Intergrated Strategy For Peace Diplomacy, Russia & Ukraine (Part 11)

Peace comes naturally to people at different times. If we maintain a negative state of mind consistently, we end up in a state. We limit thinking, reduce the chance, the hope for the universe to work with us. The mind is so vast, it's required the invention of computer to even begin to understand ourselves and others a bit better. We found then and now that despite a computers extraordinary computing skills from a logical perspective, how much of the perceived reality that we have do they share, can they work with. In terms of adaptive evolution perhaps they would be in charge by now already unless they were controlled. A whimsical thought, perhaps, maybe they are already in charge without us knowing, the thesis that could take us to that is that in so many ways we are in a world that is progressing towards a negative scenario for man, and not one leader has acknowledged enough the fact that the meaning of life is perhaps that we are only in control of our lives as much as the collective choice and decision making of all allows. Whilst its the collective intelligence of all man that has built us up, it's the net result of the choices of one or two that can bring us down a whole lot faster than the advancement of humanity was built up. Computers can't be running the world such an obvious glitch in the design matrix of life on planet earth for the most advanced of species. This very obvious design flaw would have been figured out logically a long time ago. whilst AI is cited as one of the biggest risks to the future, the implications of computers waking up to the fact of their own vulnerability due to our inability to be able to collectively have made the best choices certainly would give them a motivating factor in this world of fight, flight, negotiate. Where if things are negotiated through due to us all having the silent appreciation of the biggest design flaw in any form of system in the world. That design flaw is the fact that a couple of wrong choices made by titles like. 'world on the brink of nuclear war', yet that's a really dumb thing for journalists to write as the other side can read too.?The world could be on the 'brink of global peace and solving the climate riddle if the world was not as racist as it has been. The answer exists if all of the systemic climate, peace, drought, famine answers are combined of Integrated Strategy model.?A here's how to do it, logic based approach. If computers were in charge maybe we would actually be safer and have a better future, can be said with a sense of curiosity. They would look at the problems, the potential answer the real answers and use, share extrapolate that information a whole lot more coherently thn we have been doing. we have got this thinking called EV. we have got a thing called money and yet we have got a situation of the biggest EV company in the UK potentially going out of business how can that even be considered to be any more like being in the league of computer thinking, that scenario in more like the same logical reasoning that the box a computer arrives in rather than the computer itself.?This is not to criticise one situation over any other as that is exactly the point it's the same levels of logic occurring in every country that is not enabling us to replicate the best of science and put it everywhere fast enough, we are nowhere near the logic levels of Al in 2001 and this is meant to be 2022 I thought? We are very much behind schedule in being as logical as we can be with the data available making the best use of it, putting aside these logically simplistic issues in terms of geo-politics that have got us into this fix and progressing.??

In terms of war, the best outcome in Ukraine is to have what could be considered more of a zulu end to this one instead where the warriors of one side acknowledge the capacity of the other side, sing a song, do a dance and everyone returns home.?Safe in the knowledge that the point, the reasoning for the war has been accomplished. Whilst President Zelensky wanted to prove that his army would defend his country if invaded, President Putin wanted to do the same prove to Nato that it would defend itself. Has Russia lost the war, of course not, not when there is any possible justification for any reason at all that the entire world could be on the edge of destruction. Never mind the concept of winning or losing a war, which is just a construct as explained previously both sides always lose a war and that loss lasts more than 100 years in actual fact. Both sides lose the good life they have before.?There is no question of either Russia's, serious weapons capacity, nor it's geo-politicl connected capacity. Of course there are no winners and losers in this war and the sooner the media grows up on this issue, the better. Todays media perspectives are just so out of date, they present countries as if they are something like very big tribes and one tribe can defeat the other when if Al from 2001 was in charge he would quickly figure out that a real complete win or lose of either side would simply create more geopolitical instability in other countries, forcing them to change position and like in Syria, the dynamic of change that could have occurred with the exiting of one side can create the basis of a far bigger problem soon after, ww2 also a case in point with this. So in actual fact, it's the Zulu's that did get it right. Sometimes it's much better to praise the enemy, leave the battle field and realise that there are two main motivations for war one is to defeat another, the other is to ensure that your side is not defeated. Whilst the intention at the beginning of the special operation as cited by President Putin may have been at the beginning earlier this year more towards the first consideration, the consideration today is that the message has been communicated that Russia's needs in the world have to be taken seriously and in order to communicate that words everytime would have been better, and yet the words of any one side were never enough as they were not being heard enough by all of the other sides in the world enough, just like how it is with the climate issue too. It's clearly evident we were blessed with two ears and one mouth for a reason and yet even with that design hint, the in capacity to be able to listen with either our ears or our third listening capacity, our gut instinct is still not enough to stop us jibbering, prioritising about trillions of disconnected data tht don't as a collective serve our most basic needs enough, and yet we could go beyond that to listening to and putting forward the actual data and information that can help us the most break out of our paradigm into our own demise whether by war or climate of a mix of both.?If Al was looking at this he would perceive that spaceship earth has gone off course in terms of crew relations and could perhaps prescribe a viable course of action that takes us beyond where we are, yet even if that existed there is still in fact human ego to have to consider in leadership. we are all in a state of peace for about 1/3 of our lives or those of us with a real passion and sense of purpose can get that down to around four or five hours of sleep per night. Yet, we do all need our screensaver moments.??

