Integrated Strategy for Peace Russia & Ukraine (Part 18)

If collectively we cannot represent the better aspects of civilisation and diplomacy properly, then the risk is increased that seemingly soon there will be neither.

This is the last paragraph I wrote in the last document. This should be a statement that appears at the entry point to countries, at bus terminals, airports. This is what helps keep them all functioning together with everything else.?

Lets put this in another way.?

All that is required to end diplomacy and civilisation is by incorrectly representing to best aspects of diplomacy and civilisation.?

Or another way;

?Ignorance combined with arrogance in the context of peace processes is the very most?expedient?path possible into the effective demise of everything we value in our country and in this world.?

That is precisely where the world is right now today. There has been an under appreciation of peace processes, caused by past narratives not allowing fully for newer narratives to find a way through. The non allowance of this has caused incorrect representations of countries and this has led to diplomacy changing.?

We are actually collectively not thinking deeply enough to realise just how vulnerable everything is we treasure in terms of worst case scenario's. There is a deficit in human intelligence when it comes to the consideration of the most important things in this world.

?The most important things are built upon the quality of communication, the human interactions of all the countries. The dexterity and abilities used in order to find a quiet place in the minds and the rooms shared by those involved in mediation for the best present and future.?Yet, today we are not in a place of mediation, or a place attempted mediation but it's not really working but in a place of war and the vast cascading implications of that that goes with it.?

That's due to the narrative of winning being louder than that of the win-win through peace making narrative that began when West and East said a certain yes to peace between North and South Korea.?

We are not thinking hard enough to pick up the pieces of that moment and to make the very best of then for today. To squeeze the juice from that moment of great mediation and using that moment then to work as effectively as it feasibly could for this actual moment today. The peace roadmap for the Korea's, the greatest peace making accomplishment of this century enabling all sides to put down their missiles for a very significant moment should have been seen as?the remarkable, truly momentous moment where the West and the East came together in the name of the Universal interest for peace. That is after failing to obtain that accomplishment for much of the 20th century and for seventeen years into this century.??

There should have been a celebration as the back in nam scenario of West East rivalry had not taken the world 'back to nam' for anything other than a peace process. We had all?made progress with a capitalist country meeting a communist country within a communist country and a relationship developing for the first time on talks with the third generation of Kim's.?

From that success, there could have been a whole flurry of effective peace processes worldwide. There were some and congratulations to the Trump administration on those and yet that's the thing.?

It was the universal interest of all that was the real motivating factor of all sides, not the 'maximum pressure of one', which recent events in the world have actually proven.?

The changing of 'the narrative' from what was, to what 'made the most sense to the Western mindset and media' is actually a part of the reasoning why there has been a reversal on the progress made then.?

The cause of the West and East Renaissance?in peace making to have been so short lived, it lasted not much more than a single US administration. Yet, after that things got complicated. I do have to say not by the actions of President Biden, no a new President was certainly not the issue, nor the outgoing president either. There were a combination of factors which complicated the issue.?

Yet what caused the failure in really making peace making a consolidated reality, as established in the world and the psyche of all was that the issue was that the middle ground for peace making that was obtained in 2017 was never fully and properly explored in the press.?

The hows and the why's of how the peace making was really obtained was simply emitted, not considered newsworthy enough, so what happened is that the entire world failed to grasp the full truth, to learn a simple lesson of how to make a peace process actually work in a better way than previously considered by so many administrations to be possible. Whilst the lead into the peace process was of a win-win nature, the actual talks and the details of how that peace process could be instigated shifted more onto a 'maximum pressure' sort of footing than remaining as win-win and that's why the peace process never became fully what it otherwise could have been. Chairman Un said that he wanted to progress his country into being more like other socialist countries. For those that consider the?word socialist to be too uncomfortable. Please also do consider?Scandinavian?countries. Socialism does not?necessarily?equate to anything much other than a country that considers the social needs of it's people. The word social equates to communication and relationships. The dream of North Korea is to open up to tourism to be able to progress and possibly even to use the extraordinary train station that sits their fully constructed in the DMZ zone between North and South Korea and to open the country to the best chance and the best hopes of a good future.?

The fact is that North Korea advanced the peace process with South Korea after the negotiations with the USA and actually made peace with the South for the first time in Seventy years. In terms of a change there was that and yes there was political mileage for the domestic political market in the West to benefit from with leaders winning the peace,?for saving the modern day civilised world and converting what was only until then a?wholly?dysfunctional?relationship, into the start of a viable working relationship. Talks and diplomacy won over the paradigm that had been established during the course of 11 US administrations which until then had just looked at the whole North Korea situation and considered the whole situation either a basket case scenario of how on earth do we even being to relate to that at best and at worst describing North Koreas as a part of the axis of evil.?However, what began with comparisons in terms of size of nuclear buttons took a turn for the better with the meetings that began at the newly named Peace Olympics. The combined North and South Korean team is possibly the greatest achievement the Olympic Games has accomplished in at least the last couple of centuries. Yes, the Olympic Games are a source of mediation and peace making, something we can all be proud of, a substantial contribution from Greece that has helped the entire world progress ever since the first Olympic Games. It's an extraordinary human accomplishment to have created a sports event that hundreds of years later can challenge ideas of divisiveness and yet a few decades on can facilitate a narrative of inclusion, of togetherness of unity in sport, when the conversation at the time had been so weak. Human resourcefulness and capacity at it's best in terms of what is achieved on the field and in terms of what is accomplished in order to bring us all forward in terms of our evolutionary adventure on this planet.??

Yet, four years for the establishment of a thing that helped save the modern world is something of value whether it's perceived in that way publicly or not. The way in which we interpret the recent past does just so clearly and evidently seemingly determine the value of everything we place value in long into the future.?

We do have to be careful in how we record history. World War two never happened,?

Is anyone offended? Of course. Vietnam, it was only of consequence to them over there.

?These paradigms of thinking are so obviously wrong. World war two shaped the entire second half of the last century and Vietnam created the biggest generational divide in the Western world that there has ever been before, then and nothing even vaguely?similar to that until the more complete establishment of the anti war movement and of the Green movement. The climate rallies of recent years are?reminiscent?of the anti-war protests of the 60's, except today most agree with the line of reasoning that the climate needs our help. The only real question is exactly how we can participate. My interpretation of this is that the East is more aligned to the idea of very vast, interconnected global action than the West. What the West considers to be it's turf and the East considers to be it's turf is only one aspect of the whole discussion in fact, the bigger discussion is whether or not a type of win-win diplomacy can put these wars to bed and from there a new map of inter country cooperation can be created. a world order that laughs at the inadequacies of the 20th century in terms of how one country is able to relate to another and from that new spring board of more effective reasoning propel the entire world forward in such a way that we collectively propel all countries both West and East into an entirely new paradigm of inter-country cooperation.?

