?

Peace agreements that were created with many countries contributing in 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 during this time where there were differences between the Presidencies of Biden and Trump taking full consideration in most press.?

The peace building diplomacy by many not widely and fully known and considered in the press or in the adaption of policies by various countries.

The continuation of the war in Ukraine unresolved and the increase of this into the current situation.??

A guarentee based and good will based appraoch taken to ensure all sides are properly protected.?

A rewriting of past peace making issues to include many countries.

More guarentees for the safety of Ukraine made as a neutral country.?

The use of Intergated Strategy Roadmaps being used to their full capacity to end the war in Ukraine and to rebuild the country with the maximum possible good will gestures from the entire global community.?

The linking of past intergated strategies to the original content that then provides new and effective answers for the following countries to rebuild after wars and help answer refugee issues and align these to ecological regeneration measures which help stabilise nature, food and agriculture and rebuild economic viability in countries that have in previous times suffered from wars and enviornmental issues that create refugee issues. The entire concept of sanctions are fully reviewed and countries working towards win-win for all in these times, are immediately mapped out on the Nato website and are helped once again. The long term effects of sanctions on the people of countries is counter productive to the long term stability of all. If a country from now is really prepared to act and help in a win-win way then that is a benefit to the entire stability of the world and that shoudl be known, recognised and some of the benefits of that win-win should go back to help the country.

What all of this really amounts to is we do somehow between all human resources need to find a greater element of love for other people to be put into geo-politics, this is not idealism, this is logisitcally being practical with the set of conditions that we today have in the world, the simple result of there not being more rational geo-politics is geo-politics that could so easily become anything other than rational. We are in a place today luckily where there are still good choices and good decsions that can be made by all. We are only just though safe and the entire situation is so fragile that definate gestures towards greater understanding of others, is a good survival plan for the continuity of all of our ways of life as they have been or something similar or better to emerge. The good country bad country paradigm of recent years is just no longer a viable way to percieve International relations in the way in which it has been. There has to be a better way created towards a more unified humanity, than before more give and less take than previously is the best chance there is.?

2. Adjustment made to International diplomacy to facilitate improved relations through win-win. for countries that have been 'out of favour' in past decades and yet now are needed to be partners in order to meet the emerging issues in the world.?

3. Adjustment towards social enterprise based agendas by intergovernmental organisations, NGO', the pubcli towards helping Ukraine recover.?

If the above or something like this could be mapped out in discussions and other governments wanting to feel a part of the process towards peace building by offering gestures towards peacemaking then there is hopefully the chance and the hope that there can be the grounds for a ceasefire called. A cease fire, a three month stop in the war on both sides would provide the world enough time to be able to put together a package and a process that makes a real viable answer to all completely feasible for all sides.?

Whilst there could be the perception of there being a better vision of what can be possible prresented and preduced from the dire situation of today, there is there potentially the first building blocks of a viable peace process possible. Exactly how that forms is an ongoign work in progress, to give up on hope and believe that peace is not the answer produces only more conflict.?

Broader perspective of peacemaking via integrated strategies.?

If there is not a more pronounced effort towards peacemaking and the conversation of this, then there is only a conversation of hopelessness and dispair that becomes the norm, there has to be both. Yes, the real crisis of what's occuring does need to be reported on, yet also any possible paths or ways out of this. There is a tendency in the use of ideas by man in general that the ideas that appear to many at first to be the least likely, do sometimes wuite often play out to become the norm. Even computers were once not believed in. Netowrks of plastic machines, and networks of concepts and ideas that interact together with other concepts to generte a better way out for all, is a real process in the world that has been and is keeping the world going.?

If there is a broader change in thinking in the UK and Internationally ‘Integrated Strategy Peace Roadmap documents and more so the methodology can be used increasingly properly in order to be able to find and navigate ways through to the most effective win-win scenario in bringing again peace. That is from this current lose-lose scenario of non effective enough peace making, lead to not effective enough diplomacy, which then caused this smaller war to increase substantially.

In my opinion, the best’s position to take with this was hinted with a BBC interview on News Night in the interview with Boris Johnson.That is to look carefully at peacemaking. Both peace roadmap scripting methods that are both tried, tested and proven. What can peace look like? What would it take to make peace feasible? These are the questions of an innovator and yet if this is a question asked by many then the answer and then a better answer can be percieved. Whatever can be percieved and believes can be achieved.?

There are underlying issues that prevented full complete knowledge in the past, peace and peace making has been taken for granted, yet now the implications of not having peace in Europe are more widely percieved. Why has it taken a slip into war, yet again to get to the place of valuing of peace? So with this emitted from the media.??

Is the best scenario is to go fully, totally, completely and properly into understanding of peace processes specifically from 2017 until the days before the invasion of Ukraine. President Putin is referencing Korea and in my view doing so for good reason. All aspects of the Korea’s scenario should be considered and that is not only the physical structure of the two Korea’s, but also the methodology whereby peace was obtained.?

To then map out and see how both President Putin and President Zaleski are both using ‘Integrated Strategy paradigms of thinking where the situation presently is and even using the word integrity, which has been used repeatedly before and since this conflict began by?Russia, China, Ukraine, France.?

Integrated Strategy peace process mapping should be the first, second and third item on all political agendas in the UK currently, instead there is a Parliamentary Inquiry on what went wrong in Afghanistan and yet those interviewed appear to being selective with whats said. So the truth is that there is a better, more effective, more tried, tested and proven peace making process that is in use by many leaders of countries, it provides the very best hope to the fastest, most acceptable to all sides peace process in both answering and solving the residual issues in both Afghanistan, the Korea’s and providing a way to bring a ceasefire and viable peace process to Ukraine and Russia and therefore instigate global security once again. The word ‘Integrity’ has been used by Ukraine, France, China, Russia before and since this began. The word integrity has again been used today, it’s the policy of ‘The Integrity initiative’ in the UK that is holding back the best chance for an effective peace process.