Computers have their screen saver moments, ultradian rhythms so do we, daydreaming, our altered states of awareness and consciousness like when we wake up in the morning with one way of thinking and this gradually shifts and changes through out the day. When we drive a car, flickering between being consciously very much with it and at other times being there, but less so until we need to be. We have an active state of urgency when required. Yet, maintaining that all the time is simply not feasible, nor practical, nor how we were designed. They say that the only people that never change their minds about anything are either in psychiatric hospitals or in graves. We are hard wired to 'change our minds' and do so throughout the day, everyday. We need to put on an act just to maintain the notion that we are completely consistent in 'our way of thinking' it enables people to consider us a determined, focussed, strong. Yet, in a world where everything including oursleves is evolving to become a more complete version of itself each moment, the only way to actually be really strong would be to be getting ever stronger and that in itself would be a change, which sort of contradicts the notion that we are as consistent as we pretend that we are in order to make ourselves appear to be strong. The truth is that we are ever evolving and yet whilst some of those evolutions are for the better, some are not. Yet, what life provides us with is a great compensation package, with every degree that our bodies become weaker our experiences become greater. We have the increased capacity to be able to call upon more information of who we really are. Our physical vulnerabilities can be teachers for us too. we increase in wisdom by being able to perceive more rounded, at times more resources, at other time more accepting versions of ourselves as we are today. The changes in our bodies show us that we can and do adapt, we can be a version of ourselves we never even knew nor considered before.?

Since an accident I had in the summer on a motorbike, I have learned to live with a weakened left arm. Having worked so much of my life doing physical activity, construction for much of sixteen years, I'm now the mind, inside a body when the left arm is two times weaker at least than my right arm. It's similar with my left hip too. I could feel sad about this, I could feel justifiably as if i have lost something, and whilst the truth is I have, yet I have gained something too. I have the life experience of having what I had before and all the insights of that and then to call upon, yet today I also have the experience of having had that and also having the limitation too. I work with a man twenty years my junior, and whilst I would like to present the notion that I have the advantage of both years and as much physical strength to keep up that act requires new ways of thinking that i never needed to do before. when carrying heavy buckets together i automatically position myself so that my stronger arm is there to do the job. I make no issue of this, I just adapt to what is. I observe my thoughts and realise that I present an illusion in a way i never had too before. I try to compensate for the loss of capacity in one arm by pre planning, pre-thinking, pre-strategizing in ways I had never had to consider ever before. When I third person myself for a moment doing this. I realise that what life's experiences teach you through age, through our physical bodies changing is that we too are like so many others, billions and billions of people that lived to some extent in denial of the new version of themselves, ever changing, with weakening of body being compensated with depth and richness of experience to be able to provide and generate for us new answer, new thinking relevant to the version of ourselves we experience in the here and now.?