A newly regenerated West-East?Renaissance?can find enough middle ground for cooperation. Any system in the world that can call their own history 'mad' is a country that should be given the very greatest respect. It's?country that is very much clearly in the here and now, not lost in past fables, not stuck in paradigms of thinking that are not effective for today, a country that is up for modernising, up for meeting other countries where they are and seeking out middle ground.?yes, nay country can cling onto it's history and use this as justification for thinking how the country thinks today and yet really the very best use of history is obtained in ways beyond the national narrative alone. People that all think differently are what is required to produce lasting unity. If we try to produce unity from people that all think exactly the same about everything we soon end up with people that tfind more to disagree upon than to agree upon. If countries are able to hold the consideration that the past of any and every country is only an approximation, a reference?of how things can become better in future, then there is more hope generated that by simply seeing the struggle over adversity. Every person and every country knows adversity well, yet if that can be used as a resource in the here and now to define the path to a better future then that is a resource of great value. Yet, if history is only used as a reference to what was bad and wrong in the past without a clear vision to prove how we can find and obtain conditions better than in the past, then there is a wasted opportunity for progress. There are not many people in the world that want's their life, their situation to get worse. Everyone mostly wants to see progress and improvement. How that is accomplished is an ongoing conversation, and yet in order to get to that either begins with a shared belief in people or a shared belief in leadership that that is indeed obtainable.?

The problems that there are in countries like Russia, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan,?Libya, Syria,?Venezuela,?Myanmar?are perhaps very much more the same than is ever usually written of. All of these countries in my opinion all have a common denominator. They do not know how to reconcile with the politics of the past, mostly of the 20th Century with the West in order to have an effective way in which to progress. There is no capacity for vision in these countries or a ten step plan that can be evident to their leadership simply due to the fact that at some time in the past someone, somewhere in some office has considered the good and the bad countries checklist and made the decision that they are considered 'bad countries' now this is partly an assumption and I know that there is a vast abundance of information and data that i simply do not have. I could be talking out the top of my hat on this and yet. Let's just say for a moment that we live in a thirty second attention span reality, it's just like that in most of the countries in the world. If that was for today the working principle in the west today. If there was this notion that, no, no no the present is more important than the past. We don't require anything other than the notion that countries right now, today are prepared to work from the perspective of a win-win perspective. We will be entirely fair, open and respecting of these countries and what we expect, though do not colonially demand is that they pass on the good will that we give to them to their own people then there is a good to at least reasonable chance that all of a sudden the countries that have taken up the very most time in terms of 'foreign policy choices and decisions could actually play ball. even if half of the above mentioned countries had?renewed, win-win type of dialogue?with the West. The question has to be asked would their leadership go along with this? My belief is yes. What's more this massive offering of goodwill by the west would find a way to filter through these all individual and in fact very different systems and the results that would be obtained are something so much more than crossing swords could ever possibly accomplish.?

The West has done many things, it's experimented in so many ways, it's pushed boundaries and crossed frontiers than nobody ever considered was even possible. However, the one thing that the West has never done, never done anything like this is to invest anything very substantial in the countries that it's seen in some ways or many to have been it's rivals in the last century.?What happens when you offer your opponent your hand to help him up? In terms of International diplomacy no idea, there are not too many reference points to be able to draw from. Yet, there is one.?

North Korea that George w Bush described as a part of the access of evil. the country that after two terms in office President Obama described as being the greatest challenge of the Trump administration. That President Trump then turned into an effective enough peace process. That then left the door open for North and South Korea to progress in the direction towards greater reconciliation than ever previously. By President Trump investing enough of his belief into the chance of their being a better situation, helped to manifest exactly that.?

?This whole paradigm of sanctions i do not disagree with. Yet what I do disagree with are negative entrenched positions that go from one country to another for years and decades. The lack of faith in the human capacity to be able to reconcile differences is pitiful at times in geo-politics.

All evidence does suggest that countries can change, adapt and progress when there is the chance and the hope to be able to do that. What invariably holds progress back is not the fact that progress is unobtainable, more so the invalid belief that progress is not possible. Progress is the natural intrinsic value buried?deep within us all that got us all where we are today. The capacity to be able to sit there in a meeting with a history of tit for tat and to be able to say, ok lets wipe the board clean, lets start again this is what i can offer you to begin with what can you offer me is the type of negotiation that could change the world more in one week than it's changed in a few decades. It does not sit well with the West innocent people that are being targeted and killed due to them wanting democracy as is the case in Myanmar?today. What sits perfectly with the West is a meeting that is constructive and that paves the way to the next Thailand style holiday destination that can become that due to the fact that the very different system on Myanmar and the West have found the basis of a way in which to agree.

The basis of that agreement derived from the fact that the West and the East become largely more united and that from that new relationship there is the chance for a renewed time for the West and the East to both carry influence in the world. A united West and East can be the makings of a whole lot better world than has ever been envisioned before.?

Thailand is the great advancing country of South East Asia, a country that is endorsed and loved by the West and the East.?Myanmar a country that is not easy to be able to get a handle on and to really understand. if i'm going to look to back of the envelope geo-politics then i have to say as that country does not present a fit conveniently into either the philosophies of either the West or the East. It's a country that has certainly not been kind to it's own people, the people of other countries reject that. that then creates conflict within the inner workings of Myanmar, that then results in more crackdowns, more distrust to those within the country calling for values that are associated with the West namely democracy.?If the West was open to negotiations and diplomacy with Myanmar, yet based upon trust ands a part of that trust was to be derived from a calming of the war, then there is a real chance for progress.?

There are no countries that got everything right in the past, in one way or another every country to someone is a failed state. Yet, on the other hand failure is a big part of the human story that we tend to try and leave out. If instead we work with failure, we work with the notion that everyone wants to progress, we work with the notion that if we speak kindly, genuinely kindly then that kindness is usually reciprocated. With those ideas in mind a?new narrative, a new conversation with Myanmar?within the context of trying to get right a whole range of other ineffective relationships of recent years and decades then maybe there is the chance for real progress possible. An open hand to the ten most conflicted of countries for whatever reason could land us in a much better world tomorrow than seems apparent today.??

????

