Integrated Strategy for Peace Russia and Ukraine (part 17)
President Zelensky on his birthday received what he has been requesting from various countries tanks. Russia said that they would burn. The US, Uk and Germany are sending tanks, whilst Poland is calling for a coalition of countries. Russia has said that it will train China and South Africa in the use of hypersonic missiles.
From a peace making perspective, looking at the big picture of the Universal interest of all.
Trying to be an optimist amid International debate that carries implications that affect anything up to all the worlds population and everyone that uses a functioning economy. This is an escalation on both sides further into the labyrinth, the tunnel of no return, if we are not collectively, and that requires all of us more clever with our thinking. Then using this to nudge ourselves and others in the clear direction of viable peace making.
The very good news though is that it's currently less than 5% of the 195 countries stuck into this tit for tat situation. The other good news is that there is a timeline on this with both sides. If we are in the scenario where either the tanks are on the battlefield or countries actually being trained in hypersonic weapons, then we are in what would be a higher stress situation for the other side in both scenarios and that then likely takes us to a position of the next round of tit for tat. As that progresses there is a real concern that one country or another thinks this all is getting too much the best form of defence under such circumstances of having what is effectively an 'existential threat' from outside to more that possibly forty countries in the world the increase chance of one or the other not pressing the button, but pressing many buttons. So in actual fact, the increased supply of both weapons and training with hypersonic weapons has created more of an insecurity to the whole world.
Talks were the only viable way to progress in 2017 with the writing of my peace roadmap for the peace process in the Korea's and that is the same today. Talks and peace making that is effective is the only realistic way out of the worst possible scenario. As I have cited in previous documents the notion of economically bringing down Russia as a policy with sanctions was an error of judgement. It was based upon reductionist logic that may have worked from small countries in the past, yet a country with about the most well established leader in office of any country, that has the most borders, largest country, alliances to countries that are obviously not fully known of created during the past thirty years or so. The truth is that the situation today between the West and Russia is much, much more different to anything than in fact similar to anything in the past. The references back to WW2 of 80 years ago in order to try and understand the situation today are actually mostly adding to the non-comprehension of the current situation in many cases. This 90 year, way back then thinking is actually an obstruction to fully comprehending what's really happened, the reasoning as to what is happening currently and the reasoning of how it can at least in theory be possible to be able to bring the situation back into mediation.
The situation is actually much more simple in some ways than is considered in the media. The media writes US, UK, Poland, Germany to send tanks. Yet, if the media was more honest it would write US, UK Poland and Germany to send tanks, how will Russia match this 'escalation', this 'bad will gesture' in return? The leadership in the West, nor the media do not allow into the conversation the notion that every action from the start of this has caused a reaction. Newtons third law is playing out in this situation.
Newton is considered important enough to be represented in money and yet not in thinking. The same concept and law though can and has already played out in peace processes. The steps towards peace by both sides has been equalled by the other. There is a form of reasoning in this situation where either 'good will' or 'bad will' is being responded too. The more 'good will' the better the outcome for all, the more 'bad will' the worse the outcome for all. In terms of what's perceived as 'good will' by Ukraine and yet the opposite of that by Russia, plays out a response. Yet what is perceived as good will for both is also playing out a response. This is why peace roadmaps have been needed to be written on a continual basis and yet, not being widely known nor discussed due to the agendas of leaders and media substantially reduces the capacity of the 'good will' in the situation to be heard and to be known.
The term peace talks and peace process has not been voiced and heard in months, and all efforts to write and gain peace roadmaps do not get fully answered.
In fact, if the earliest of my peace roadmaps for this situation were fully answered there would be today not this war in Europe possibly, and yet many more people in the world, the economy for all better, the best plan there has ever been for the recovery of previous wars and many or most of the diplomatic issues between countries this century and the best answer for linking refugees with economic initiatives and resettlement plans. What's more there would be a socio-economic and climate regeneration and mitigation agenda to all of this. What's more the processes in healing wars would be the most clearly demonstrated of global action and this aligning to the needs of what the United Nations are continually voicing together with the best science there is.
Yet, the collective choices made by leaders prevented this option as well as so many potential benefits to so many countries and rather than work to a I'm ok, your ok, win-win agenda maintained, built upon, allowed to be heard. Instead a win-lose, demands, red lines type of agenda. The red lines thinking has led to death on the battlefield and the worlds economy going into every more precarious positions in many countries. The talking up of the economy with a global food security and famine crisis on the horizon is absurd. There can only be reason for any optimism if there are real strategies, based upon truth and correct interpretations of the past known, open and counter productive polices reversed.
Efforts to mediate were just not effective enough, fast enough despite the efforts by various leaders of countries from various continents, no the 'us and them ' paradigm persisted into this war. The 'us and them' paradigm perpetuates this war, and if we are unable to do the 'us and us' paradigm soon, then if there is continual escalation then the only result of that is 'us and us' all losing. We have to have a perceptual change in International relations that acknowledges the fact that the 'us and them' colonial thinking has got to be kept in the history books and not in the workshop manual of how to have functioning and effective geo-politics in the 21st Century.
President Zelensky wants to protect his country. He is one of two leaders locking horns. More countries can add to this making the situation more like a rugby scrum or there can be an effective way to effectively end the 'game' altogether. The best way to end the fight is to change the context of what is actually happening. To do this requires changing the interpretation of what is happening and to have a more honest, open, truthful and rounded conversation. The peace roadmap in Turkey is the best way to be able to do that. If we are unable to do that, then what other hope is there of the future bringing us nothing more than one, big, giant, massive, nuclear war to take us all back to the dark ages. Then it will be us and us, the few survivors. We will go from the Age of Kingdoms, back to the age of tribes. That is not the scenario I want to see, and I write for trying to provide answers that enable leadership worldwide to realise the full situation and avoid the worst, yet my work falls on deaf ears. The leadership of the world cannot get over the baby idea of a me and only us identity issue. The logic of Reagan, Thatcher and Gorbachev of the stability and security of one side of the world being entirely dependent upon the other is simply not adhered too. World leadership has become in recent years too aloof, too reductionist, too latest social media trend related to even be able to see and properly perceive the very interconnected reactions to actions that are taken.