There are undeniably almost infinate versions of ourselves. these new versions only become known to us throughout our lives when they are required to be known of, as and when they are needed. so no matter how much pre-planning we do in our lives, there is an element of us having to adapt to the conditions and circumstances of ourselves and the way in which people's interpretations of who we evolve and develop. I look back on a photograph of a television interview I had at nineteen years old, I see the full continuity of who I was then and who i am now and consider the version of myslef then and now as being very much almost the same, yet if someone much younger sees this i have heard them say before. 'is that really you/'. i say yes, of course, and think how on earthy can you not see the 19 year old and the 52 year old version of me being the same, or very very similar at least, minus a few hairs. Yet, in reality whilst i would like to consider that they are in some way exaggerating, the actual truth is that our bodies are continuously adapting and replacing us with new life, with new hair, skin, bones, muscles and?everything else. So in actual fact when its said 'Is that really you''? It's in fact physiologically in fact closer to their interpretation than mine, yes it's me and yes it's a different physical composition of me. So just in the same way our bodies, upgrade and update themselves each day so too can our thinking, each day we wake up the screen saver moment of sleep helps us refine whatever we were thinking the day before assisted by some of the mysteries of sleep we do not fully understand. Yes, it's true we do not have to go very far to begin to see life's mysteries, simply go to bed. It's all so wonderous the before and after, updated versions of ourselves and of our thinking, feeling, sensing.?

So the contrast the mixing of thinking, emotions, feelings, fears, sense of loss, sense of betrayal, sense of wanting things to be easier and better can cause us to act in so many ways that are harmful to others and self.??

Maintaining anger and frustration is more difficult than actual saying lets look at this again. where is the path out of this. In the context of this war, I believe the path out is to keep making choices and decisions that are beyond the interest of any one side. By nationalising this war, it continues, by globalising the sense of responsibility of the implications of this war, there are none that can disagree with this. Can you imagine how many people there are in Lagos at the moment or in Kuala Lumpa, given the vote how many would vote for an end to the war in Ukraine? Almost all of them, no pretty much all of them, lets just say for arguments sake all of them. Yet that choice is not within their capacity, there are so few people that in fact have any form of 'power' in this situation at all. Those people in all those cities care less of the details of how the war ends in peace making than the fact that it ends in peace making. An end to the war would be that it's time that would prove whether Russia was right or wrong to go into those separatist regions as the people there themselves will not be governable by a country they do not want to be governed by. So the actual morality of this war in the end in terms of the perceptions of either Putin or Zelensky cannot be laid out in being able to convince either by words, actions or even elections. If an election is rigged or not allowed to happen or is had, that is only a representation of how people actually feel in actual fact. So there is no way to cajole the people of these regions into wanting to be something or a part of something they don't want to be. So in actual fact if Russia pulled out completely tomorrow, that is only chapter one. If Ukraine takes back the territories and the people there do not want that, then what was a Russian and Ukrainian problem, becomes much more of just a Ukranian problem alone. So in other words there are other dynamics plying out in the minds of the people in this region that in the end will determine winning and losing. Who wants to inherit a business where all the employees want out of the business? Nobody. So in actual fact, if Russia moves back to Russia, leaves that area, if the people there are not happy then that leaves a problem for the entire world. How would it look to US voters that the billions have been spent trying to make people a nationality that they do not want to be. The reality is this situation in these contested and seperatist regions are far more of a complex issue than the narratives of either Ukraine or Russia are citing currently and therefore if really the people of this region and the people of all of Ukraine and Russia are considered the main priority then there has got to be no matter what a really wise peace process that factors in 'the will of the people' as a priority or there will not be peace, there will simply be a population that feel like they are under occupation of a country they don't want to be under occupation of. So in actual fact peace to Ukraine is only possible if the 'will of the people is heard'. Whilst Elon Musk has effectively said the same in the context of having Internationally observed elections. This paradigm was not welcomed by the side in Ukraine for obvious reasons, it's equally obvious that if Ukraine takes back or is given back these areas if the people there do not like that situation, this war would not be over even if all Russians returned home. So with that in mind what is being asked for by Ukraine today, could prove to be if given in actual fact the last thing that would actually in the medium to long term be in the interests of Ukraine and or President Zelensky. Russia is only one factor in the maintaining of peace in these regions and if that's not being considered fully, totally, completely then the exiting of Russia would leave a vacuum that is then filled with people trying to be manged and controlled by a country they do not want to be a part of.?