Change in negotiations, change in the street.??

Just like with the Vietnam war the older generations dragged their feet in realising the change of consciousness that had occurred within society, within all western society. Those that did not want to go and fight in the Vietnam war or returned aware of just how awful war was were a part of what created the pressure for change into peace making. the anti war stance of what was considered the left, evolved before and with the election of President Trump, his out of foreign wars policy being a major part of his election into the White House.?

Whilst the Biden administration wants and needs to maintain balance in the world order, in my opinion, that is obtainable today only by fully acknowledging the past and doing a back to the future from the peace making days of 2017 in terms of really properly appreciating and understanding how we even got here. How did we go from 2017-2021 avoiding what could otherwise have been a global war, not interested, think again as this is important. Ignore the study of peace and get war. have war and cannot stop it, well learn about effective peace making. whichever way you want to position yourself peace processes have been much more than a vitally important part of your life behind the scenes, dismiss that and you take from under you your own defence and security. Revisiting peace?processes?is not only the most important role of the media today, not doing that could make the media one day redundant. Peace processes create the conditions for creating media.??

How momentous was the 2017 peace process??

?A peace process that united civilisations that have been on seperate paths for seven decades the implications of that have not been properly acknowledged nor considered. Whilst in the USA, new election, new President new paradigms of thinking, reset back to something like the Obama days is the seemingly natural reset. Things had changed globally. Whilst the USA tends to view the world from the lense of the USA mostly and the USA looking outward and whilst their is a vast and extensive amount of soft diplomacy that also perpetuates that ranging from Coca-cola to Hollywood, the thing is that the rest of the world does not really see things in that way. That is a US paradigm that people in the USA and when travelling from the USA tend to believe. The Trump and Un 'Love in' media line may have worked for that moment in time from a 'presentation of reality perspective', yet in actual fact whether civilisations some 4 or 5 thousand years in the making take a policy decision to change course is a very, very big deal to them. It's a very big deal to all of those countries that ally with them. The notion that the worlds capitalist and communist countries found a path to agreement via a new political philosophy that emerged in the 21st century is a very, very big deal. It's as important an issue as the correct reporting of any war of last century in fact to the needs and the values of this century.?

To not acknowledge what really happened in world politics that enabled there to be enough peace in the world to have given you every happy day in your life since 2017 is just not acceptable. Yes we have to look to the future. We have to use the best of the past in order to be able to get there as best we can. The Trump Presidency was all about Trump. Trump Inc. Nothing else in the USA or any other country in the world mattered then at all. That is obviously not the truth and yet that's the media truth in the USA. Oh Trump from one perspective, oh Trump from another perspective, and another and another and another. That way of reasoning makes everyone and everything else seemingly appear more unimportant than it actually really is.?

So if we are going to remember the Trump year 2017, In the Trump year of 2017, there was a country called Trump USA a country called Trump China, a continent called Trump Europe and a problem in Asia that was Trump 70 years into diplomatic failure. The situation was changed by Trump and his new golfing partner Kim Jong Un to become a love in where they were able to discuss on the Trump golf course the Trump burger and whether it was invented in the USA or North Korea. The logic to this being of course that the first people Americans that migrated from Asia bought with them hamburger making technology in the way of the way in which they processes and preserved meat.?Anyway, I digress it doesn't really matter who invented the Hamburger, whoever did it's absolutely evident to see that the Americans have made by far the very best use of the Hamburger and reinvented that concept to a clearly evident level of genius.?

The Trump trumping every thought of 2017 is simply a case of President Trump also having a clear element of genius in him in the way he interacts with the media and as the media have cited very accurately in the past he does use both good and bad media to his advantage. In fact if we are going to be really honest about this there is perhaps no other figure in history that has so effectively used the media as Donald Trump. However, having said that it was quite exhausting for many people outside of the USA, almost as much as Brexit was for people outside of the UK. Yet, the really important information that got unincluded with effective enough media was the peace processes. It wasn't all about Trump and Love in's keeping the world out of a major war is a very important consideration.?

To incorrectly represent that is not a criminal offence and yet it can and has led to their being crimes?against humanity. To not be able to value peace in the world at such a time, to not fully and properly understand how peace making has occurred in the recent past is simply not an option any more. The need for their to be a proper awareness and understanding of peace processes is actually a human on this planet, top priority. Without global peace there is nothing else left to talk about in future.?

Not fully enabling peace and climate action to be able to win through is not just putting other countries out of what would otherwise agreeable alignment, it's putting out generations of people within countries too. There being a tiny elite that think that the world can continue to function along the lines of divide and rule, problem, reaction, solution, false flag and incorrectly informed media is no longer an option for the healthy continuation of the human race as it is today. There has got to be a paradigm of thinking that extends beyond the differences that we have that is acceptable enough to all in order to be able to keep a world of differing paradigms safe, together and in order. In enough order to be able to return to diplomacy as the adults in the room that was obtained in 2017.

?To not acknowledge peace processes, and how they really emerged and occurred between 2017 and the years afterwards is turning what were serious choices and decisions made by leaders into being caricature?geo-politics and that is obviously reckless. It's reckless enough to be acceptable to the world when there is a world that is bi-polar, yet not when a world is multi-polar. Having a bi-polar type of world creates the type of communication in the world that is effectively like bi-polar people. The very highs and the very lows. That may sit well with the Western media that often want the next ups and downs and highs and lows to keep the populations happy at the gladiator ring, yet that entire paradigm of ups and downs does not sit well with older civilisations, they don't want to excesses of youth, they want mature balanced stability in terms of more rational and middle aged thinking.??

The rebellious youth will stick two fingers up to the past, the middle aged will work with the past and the present, the older most mature approach will be to consider what it is of the past and the present that can be used to it's best capacity and then passed on to the next generations. To get through where we are today we need to become more like the sages, that passed on important knowledge and information from one generation to the next throughout the ages and yet knew when something new emerged that was important to be able to use and to handle this in the best way possible for the healthy continuity of the tribe from 300,000 years, the country from 5,000 years and the world from 2017.?

?Youthful thinking is important. Middle aged thinking is important. The thinking of elders is important, all the best qualities of thought for each generation, of each type of quality is quality. There are the elements of youthful thinking that can be disregarded as being something of that generation in terms of middle aged thinking. There can also be elements of the thinking of elderly people that can be considered in the same ways too at times and yet there is something about youthful insight and initiative, there is something about the experience of decades that adds so much quality to the whole. There is only one answer that we really know to be the most correct answer we have. That is we don't have all the answers to everything and never will have. What we do have in the way of answers that provide the best comfort to us as humans on this planet, has to be of value.?

