Intergrated Strategy for Peace, Diplomacy Russia Ukraine (Part 8)

Introduction

Due to the implications of what's happening in Uk politics currently with the resignation of Liz Truss, I'm having to focus on the Uk and so this is not fully edited version of this. However, this does provide the continuation of a thesis for how to end the war in Europe. My work has been used and copied incorrectly in Uk politics and yet if instigated fully and correctly can answer all of the major issues in the Uk and Internationally too. A more complete thesis of my work is in articles on LinkedIn. 

As a result of the incorrect interpretation of my work in Uk politics from 2004, there have been so, many incorrect assumptions in the way of peace processes, peace roadmaps. The issue is that what's actually known by which government and how much is actually the biggest underlying question in the entire world right now. There are various governments that understand, appreciate and align in the direction of a new peace roadmap methodology that found it's proof of concept in no less a dramatic way as preventing the end of the worlds economy in 2017 and preventing a geo-political meltdown that would have otherwise inevitably split the worlds five most important stockmarkets in half. Reference bank failure, enough to cause a recession. The five most important stockmarkets int the world over night not communicating, think wheel barrows of money paper money. Yes, we got that close in 2017 and whilst some governments are completely oblivious to this other government saw, studies and saw the genius in the peace process method and turned that into what can be likened to a completely new standard of peace roadmap format. 

So why did that peace process not become able to stop the war increasing in Ukraine. The reason is that no government openly talked about the use of the new peace roadmap and peace process method, they simply used the ideas and moved on, whilst some governments though went back to study the mechanics of how the new peace roadmap peace process worked, other governments considered that they did not need too. Even when today we have the first war on such a scale in human history where there is a very contentious war and yet a win-win peace process running concurrently some countries have failed to even notice this very different format in terms of a war and to begin to appreciate the thinking behind what, how and why this has occurred.  

There are massive risks today in terms of the war becoming something else, and yet the biggest risk of all is actually coming from a place of arrogance, that likens this 2022 scenario with peace processes that are decades old and yet when that type of thinking is used today in the wake of their having been a completely new format and methodology of peace roadmap authoring since 2017 it's like using the technology of the abacus and trying to compare that to Apple Mac. Pece roadmap methodology has moved forward more in the past five years than in the past five thousand years. The format and phrase used in the context of the word Integrity or universal interest as cited by China in the context of the diplomacy and peace making in Europe today says more about Chinas thinking to the most highly educated in peace roadmap authoring than all the words in the books War and Peace and The Art of War combined. anyone that in any way at all perceives the notion of 'Universal Interest' as a type of 'throwaway comment' a type of generalising comment knows nothing about 21st Century peace processes. This phrase to translate it from English into real English meaning is actually reffering to the line being taken by China as being 'in the interests of all humanity.' 

To put this mildly this is a massive deal! From 5,000 years ago until the Summer of 2017 every conflict, war, peace agreement that was ever done by anyone from the earliest of tribes to the most recent of countries was always considered, each decision from a 'speciated' perspective. Speciated relating to the word species, ie us. Our best interest vs their best interest. It's that way of thinking that led to the Romans invading what was later to be Israel, it was that way of thinking that led to The Holy Wars, the colonisation of the America's, of Africa, of New Zealand and Canada. It was that way of thinking that created The East India Company, that way of thinking that led to the expansion of the Austio-Hungarian Empire, that way of thinking that led to the conditions of WW2 in Europe, in Africa, in Asia, in South America. It was that way of thinking that led to the rivalries between the UK and France, the Invasion of Iraq, the fll of the Iron Curtain the Korean and the Vietnam wars. It's been this us and them way of thinking that caused The Great Wall of China to be built that led to the Mongols invading Europe, the displacement of Italins into Venice and the displacement of Romanians and Germans into Spain, into a region named after their tribe the Vandals, Vandalucia. The same region becoming under the same way of thinking Al Andaluz under the Moors of North Africa that some 800 years later more or less was reconquested and the following year led to the expedition of Christobal Colon, an Italian Merchant and explorer to seek out a new sea route to Asia, leading him to the Americas. Anyway, all of this and a whole lot of other history and ancient history is comprised of the 'us and them' paradigm, the big shift, the greatest shift of our generation, sounds so cool, lol. No, the greatest shift of this century, no sounds so approximate, no in fact the biggest shift of the past 5 Millennia at least happened in the Korea's negotiation. For the first time in recorded and probably unreported history too a peace process was created that put first, and foremost the interest of the entirety of humanity in the context to the choices and the decisions made by the most diverse of tribes, peoples, countries and their cultural perspectives ever. 