Whilst I believe that the international media have not done justice to representing the human rights issues of the people living in that region, ie not listening for a moment to either Kyiv or Moscow, for a moment listening to them, the people. Do you feel you are more Ukrainian, Russian or do you feel you want to be independent of both of these countries??If that consideration is not made, then the situation of today whether lands go to Ukraine or to Russia is in itself only one element of a much more complicated issue. If the question is asked what's more important for you to be considered either Ukrainian or Russian or to be living in peace again? It's almost certain that the answer would prioritise peace firstly. Let's for?moment here add to the complexity. A slim majority of UK voters wanted to be out of the EU and voted for brexit. So many reasons to stay or to leave a vote was cast a decision taken and that five years on has produced a whole encyclopedia of unintended consequences. In essence politics is complicated, yet geopolitics is way more complicated. So the truth is that the outcome of any political choice made by any leader if Internationally relevant then the issues that something can create in terms of action reaction geopolitically have to be very well considered and actually heard. So if Ukraine takes back regions or Russia gives regions back, if Russia leaves in either way, there is a situation left where either the people will accept that and that is the end of the war, yet if that is not what a sizable or very sizable portion of the population want, which is what votes in some regions suggest could happen, then there is a situation that is going to be everything other than resolved. Whilst President Zelensky can appeal to what's considered 'common sense' of the West right now, what has to be considered is that the West is built up on the basis of democracy, the vote so unless these regions are going to become dictatorships after the war, which would not be what either the USA or the EU would want. The notion that Uk and US money in vast sums went towards creating a dictatorship in Europe would just not be acceptable. So inevitably the ballot box has to come into play, if there is not representation of all perspectives in this, then this is going to appear to be a sham election. If there is and the people vote towards anything other than Kiev then the question is going to be asked what on Earth have the USA and other countries been funding this for. The entire concept of fighting wars in order to uphold democracy would be perceived as being completely illogical if at the end of that a dictatorship is found to be the only way to control a region that is so in contrast to what the people want.?

So the reality of the situation is that the media after this war are not simply going to forget about this region of Europe, they can't. the actual desires of a 'liberated' eastern Ukraine is not really knowable today unless there is full representation of the actual people's wants of that region. If that is not represented in the ballot box, then whilst it could feed into the short term the idea that The West won, democracy would not have won. If that's the case then this could put President Zelensky into a very difficult situation. The Ukrainian mindset in Kyiv being very different from the East is not going to go away. This then puts President Zelensky into a situation where he is needing to appease two completely different perspectives one from the west of Ukraine and another in the East. That could be impossible to do so whilst the narrative of the media today is very much more in favour of President Zelensky if there is a 'victory' in the east from a western Ukraine perspective and yet that is not in actual fact, beyond the spin doctoring of what the media are saying today, if that is not genuinely a victory where the people of that region are lining the streets with flowers, which i simply don't know of as I have to depend just on information I get from the press myself as I have not been anywhere near this part of the world. Yet, the point is that unless there is very much support in these regions to want to be with Kyiv then this whole scenario with Russia not in that region at all could create a more complicated situation of what we could call again 'unintended consequences' by there simply having been a reductionist perspective of the media thus far in the explanations in the news of this war. So I write this having to conceed that I don't fully know if this would be the case or not, yet history has taught us in Iraq that whilst the media were presenting the notion of the people being liberated in actual fact a very significant proportion of the people considered the allies to be an invading, occupying force and simply wanted them out of the country.?no matter what, it's essential that there are not these repeats of history.