Boris Johnson in the BBC interview kept referring to more free press than Russia, yes it certainly would have in terms of press on peacemaking strategies. complete understanding of the peace processes from 2017,2019, 2020, 2020, 2021. So effectively there is an obstruction to peace making processes that is occurring due to the decision of Boris Johnson, the government, the police, MP’s, anyone to properly use the ‘Integrated Strategy Methodology’ and do so immediately as this is what the chess playing genius strategists of Russia and Ukraine both want and need in order to be able to make an effective peace process.?

Whilst some of the statements that have allegedly been made by Alexei Navalny are more than questionable. I would refer to other answers to this question here. The very best option for the West is to do what was done in the context of the Korea’s though do this properly with the full and complete sue of ‘Integrated Strategy Methods’ It’s feasibly the very best option for obtaining the fastest peace process between Ukraine, Russia and the rest of the world.?

It’s the bureaucratic unaccountability of peace processes in the past, in the UK that is holding back the very best opportunity for bringing the best possible answer to this in the fastest way. Boris Johnson really needs to stop procrastinating with this.?

Having spent the last year going to the police, foreign office, customs, this week to The Ministry of Defence, The Ministry of Defence Whistle-blowers help line, Scotland Police and Metropolitan Police in London, Going to MI5, MI6, The speaker of the House of Commons assistants, to linkedin contacts I have working in 10 Downing Street. Writing to the neighbouring MP once, my own MP twice. Going to my MP’s office twice there is not anyone in the government of the UK seemingly that considers it their job to deal with the reality of peace processes that have been generated and produced outside of the Westminster media echo-chamber that have been effectively used and called upon in order to help keep peace from 2017 onwards. The truth is that Lions are being led by Donkey’s. Yet, there is such urgency to this, to the resolving of this by the Uk administration, I just can’t emphasise this enough.?

Whilst the prison sentence given to Alexei Navalny is long, the best chance for there to be the best result with peace making and all aspects of that and feasibly?the case of Alexei Navalny possibly is for the UK government to officially using Integrated Strategies with the author included and presenting this as a viable, workable, tried, tested and proven peace roadmap methodology, which in actual fact it actually has been various times previously.?

In terms of the media, if the world geo-political map is considered in terms of which countries did what and when from 2017 onwards. How events mapped out then there would be a very clearly evident picture that many countries on an International level stepped in and actually very much helped the world remain at peace.

If there is correct and proper analysis of this then it will be found that the following countries, China, Israel, Turkey, India, Pakistan, Russia, South Korea, North Korea, USA, UK, The European Union, ASEAN and other countries all positioned specifically geo-politically to stop and prevent wars, quite feasibly a world war. This was particularly the case in 2017 in the Korea’s and 2018/19 in Syria.

Whilst this was effectively a geo-political interaction, a form of cooperation between different countries the national politically focussed politicians and media did not fully and properly represent the peace making that was occurring as the West’s priority was simply to exit wars.

As a result of there not being full and complete representation of issues, and of peace processes there was an incomplete appreciation and understanding generally of exactly what had occurred and therefore, there was not completely the valuing of the practice of making and authoring of peace processes and therefore as a result of that there was limited awareness and thinking of these vitally important necessities in the awareness of either MP’s or the electorate. That’s why the Inquiry into Afghanistan is incomplete. It’s impossible for any Minister, any MP to be able to make sense of what actually occurred in the context of?Afghanistan without there being full disclosure by either the government on the use of Integrated Strategy peace roadmaps by leaders of many countries. Why else are the leaders of the EU blanking Boris, as Boris is obstructing a peace process methodology that is the best chance of bringing peace back to Europe.?

So therefore, there was an incorrect perception, therefore, issues such as China and Russia being very much a part of the diplomacy that led to talks between North Korea, South Korea and the USA, one of the most successful peace processes this century were ignored. The same too with Syria, whilst the Kurdish allies to the West were simply left, whilst the armies of Turkey in the North and Israel in the South were less than one day away from coming into contact it was not The Western Allies, Nor The United Nations, Nor any country other than Russia that prevented that war getting much worse by mediating. Yet, leaders and media at the time were simply not acknowledging that fact.

So the real truth is that China, Russia and many other countries have at times stepped in and been temporarily ‘the global policeman’ when the West simply wanted out of wars. What has to be considered is that to enter into wars there is so much consideration going into discussing that, yet when making and creating peace processes, the more subtle dynamics of how you can get two or three leaders who’s countries have been in contrast in all their thinking for anything from 20 years to eighty years speaking again and doing so constructively. The process that has facilitated that, that has made the bridge building possible is habitually ignored and not considered.

I have written many times before this war in Ukraine began that, ‘If you do not properly and fully study the science of peacemaking then that in itself creates an ever greater chance of conflicts and wars.’ In the context of the communications prior to Russia going into Ukraine, there was one word that kept being said. Integrity’ That word was used by France, Russia, Ukraine and China within the time of just two weeks. The Integrity Initiative, in the UK has caused the non acknowledgement, the non disclosure and the non discussion of vitally important peace process information from 2017 until now. In fact there still has not been proper representation of this by either Boris Johnson or anyone else.?

So let’s get this straight I work and have worked full time since 2017 on writing peace processes and peace strategies, five hours most days. These are for people and planet. This is for people in all countries, the victims of wars are raely ever the politicians and the decsions makers that could have worked harder for peace. That could have tried more for diplomacy.?