China is acknowledging this now in its foreign policy and so too is India and many other countries and yet there are still these idea a minute, if it can't be said in three words it's nothing Western mindsets that are unable to even fathom the world shifting difference that has occurred. A country that is considering it's national interest first second and third in all situations is a part of the bad decision making process that can only lead to the extinction of man, either by war or climate or both. A country that at times, the most important times, with the most important decisions national interest first, national interest second and universal interest in especially important issues at times then there is the basis of a survival plan for humanity that has already worked not only in theory but in practice in 2017 and the mediations in the Korea's.

Any Foreign Minister of any country that doesn't understand and perceive this is not up to date with the paradigms of thinking that can provide a survival strategy to humanity. Leadership at times on the world stage has moved into this new more enlightened and necessary paradigm and yet that change was temporary, if it's going to be permanent and there is to be a viable plan for the world created to remain viable with humanity as top dog on this planet then the win-win ethos in terms of diplomacy and peace making is of as much profound importance to the medium and long term welfare of humanity as water is to the immediate and short term. 

The reason that you are here now reading this is due to win-win diplomacy in the past getting in the way of and interjecting choices that may have made sense immediately from a national perspective, yet when fully considered were so distabalising to the world that the Universal interest considered in diplomacy by all sides did then result in policies that really were for the interest of all. Korea's, Syria, and the first steps to the recovery of Afghanistan are three examples, this document explores how to progress again and use the same type of Universal interest thinking to answer the three most concerning peace related issues today. Three issues that affect all people in the world today and all people in future by the quality of strategy instigated not by one country but by all countries in order to mediate through. 

Next Introduction.

This is a part of an extensive integrated strategy peace process document than began in the form of other documents that sought to prevent the war in Ukraine to feasibly resolve issues. It's been incredibly difficult to write as a situation as complicated as this requires talks in order to even begin the know the facts, the perspectives and the considerations of all. Without having access to that I have attempted the think around issues without this resource. 

 In terms of writing these documents they can in some ways help bring a sense that there is common ground between countries and leaders and yet as the past has proven can most often be obtained by questioning perspectives on all sides of reasoning. So if you question which side I'm on it's very clear reading this I'm on the side of peace making and in brining troops home. There is one objective and one objective only in writing this document and that is for peace in Europe, lasting peace. In order to be able to obtain that like in previoius documents I do study the psychology and the sociology as well as the conditions and circumstances that hve led to war and can potentially lead to peace. There has been very good reason to look far beyond usual narratives either in politics, the media or social media. These can entrain thinking into limited tracks of reasoning where even finding middle ground in peace making can seem out of reach. It's especially important today to realise that peace can be obtainable and yet there is a process, a journey towards obtaining that. To consider any perspecitives that can potentially bring back a sense that peace can and really is obtainable and lasting. In order to find that middle ground it's necessary to sometimes writing perspecctves that can appear contradictory or more biased towards one way of thinking than another and therefore, I seek to provide both and all sides and perspectives to each aspect of this and try to represent all thinking, in order to help find ways into a better set of conditions than there currently are today.  

Where is first loyalty to the country or people?