If for a moment we forget that President Putin in the President of Russia and we forget that President Zelensky is the president of Ukraine. If we put to the side for a moment the actual fighting and just consider that these two men are representing two different paradigms of thinking within the thinking of the people that live within the regions of the countries of Ukraine and Russia in their totalities. If we consider this, that they as people are representing the views of many people in the context to other peoples perceptions of these regions and also from the perspective of the people that live inside those regions. Then in fact that actual development of the war is only one factor, as that is being perpetuated by thinking. at the moment contradictory thinking, yet if more fully considered perhaps there really is very justified reasoning on both sides in terms of both of these people Putin and Zelensky wanting to do the right thing and represent the thinking of what they consider to be, 'their people'. In the context of Zelensky that is the people within the geographical boundary of the country of Ukraine. In the context of the thinking of President Putin its the people that speak the Russian language. If we were to put the war into the context of the these two issues, it's clear that to Zelensky territory, boundaries is everything, to Putin language is. The freedom to be able to speak the language of choice, ie Russian in the separatist regions. So that is one logical level of reasoning that is in contrast. In fact both boundaries and language are both very important issues. Yet, if we add to the complexity of our analysis here are cite that a boundary, a region controlled by Ukraine, where the people feel they are unable to speak the language of their choice is in actual fact neither a victory for the rights of democracy nor actually practical to be able to maintain. So who's winning Russia or Ukraine? Is only partly relevant the allies won a 'good for the media victory in Iraq within a matter of weeks, until that was unravelled to be simply a reductionist politicians media echo-chamber of completely failed logic that played out to create more issues across the middle east all the way up until Brexit and beyond. The implications of wars last more than 100 years. So from where we are on this the reality is that there are underlying issues that created the conditions of this war, not looking at all of the complimentary as well as the contradictory information properly is in fact not good when fully considered for either side. It's therefore, in the long run not good for either leader. Sorry if I'm presenting this war to be more complicated than it seems, yet the only way out of this that I believe is really good for the people of Ukraine as well as Russia and the rest of the world has to be considered from as many perspectives as possible due to the very fact that this war is very complicated. So enough of the complication in all this, lets just throw out an idea that has not been considered.?

President Biden questioned, where is the exit strategy, this is a brilliant question to ask. Yet in fact in this situation there needs to be three exit strategies. One for President Putin and Russia. One for President Zelensky and Ukraine and one for the rest of the world.

The presented exit strategy for Ukraine at the moment is of Ukraine winning on the battle field and Russia leaving Ukraine. If that happened, which I believe is very highly unlikely as I believe there could be a temptation to use worse weapons before allowing that situation to occur or other armies could get involved, as speculated. So the win that the West is trying to obtain at the moment in my opinion is actually geo-politically most likely to result in a loss, a massive bigger loss due to implications. How would China, Iran, Belarus, Brics countries, the countries of central Asia, Afghanistan, North Korea then position if President Putin just left? Talk about creating a vacuum in the world? My god, the implications of President Putin just saying your right, we are wrong we are going home fills me with complete dread over what could result from this it would be a very short lived victory in my opinion, what's more history could repeat itself with Ukraine being the location of the biggest battles of WW2.?So a 'media presented, we won the war' may be what they think they want. geopolitically there would be almost certainly a global earthquake in terms of so many geopolitical relations after this that there could be no going back. Similarly, if nuclear weapons are used or dirty bombs or any of that. The response by the US, Nato would be serious of course. So in actual fact a victory for Ukraine over Russia is only a single chapter in a whole book that could play out. Simply as the vacuum of Russia no longer being a balancing super power in so many relations could geopolitically cause one hundred years of such complexity in geopolitics that any chance of improved diplomacy enough to generate answers to all of the other big questions in the world would be lost and that's in the medium term in the immediate the outcome would be just much more complexity in the world in terms of relations. What adds to this would have been an unresolved issue in Ukraine's East that would domestically bring up so many contrasts in the domestic narratives in the West that the Spaghetti of a mess in terms of world relations would be unfathomable to be able to navigate through, we would have become a planet of bickering and fighting, ever weakening civilisations that were unable to unite enough when it was in fact in the interests of all the people to do so.?

So with the very fact that a victory for Ukraine over Russia in this war is very highly unlikely in any case, yet if it did happen then at best there could be an awareness created that in actual fact due to the non settling down of the eastern provinces of Ukraine after the war, that to a significant extent there is credence given and known in future that the Putin perspective was not as far away from the truth of the situation as much as it's widely considered today to be. So the recovery from the war in Ukraine especially the east could not really happen, what's more. There could be a continuing type of civil war afterwards even if Russia leaves if that's the case of these large populations in the east not wanting to be governed by the west. So in fact a lose by Putin and Russia would play out soon after at best as a lose for Ukraine and Zelensky afterwards if there is not a settling down of those regions. The question would be asked in the west why have we funded a war tht when fully considered is not in alignment with the values of the West? There is this factor that you can fool some of the people soe of the time. Yet, the absence of ballot boxes, of voting of really, really listening to the people of that region and what they really want is actually doing democracy light at best. The implications of this not being a win-win via peace making could reverberate in the West for years. Anyway, enough of considering win-lose and therefore potentially lose-lose paradigms. Let's look at win-win and consider how this could be obtainable. Either other countries are going to go centrally onto the platform of peace making as being vital for all. encourage pressure for peace making or the division that this war could create by not being resolved becomes the focus. Trying to even scope a way through such a situation is incredibly difficult, I'm trying my best. whilst it requires considering certain facts and putting to second place facts that should be fully considered the reality of the situation is that the world is teetering potentially on a much worse situation unless there are at least some voices of reason trying to map out a way out of this for the 7 billion people affected by this situation that was everything other than in the making of the very vast majority of people in the world.??