There is a common thread to peace making. Countries leadership in every case there is peace created from a conflicting situation always think and act from a win-win perspective. Whilst thinking in terms of wanting a win-win perspective in diplomacy is very difficult whilst in conflict, it’s been done before and then brought peace and can be achieved again potentially in the context of Russia and Ukraine and therefore the EU and therefore the world.?

That perspective is what the following countries leaders all did and as a direct result of that there was peace maintained through some of the most fraught situations diplomatically in recent times. These countries acted with Win-Win in mind on behalf of all global citizens from 2017. South Korea, North Korea, Japan, The USA, Russia, China, Syria, France, Germany, EU, Turkey, Israel, The Uk. However, the process of which the path, the roadmaps to obtaining the feasibility of peace remain unknown.?

So what’s actually not being included, not being properly disclosed and discussed is peace. Political leaders got into their position due to being very good at competing with other people, yet the dynamics of effective peace making requires being very good at cooperating with people.

?In order, to do that requires being able to see the other persons perspective and then find a place to a win-win middle ground, which Nelson Mandela was exceptional at and as a result of that ability he had was able to find a middle ground and thus make peace and keep peace in South Africa. Nelson Mandela took office after the meetings with FW De Klerk knowing that he could be a peace broker. Not only that what I personally know, as I worked under?Nelson Mandela on the Kruger Peace Park project. All sorts of people from all political perspectives worked with Nelson Mandela in South Africa. So there was an unspoken policy of ‘forgiveness’ and that was what provided a way forward for all out of an otherwise very difficult situation that previously had no other answers. The difference in perception simply of either win-win or win-lose is the difference that actually has made peace obtainable until this very day.

So this paradigm of ‘we won’ is correct in the context of the Korea’s scenario. We all won through peacemaking and can win more by that peace making being increased and improved. The new Iran deal, again we all win through peacemaking.

In the context of Ukraine and Russia, there is progress, there is the step back by President Zelinskyy from a no-fly zone. In the context of the ‘language of Integrated Strategy Peace Processes’ that is a ‘goodwill gesture’, it’s a clearly stated choice to want to find the middle ground.

?If the politicians and the media were fully conversent in the tactical language and the positioning of ‘Integrated Strategy’ design, they would be able to perceive this and fully report this and the significance of this. So there is media that understand and report the conflict yet do not fully interpret moves towards potential peace as the leaders themselves are using strategic language and linguistic positioning that simply does not get the ‘in the know?commentary’ in terms of understanding and appreciation of progress in diplomacy out of conflict and into peace.

In the context of India and Pakistan, the vital goodwill measure, the interjection in the conflict that they had was the opening of the Sikh Pilgrims Path, this together with mediation with other countries in the context of that China, that coupled with the fact that at that moment in time no other countries got specifically involved enabled the leadership of India and Pakistan to both be fully in control of the situation themselves and to be able to form their own ways of thinking in the context of that very moment, without the affect of earlier peace agreements having an effect on their immediate decision making at that particular moment in time.

So reverting back to the current Ukraine situation, in actual fact Ukraine’s leader through the discussions with Russia has managed to take away one of the most important concerns of Russia and that was the issue of Ukraine joining Nato. What has to be considered is that 24 and 22 years ago Russia had asked to join Nato and that was not permitted, one does have to ask why? That was under both President Yeltsin and President Putin later on. What’s more Russia did ask to join the EU and that was also declined. However, where the situation is today.

There could be a possibility of Russia agreeing that Ukraine can progress towards EU membership in exchange for Ukraine having a non militarised status. The consideration of a loss of land integrity?is a factor where there has been both a statement made both in the context of that being so and that not being so. In order to be able from this place to be able to improve the potential Integrated Strategy, the methodology requires that more information in brought into the discussion. If there was for example the participation of any other country, International body such as Nato or the EU considering how they can ‘add content’ in order to help both sides obtain a middle ground then there could be the means and the way to create a blurring of red lines towards a middle ground compromise by each or either side.?

So for example, the EU or Nato by ‘adding proposed content’ which could for example a change of position in terms of Nato or EU membership status towards either side, could then potentially generate a completely new and improved positioning of either or both sides.?

So lets explore this for a moment. If Nato said we have gone through our old membership requests and found that Russia had applied for Nato membership, we have reviewed this and accept Russia into Nato on the condition that Ukraine can also join Nato, then that would be a ‘third party guarentee’ which Ukraine is asking for, that aso could work very wellfor both Russia and the EU.??

Before, going further into that I just want to say that President Biden in terms of ‘Integrated Strategy linguistics and positioning’ also called for regime change and then confirmed exactly the opposite that he was not calling for regime change’. Whilst that may seem to a non-professional peace strategist to be somewhat confusing. It’s actually not, there are other more subtle aspects to this being communicated, that would go over the heads of most people. What President Biden is doing is he is aligning his thinking with Integrated Strategy peace modeling too by doing this. I have to explain this more fully. The first move taken towards peace in the context of when President Trump and President Un were not saying the kindest of things to each other was to provide an insult and a compliment as a way of shifting the conversation onto a more productive peace orientated level. A leader cannot easily change from effectively insulting onto compliments unless both are done at the same time. So whilst this may seem very strange to outside observers, there is an implied language being communicated.?

There is a level of flexibility being offered in the position offered to President Putin. In terms of analysis of peace making and diplomacy words are less than actions and yet the right words said in the right way can lead to thinking more in terms of the West being more interested in defense, in peace making rather than winning arguments and offence. Making Peace is being shown to be the priority, yet to get to that requires effective talks, yet to get to that requires both sides want peace and to get to that requires that Ukraine defend it’s position and territory and considering the perspective of Russia, that Russia is able also to feel that it’s position is secure too.