Whether or not it's of perceived value or not to an individual or even to a country or an interregional or intercountry paradigm of thinking is only a part of the story for all of humanity. What the most important to each culture, each believe system we know is the people with that belief system and that culture. What is regarded as acceptable in one place, is not acceptable in another. We have a sense of decorum in how we live, and we observe norms. If what really keeps norms is not fully understood, appreciated, realised and openly discussed then norms themselves are being affected by external influences as in order to keep balance in one place, if that causes imbalance in another place, then there is a ripple effect that occurs. This ripple effect which quite frequently get lumped together into a characterisation that we call 'unintended consequences' is how this ripple effect is quite often summed up, or more like dumbed up.

If there is a process, a way of configuring knowledge, information, rationalisations into a structured format that enables what we call 'unintended consequences' to be minimalised or to be reduced altogether then there is progress for all. The ripple effect of one implication being caused by another, one re-action not occurring due to another action that was better, more fully considered being avoided, being called out before it happens then this is life affirming when it comes to consideration of International relations.?

The early warning system that Integrated strategy peace roadmaps provided in 2017 enabled the 'unintended consequences' that would have been inevitable from occurring the cycle of action and reaction pattern of what happens when countries escalate sabre ratting without their being an exit from that was avoided. We avoided the one bullet fired in Europe causing WW1 and WW2 scenario. We avoided the West and East you are in my turf issues of Vietnam. All of the we should have done this and should have done that, regret this regret that, how do we end this types of paradigms were otherwise avoided by the use of a methodology effectively made up of two words. Win-Win. Whilst that may appear to the casual observer as being a repeat of the same word twice and on one level I would of course agree with that. The difference is that in the context of peace making the two win's are very different in terms of interpretation when put together. A win for one is the type of win that works for them the other win is the type of win that works for the other side. A USA and North Korea Win-Win. Who gets to have the first Win or the second win is subjective to their own reasoning. So in other words the concept of win-win in terms of diplomacy gets us the first win or the second win by our interpretation and by there's too and therefore there is a sense of balance that is obtained in terms of the ego which at first wants win-lose and yet a Win-Win can be almost as acceptable as long as I get the first Win!?

Our ego's are funny things, they help us to even believe we are right, even when writing what could otherwise be considered as almost complete nonsense. However, of course our perception of our own words changes if we re-read something we write and the more cautious and sensible sides of ourselves consider, should I leave that bit in or not. If we were as cautious and sensible in terms of our peace making as we are in terms of our writing then we would probably need to do much writing in terms of peace making and therefore, there would be less risk of writing things that don't make as much sense as we would like. It's better to have perfect peace making derived from imperfect prose than it is to have imperfect peacemaking derived from poetry and verse. How we get from here into peace making is negotiation that is based upon the notion that a win-win for all is obtainable. By making the first conscious steps into that makes win-win winnable for all and whether we obtain the first or the second win from a situation after a war is what then becomes once again known as diplomacy.??

The stability of International relations today is obtained by the belief that the other side will come round to our way of thinking, and yet even knowing what our way of thinking actually is we don't even know ourselves until we extend ourselves into a peace making process which requires that the other side is also convinced enough that we did finally come round to their way of thinking. The interpretation that war makes better media than peace making is the result of an unimaginative programming team on television. The world we have today in so many ways is the best and worst that could ever have been imagined. Are we doing real justice to all those that throughout the ages gave all they could in the direction of wanting to create a better future for the next generation? Are our collective nurturing abilities as good as they need to be? Can we improve our performance, our bridge making abilities, our good will a bit more? Are we allowing best past thinking to sabotage best present thinking? Are we allowing best present thinking to sabotage best future thinking?

Just as the ages of man in terms of thinking are all important in their own way, our thinking today collectively will be improved upon by the next generations of people. There will be a few nuggets, a few ideas and concepts that we pin down, that they will tomorrow to be able to derive improved interpretation of and make even better use of our thinking than we made of ourselves.

We do need to appreciate, value traditions and yet make the very best use of them today for today. Traditions provide us with a sense of who we are, yet it is our thinking that can provide us with glimpses of what we can become. What we can become is always better when there are many other sharing that with us. We don't know even have the potential abilities we have as we never thought of trying that before. If we do try most things for a time as if we can be at least quite good at doing something most frequently our abilities prove that we are right. The best way to learn whether or not you can make a house is to start making a house, the best way to learn if you can make a peace process is to start making a peace process. The best way to learn if you can tile, is to start laying tiles, the best way to learn if you can dance is to dance.?

Whether we are actually good at something or not is largely subjective, if we believe we can do something then we usually prove this to be true. If we base our own perception only upon the interpretation and the standards of other people then we are trying to move forwards by looking to the side. If every word we ever read really made us think, then by now we would have realised that the capacity for there to be the most intelligent thought that there can be in this world we are only minnows?in being able to obtain that potential. It's the people that come after us, once the interconnected world is not still in it's youth stage that will be able to make the best sense of what's been cross fertilised between so many different perspectives for the first time so recently. Knowing that in order to obtain and maintain that continuity between now and then in terms of how civilisations and nurtured, protected and the paths that they take is of crucial importance. We can cooperate ourselves into a place in future that is so wonderful that today we can barely even imagine or we can compete our countries all into the dustbin of history. People on their own are complicated, try putting them together and you have more complications, add in traditions, different rules, different ways of thinking, then add to that both ancient and new cultures, values systems, vested interests, consumerism, capitalism, socialism, and then ad din recent events incorrectly represent all that in communications, add into that a tidal wave of subjective social media derived interpretations, then add into that them and us paradigms and what can get produced is a situation of leadership is not really knowing where and how to lead next from here. Yet considering that what we have now is actually ok for us.?

Well the ok with us works to an extent as long as their with us, and their with us and their with us and their with us. Where that goes wrong is when it's a case of well they are with them and they are with them and they are with them and then they are with both us and them, they are with both us and them, they are with both us and them. Then it gets even more complicated when it's we don't know who they are with or they are with or they are with or they are with. It then gets even more complicated when its a case of well they say they are with us but they could be saying the same to them. they too are saying they are with us but they could be more with them. Then it gets even more complicated when we are operating?out of one type of structural paradigm for one administration, then another and then something that could be either or a bit of both, more inclined to one or very different from either.?