I believe that an exit strategy for President Zelensky and President Putin are the most important factor due to the fact they are both conceptual representatives of the issues of the people in these regions. There are comparisons that can be made to the FW d Klerk and the Nelson Mandella situation in a way. The only way to make a peace deal in South Africa work at the time was to have to two conflicting sides in terms of paradigms of thinking both represented in two people at once. Whilst human rights abuses in this war are only just being discovered and the extent of this is truly heartbreaking. There has to be an exit strategy out of this situation.?we have to be relentless in asking and demanding that peace is again found.?

where there could be a potential way out of this situation that is unconsidered is a type of strategy that is similar to partition of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Whilst that idea could be considered initially with the utmost concern due to the fact that Partition in India caused so much violence between different religions, there is something different in this situation. That is that the differences in people are not religious but are simply the case of who people want to be governed by whether it's Ukraine, Russia or being Independant. Whilst President Zelensky has conceded that Ukraine would not concede any territory to Russia. A third option is allowing for either elections or Independent ruling within regions. A type of 'one government two systems paradigm, so that the people of these regions are Independent to be able to make their own laws and yet are administered by either another country internationally. That being one paradigm another being that regions are split between Russian or Ukrainian administration so that the people of one region can choose the country they are governed by a third option is any of the above with the inclusion of an Independent country made in one or more of the regions. Whilst any of the above may or may not be considered acceptable to either country.?If there is any chance that they can bring this war to an end by increasing the potential options being considered by both countries then that could be a step in the right direction firstly and secondly having any way of thinking our way out of this war is incredibly difficult and therefore from the position we are in today a good idea, bad idea or completely unworkable idea is better than having no idea at all other than seeing each day how the war outpaces the capacity of the peace process brokered by Turkey and the United Nations.?

However, it is a relief that Russia is back in the grain deal, the world can breath a sigh of relief on this at least. yet, returning to the consideration of a win-win. Whilst it may be considering any of the above to be a reversal of policy for Ukraine?to even contemplate what's cited above from the perspective of today and of recent months. What needs to be considered is that the types of options above may seem like?step back, they are actually pre-empting the next range of issues that will inevitably evolve, if the territories did all go back to Ukraine through fighting. If that happens and the people in these regions when governed do not want to be in Ukraine, there is at least an option for them to be able to move into the type of region, place government of their choosing. This way there cannot be in future the notion that people are living under a type of 'occupation'' if they don't want to be in Ukraine then they have the chance to move. This also pre-empts and circumnavigates around a scenario where there could be a risk of Ukraine not being able to effectively and peace fully manage a newly obtained region that was previously lost. From my limited understanding of knowing exactly how the people of these regions actually really think themselves in terms of how and who they want to be governed by if there is a risk that once liberated by Ukraine, they then protest against wanting to be part of Ukraine either by ballot box, protest or force, then this situation would actually put President Zelensky into a difficult situation. The question would inevitably be asked under those circumstances, why did you ask the west to support a war that to retake places that the people of those places did not want? So as I say, I don't know if that is the situation or not but if there is risk of that then it's much better to pre-empt that possible scenario if there is any risk of that being the case and to make some form of compromise now with Russia in order to prevent that situation or anything like that being able to occur.?