So President Biden has effectively offered President Putin the option of either what could be considered a win-lose or a win-win through effective peace negotiations with Ukraine. The fact is that neither President Biden or President Putin are the best of friends, yet they are also both trying to do what they perceive as leaders to be the best for their countries interests.?

Whilst I totally disagree with war almost every single time. The only exception to this was the second world war where there was in fact no other option for the allies other than to have fought. In the context of so many other wars, in fact every other war there was a choice. In the context of the situation today, there is a choice again. Yet, to be able to get to that choice requires I would suggest that there is both an immediate reporting of the events in Ukraine firstly, yet that alone is not actually providing full enough perspective to really properly and fully understand all the issues of differences of thinking that have led up and created this terrible situation. It’s only by seeking to have some levels of peace paradigms considered, the consideration of how arbitration, mediation, recognising of effective peace making and the proper and correct academic representation of this presented fully through leadership and or the press can there be the fastest and the most viable ways out of this situation produced.

Whilst President Biden has refereed to President Putin as a butcher, if you go onto RT News, you can see that President Putin has responded by citing Yugoslavia and the actions of President Biden then. President Biden has also cited that Russia’s concern in the context of Nato countries bordering Russia is not a genuine concern. What the problem is though is that is not the way in which Russia is perceiving this.?

I’m trained as a therapist and it’s my knowledge of therapy of individuals that I have learned to apply to countries, and the thinking in terms of leaders and of countries. it’s all does extrapolate very well at times in order to be able to gain a better perspective.

During my training we learned of a reference case where there was a client that went to the therapist and explained that he had a fear of Pizza’s. Every time he saw a pizza, A pizza advert, a pizza shop or a pizza delivery driver even then he would go into a complete state of fear and panic. The therapist listened attentively and said, ‘How long has this been going on for’? The timing of the first incident coincided with a time where the client had bene involved in a car accident. The therapist did hypnotherapy and found that at the time of the accident that there was an advert on the radio for pizzas. So in therapy we learn that the mind is just so incredible, the client had effectively created an association, a neural pathway between the pizza, fear and danger. They had effectively become one in the same.

So my teacher was clear to show that no two people and the way they think are the same and certainly no two people think the same or have ever thought the same.

What sets us apart from other beings on this planet is our brains and our minds, and just how differently from each other we all are in the way in which we think. So with this consideration in mind, whilst President Biden does not see the concern of Nato on the border to Russia, President Putin does. Is that a completely rational or irrational concern? Well, who can really say, however risking any more of the continuation of this war to find out.

The best way to find out is to do as the therapist acted and behaved towards the client with the pizza fear. The pizza therapist did not dismiss, laugh or underplay the concern of the client, no the therapist went with the clients’ map of perception’ The therapist went with the idea that somewhere ‘there is an underlying good intention’ to almost all human actions, that can be found somewhere. By the therapist being respectful of the completely different way of thinking of the client, rapport was maintained. Rapport, being the most important factor. If there is no trust between therapist and client, then there is no progress. The progress the world wants first and foremost is not having to experience the trauma of this war. So leaders first priority should be on how to calm, solve resolve the ‘crisis’ in thinking’ that has created this situation in the first place.

The reality is that President Putin’s stated motivation for this war has been completely consistent. This is for the protection of his country. The West and really the rest of the world do not want a war. So the fact is that this war is being created by the ‘fear of not being protected’ and that is the same for both Russia and it is the same for Ukraine.

So where Russia was some 20 years ago there was a desire by President Putin for Russia to be a part of the EU. It was apparently cited by the EU that Russia is too large as a country. There was the intention to join Nato, and from what was reported by (French/Russian/American Journalist in his address to Yale University that this was declined. See youtube film). Then in addition to that there was peace making done Internationally, that was not reported in the press plus the fact that Russia is a Brics country, which effectively splits the economic geo-political landscape in other ways by aligning Russia to very different countries ranging from Brazil, to South Africa, to China and India. This again creates whole new unconsidered levels of complexity in terms of sanctions and the knock on effects of those go on to directly affect the economies of countries completely not ‘politically involved in terms of the conflict in Ukraine. Then there is the European dependency to Oil and Gas from Russia, and then there is the economy of London so interconnected with the Russian economy too. So I don’t know about fears in terms of pizzas but in terms of the economic spaghetti of a mess this entire situation is creating, there is an interwoven entangled mess which will certainly result in farmers not getting seed from some countries that are dependent upon Ukraine, and others that are dependent upon Russia. There are 17.8 Million Square Kilometre’s of land that is affected in terms of GDP very severely by this war. That is 1/7 of all the land of the world.

When it’s considered that a global recession can be caused by the failure of a bank or two, having such a massive effect on so much land, so many people, the implications to this war already are vast and that’s after the affects of the pandemic.

So a peace process that could be, that is potentially on the way in some way to being effective today, could be the difference between whether or not their is a worldwide famine in one years time or not. If there is that, then we will be seeing the makings of a terrible world that we all live in. Everything is just so interconnected, peace processes, thinking, being able to consider the perspective of other people and even if we disagree on something, seeking to find something significant enough to agree upon and then working back to have better relations.

So in the context of human psychology, I would say that the only way that the imprisonment Alexia Navalny in the short term would likely not turn out with him being a leader of his nation. This is highly unlikely unless there was a change in government in Russia or a change of thinking in the rest of the world. That change of thinking is so difficult to do now with what has been happening in Ukraine. Whilst Boris Johnson has said that what is happening in Ukraine can be likened only to the second world war, the peace processes that occurred in the Korea’s especially can be compared to nothing else previously. In the 20th Century the West East issues affected millions of peoples live through war, these were perpetuated by the issues of the unresolved issues of the second world war and in the context of the Korean and Vietnam war the power issues between East and West playing out and causing a divided population that then caused a war. In the 21st century the cooperation, the win-win perspective won through to peace for all citizens of the world, due to a win-win situation where the wisdom of leaders on all sides realised they had inherited the situation, they were not completely to blame at all.?