There has to be at least a two step process, a de-escalation of this war. How to do that requires in the West an escalation in terms of talking about peace processes of the past. To see at least some of the good in the other side is a way towards better relating. Better relating is a way towards a more honest discussion. If the Age of Kingdoms mindset is not allowed to be superseded by even the verbalised concept of considering the universal interest of all people, all countries then the age of Kingdom's could cease and we could end up in another age of tribes. This is a simplistic way of saying that all capacities of all countries are at risk by there not being an effective dialogue for peace even in terms of theory within the wider conversation on this war. By increasing that conversation by outside parties, then there is an improved chance and hope of the thought forms of peace making better finding their way into the narratives on both sides as well as the mediating countries.
Yesterday, was my Birthday and on the day I was born their was an anti Vietnam war protest at 10, Downing Street.
If I would have been in attendance then I would have certainly been the youngest person there.
The seemingly unstoppable war in Vietnam, which was in many ways a proxy war between West and East was finally concluded when there was such a massive pressure both Internationally and domestically to bring the war to an end.
A carpet bombing of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos and unimaginable suffering of people on all sides eventually and sides that were not even directly involved. A war that changed the mindset and thinking of the world ever since.
The peace in Vietnam was brought about by the cost of the war just being too much in just so many ways. The split in generations in The USA, Australia, France the UK and many other countries. The Veterans on all sides knowing that war is hell and yet their decision makers that put them there is the first place continued the war, the conditions of which had began in 1954 and did not finish until 1985. The Vietnam war was in fact not only the longest and most destructive of wars post WW2. It was also a war that involved the administrations of five Presidents, Eisenhower, JF Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon and Ford. It was also a war that destabilised Cambodia leading to the Khemer Rouge, the regime that caused The Killing Fields that set parents against their own children and vice versa and, caused the murder of innocent people that wore glasses. The effect of the chain reaction that The Vietnam War created are countries today that have land mines, a refugee crisis of the boat people and a famine that stretched far into the 70's in Cambodia.
The implications of the Vietnam war could not even begin to be predicted at the start of the war, in the middle of the war or even after the war had finished.
The reality is that with all the losses on all sides, there was no Victory in Vietnam for the West and the mayhem caused by the gains made by the East still have implications to this day. There are many veterans from the Vietnam war that left Nam, yet never really left and the reconciliations that happened since although providing hope for the human condition, were so frequently obtained only by people having lived through inhumane conditions and yet having within their human spirit the ability to see the big picture. The fact that all in the war and their relatives on all sides are actually the victims of the war. So too are the people at home affected by the economic losses of the war as so many are. There are implications of war in terms of suffering that does not even get associated to the cost of the war.
To be able to see that the choices made were not made by the veterans, the ones following orders, the choices were made at the top. Was there a case of lions led by donkeys in Vietnam as well as WW1. It seems that way, yet what's absolutely clear is that various Presidents that had their Presidencies defined by the war, there was a genuine need for a successful peace process to really work. The attempts to end and get out of Vietnam lasted years and the people on all sides paid the very high cost of diplomacy not being able to win through. The Paris Accord played an essential part in this. The Paris Climate Accord and a better perception of that today and how that was obtained, how that connected to the 'Integrated Peace Roadmap for talks between the USA, North and South Korea' is possibly one of the best narratives for again helping to be able to obtain peace.
So the cost of Vietnam in various countries was a population that began to seriously question the judgement of decision makers.
Vietnam has been a communist country since the end of the war and yet visiting South Vietnam, it's not easy to really perceive such a difference between Vietnam and many other South Asian and South East Asian countries. They did not after winning the Vietnam war set their sights on the next islands to be able to claim and bring 'the reds expansion as was cited at the time as being the reason for the war.
So, in fact Vietnam became Communist and that was that. The concerns, the narrative at the start of the war was a projected concern, and perhaps not real at all.
It has to be at least considered was the Vietnam war actually avoidable?
Whilst there was the West and East rivalry after the second world war which played out in different ways in various continents. The question has to be considered in the mid 1960's, 1970's was there really an expansionist motive of the East or was there simply more of a mindset behind the scenes of wanting to consolidate what was already considered by them to be their territory?
If the answer is the second, then the Vietnam war and all that went with it was all based upon a thesis, a notion, a theory that went on to be proven to seemingly not have been correct as history played out in the many decades since.
The figures of how many people actually died in the Vietnam War on all sides, including 283,000 US and allied personnel deaths is somewhere in the region of 1.4 million people.
The question can be asked, were all of those deaths have been actually caused by what we would call today a conspiracy theory that the East was trying to take over the West?
With all consideration taken of all evidence since then from 1975 until today, there has been no other territory lost in Asia as in land taken by Communists from Capitalists. There was no expansion into Asia as was cited as being what the agenda of the East was at the beginning and the justification for supporting the South of Vietnam and then the war that followed with the West supporting the South and the East supporting the North.
The only possible exception we could add to the East going into land that was of the West in the more than 45 years since is of Hong Kong going to the Chinese, and yet Hong Kong was administered by the British as an agreement with China.
Whilst China today cites 'the madness of Mao' Has done a very interesting course of action in saying that, in questioning it's own national ideas, thoughts, mindset of a past leader. Questioning if there is truth to the notions, the organisation thinking, the 'fables' of the past. It shows that there is new and different thinking today. China is constantly updating it's ways of thinking and this is a trait that if done by many countries in the world can effectively help produce a more honest dialogue within the country and between countries. The Uk is to some extent doing the same by having a process of looking at the British Empire of the past in new more complete and more ways that are actually really true. A type of revision of our own thinking we know is important on a day to day basis and yet the desire to want to do that in a country requires leadership that realises is the time that matters the most in history is the here and now.
There are many other countries in the world could also benefit from doing the same, to question the past leadership in their own countries and do everything they can to make the situation between people and other countries better today.
The inescapable truth is that the Allied perception of their 'needing to' be a war in Asia that lasted longer for decades could have occurred due to reasons that were based specifically upon conjecture that was actually completely false than really effective knowledge and evidence.