Effectively the switch from the Obama way of thinking to the Trump to the Biden was a bit like going from Microsoft to Apple and then back to something between Microsoft and Apple in terms of International policy.?

I have written this before that each government comes in having to pick-up from the place the last government left off, the complicated thing for the Biden administration is perhaps it did not know exactly where things actually were and therefore there was an element of needing to play catch up with information however, knowing exactly what that information was was effectively unknowable as we don't know nor consider generally what it is that we don't fully know. So in this case the USA was seemingly more needing to rely upon allies, and so looked to the UK perhaps not considering the fact that long before Boris Johnson was even Prime Minister he had set his sights on being the next version of Churchill, rather than being prime minister and in order to do that he required a war. I say this of course all tongue in cheek, however knowing what I know about the political ambitions of Boris Johnson and how he used my work and knowing much more than I have ever written for various reasons. I believe that Theresa May would have mediated a viable peace agreement with Russia. In the context of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, they did not even try. They went to Russia only with demands and there is no political leader in any country in recent history that has ever gone to Russia just with demands.

It requires only referencing the comments and statements made by President Reagan. President George H W Bush and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to realise that they were cautious and confident in all of their mediation and diplomacy work with Russia. They were never arrogant and demanding. President Macron's instincts and his far greater experience were correct in wanting mediation and in respecting Russia. When all the quotes gathered from the past decade in terms of what statements have been made in terms of relations with other countries. Boris, the colourful character that he is, has made more offensive comments to more people, to more leaders and countries than every other leader and diplomat in the world has x 3 at least. There are some leaders that made good wise policy choices and decisions in their own countries and yet not internationally, there are those that make bad choices within their own countries and yet excel geo-politically. If you look at the record of Boris Johnson then although he is an interesting voice in Uk politics as far as I'm concerned he has used bluff and talk to progress forward his own agenda and without even thinking of the implications of such a deadly serious issue as a potential nuclear war even after being in office still was trying to push his agenda.?

Whilst there are many that do agree with his agenda the vast majority of those people do not work as a specialist in geo-political relations and most of them have no concept of the really fragile diplomacy work that has been done behind the scenes Internationally for many years. They either do not know of this or do not want to believe this. Therefore, the subjective opinion of very few is actually making diplomacy much more difficult to be able to obtain. I had a conversation with someone online recently that said that his policy was to weaken Russia.?

What he was unable to realise is that Russia has fifteen land borders, it's impossible to 'weaken Russia' without also weakening in some way all of those countries. What's more the agreements and links that Russia have are more than are even known.?

Who would have expected China, the most influential country in Asia and South Africa the most interconnected country in Africa to be carrying out hypersonic missile training together??

All I can say is that whatever you think this war at the moment actually is, it's not. It's so, so much more involved and is already as much a different evolving set of scenarios this time, than at any time that we have even adequate reference for in history. The comparisons that Boris Johnson has made to WW2, prove that his thinking is 90 year out of date in realising the full implications of what could occur at worst and the very fact that I was not invited to his office to present the peace roadmaps that I'd written and that were used to maintain peace in various scenarios from 2017 onwards prove again that he had a pre-conceived agenda before any of this began. He had an idea in his own mind about how Great Britain could tame the Great Bear in Crimea that has more of a liking to Charge of the Light brigade than anything that's even truly relative to today.??

That is not to say at all that the West should be cowered and fearful, lets be honest a punch up between the West and the East with nukes, both sides would do quite well and both be unable to defend themselves?adequately.?

Lets just for a moment here be as honest as we can be put our shared vulnerabilities out there on the table. There is a weather balloon in US air space. There has had to be a conversation behind the scenes to know even what to do about this. Weather balloons move very slowly whilst the USA almost certainly does have weapons that are secret and unknown and that can do things that we never even imagined with the vast amount of money spent on weapons, it's going to be the same with Russia too.?

Yet, the USA and the weather balloon, the same sort of scenario in China or Russia would also have required conversation and also would have required a policy a position to be taken. Would they have handled the situation differently? Who knows??

Yet they would have had to have had the same sorts of thinking processes as the USA had. What I conclude from this is that in the world we live countries have extraordinary capacity to do harm to other countries. Lets say that that is what makes up 90% of military capacity in the world today. The weapons of the second world war ie planes, tanks, bombs and infantry, specialist units and all of that effectively had an equal match more or less with the other side in terms of the defence rather than the attack capabilities. In terms of today, the ability to be able to protect any country from the types of weapons that the other side has is totally and utterly proportionately different from what existed then. So in actual fact, it's impossible to be able to defend effectively any country in the world. That capability simply does not exist, the only way that it's perceived as being possible is to attack the other side so fast, quickly and hard, shock and awe style that they have no possible way to respond. Well that is where things were when the Allied forces attacked and Invaded Iraq.?

There was little hope or chance of Iraq being able to defend itself in that situation. Yet, even then, there was the supply chain issue troops held back due to supplies not being able to progress. There were equipment issues like boots that were melting in the heat there there were cultural issues where the troops had no concept of how to be able to interact with the local people without offending people.?

There were so many human lives lost and money wasted that afterwards the Conservatives in the UK took office receiving the note there is no money left. There were just so many unforeseen circumstances and such ineffective thinking in terms of all the implications of the war that the exact same errors made in the Vietnam war were repeated, the same as after WW1 where a shell shocked population of people on anti depressants became the lasting legacy for many of the veterans, homelessness of veterans and other young people and austerity measures for all the rest. Add to that more war, more thn 6 million refugees, then Brexit it's plainly obvious to see that the entire capacity to be able to defend from any of the implications of war is an ability and skill that the human race currently simply does not have. It's impossible to have a war over there without creating many more incredibly complicated issues here.?

If in the context of two countries going to war which are effectively more or less evenly balanced by todays standards, not only is the outcome unknowable.?

We are in countries that are un-defendable against weapons that cannot be defended against that are in existence by the hundred, thousand or million and yet are so precise in their capacity to be able to do harm that a single boat of missiles could take out half a continent. We are in a situation all of us in fact where the enemy is actually more or less invisible.?How many ships are there at sea at the moment that look like very large fishing boat via surveillance?that actually are equipped?with nuclear missiles? None, one, one hundred or a thousand? Who knows. How many missiles have been shipped around the world in the past year or decade in container ships? Where did they go??We don't know very well how to collectively remain in a safe and stable world unless there is care taken in mediation. We don't actually fully understand the natural world, we know that, yet we also don't fully appreciate and understand fully the human world either. What we do know is that the words both foresight and insight exist and for good reason. Having enough insight to be able to predict is something that most people do for themselves, and yet even trying to speculate wider to include countries, and or the planet is an attempt to be able to consider just so many variables as people are not always or perhaps not ever predictable. Yet, having said that unless there are speculations made and put into writing, thoughts contemporary philosophy then there is every chance that collectively there is not enough foresight to be able to make either the best or even reasonably good choices.