They were all trying to do the best for their countries, both acknowledged the same shared needs of protection for all through improved diplomacy, through a shared cultural event, the Winter Olympics becoming known as The Peace Games. There was a script to the events that played out then, there was a peace roadmap written and yet never fully explained in the press. The peace processes was not as good as it could have been, yet it was enough of a success to keep all sides talking and on the same side. That peace process can be improved and made much better, yet that was enough to help protect the world from an unnecessary war and yet there is still today for there to be better peacemaking with this and ways to help North Korea again avoid famine as is also the case with Afghanistan too. Wars and slow to be realised peace agreements in the past are creating instability today. The very best way to a good peace process is by creating a complicated, intricate peace process that does factor in and help other countries too that are allied and considered important to both countries in disagreement.

So again returning to the question, there are many people in Russia that are supporters of Alexei Navalny. I believe that what has caused Russia to give him such a long prison sentence is due to the fact that there are many pressures on Russia today obviously and that these if anything are causing there to be a harder line taken by President Putin. To say that President Putin has not made the effort for Russia to become more aligned with both the EU and Nato is a factual inaccuracy in the press, all the press. To have not fully and properly considered peace processes again, has not allowed there to be a full story even openly discussed and considered. Yes, the invasion of Ukraine is wrong, completely wrong and that is an action that can only be described as being at the very best win-lose from either the perspective of Russia or the West.

The only easy way that I can see this entire situation going in terms of geo-politically, ie the study of the interaction of different countries with their differing agenda’s and the results and the interplay with all of that is that the situation is either going to get much better, or much worse. If the situation is to get much better, then I would say that the idea of trying to create pressure internally in Russia so that there can potentially be change within the Russian system generated is of greater risk in everyway, economically, socially, politically. It’s a series of tactics without a strategy that is likely to create peace. Diplomacy with a roadmap that considers all perspectives, that seeks out in termsof agreement middle ground, is the best and the only feasible way to save more lives in this war and to find an outcome that is mutually viable and workable.?

What I believe, is the best option in order to try and bring the current emergency situation to a better position is in some ways for the West to accept that it’s not actually been that open to Russia and it’s evolution as a country since the end of the cold war. Accepting and admitting that of course Russia and Ukraine are both important countries and both equally deserve the right to feel safe and to not be at war, which they have been now for many years before this. To be open to discussions on all issues relating to borders and security both for Ukraine and Russia.

To be prepared to do an exchange of proposals. Ie to ask the question, If Russia and Ukraine were both in Nato or neither of them in Nato then how does that improve the situation? There are many ways potentially to peace. Yet, listening and being open to all options are essential.?

?It's collective thinking that can generate the best answer to this, although the 'structure or format of thinking' is vital. The truth is there is much more to this work that is not widely known than than is known. Aspects of this methodology however are taking form in some of the words and proposals implied by various sides in this as a means to potentially broker a viable and workable peace deal. Yet, in order to fully comprehend whats actually being said and implied fully, requires an understanding of the 'integrated Strategy paradigm of thinking', the?'operating system of structured thought' that's occurring to a significant extent on a leadership level, and yet that can only be fully perceived and factored in properly when using the paradigm of 'integrated strategy thinking in the previous peace processes'.?It's best likened to HTML which does not make sense when looked at unless you understand how to use it properly.?

?So to explain more this is why I believe the word 'Integrity' has been used by France, Russia, Ukraine and China so many time. This is why there is a reference being made back to Korea, the big table (ie looking at all options on the table, reference President Trump) from that time on there was a use of a different format of peace making roadmap process for the first time ever. The methodology of how to put a peace process together is the most essential factor in how to improve both leadership in the direction of viable peace making and therefore generate effective diplomacy, get talks from a lose-lose or lose win or win-lose format onto the essential win-win format and therefore improve proposals, therefore diplomacy and therefore bring lasting peace. The optimal methodology is not being used to it's best potential at the moment at all, if it was then an International peacemaking deal could be obtained within hours or days. Why? When you use Integrated Strategy modelling what was a linear peace process effectively becomes what's best likened to a multi dimensional model where 'participants' which could include Nato, EU, UK, USA, ASEAN plus other countries could add, 'benefit' or content' that then increases dramatically the scale and capacity of the benefits to either side towards towards leveraging a peace deal. The third party guarantor aspect to a de-militarised Ukraine is in my documents, yet it now requires other associations to provide that piece of the puzzle. Additionally pieces of rthe puzzle to help Ukraine in terms of the immediate and long term humanitarian needs and yet to do so by providing answers for Russia that reduce, counterbalance and provide reasing for peace to be the immediate consideration.?

So effectively 'An Integrated Strategy' at best can be likened to a 'mindmap' that people, countries or inter-country associations can potentially add 'content' add answers too which then improves the peace process, makes it much more viable and more effective. People in Poland going to the border to help refugees is one aspect, so too is people signing petitions and joining groups to stop the war, so too though could be groups of countries considering how they can add guarentees or adapt policies to reduce the issues that caused conflict. Both Ukraine and Russia want to feel safe within their own borders, the worlds leaders could be creative enough to find a way to do that. Russia and Ukraine have 1/7th of all the land area in which people live in the whole world, that's vast any war there inevitably affects all the rest of us.?So do sanctions, this is why China is actually correct is saying sanctions is not the way to as that simply will cause famine in India, Pakistan and Africa and put farmers in the EU?out of business too. We need a collective answer that is generated by vastly increased cooperation with countries helping from a listening perspective and leveraging answers that help build a better peace process is a way to bring a better peace deal and prevent a massive global recession and?famine.?