The reality is that if the intention of Communism was to expand into capitalist countries then why with a win in Vietnam did they stop? Yet, on balance there are other unknowable questions to this that could make this theory, not valid at all. Would they have stopped had there not been the Vietnam War? Did the Vietnam war prove that the West would defend every square inch of territory and that this would cause the Communists that wanted to 'take over Asia' to have second thoughts? Whilst of course these are truly unknowable questions, what's clearly evident is that the notion of an expansionist doctrine, ie 'the communists are taking over', we have to fight them has since proven to not be the case more often than not. Has that paradigm of thinking helped pre-empt the notion that expansion of one country or another is probably more or less what they are 'all going to try and do anyway' and therefore this 'has to be stopped?' Is concern and fear over the competitive nature of other countries a part of the cause of there being more competition. If the narrative is only expansionist ideas, and not actually the notion that most countries are satisfied with the size of their countries. Then is fear of the other the greatest motivating factor away from sensible talks?
In Vietnam's situation was the war caused mostly by a tough talking military or was it actually caused by a situation where the intention was never there to expand in the first place and yet this was ineffectively 'mindread' and not properly interpreted at the time? Again unknowable and yet it's good to ask this question now and today, as what's happening in Europe is perhaps not a whole lot different. Russia believed the West planned to expand into Russia. As discussed there is good reasoning for why he could have thought this. As too there would have been good reasoning as to why the Allies in the context of Vietnam believed the same. If there is a reference to any war to be made with the Russia and Ukraine war, it's perhaps Vietnam.
It could have been the Western 'theory, idea, fable' that caused the course of events of tit for tat that led to war in Vietnam, it could be the same sort of situation that's happened today with the increase of the war in Ukraine, or even the start of the war in Ukraine due to the language issue. In the context of Vietnam the war lasted decades. In the context of Russia and Ukraine, there is a way out of this now, and that is the proper study of peace making. Whilst it required the duration of 5 US Presidents to get out of the Vietnam war once it had begun. It's impossible for the war in Ukraine to be able to last that long, as the escalation of the war is already having the early signs of being more like a larger war in more countries if we are not very, very careful to talk this whole thing back to better diplomacy again.
The expansion of the Russian controlled territory after the change from the USSR that does seem to be one of the main motives of the war in Ukraine going by all that has been said.
It's as if there has been a replication and yet inversion of the 'Make America great again' idea, that in Russia can loosely be translated as 'Make Russia great again.' by having more territory. The inversion bit in this is that President Trump was 'Making America Great Again' by pulling troops out of expensive in every way foreign wars, whilst the Kremlin has chosen to go into territories. The stadium event that President Putin hosted during this war would seem to indicate to observers that there is at least part of a link to the thinking of Trump and yet the policy not to dis-engage and bring troops home via diplomacy which is what President Trump did mostly and not enter into wars, but to see that there is more political gain to be made by being a peace maker, but in the context of the current situation with contradictory narratives, and fractured media causing fractured thinking in terms of earlier peace processes, there is only at the moment a continuation of two parallel narratives without enough links in thinking between the two.
These differing narratives, I have explained in depth in earlier documents as to why I believe they have and provided very clear reasoning as to what I believe were effectively the 'pressure points' that caused this. What I can say here in summary is that if you believe that only Russia, Ukraine or even the leaders of these countries and many other countries too are the sole cause of this, then it's better to go back and read earlier content. There has been a whole history of miscommunication in terms of the motives of the West after the USSR and in terms of Russia seeking out a new position in the world and this not being allowed or facilitated. Effectively Russia has taken the non-communication in terms of wanting to have a future deal for the country going back years and has defined itself on the world stage. Sometimes in a good way and sometimes in a bad way, yet the non acknowledgment in my opinion of the good that Russia has done, has caused an incorrect representation issue that then caused the West to not let Russia in, and that has since caused choices of Russia to become more in the interests of it's own country only. More so than making choices more in the context of the Universal interest of all as it did so in 2017 with diplomacy in Asia and yet the non acknowledgement of this has prevented what could otherwise have been better International relations from increasing. The question has to be asked again has it been the pre-conceived ideas of the intention of Russia in the past thirty years to have created the conditions of today? Has there been enough analysis of the analysis? In terms of the media really trying to get into the thinking, the motivations of Russia there hasn't been enough analysis of this for a long time and yet it's not only Russia, in the context of this we continuously see the 'type casting of both continents and countries' In recent days it's had to be cited as much as this in the discussions in the context of Germany and Russia in the context of Africa.
In the context of Africa there is a vast amount of potential, yet in terms of the type-casting of any countries due only to perceptions of limited thinking based upon incorrect past-paradigms there is and has to be progress in this and so having a better relating within countries and between countries is both vitally important.
A country at peace with itself, is much more likely to be at peace with other countries. For a country to be at peace with itself in a much more multi-cultural world requires honesty. It requires effectively inner-country peace processes.
To write peace roadmaps also requires being in a peaceful set of circumstances and that is not always easy especially when there is not always enough support or help for this.
However, just to say this that both the USA and Russia did not need to make themselves great again, they were then and are now both great countries in different ways as too are all countries and in fact regions in the world. To realise the greatness today of a country is to realise that there have been counterproductive narratives of most countries in the past between countries and to look at the present and realise that this is not good or healthy for any country.
Every region, every country all have something original and special to offer in one or many ways. Yet, where we are today is in a situation where we have got to look at past situations and interpretations and re-evaluate if we are to be able to make better sense today. To some extent to make better sense of today.
If we do that then we find that if in times of time we are proportionately following a similar time line to the Vietnam war then we are not even 1/25th of the way through this war. If that is the case or anything even like that then the costs of this war can only increase on all sides. The cost of living crisis everywhere is effectively inseparable from this war, even as things are now and therefore twenty five more years into this and like in the case of every other war the drain in resources on all sides will be not even knowable from the perspective of today. There is an ethical, practical, economic, social, historical reason to need to get much smarter at peace process interpretation, representation and use. A global economy in the 21st Century that is addicted to war, is addicted to it's own demise.
If there was a press free enough in the world at the start of the Vietnam war to be able to question whether or not the 'rhetoric' that was being cited was real or not then it could be said that real 'free press' could have done so much more for peace then than it did. The situation today is no different.
The limitations in terms of stopping this war are derived from an incomplete presentation of all the facts.
It's estimated that between 1 Million and 1.2 million people died in the war in Iraq.
There are 8.7 million people in London. Imagine if 1 in every 7 people in London disappearing instantly.
That 1 to 1.2 million figure that did die is based upon a fictitious media narrative as Stop the War Coalition knew and cited and then the Chillcot report confirmed. The biggest protests in UK history went ignored by a narrative that did not represent fully the facts.