The difference between now and the last century is that then war was slow and it was easy to figure out who was on which side firstly and secondly in order to do harm to the other side required big infrastructure. In terms of today, that's all changed completely, a small to average size ship today can do comparatively as much harm to other countries in a day as all the armies of the last war could do to each other in four years.?

We are in a completely, totally different world today and in this situation.?

Do we boycott South African Wine and other very questionable questions.??

It's a little known fact that Indians fought on both sides of WW2 in the North of India. Some of them were living in Singapore when the Japanese invaded and formed their own units and joined the Japanese. When Russia trains South Africa in the use of hypersonic missiles does that make South Africa a potential threat to the West? Well theoretically yes. The same is true of China. So does that require sanctions against South Africa and China as well? Does that require that all of the English, Dutch and German relations of people in South Africa go to internment camps? Does that require that the supermarkets stop selling South African wine? These are of course seemingly ridiculous questions. South Africa has the biggest trading port in Southern Africa. If you refer back to my original peace strategy documents you will see that I cited a war would get incredibly complicated firstly and secondly that sanctions would not be effective. Whats clearly evident is that if we keep trying to consider this situation as being anything even vaguely similar to anything that's ever happened before we are deluding ourselves with comfortable notions that are actually false paradigms of reasoning.?

If there were either boycotts or trade restrictions put onto South Africa then dozens of African countries would see failure in their economies. So one single move by Russia, creates whole encyclopedia's?of implications that are a challenge to even be able to map out. If there was to be a serious discussion and conversation in a Parliament on what to do about the situation with the continents of Africa and Asia in the context of just the current situation then before the conversation would have even began, there would inevitably be a whole lot more considerations to have. So to try and be precise in their the implications of whats already happened and is happening is complicated enough, where we are by tomorrow is going to be anywhere other than a better position, and by saying this I refer to all countries in the world if there is anything else other than a massively renewed effort in peace making.?

Where we are in actual fact is best described as a wtf situation. by the time we work out what to be able to do about what has just happened, there is then something else to have to consider. What's plainly obvious to see is this we are in fact in a inter-boundary situation, ie the borders of countries only play one part in all this. The communication, the world is so interconnected that the entire notion that a country is either with us or against us is just not a relevant conversation to be even having today as there is just so much not actually really known. Even if all the NATO countries sat down and came up with an exact plan of how to position?then that all changes completely when a country like South Africa is involved. Who is Germany, Holland and the UK most loyal too, it's own people in South Africa or not? When it's actually considered these are three countries of almost 200 that could have had communications with Russia in the context of this. The truth is that this is an interconnected spaghetti of International relations that could change by the day. Yet, the media can be really reductionist in their reporting how can you even have effective media on such a complicated issue as this, there would be as many Journalistic opinions about how 'we' should respond to the implications of 'our people' in South Africa being a part of the other sides, to an extent that we do not know. What's actually occurring here could be likened to what is effectively the equivillent of a computer bug in global diplomacy.?

So the missile training is apparently in a few weeks, what line and how the media even report this is a big question. Are they going to just accept that the weapons going off to the UK for Ukraine is one part of this and South Africa, a Commonwealth country being trained by Russia is another? This whole situation in terms of how to position diplomatically in terms of where the war is has become already more complicated than could have been fully imagined. Yet, just to add a little bit of extra complication to this even if South Africa is trained by Russia and given hypersonic missiles, is South Africa really going to be on Russia's side in this. Where in fact are the real loyalties of South Africa, are they more with the Common Wealth or Russia or Africa.?

If that's not complicated enough lets just add a bit more complexity to our ridiculous questions paragraph. Even if South Africa was more loyal to Russia in the context of this, then the question has to be then asked who are the descendants of German, British, Dutch and Indian people working and living in South Africa more loyal too, their country of origin and dependency?or Russia? In the context of if they were more loyal to South Africa or not then how would the South African government even?know that? The reality is that if even 1/4 of the German, Dutch and British descendants?stopped working in South Africa in response to them being put into a position of having to choose which side they are more loyal too then there would be multiples of crisis, within multiples of crisis. I'm not going to speculate further on this.?

Yet, just say what I have said throughout that the best chance and hope for a normal world maintained, to be able to continue much longer without there being these types of geopolitical quagmires created is to go with the notion of peace making.

In terms of how this war could continue in terms of the wider diplomatic issues I don't know, yet what I can say is that the most evolved of peace roadmaps is a much easier subject to converse in than even trying to keep up with the implications of this war and the diplomatic questions that evolve from this if there is not a newly found sens of openness in the context of the discussion of previous peace processes and how that sort of thinking can be the best resource we have in helping us all out of the conditions of today.?

India, Pakistan and Bangladesh gave us the language that has been used in more effective peace processes in European history than any other language. All Indo-European languages originated from Sanskrit. That's many of the most influential of languages in the world. We have progressed in our lives whether in Europe or the Americas, Asia have more to be appreciative of from the Indian subcontinent than we readily perceive. We are a combination of so many different influences in terms of English we have some French, Spanish, German and these are Indio-European. The advancements in how we have come to learn appreciate and use language has been massively improved in recent years with the use of fields such as NLP (Neuro linguistic programming) that has helped improve both inner and outer dialogue to improve results. A related practice is the field of hypnotherapy which originated in Asia. However, today the knowledge of these fields and the findings from the field of applied psychology is found throughout the business world as well as in so many other areas. It can be used to help mediation too with structured thinking that helps all sides find ways to obtain a place of agreement theoretically and through a process of peace making.

Asia as a whole has also provided the greatest gift to the world is the concept of philosophy, personal development whilst this is a part of business and therapy today the ability to be able to perceive that improvement is possible within us and that this can improve others is found in five thousand year old writings with some of that knowledge used today in science, medicine, healthy eating today.

If that today, the notion that improvement is really possible can translate into actual policies then the world can progress so much from here calling upon some of the oldest wisdom that Margaret Thatcher amongst many other people used in terms of both understanding the human condition and in terms of peace making and progress.

We have too few chances to get politics right and only one real chance to get geo-politics right today.