I was asked to write a short sentance on diplomacy to describe in a sentance what the content of a course in Diplomacy for an ordinary person would be. These considerations I beleive are of relevence today. A brilliant question, thank you. In one sentence, is more than I can write here, so I have written a few sentences for a course in Diplomacy for an ordinary person in one sentence.

Great diplomacy requires the consideration that we have two minds, four ears and two mouths to find one answer that is a win-win for all.

‘The Art of Diplomacy is the meeting of two minds, where you can always find content to agree upon, and yearn to find a narrative to find more.’

Great diplomacy is where love happens through words, with contact only through hands, whilst dressed in formal clothing.

The best diplomacy is a type of magic that transmutes the most complicated of world issues into appearing to be the most simple.

Diplomacy is the glue that keeps the world together. Diplomacy is even more than that, it’s the glue that put together the pot and the glue in the first place.

Diplomacy is the creative process where the least agreeable of circumstances and conditions are transferred to becoming the very most palatable and agreeable circumstances and conditions.

The only aspect of diplomacy where there is never the chance of compromise is in you own inner quest to obtaining a win-win.

Diplomacy is the greatest of adventures in mental gymnastics in the mind that can look of the outside boring. The only boring part is boring deep into your own inner psyche to find a win-win way through.

A diplomat is very good at being a rational person. When two rational people talk they can always find much to agree upon.

What diplomacy is to communication, is what martial arts is to conflict. Both require the highest levels of logic, control, balance, the capacity to understand the other, the environment, and to assert inner control with the purpose of regaining outer peace and calm. They are both highly skilled paths, they require years of dedication and vast amounts of creative thinking.

A smile and a handshake is how good diplomacy begins and concludes no matter what’s been thought and what’s been said. The best diplomacy begins and concludes with a hug, ending without a smile and constructive way to progress towards a win-win, was never truly diplomacy.

Diplomacy is not saying what you want to say, but saying what’s best to be said for the best possible outcome in order to help the most amount of people.

If diplomacy regresses, so do people. If diplomacy progresses, so do people.

All of the money in the world is actually worth less than effective diplomacy, without brilliant diplomacy occurring everyday, there is little of value in the human world, and the greatest of value that becomes obvious is in the natural world.

Great diplomacy is the constant quality that has enabled people to outsmart the conditions on the planet in the past and present. To continue to stay in front under the current conditions requires logic and diplomacy progress beyond where they have been in the past.

We are dealing with a more complicated present day situation collectively than other people did previously therefore the diplomats of today, really do need to be on a journey of continuous self improvement.

Great diplomacy requires the consideration that we have two minds, four ears and two mouths to find one answer that is a win-win for all.

‘The Art of Diplomacy is the meeting of two minds, where you can always find content to agree upon, and yearn to find a narrative to find more.’

Great diplomacy is where love can happen through ideas and words, with contact only through hands, whilst usually only in formal clothing.

The best diplomacy is a type of magic that transmutes the most complicated of world issues into appearing to be the most simple.

Diplomacy is the glue that keeps the world together. Diplomacy is even more than that, it’s the glue that put together the pot and the glue in the first place.

Diplomacy is the creative process where the least agreeable of circumstances and conditions are transferred to becoming the very most palatable and agreeable circumstances and conditions.

The only aspect of diplomacy where there is never the chance of compromise is in you own inner quest to obtaining a win-win.

Diplomacy is the greatest of adventures in mental gymnastics in the mind that can look of the outside boring. The only boring part is boring deep into your own inner psyche to find a win-win way through.

A diplomat is very good at being a rational person. When two rational people talk they can always find much to agree upon.

What diplomacy is to communication, is what martial arts is to conflict. Both require the highest levels of logic, control, balance, the capacity to understand the other, the environment, and to assert inner control with the purpose of regaining outer peace and calm. They are both highly skilled paths, they require years of dedication and vast amounts of creative thinking.

A smile and a handshake is how good diplomacy begins and concludes no matter what’s been thought and what’s been said. The best diplomacy begins and concludes with a hug, ending without a smile and constructive way to progress towards a win-win, was never truly diplomacy.

Diplomacy is not saying what you want to say, but saying what’s best to be said for the best possible outcome in order to help the most amount of people.

If diplomacy regresses, so do people. If diplomacy progresses, so do people.

All of the money in the world is actually worth less than effective diplomacy, without brilliant diplomacy occurring everyday, there is little of value in the human world, and the greatest of value that becomes obvious is in the natural world.

Great diplomacy is the constant quality that has enabled people to outsmart the conditions on the planet in the past and present. To continue to stay in front under the current conditions requires logic and diplomacy progress beyond where they have been in the past.

We are dealing with a more complicated present day situation collectively than other people did previously therefore the diplomats of today, really do need to be on a journey of continuous self improvement.

Diplomacy is not wanting to be right by yourslef, it's a wanting everybody to continue to be right.?

Positioning towards a win-win from a Russia, Ukraine peace deal.?

Looking from a win-win peacemaking perspective is the best way to get out of this and to win the situation back to improved diplomacy and therefore peace. Any other option creates only more implications that affect more and more people around the world. Trying to isolate a brics country was bad thinking from the start. What they should have done is say what are the issues and lets ignore all previous thinking a find a way to keep peace here and now. It's not too late to do that, yet every moment this war continues is a loss to Ukraine, Russia, the EU and the entire world, so it's essential to get smarter with peace process making, that is what should be 50% of all news today. Any media coverage of any peace process is encouraging the best frame of thinking for all including even the press.?