A part of that fake news narrative was that London could be hit by weapons of mass destruction from Iraq in 45 minutes. The war reporting found this to have been a falacy. The Chilcott Inquiry found this to be nothing more than domestically imagined political spin doctoring and conjecture rather than fact.
Where were the weapons of mass destruction, they were not in Iraq until there were vast amounts of radioactive waste left there from a war that should never have happened brought into the country due to the invasion.
It was again a lack of vigorous investigative politics that failed then to be able to question the conspiracy theory of that moment.
Had they done so there would not have been a refugee crisis caused, that then added pressure to all Middle Eastern countries, destabilising other countries and then resulting in more conflicts, more refugees that then paved the way again through incomplete narratives in both politics and in the media to the blame going more to the EU that to the decision makers in the UK, that then paved the way to Brexit and then the most significant differences between the UK and it's closest allies both geographically and politically for decades at least and in the context of one, the most contradictory policies since the Napoleonic wars is what the media cited, yet the forgot to mention the US war of Independence. What was the rallying cry of that? 'No taxation without representation'. Representation, representation. Hello do we see the same common denominator here, incorrect representation of the fact in terms of Iraq. Incorrect representation of the real motives of the Commies, not representation of people that were linked to the British empire and yet did not have any say. The right to free speech is such an important right that it's only that that has enabled there to be the world that there is of today.
The common denominator of the cause of more wars of more influence that has shaped the West since the days of the Wild West and including then too is the issue of 'Representation' either representation of the full facts or the representation of people.
The seemingly lack of control that the EU, a bunch of 'unelected bureaucrats' had over the Uk was the same type of choice making and thinking that the USA had had centuries earlier.
The colonists, the pioneers in he USA wanted their own representation and not have a big overlord trying to dictate terms of their future. It was the same with the USA in the context of the EU, the Americans wanted the same in the way of being free from the control and the lack of representation that the 'colonists' had with Britain. Yet in the context of Brexit, again it was the issue of 'Representation' there was again not the full representation of the facts. The fact that most parliamentary time for five years would be taken up by the data not discussed prior, not properly represented before the referendum is evident. The 300 Million to the NHS each week has been in fact more than enough to have given all NHS employees a massive payrise. People voted on incorrectly represented information and if it's not evidence that at least two of the biggest industrialists that supported Brexit now clearly have massive reservations about this then nothing is. The politicians themselves saw only some of the considerations of Brexit, so too the electorate. Yet, you do not solve one set of problems by creating more problems which to a significant extent is what UK politics has achieved since, either intentionally or not intentionally.
So can we say that this issue of 'representation' is a big one in terms of the motivation for war, for the non obtainment of peace, it's a massive part of what can lead to politicians and the electorate as well making choices and decisions about really important issues that are in fact more complicated than when firs considered.
Yet, how does that fit into the war today. Well it was the incomplete 'representation of peace process' that caused so many countries to perceive Russia as only being a malign influence in the world when in fact from 2017 Russia had helped mediate peace deals. More so I might add than more or less any other country. (North and South Korea, Syria, Turkey, Israel, he European Union, USA and the UK to name just a few countries and International organisations benefited. As too did the modern world. The USA and Allies pulling out so rapidly from Syria would have left such a vast vacuum that that, the most complicated and participated war in world history would have caused NATO and EU allies into conflict had it not been for Vice President Pence and President Putin both mediating.
I know this to be true as the peace roadmap I wrote was used and yet that was not 'represented' what was also 'not represented' was the peace roadmap that led to a peace process, that kept the world at peace in Asia in 2017. So where we are today is in this place where there is a very terrible situation for Ukraine, not too dissimilar to the situation of Vietnam decades ago where there is a different political ideology in one part of the country in contrast to the other part of the country. We have the West inching their way towards creating effectively a coalition of countries, much in the same way as there was with both Vietnam and Iraq. Yet again we also have a vast difference between what the narratives say and what all the facts are similarly to Vietnam and Iraq.
With having only the one sided representation of Russia from 2017 until 2021, did that affect and influence the policies of Ukraine? Did this cause Ukraine to consider that the only way it could be safe due to knowing only the 'represented facts' that it's country was at risk and then as a result of that then pass laws to affect the speaking of Russian in the country? This then leading to tit for tat that began separatist elections and then conflict? This again is perhaps unknowable, Yet what's true to say is that from that moment in 2014 relations between Russia and Ukraine only worsened and whilst there were 'representations' of peace processes in politics, they were not fully complete enough to have painted the picture that Russia had been a part of the mediation in various scenarios properly and fully enough as the events that have followed have shown. A Ukraine that wanted to join NATO and then countries which had been neutral for years wanting to no longer be neutral. Why? There best thinking detected a threat. Why? One sided narratives. Peace is maintained by there being a more complete representation of countries and people. Simply having a good and bad paradigm of countries simply creates intolerance, the notion of not being understood that then manifests into a sense of angst and or fear. The two become supportive of the other.
Is the West in the process of making the same media error, the same lack of representation error that has caused more war, more loss of lives than any other factor, making the same mistake, yet again? Before answering that, lets just look briefly at WW2. The Germany being the victim, the underdog that was not fair is the narrative used by the third reich, again there was not any full and complete representation of the word war one peace process. Again, it was Us and them, we won they lost. Whilst that may have sounded acceptable to most ears outside of Germany, this became the motivating force for change in Germany. In fact at 10 Downing Street after Armistice Day from WW1, it was considered the best wisdom at the time that the deal Germany got was so one sided that there would be major problems from that in future. 10 Downing Street's top advisors effectively predicted WW2 at the close of WW1. They did this due to the fact that there was not effectively enough of a 'win-win' scenario created in terms of a peace process after there had been a clearly evident win-lose from the war.
That win-lose peace process effectively festered in the psyche of Germany. The German people questioned. What was the problem, what was the cause of the lack of recovery in the years after.
What Hitler did was not to actually blame the ineffective agreement as priority, instead he blamed groups of people within the country and from that then managed to obtain power. Effectively he began with easier targets. he then signed peace agreements both with the UK and Russia that he had no intention of keeping.
He then manipulated and took over the democratic German Parliament, then later created a false flag operation on the border of Poland, citing that it was Poland that had attacked Germany first. He used the notion that 'we are victims' of these other people. He misdirected and misrepresented the cause of the problems in Germany and then created the chaos that resulted from his actions and assertions.