We are living in different times where the West and the East are rivals and yet the best way to be able to progress from here is appreciating the difference between rivalries and conflict. Peace making with a belief that it's possible was what prevented wars that have been cited in previous documents. Whatever the mind can perceive and believe it can achieve.

Geo-politics is not what many people think. They believe that there are long term plans that are followed by countries with a specific agenda. However, the truth is that there are International rivalries and these in the past have created wars, once wars begin they are incredibly complicated to even attempt to stop. In the past five years there was a document that I wrote that stopped a choice being made that would have caused a war. What has to be considered is that with todays technology we do not know how containable any war actually really is.

We live in a world where there has been and their is cooperation largely between East and West. President Reagan and Gorbachev both cited the importance of the mediation between both the USA and the USSR. They cited that the East is dependent upon the security of the West and Vice versa. Just how dependent is the East on the West or the West on the East. Without cooperation there would be an end to the concept of capitalism in less than 24 hours without cooperation between the two. the largest shipping lane for all goods would stop to function. The internet is the greatest result between East and West cooperation. All of this is important to risk. every person that uses money, the buys products from Asia, that has Chinese car parts in their car, businesses, shopping centre that uses the internet is dependent upon West and East relations.

If there was a breakdown in West and East relations, the modern world as we know it would simply cease to exist. This may seem unbelievable and yet it was peace strategy documents that were written by Doves, considered by Hawks in Washington and published open source online in 2017 that made this consideration for the first time. It's a theory that is not in any media, that theoretically all media could stop in 24 hours, the world that we had one hundred years ago was less at risk than the world of today. However, the vested interest to keep the world going, to protect modern advanced civilisation is as much in the interest of the East as the West, without a doubt. A failure in relations, a failure in trade, in communications between countries would cause such a shock and change to all people within a society that the result of that would be impossible to predict. No access to communications, banks and businesses not being able to function.

The reality is that in the 20th Century Reagan and Gorbachev both visionary leaders could perceive the inter-dependency in terms of security between both the West and the East. In today's situation thirty years into the use, the dependency of the Internet the reasoning to maintain good relations in terms of diplomacy are crucial to all. The types of political systems that existed in both the West and the East last century are very different today. The moment that the internet cables were put into the sea and progress made by billions of people worldwide in the use of that there was a new link between people that is only as strong as the diplomatic skills of leaders to be able to fully maintain.

The truth is that there is nothing else that can maintain the world that we have today other than finding a way to enable relations to be a good as they can be under the circumstances that there are. The notion that any one country can progress whilst other countries do not is simply not a paradigm of thinking that functions in the world of today in the way in which it could have in every century previously. If the question is asked what level of investment do countries have in the internet and it's functionality the answers is the stability of how things have been and are today. There is physically no way to be able to compete without being able to mediate some of the very most complex geo-political issues that any generation of people in this world have ever had to cope with in the past. As I have written previously my work looks at world relations in ways that help present information with the purpose of helping people and planet, by providing information, thought and consideration that help encourage the best decision making to occur. Some of my work has been listened to in the past, some has been incorrectly interpreted and most of my work has been ignored. However, just in the same way that the world is so evidently dependent upon the internet today, it's actually more dependent upon the supply of fresh water in the world.

Most of the worlds supplies of fresh water are either drying up or melting into the sea. Most of the great rivers of the world are losing water from year to year. This is an issue that affects all countries today in some ways, and all countries in future in every way unless planned for and effective plans instigated Internationally soon enough. Whilst there are issues such as the end of commercial fishing within the next sixteen years to also consider, there are some issues that can be adapted to in case of worst case scenarios and others that cannot be. In the context of fresh water we only need to look to other planets to discover that their different climate equates to no water, or very little water at best, or evidence of water in the past. We are only a few years into the very obvious indications that climate change is reducing our global water supply and yet in the next one two five years this will become more obvious. Paradoxically, it's been proven that it's possible to reverse the loss of water through the replanting of forests. Deserts can and have been replanted in recent years. Condensation can be stored and used for crops and regenerating land. What the issue today has become that we are simply not using the environment in a way that enables it to be able to help us the most.

We are using old methods of agriculture, when there are ways of helping soil, encouraging growth, restoring biodiversity and increasing yields naturally. The knowledge of how to do this is not known by Universities, nor by NGO's nor used and applied by any government in the world fully and completely. There are many countries that have obtained exceptional results in different ways these include Holland, Peru, Spain, India, China, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Morocco. All of these countries using different ways of thinking to obtain water in the desert or to make better use of the water that exists. These are not only potentially new major industries, they are feasibly ways to help answer refugee issues and to help in peace negotiations between countries. When it's considered that the world we have is dependent upon cooperation between different systems. That the non effective communication of the best science is slowing recovery for many countries from wars, that all countries are as interdependent upon each other to be able to advance the ways in which we obtain and increase water supplies there is a vested interest for all in peace processes that through their instigation enable answers to be instigated to many issues at once simultaneously.

In the context of species conservation, we are seeing the animals that have migrated in Africa for thousands of years if not hundreds of thousands of years facing too much drought and whole herds dying. Then there is poaching. An issue caused both by the demand for products and also the needs of local people for the basics such as food for their families. There are refugee issues caused both by war and by climate in most cases. In order to be able to find a way to be able to answer these types of issues that affect every country in some way and some countries in many ways the only way to be able to do that is to improve information exchange, increase cooperation and find ways to mediate so that the primary focus of societies is not on rivalries but on cooperation.

If there is an inability of leaders in many, most, all countries to be able to find ways to cooperate on the really big issues like water, like replenishing the oceans then the net result is simply more displaced people. More refugees, more land that no longer has the capacity to be able to support people. The knowledge exists to change that and yet the teaching and transference of that knowledge could be the most important factor in being able to build a viable future.

Today the principle narratives of the media is on rivalries between countries militarily. The cause of war today is over territory, over land, yet there will be wars caused by water in the near future if there is not more effective use of the best science in terms of all the sciences combined in order to enable supplies to be maintained and increased through extensive replanting programs that help increase water courses again. In order to be able to do that requires time and expertise that I have to a significant extent having regenerated desert and learning how soil can be built up to have nutritional value even in desert ares where today their is famine. The path towards the optimal future for any people on this planet that appreciate the modern world as it is combines the need for using the best knowledge there is together with an increased effort in cooperating between countries. The countries listed above are countries where peace making and the regeneration of land can help build a viable future that is better than the past.