I'm doing my best to write a viable peace roadmpa process, yet I'm alone in doing this massive undertaking that seemingly few others are even attempting. I want to see peace in Ukraine as soon as possible, which could be immediate if there are enough people in support of this plan or there is government support and help or if there is intergovernment support. At the moment there is none of that at all. I'm working 6 hours a day, to try and do my best. This would be so much easier if the media did not block the entire conversation of Intergated Strategy peace roadmpas from 2017 until now.?

Yes, I have a method that can work, yet it will only work if people beleive in this and help add capacity this rather than ignore or criticise these efforts. If peace processes are ignored, if peace roadmpa methodologies are not represented in the press or in politics then there is not really even an intellegent conversation about how peace can be obtained or potentially obtained occuring. So my work from here needs to be endorsed and supported officially or I can do no more nas this particular potential method to peace makign is not being even attempted by anyone else properly. Yes, this can help with negotiations, yet if there is any value at all to any of the two hundred or so mpages I have written to try and find a way to peace in Ukraine then in term sof the negotiations this work should have been included fully and properly and allowed freedom of speach at least year ago.?

However, the best I can do from my position is to request that more people promote the roadmpa concept of Intergrated Strategies and from this hopefully from a more informaed position I can owrk to improve this and that this can be a realistic and viable process.?

As things stand anyone with resources can be a part of the answer to this. Anyone can help lobby the press or politicians to make better use of this work. However, as things are if the basis of this document is negotiated and used and more come forward with goodwill measures to assist the interaction and use of this methodology of peace process then there is a chance even then for this to work.?

What is the win-win of a deal between Russia and Ukraine.?

1. International agencies contribute towards a better representation of past peace processes, the media cover these properly and fully. There is open media on how peace processes could occur between Russia and Ukraine.?

2. Countries contribute by helping in terms of humanitarian assistance and yet also helping to provide guarentees for Ukraine, yet also reqpresenting the issue that Russia has guarentees too.?Lobbying Nato so that there is a clearer representation of peace processes in the past in order to create balance in terms of thinking and to show and prove that various countries have been part of peace processes in the recent past.?

3. Guarentees made so that there can be a ceasefire to allow to more mediation time, and more importantly for other countries and organisations, NGO's, intergovernmental groups to consider ways that they can provide both 'content' that helps to leverage effective peacemaking. Propsals made of the reversal of sanctions if there is a ceasefire and troops return to Russia.?

4. An aid concert to help for the losses of people.?

5. Links to help other countries allied to Russia that have been 'out of favour' in the past for years and decades to be able to progress with sanctions lifted if helping to contrbute towards a win-win and add leaverage through goodwill gestures towards bring back balance and peace and for both sides to have their own security needs condiered and suported with guarentees.?

6. The best win for Ukriaine in the short term is Russia leaving, the fact is that this entire situation has put to the top of the worlds agenda both the security and stability issues of both countries. There is a widescale acknolwedgement that peace in both countries is essential for the wellbeing of the whole world, both economically and socially.?

7. A win for refugees, climate and the EU is obtained only through peace. So Nato embracing the security considerations of both countries actually helps bring the conversation more from a them and us perspective and more towards a both sides wantign a similar scenario perspective. In terms of land, which regions are Ukrainian and which Russian there is the chance for there to be indipendent too and therefore what I would consider the best option is to have a vote as cited previously.?

8. The reality is destorying both cities and towns and kiling innocent people or even soldiers is the manifestation of a faioure in diplomacy at a top level not in terms of one side or the other, but all sides. The stopping of the killing of people shoudl be the very first priority of all. There is time and enough goodwill to negotaiate once thsi has stopped. For every continuing attack there is a loss of potential trust or belief in a potential peace process and the truth is the only good future for Russia, Ukraine or the EU is via talking and not conflict.?

9. One tactic that can help improve communication is more direct communication in the media between leaders, if done so in the right way the appeal for one leader to another could perhaps improve relations. It's the realting to the others position that can form a path towards a more mutual appreciation of the others position which could then help improve raport, that could then improve the orders given to generals and to troops, that coudl then bring about a ceasefire.?

10. Answer given below.?

What would it look like if all Intergated Strategy work is used together??

There can be a Win for Ukraine, Win for Russia,?Win for EU, Win for USA, Win for Developing world countries,?

Win for Refugees. This is feasible by the country being brought back to peace and people able to return to their own homes. However, there are many Intergated Strategies that help many other refugee situations worldwide. They also provide ways in order to better utilise under populated countries and also link to help in land regeenration and ecologicl rebalance. So the answer to Ukraine is ending the war through improved diplomacy, which can be brought about by the use of Integrate Strategy roadmaps, especially if there is more cooperation in terms of their acceptance and use and more resources for creating and writing them. With that the many feasible benefits are vast and they benefit both people and the climate too, which is another inevitable issue that there needs to be more effective answers to that these strategies produce.?