Whilst again it was the misrepresentation of the facts, of the truth. I believe that there is more to this.
The earliest and yet ground breaking findings in terms of Psychology a Jewish man in Germany had found. His name was Sigmund Freud. When you consider how The Ministry of Propaganda worked and how the entire, very logical largely earlier socialist population were manipulated with all the events, with the Olympics and the whole early show that was put on, when comparing all of this to the findings of Freud, it does seem feasible that the working book of The Ministry of Propaganda was in fact written by the brilliant Freud. The burning of all Jewish books could in fact have possibly been an effort of Hitlers to make the reading of those books by the majority of Germans impossible.
If that is the case, which is actually only my own theory, then it can be cited once again that there was very much a case of the 'incorrect representation of the real facts' that caused again one of the most destructive wars ever. Did people try and resist what happened in Germany? Yes of course they did and that has been well documented, however there was a massive pressure to conform to a whole paradigm of reasoning that many knew to be wrong and yet were unable to resist due to pressure. The ineffective 'representation of truth' caused a significant proportion of the people in Germany to either believe what was being said, or if they did not to remain silent of face the consequences of an overtly controlling regime that was created. The very fact that the media was so controlled in Germany at the time prevented complete and full free speech from being even possible.
Whether this aspect is taken on board to be true or not we do see the whole 'representation of the people of the facts, of the truth' playing out in the motivations for more wars than any other issue and in terms of peace processes, the most successful peace processes in the world have been the ones best represented. We all have a very clear awareness of the peace making by the allies during the course of WW2 and yet not in the context of so many other peace processes since. So frequently attention simply moves on to the next consideration, the next issue and yet what can be left behind is the smoothing over of geo-politics in order to be able to provide a constructive way forward for all into peace making and therefore the re-establishment of a viable for all new norm.
Recommended by LinkedIn
Whilst it's often cited that The Northern Ireland peace Process is one of the most successful peace processes ever. This is certainly true in European history, yet debatably in world history.
The first original factor that prevented that from working was the fact that the then Conservative leader would not talk to all parties. She would not allow all sides to have representation 'I will not negotiate with terrorists' was her quote, yet Bill Clinton a few years on invited all parties to the White House, they shook hands for the first time, sat down talked and he very much did facilitate all sides being heard and represented and from that the best future for Europe as a continent was produced and from that the best years ever for the whole Island of Ireland.
Lets not rest on our laurels with this, we have covered the most important peace process in Europe, now what about Africa? Lets say there have been two vitally important peace processes in Africa as an entire continent. The first came from the abolition of slavery, leading towards fairer trade, leading towards full, complete representation of African countries on the world stage. Yet, in terms of internal domestic peace processes, South Africa, due to protest and changes in International representation enabled a situation to emerge where FW De Klerk representing the whites and Nelson Mandela representing the blacks were able to largely put to the side differences enough effectively enough in order to create a rainbow nation. Nelson Mandela as a peace maker then became a global icon of better understanding of people and of the efforts towards world peace.
It's absolutely evident once again that proper representation of all sides was a pre requisite to peace making being possible.
The worst genocide in Africa, the Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda again caused by the misrepresentation of one people to the other, caused by absurd rules created during the time of colonialism that set one people against the other and began a cycle then of incorrect representation of the other.
Lets go further. The genocides of Indigenous peoples in North, Central, South America, Australia and New Zealand. These people at the time were again incorrectly represented, they were described as being 'savages' yet of course today most drugs in most Pharmacies originate from their knowledge, most foods in most kitchens and restaurants originate from their knowledge. They introduced us to potatoes, chocolate, chilli, bananas, avocado, pineapple and many of the herbs and spices that we use today to cook with originated from the wisdom and knowledge of these people, who the world incorrectly represented then and to a very significant extent does so still today.
We do not properly represent this fact in laws, trade deals or in fact anywhere.
The modern world owes so much to the indigenous people of the world. Yet this is a truth that is rarely ever represented properly. Again the issue of 'correct representation' is there with most of the worst actions that mankind has done to each other for the past two hundred or even two thousand years. The incorrect representation of the Spanish within the Inca empire caused it's demise.
So if we go back to the American Civil War that was caused by the people in the North and the South having different ways of thinking, a different way of life at that time and both sides wanting their way of thinking to be fully 'represented'.
The issue of representation is connected to almost all of the wars of history and is the common denominator of all the worst wrongs of history.
The issue of representation is an issue that is so deeply engrained one of the Ten Commandments about not 'baring false witness'.
The inescapable truth on balance is that human beings will put all forms of sensibilities aside and as a general rule, all cultures considered fight each other rather than allowing their own group, culture, country or group of countries to be incorrectly or inappropriately represented. Their own way and within their own perception, their own shared perception with their group is of great importance to them. Not being able to have the wisdom to perceive that it's the same for other groups of people too appears to effectively be a programming error in the way that too many countries think.
In terms of the peace processes and there success or relative success in this century alone. When have they been found to be the most effective, the most viable. Simple answer, when there is a change in terms of the perceived representation of a leader on the world stage.
In the context of the peace talks and peace process in terms of North and South Korea, that became feasible only due to the fact that there was for the first time in 70 years an even playing field for all sides allowed.
What stalled the peace process was details that were discussed in the context of all leaders being heard and yet no conclusive win-win deal finalised and instigated. Again though, the issue of 'representation is there'. What facilitated the peace process between the USA and Iran? Again representation. The fact that the USA and it's allies were in direct and productive talks with Iran created hope. What took that hope away temporarily was not enough effort put into what one administration in the USA considered an ok deal to the next administration in the USA considering it to be a not effective deal.
Today we have moved on from that and there is at least the chance of middle ground being obtained, how? With improved representation to begin with is the most likely path towards and into better agreement.
What's clearly evident is that the countries that make the best recovery from where they have been in the past do so not by one country or another putting them down, but by many countries considering their interest and how that fits into the ever changing modern geo-political landscape.
If in this world we are going to do the idea of good and bad management in the past, then there is no country with a five star rating. Most certainly not in the way of countries so frequently referred to as super powers. None of these are perfect and in fact we could create a long list of other countries that are not super powers that are also at fault in some way over the issue of 'representation'. However, if there is a genuine narrative towards being the better version of a country today than in the past and many countries do this together then there is the chance of there being an improved performance generally in terms of reconciliation, mediation and genuine real peace processes that work. The extending of the hand towards others in order to do peace making with the admittance that the past has not been ideal is a path towards a better today.