In order to be able to progress requires improved use of the basic like food, water, shelter and mediation. There is a massive need today that was simply not an issue thirty years ago to these issues. What's evident today is that the climate changes are not in one type of habitat in the world but every type of habitat, evidence of change on land, in the sea, under ice. To get beyond this, to keep up and reverse these changes is of course possible. Yet, it requires that systems of thinking that even thirty years ago seemed to be obvious to be questioned and to place a higher appreciation on cooperation between different countries without being able to have that, there simply is not a good future on this planet for anyone. We have a few more years where there is the belief that things are more or less the same, changing though at an ever quickening pace until their is then a rapid tipping point reached and a rapid decline in all supplies. That will cause panic in governments that will cause wars. The way to avoid and prevent wars in twenty years time is to cooperate and to get really good at diplomacy and the extrapolation of the best information today. If we cannot do that the future is of rapid decline as more and more people are affected. Policies and relations can change, yet first there needs to be a change in perspective. A realisation that everything we have in our lives in terms of all material items, all benefits of modern day life is the result of good diplomacy having won through.

The simple fact is that the standards of today in the world are at risk of having the fastest decline that has been experienced by any people in the world previously. The good intentions and the best of science need to find a way through this time where lifestyles of all world wide are going to remain more or less the same by there being much more effort in peace making or there will be a substantial reversal. All the answers to most of the worlds issues that affect people each and everyday do exist, it's simply the fact that we collect data and do not really make the very best use of this information. Integrated Strategy Peace Roadmaps can be used as way to use and to extrapolate this information in a way that is fast enough to be able to create the improvements, the knowledge, the information that today both governments and people worldwide require. In such an interconnected world as this cooperation and good communication are in fact the only realistic way into a good future from where the world is today.

I have just seen in the media the weather balloon from China and flew over US and Canadian airspace was brought down. The full story about that may never been fully known. However, just to say if it was a spy balloon and not a meteorological balloon as cited then this is significant, yet how and why is not easy to really know as with satellites and domestic flights, google Earth etc there are ways to observe any country from above.

A balloon however, could also represent an idea, a thought. It's a form in the sky that is above, high above people that does draw their attention up, towards something that normally does not form a part of day to day life. Whilst the USA nor any other country would want an object from another country floating above it's airspace and wants to of course have complete control of the air space. The question does need to be considered that where this is a geo-political space presently where nobody can quite figure out exactly what is going on between countries and there being many more questions than there are answers the consideration has to be made that when things in your own life are overly complicated.

There is much to be said for considering things in a simplistic way, yet with the consideration that that may not be the whole picture that is being perceived. Is there a reason, a motive as to why that balloon was there or not?

China says that the balloon was there by accident flying off course, there are theories to this being speculated on in the US media as to what exactly is true can be only really speculated on. In order to be able to speculate on this does requires considering what could be completely wrong, completely incorrect speculations. the truth is that we simply do not know, yet to make these speculations is worth doing due to this being an issue that is important to the USA and there will be many there in their jobs thinking about this and wondering why and how this very unusual situation occurred. For the sake of International diplomacy, until more is known then it's certainly best to go on the side of caution and to consider the line of reasoning that it was there as it went off course.

However, if it was a spy balloon then surely nobody could believe that it would be mistaken for the moon, as there are times when the moon is visible so it would be very obvious that this would be noticed as there are clearly not two moons.

If it was there on purpose what can be the interpretation of this.

A white weather balloon, is that significant, either yes or no which is of course unknowable. Yet if it is significant then the colour white is representative of peace making. The fact that it looks like a second moon in the sky is that significant, again either yes or no. Again this is unknowable? Yet, if it is why would China float an object that looks like a moon over Canada and the USA?

Whilst this again is unknowable and any speculation of this could be wildly speculative conjecture, like trying to obtain sense from tea leaf's perhaps. There are two leaders of two countries with the name Moon. One is Former United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, the other President Moon Jae-in both from South Korea.

There was a peace process between President Trump, Chairman Un and President Moon. This peace process was referred to as being 'the best hope for successful mediation between Russia and Ukraine.

The white balloon also looks a bit like a giant table tennis ball. A pingpong ball.

President Ji Jinping is the President of China. The fact that this Balloon incident has occurred just before a meeting with Anthony Blinken could that be significant? Again the answer is unknowable. However, as we are following this line of reasoning with names, which may just be of course complete conjecture and completely random conjecture and as the media analysis of this has been quite light hearted and off the cuff I add to this by explaining some other name coincidences in this whole International situation. When President Moon and Chairman Un met ( one of his titles is Sun of Juche Korea) Sun and the Moon effectively embraced in a hug, before there negotiation helped for the first time in 70 years to bring a peace to the countries of North and South Korea. That peace agreement is very important for the whole world, yet the interpretation of it was so elementary in all the press that if blink en you don't see it. Or to be more specific that peace roadmap used a methodology that was agreeable as cited previously to all Western countries and four socialist/communist countries at the time. President Biden, has been largely biding by the previous way of doing diplomacy, so could it be that President Xi Jing Ping is requesting that the USA plays ball with the earlier format of the peace process methodology that was produced between President Moon and Chairman Un, Sun of Juche Korea? Whilst I do appreciate that this all sounds more than a bit fantastical. There is more to this President Put in has put in his army into Ukraine. Ukraine's leader Zelen sky. Sky relates again to Moon and Sun. Yet the name Zalensky finishes with the sound ski and he has told President Put in to pull out the troops. effectively telling them to 'hop it'. The original peace roadmap that inspired the peace process was written by myself, the hug aspect of the first meeting was scripted into that original document as posted here, which can be confirmed by reading the document. The full understanding and interpretation of that peace process was not known fully as President Trump trumped the former situation of 70 years of ineffective talks. Yet, without a full explanation or interpretation in the press of the peace making methodology that was used at the time.

The truth is that this weather balloon, spy balloon event is a mystery as to what, why, how it's really was there over Canadian and US airspace. Was it by accident or design perhaps we will never know. However, another coincidence is that it's just been Chinese New Year and this is celebrated by the releasing of balloons, the release of balloons are considered in China to be positive, although the chance of this mysterious balloon being a part of New Year celebrations so far away is seemingly unlikely.

However, there is another mystery and that is the way that the names of so many leaders actually connect to the situation or relate in some way to the current situation. When the names are linked to the situation of today, when considering all of this it does seemingly appear to be more like a script than normal international relations.

Hopefully, though between the leaders and also with the help of prime minister Sun ak, there will be an effective answer that once again brings more effective mediation and therefore a good future with improved communication, mediation and International relations.