By instigating a really full and complete plan there is the chance to produce and achieve a great many benefits in Ukraine, in Russia, in the EU and worldwide. What's more there is the chance to help get the worlds economy to recover and additionally help align a whole new program that prevents and answers the needs of famine too. The progress that I ned to see is the actual acknolwedgement by leaders of Intergated Strategies to feasibly be the best possible path towards creating a viable peace process. Whilst I do not know exactly what that could fully look like now, what I do know is that if I'm the only voice even calling for this and writing these alone and without even having a staff team of anything more than myself, then the chances of this being able to make a difference are lessened. how can it be that I live in a world where governments spend billions on weapons and are dependent for everything upon an economy that has not ever provided not anything towards the writing of what has already proven in the past to be the most effective form of peace roadmap. How can it really be that everyone and there entire lives on this planet has been dependent upon something that nobody in fact ever considers of any benefit at all. That's how it's been since 2017. It makes me think that humanity is really as stupid and selfish as it is intellegent. I finish this document by saying that the only reason that you have been able to have read this document is due to the Intergated Strategy peace processes that have been written by me in the past that have managed to keep the world how it is. That is how it is. What I beleive is the best way through this conflict to peacemaking is a better approach taken to Intergated Strategy peace roadmaps, unforntunately however it seems like I'm the only person in the world that thinks like this as all the rest of people are too busy just living for themsleves in a world that my work has helped to protect so many times in the past and when it comes to asking how and why the first most easiest questions we ask the most important question fails consistently to be fully and properly considered. So with the capacities that I have, I have done all I can, if people do not appreciate this work, then what can I do. I have in fact spent 32 years trying to get people to appreciate a political science that is so desperately required in the world and has already done so much, yet nobody is interested. I do not beleive that humanity has any chance at all of getting through the next fifty years without a major collapse of all living systems on this planet without all Intergated Strategy work used fully and completely to it's best capacity. At the current rate i would be surprised if it makes it another twenty years, so I have done all that I can to explain this, to present thsi to lobby this and yet nobody is seemingly listening and nobody seemingly cares. The people of this world rely upon ideas copied and used by people in power that did not have either the sense or the wisdom to have given even the time of the day to the author and to proper evaluation of this political science.?

Of?ffity Intergated Strategies this is the only one that does not finish with me writing a solution, the answer of getting this any more into practice is down to other people, not me, I have done my best, but if people are not interested or able to listen, to act on good information that is in their own interest and other peoples interests too then there's little more else I can do. Whilst this provides an outline roadmap, a theoretcial roadmap, by simply writign documents and expecting 'experts' to be able to interpret and use this work to it's best capacity is simply wrong. Whoever in postions of power that thinks like this does not understand the limitation of writing. It's the conversation that can be had that is based upon being able to speak to all sides in this that geenrates the best outcome, the best type of intergrated strategy, yet for some reason every time I try to obtian that my paths are blocked and letter remain unanswered. I have had my letters left unanswered for 32 years on this. There is hope in this world still left, yet not much more I believe if the best answers to the most issues remains incorrectly represented, if there is neither any real justice or even narrative towards that in the context of this work. I have done all I can to further this, if the governments don't really want a viable method of creatign a viable future on this planet then all I beleive they need to do is to continue doing what they are doing and ignored this vital work which answers more of the biggest answers of this time and future times than any other work by anyone in the tiems we now are in. If all the news can do is report on the problems and not the potential solutions then that's all that the future really holds. What the mind percieves and believes it can achieve. That is either peace and a viabel climate once again or an ever deminishing and reducing capacity for any to continue to live well in a world with so many converging issues and problems.?

So yes, there is reason for hope, yet what's required for that to be real is a logistical methodology that is vast and that is win-win. Whilst this work provides a way to that, the reaction mostly is not win-win or win-lose it's been win-ignore.

The use of Intergated Peace Strategies by leaders of so many countries that prevented so many wars, that actually helped the world remain at peace, without there having been ever a real authentic media conversation about this, without there having been anyone, not a single person knwledgeable enough about peace making and yet well enough placed to have been able to speak out about this work and to breakthrough a wall of complete indiference, what chance was there really in being able to keep up peace derived upon simply copied, unrefererenced and stolen and only half understood work. Whilst scientists realise the importance of correct referencing neither politicians or International leaders have the same awareness. So the lack of openness about Intergated Strategies prevents them working as effectively as they otherwise could. I've done everything I can to try and change that, but nobody else has so the way the world is today, ie the whole money thing is considered so important and yet that rests on the stability of a series of government systems that are themsleves dependent upon diplomacy which is based uponto the effective understanding and use of peace processses really is like one big pack of cards, thats held together with delusion made by wishful thinking based upon wishful thinking and a whole lot too little genuine truth and honesty.

If there was more truth there would have been a celebration of peace makign that woudl have been much begger in 2017, it would have shown that there were countries leaders thinking about the interests of all. Yet the whole media narrative pulled the entire narrative back to that of trivia and ignored the most important of information then that should have been known and in the press. This has been the first failure in peacemaking and peace keeping. From here I don't know where to progress with this as these are words alone and it's more than that that's really required to keep geenrating producing and efficiently instigating answers to keep any of the dreams of people really going for much longer when there is not a convergence of new knowledge being allowed through that helps properly and fully answer the implications of the convergence of issues and problems that I first brought to peoples attention in 2009 in my film Ecoplaza paradise oasis (Vimeo). The two paths cited in that film either towards much more cooperation or much more competition thus causing complet failure, the second option today looks more likely than the first, unless there is a chnage of thinking that does fully and properly use this new political science to the best of it's capacity for all people.?

There are many ways to miscalculate conflicts, and yet only one way to calculate peace. It's essential for everyone and everything we love.?

Increase the peace, improve diplomacy, link in the people, and link in the planet with Integrated Strategies!?

Please excuse any typo's, or statements that may seem a little out of context, some of this document was written late at night and without the help of an editor. The intention is to provide an overall sketch of how to progress into the peace between Russia and Ukraine that the modern world as we know it depends upon.?

In order to be able to fully appreciate and understand Integrated Strategies and what they have done in the past, how many countries have been involved and how they can potentially generate an answer today fully would best be communicated via a program on televisions or interviews with graphs and explanation. It's very complicated to explain here, so if you can help with that in any way, please write.

If anyone questions who's side I'm on it's the same side I was on in 2017 that's everyone's side. In terms of wars and conflicts we either find a much better way through them together and thus are able to then answer other really significant issues or we fail together, in which case we fail with those too. In terms of war there is only lose-lose in the context of the converging issues of today. Russia can't win, Ukraine can't win alone. Yet, through peacemaking everyone can win together. ??