So if you are to try and obtain meaning from the peace roadmaps I write, look to the Syrian boy that was found motionless on the beach. He lived to the age of three years old. His name was Aylan Kurdi. He had not any say at all in the situation that he found himself in. He had no 'representation' He had nobody fighting for his bowl of food in the world and his future. The people that created the situation that he was in were professional politicians yet were they really making an effort to find and obtain answers to the problems created by war?
It's the very well paid people, that are doing their own thing today that were the people that could have created the policies for a better situation then and now today. There are many like Aylan Kurdi's today and yet there is an 'unrepresented plan' here and in my work that could have given him in the past a future if people like us listened better then and in the early days of the conditions that have led up to the war in Ukraine as it is today. If we all made a better effort to 'represent the facts, the truth.' If we all tried to influence in the small ways we all can leadership to do the same. To really consider the vitally important issue of representation. Proper and full representation of people, countries, history and current policies.
If we are going to talk about the issues between Russia and Ukraine there would be a long list. If we are to talk about the issues between West and East that led up to the war in Vietnam there is a longer list. If we are to consider the issues between NATO and Russia the list is likely considerably longer than the list of issues between Russia and Ukraine. So it's the relationship between both individual countries and groups of countries which can help others in contrast find a bit more middle ground for agreement.
Many more than one hundred and seventy countries through their silence in a way calling for a better 'representation of all the facts'.
Poland is calling for a coalition of other countries to provide weapons to Ukraine. I do understand why President Zelensky is requesting this. I do understand why countries are responding to this and yet I know that there is information that if more properly and fully represented could very much bolster the Grain Deal Peace Process as negotiated by President Erdogan of Turkey. He is certainly correct in his statement that that is our best chance for a viable and workable peace process. Yet this requires more components to really be as effective as it can be and most of those in some way contain the thought in the minds of people that there is or can be a path to peace making if enough people want this and influence leadership enough on all sides to believe that this can again be made true. Like in the context of so many people working for peace making in the 60's and 70's, The legacy of their work then, helped provide a world were peace making was important, essential and needed to be represented fully. The actions of those people in the 1960's may well have been the main influencing factor in the 80's that got the East and West talking in the first place. If this is really so then all leaders today are the beneficiaries in one way or another of the peace movement.
I also know that if all possibilities are considered of how to best use this peace process for all the countries affected by war this century, combined with elements of a peace deal that factors in many of the considered 'out countries' of previous years then a peace deal that is a lifeline today to so many can become a mighty force for bringing forwards so many countries in the world of all political narratives and in fact al geo-political narratives today. What is the best hope for making the war as bad as possible for all of us is the 'incorrect representation of past facts' what provide the best hop, the best chance of a way out of that scenario is the very best representation of the fact. Nobody is entirely at fault in terms of the war in Ukraine today. The choices taken have in every case been partly caused by past policy choices by leadership on different sides.
The best scenario for tomorrow is to throw out the usual logic of now. If the question is asked, how can we best protect Europe as a continent, the answer is to that to be on more friendly terms with all countries, to try more to obtain this with Russia. To get from here to there is no easy option, the truth is there are seemingly no easy options. Yet, that is the perceived truth, not the truth.
The reality is that tanks from the USA, Germany, UK are not going to do very much else at best or worse than kill a whole lot more mostly young people in uniforms who would sooner be at home was it not for the conquest type thinking of other people. The people there on the front line on both sides should mostly be at home playing with their girlfriends, their play stations or anything else rather than to be having to have the internal dialogue of kill or be killed just to continue on in this otherwise overtly extraordinary in so many ways world. Do they deserve their pioneering mindset into life in this world to be stopped due to the ineffective representation of facts and truth? No.
The whole notion that you have these middle aged or older men defining the lives of these people, based upon the idea that all information is public, everything is upfront and honest, when in actual fact it's not is a massive global lie and a failure by all governments to hold to account decision makers, that make choices derived only from facts that most suit their own adventures or misadventures into politics.
President Zelensky is doing what he considers the best for his country, President Putin is doing what he considers best for his country, yet they are diplomatic conflict, their countries are at war, yet the notion that it's only through Presidents Zelensky or Putin that this war can end is just completely incorrect. It's the representation of peace processes of the past, the good and bad actions being better more openly considered and communicated that can progress the situation from here.
In times like this there can be a tendency to look at where we are and to plan forward. It's possible to do this West against East thing, see Zelensky as the great warrior seeing off a hoard of Russian invaders. Yet the question has to be asked was it the choice of any Russian people or Ukrainian people to put NATO armies on the border of Russia? Did any Ukrainian or Russian vote for that? No. Did any American vote for that? No. Any of the electorate in any of the NATO countries. Did they vote for their leaders to put onto the border of Russia troops that would remind Russia and the Russian people of the terrible years caused after Operation Barbarossa? No, not one member of the electorate of NATO countries had a vote in that choice. Yet today according to Russia that has been a major contributing factor for the war.
So if we are going to absurdly use the terms freedom and democracy in any of this situation that has played out the reality is that there has been a distinct lack of democracy in terms of any of the choices and decisions made that have created this situation. Either the concept of democracy does not really work to protect us or there needs to be more of an honest discussion in terms of what real democracy actually is. Today we are in a situation where there are weapons being moved around the world that can potentially destroy the practices of democracy and yet what caused this situation was the choices of a few people in high up offices that are actually in those positions charged with protecting both democracy and freedom and the interests of the people in their own countries. Well that is clearly and evidently not happening enough. If it was then there would not be this ludicrous narrative that the only way to end this war if for there to be more war. No, there needs to be more democracy. Most open discussion, more free speech, more representation of the truth, full truth and nothing but the truth and more intelligent conversations based upon that.
If the Western leadership do not really believe in the practices and principles of free speech and fair and true representation of the facts, all the facts to be able to enable those in politics to be able to make the best choices possible, then the chances are they are not going to be able to make the best choices possible. The best choice is obviously not to destroy the entire human race and modern world, and yet if you look only at information represented, then it would seem from an external perspective that that is the only option. The very principles, the first principle of any democracy is to have a choice. In terms of the conversation in the media thus far it's seemingly that there is no other choice even possible. Yet in order for that peddled paradigm to be maintained has required not allowing for the open discussion of all the facts in the analysis in the context of this war.