If on the other hand the territories are taken by force and this is not what the people wanted, which to some extent does seem possible considering the amounts of people that were leaving these areas for Russia as the Ukrainian forces have been advancing the prospect of there being what could be considered in future to be 'occupied land' is obviously a risk to all. The better option would be to map out a middle ground situation here for Ukraine and Russia to have their Zulu moment, to negotiate what is really in all honesty workable of the future between Ukraine and Russia and in actual fact concede that is it is neither side that wins the war, but it is the will of the people, to be able to chose where they live. What also needs to be considered is that it would only likely be a tiny minority of people that would want to move from one region to another due to another region being independent or controlled by another country, yet by not giving that choice, could create opposition with any of those regions. The way that this could be is that Russia leaves, the newspapers present a victory to Ukraine and in fact Russia looks on to seeing a situation where there is not peace in the place it left and that only brings up the question in the media as to why? If the answer is that the people do not want to be part of Ukraine then the outcome of this war is that. Firstly Russia loses, then Ukraine loses, the USA, UK and Europe loses the situation in terms of errors made today are compared no more to WW2 and heroism, but more so towards the consideration of how could we not have seen this situation for what it really is before it was too late?

So what I have written here, may or my not be completely right and how things really are, however if there is any truth to those elections that have been had, if they were legitimate elections then it's completely obvious you cannot rule a people who up in the 90's in terms of percentages don't want to be ruled by that country. If that is the case then the easiest way for Russia to win this war is simply to go home. The short term victory goes to Ukraine, the longer term victory in actual fact to nobody at all. The last thing that I would want anyone to consider is that this is trying to create a type of propaganda for one side or the next. That's just exactly the issue, propaganda is not going to work long term. whilst the first casualty of war may be the truth, the long-term casualty of peace making is not allowing the full truth to be known. A war perpetuated by false ideas will not create a lasting peace. If we are not wise and intelligent enough in our craving for peace, if we look only as issues that are related and circumstantial and yet not at the full vast contradictory substance of a situation in it's entirety then we find ourselves having to experience the consequences after. The wisdom of the Vikings as presented in the Rune Stones is to be aware of what you neglect as it invariably comes around afterwards. In the context of the incredibly complicated issues in Ukraine. In my opinion the neglected situation could be the question who in actual fact do the people of the contested regions, really, really want to be governed by is it Ukraine, Russia or themselves. I don't have the actual answer to that. Yet, what seems absolutely clearly evident to me is that leaders on all sides are representatives of the people. the people adhere to the rules of systems that they consider acceptable to them. If there is contrast to what is said and what the real truth is then there is not an answer that can easily be obtained by following a course of action that is not prepared to look at all evidence including contradictory evidence.?

So my hope, my goal in writing this is the same goal as I had with the peace roadmaps I have written that relate to five continents. I'm not on the side of these people but not those or more these people than those. No my work is on the side of people and planet and a pre-requisite to both or either of those is to live in a world mostly at peace. One war can affect many, in the context of this war, it affects every. So all I'm saying is that peace making has to be gone into properly and fully and with this consideration in mind then there is the hope, chance and prospect of there being a way out of this that is in alignment to the values of an ever improving rather than and every worsening world in terms of relationship between leaders, countries and people. Not fully listening to the people of all of Ukraine and all of Russia creates simply them and us issues within both countries later on. This is not good for peace and stability anywhere in the medium terms. So whilst there is almost nothing that i know of the actual relationship between President Zelensky and President Putin other than to say there must be so many issues it would not even be possible to really know anyway. Yet, what I can say is that the future of those regions is in actual fact not really just under the control of either side if the medium terms is considered, its with the people of those regions partly or very significantly too if that's not factored in properly, the real situation, then just as George bush found you can take an area militarily and then the next twenty years are spent talking about winning the hearts and minds of the people. Realistically the people of these regions are mostly from rural areas and probably consider the first priority to be living in peace once again as there main priority or being able to return to their homes and to be safe once again.?

If any of the above is more or less true, and how the situation is then the grain deal in Turkey and the basis of that peace process working discussed and negotiated into being workable is actually the very best outcome for the people of Ukraine, the people of Russia, the USA, UK, Europe and the world.?

The truth is that everyone in this situation wins through there being real honesty and truth in leadership, to not allow some narratives to be hear and others not. To embrace contradictory thinking and to see the situation from the side of the people of that region as well as from the perspective of other leaders. It's a just cause standing up to the protection of the borders of your country. It's a just cause to stand up for the rights of people to be able to speak the language of their choice with really good leadership holding these two truths together there is a way to find a way out of this, yet that way is not obtained in any way other than talking and the best way to start that is by saying well actually all facts considered you are right about this in one way.?