After promising the USSR that NATO would not expand eastwards beyond Germany, NATO did? No not one of those voters had any say in that at all. This war like every war disproportionately affects innocent people. People that had no say in the choices in the decisions taken. If there was a war that affected the whole world today, then it would be written into any future history that the West which presented a notion of free speech and choices based upon citizens voting did not allow for this. The Western world would be seen to have been a bit hypocritical to put it mildly. The public opinion, the opinion of politicians, the considerations of leaders cannot swing onto a peace making narrative all the time that the narrative in both left and right politics in the mainstream in the West does not even allow for those conversations to be able to occur.
Yes, the USA, Uk, Germany, Poland and all those other countries that have German made tanks have between them, the capacity to potentially defeat Russia in conventional war. Yet is that were this is today, next week or month? It doesn't seem like that really. The West and East are both behaving in a way where they can seemingly accurately mind read what the other side is going to do. That's clearly stupid as in any form of conflict, you do not really ever know what the opponent is going to do and in the context of this there has never been a better armed war on both sides in human history than is happening today. Best consider the wisdom of China and never under estimate your opponent and better to make your opponent your friend and avoid conflict where possible.
Do NATO have the capacity to destroy the entire modern world? Yes, Does Russia and friends have the capacity to destroy the entire modern world? Yes, that goes first the opposing countries or the modern world. I place my bet of a kilo of salt on the later.
What has to be considered is that generally communist or former communist countries have much less dependency on the past 30 year technology than the West has. Yet, the former communist countries if they took wrong decisions could also have massive social unrest that could change these countries too. Inescapably we are looking at lose-lose scenarios in abundance and for all if the madness of none effective peace brokering and peace making continues. The only good exit from this I know for certain is a peace process. Yet, this is exactly what has not been getting represented. The notion that a peace process is potentially obtainable now is not the consideration or speculation in any narratives other than my own in all this and I don't see another peace roadmap author with a better plan for peacemaking than this. I wish I did. I wish there were at least ten peace strategists in the world looking at all of the implications of this and other wars and trying to at least map out in words and concepts a way back to the new norm that was promised. Having peace strategists discussing, considering or debating possible ways to end the war would be progress.
Yet the attention is only geared towards an increase in the war and by how much?
Boris recently has tried to steal the thunder from Rishi Sunak twice, firstly by going to Davos and secondly by going to Ukraine.
What the problem is here is that he is a back bench MP and yet former prime minister. If every backbench MP did the same would this improve choices made? Him going there effectively attempts to lobby a policy onto Rishi Sunak and in actual fact it's the first time this has ever been done before especially in such a serious situation.
The reality is that the truths about former peace processes have not been known, not been heard and there is a never ending politicians media echo-chamber that is falsely painting the picture that the only way to be able to end this war is in a military way and at a very high price to people worldwide and a very real risk to all life on this planet.
The Home Office Website as acknowledged recently by Nigel Farage does mention.
'' The first duty of the government is to keep citizens safe and the country secure.''
There were hypersonic nuclear missiles within twenty miles of the Uk shores. A weapon that can travel at thousands of MPH and destroy a country or two or more from one location. The leader in charge of those missiles is in a country that is at war with another country. The other country the Uk is supplying weapons too such as tanks. The leader with the missiles is referring to wanting peace. Yet the peace process referred to as being the best hope for successful mediation between Russia and Ukraine has not had even one single word printed in any media nor been included in any documentation fully that MP's have full access too.
Lets be realistic here everyone is at risk without effective policies. Yet policies are being nudged by a leader who's best policy work he did have was when he was Mayor of London was copied from the previous administration that had got the work from me.
We are not in pepper pig world, where everything there works, we are in what could be described as the very most dysfunctional situation of the greatest consequence the world has ever known.
President Zelensky and Boris Johnson clearly have an excellent relationship and the needs of the Ukrainian people. The needs of the Ukrainian people are of course of the greatest importance. They want a new normal to return. That is obtainable certainly through effective peace making. Not possible through war as one escalation causes another and yet the immediate need is what President Zelensky prioritises currently. The country is in survival mode, yet to get to diplomacy mode is whats really required and yet getting there and having a realistic exit is best obtained by the efforts of others.
His intentions are to protect his country. President Putin's intentions are the same and yet how events have played out this is more like a proxy war than is considered. Ukraine was more into what was like a civil war to begin with and even trying to fully understand what's happened in the past and seeking to find a way forward in the present requires so much consideration and analysis and even that is happening as the war evolves each day.
The war began when Russia 'invaded Ukraine' is the naïve narrative touted in the same way that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and could hit London in 45 minutes.
In both cases there was a talking up of the Iraq war and there has been a talking up of this war.
Foreign secretary Boris Johnson Bomber command centre Kent citing Russia. The sabotaging of a democratic country is possible, it's been done before in the past and luckily it's been prevented too, this time thankfully by The House of Lords.
His actions may speak of freedom for Ukraine and the people of Ukraine and yet there has been in the Uk and still is the greatest ever asserted attempt to sabotage all the rights and all the freedoms of British democracy. To take away the very workings of democracy that enabled even a woman called Margaret Thatcher to be Prime Minister. The rights of women were won from the freedom and rights demanded for all people. The first petition was in Manchester against the slavery of people, the abolitionist agenda originated from this. This was from people protesting to Parliament.
The Act of Abolition evolved from that and then following on from that the Suffragette movement so that women could have the vote that then led to the election of the first women MP's and that then paved the way to the first woman prime minister. Whilst Johnson represents the freedoms of the people of Ukraine, yet has sought to divorce the Uk from the rights that created the biggest icon of modern day conservativism. The advancement of human rights is conservativism, the reduction of them for the British people is anything other than conservativism.
The British people have worked for more than a thousand years to have the rights they have today. The British people cannot be legislated out of relevancy by any politician.
The Uk deserves freedom of speech, freedom of journalism. This man tried to pass laws that would make writing a story in contrast to the government a crime almost as serious as murder. The truth is that the UK has been in treacherous waters from the first time that he went from being Mayor to being Foreign Minister, the stroke he pulled on Theresa May was paid in kind by Rishi Sunak and yet today Boris Johnson wants more.
The Kill the Bill protests and the House of Lords enabled the United Kingdom does maintain the same standards of democracy as countries like Croatia and Estonia, like New Zealand and Canada. We have the same rights as the countries of the Commonwealth. The House of Lords throwing back the bill with the message that these reductions to the rights of the British people is not a British thing to do. Rule Britannia, Britaniana rules the waves Briton never, never never shall be slaves. Take away the rights of journalists, of protest, what's left.
The only reason that the UK has had either Women or people of colour in politics at all was due to the right to protest. Whilst in terms of services, these have been reduced, in terms of rights the effort to reduce those too.
President Zelensky wants allies and supporters however he as a Jewish man should at least be aware of the parallels that the last time Europe had such an influential politician that shared the ideas of Boris Johnson's colleagues in terms of euthanasia was WW2.
It's all very easy for leaders of one country to have relations with other leaders in excellence and for this to go unconsidered and unnoticed. It's a fact that after the Olympics in Germany even Hitler exchanged letters with USA's Jessie Owens, the best athlete, a black athlete of that era.
However, the war today should not be a type of PR related situation, the implications are just so vast. The situation requires the most sensible peace making efforts.
Anyone that believes that Boris Johnson's policies were Conservative needs to consider the history of their own party. The Conservatives were founded as being a party of human rights. Human Rights and Freedom of Speech is what created Churchill, Thatcher, May and Sunak. Without these rights the UK would not be the country it is today, the 1950's,60's, 70's, 80's, 90's would have been completely different. Trying to take away rights is no different to trying to take away the history of the country. When any country tried to change and take away it's own history, this is never good. It's better to do what China is doing today and critique the history rather than pretend the past never happened.
There are human rights connections to the founding of five of the UK's political parties. If this aspect of history is not acknowledged then Lest We Forget is already forgotten, not by the people but by professional politicians. They should be the first to represent the valued of democracy, freedom and free speech. They have not ben doing that in the context of peace making, rather than align to these principles and learn how to keep the country as safe as possible, there are so many simply trying to use the political system for there own benefit and not the benefit of the people.
Their first founding principle of the Conservative Party was that all people, irrespective have human rights and their own representation. This is a policy that Boris Johnson after using Brexit he attempted and failed to change, to end.
The inability to have free speech is preventing people from having their own representation. The same cause of so many loses in the world, most of the loses in the world. The ineffective explanation and use of peace roadmaps in the Uk is the biggest lack-of-representation issue in the Uk today. How can the government really protect it's people if the conversation of how that was obtained in the past is not even permitted. Human rights in the UK are more than 1,000 years old, they have been long earned by the people, by our ancestors.
The more mindful approach of Germany in recent days to question if there is a better way than supplying tanks is the more sensible wise and representative consideration, if aligned to all the facts and not just some. Then there is a chance for there to be at least a greater consideration to peace making past and present.
I do not yet have all the answers of how this can be possible, yet through peace making organisations, and peace roadmap authors getting free press the peace processes being widely represented and discussed there is the chance to build upon the successes of the past. Without the discussion, the successes of the past are not even known.
If the war ended, it's true to say that the very first thought would be of the greatest relief that the war was over.
That would be the first most important information.
The second most important information and consideration would be which side won.
A winner and a loser in the case of the situation is that all win from peace, yet in terms of countries that is another consideration. Yet, having said that in actual fact in the position we are really in today whichever side wins if the dualistic paradigm of goodies and baddies is maintained then that is not the real conclusion of this as time progresses and the external conditions are that we are a collapsing global eco system.
Every great victory of the past was had in a world where there was climatic stability, and yet not any more.
The truth is there will be no grand victory in this that will ever stand up to the test of time.
The interpretation of this war will only ever be that it was that it took centre stage in such a way that it either delayed effective global action so much that all countries then became losers of this war or that the war ended just in time or as a means a wider facilitation of something so much better than there had ever been previously. So what's being said here is that this war is always in future going to be perceived as something that affected the world rather than two countries. That is the complete truth of this situation.
Capitalism writes a continuous shopping list of the benefits of capitalism in so many ways culturally, through news, conversation, social media celebrities etc. Rarely is there ever any form of antithesis to this 'interconnected world' presented other than a a few digital detox holidays sold and studies questioning the comparative nature of the psyche of modern people, where they continuously compare themselves to others instead of comparing themselves to who they were yesterday and can be tomorrow. In todays situation it's more important to compare means and ways towards maintaining what is and progressing. A slovenly approach to geo-politics, to the interpretation of the past generates only ineffective relationships and opens the way for potentially whole sale failure. The context, the broad context of how world diplomacy was kept together has never been more relevant to be known than it is today. Success can build upon success in this and yet only interpreting failure which is what is the most central narrative does is convince all that peace making is not even an option when it was in th e past and yet is incorrectly interpreted today. A failure in PR could lead to the shopping list writing to end.
In terms of how the politics has been influenced and affected there are a great many factors to consider, much more than my short analysis can ever provide. However, the general belief that peace making, diplomacy, getting over differences, being able to see that a win-win through diplomacy has generally not been attempted enough past or present. When there have been instances of these incremental reductions in terms of goodwill between the West and the East rarely has it been considered where all this could eventually lead and even now we just don't know. What we do know however, is that for every country in any way involved in this war there are many more, ie as represented by the United Nations that stand on the side of wanting peace to be able to win through.
Much effort was put into the writing of a dossier that showed what was not functioning. That was written at the same time as peace roadmaps were that were enabling for the first time in history the most diverse capitalist and communist countries to find agreement in peace making. Yet that bit got left out of being told.
If there is not allowed to be a real narrative of real peacemaking discussed and known then the chance for a good future lessens. There is required a concerted effort to save politics, geo-politics and to advance communication beyond there being incomplete narratives that have not allowed for the good in other countries to be known.
In a world of so much creativity and opportunity the political science that enables that to be perpetuated simply go unconsidered.
The incorrect representation of peace roadmaps of the recent past is the biges representation issue in the world today, instead of asking for more tanks and bombs it's better to ask for more truth about what it was that helped stop, prevent and exit wars in the past. The study of peace making has to be considered the most important science, the science of science if there is to be a good future. The reason you have not seen that before is due to a representation issue.
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.