This was a statement and a question made by a friend of mine on a phone call recently. An interesting question, yet much more complicated to answer than when its first considered. In short the first loyalty of the leaders of many countries until 2017 was the former, then they discovered that the only possible way to have that is to put the loyalty towards the people of the entire world first, and they did that without that ever being known and that is all that, yes that is all that kept the modern world functioning as it is today. The Universal interest being put first in the way of making peace processes work being done by various countries in Asia is the only reason that you are able to read this now. That change in perspective of the first time ever by a group of leaders of countries did actually save the modern world. 

What my friend perhaps doesn't appreciate is the fact that the only factor that kept the world our of world war 3 in 2017 was due to the fact that various world leaders put the interest of the people, and not only the people of their county safe, but they put the interests of all the people in the world as first priority in order to obtain the peace process. This is being hinted at and stated by China when China refers to the Universal interest. I have written this twice in similr ways as this is just so important to know, it should have been in all the news and yet was not due to the control of the narrative. 

It's the control and the non complete honesty of many Uk politicians and media that have been and are preventing this from being known. By them not allowing this and a whole series of other peace processes and peace roadmaps to be known that were also instigated in succession during the Trump administration there was complete incorrect representation of the peace processes methodology and also which countries helped these peace processes to work the best. There is a continued error in Uk politics to try to adapt this integrated strategy peace work to fit into the agenda of one uk political party or the other, when in fact this work hs already been in service to the entirity of humanity in keeping the world calm and at peace from the years of 2017 until 2021.

It is the incorrect representation of peace processes due to the paradigm of thinking in the UK which prevents the actual truth to be known that would almost certainly have prevented the war in Ukraine from even happening on the scale that it is today. It's the UK's political system of thinking that is the biggest risk to the stability of the world. What's more when President Putin cites the use of nuclear weapons in the context to another country, the only country he is considering that to relate to is in fact the UK. The UK political system refusing to tell the truth about peace roadmaps from 2017 until now due only to the fact that these were written by someone not in the government is in actual fact the biggest risk there has ever been to the country. This is due to the heightened risks created by there simply not being an effective avenue for the truth to be known. 

It's the political system, ie The House of Commons rule that makes it not possible to challenge the lies of former prime ministers that has created a massive lie about diplomacy, peace making, Russia and China and other countries. This is not only provable. A case on this has been submitted to The House of Commons for many years that relates directly to this in a Human Rights and Freedom of Speech Inquiry. It's also submitted in the USA as a part of the evidence in the context to the months leading up to that event as President Trump on a continual basis since being in office as The President of the USA was using the same work to answer and solve many of the most complicated geopolitical issues in the world as was part of Blair's Green industrial Revolution, Gordon Browns 'green lifestyle centres,' David Cameron's Big Society, President Trump and Chairman Un's diplomacy using a method that was first endorsed and supported by Russia, by President Putin. President Putin in fact saved the world twice from WW3 during the time of the Trump administration the reason that the American people do not know this is due to incomplete records and being selective with the truth under the Trump administration and the reason for that is that there was a practice in place started by new Labour carried on through Labour and into the years of the Conservative Party that completely incorrectly represented this work. The truth is that it's not only a chaotic shambles in Uk politics today behind the scenes in terms of political strategy work, it's been like that increasingly more since 2004. 

The last Prime Minister that had all of their own concepts, their own work, that was highly effective in delivering political strategy work was John Major. Theresa May used here own original work too. Since then all prime ministers either on the left or on the right have been selective with the truth in the context to the true original political strategy work they were using or that others had used. This was wrong and the public, the electorate have been completely incorrectly informed in terms of the best political strategy work in the world, so good that the top strategists of other countries have realised this and to a very significant extent shifted thinking in this way. Yet what's more, this work provides the basis of the most complete collection of models and strategies to be able to answer the worlds most complicated of issues, now and throughout this century. The implications of taking original political strategy work and not telling the truth about this has not been good for the country or for the people, and yet this is reversible, this massive set back can become an advantage to not only help the Uk but the entire world. 

All Integrated strategy models combined can answer and solve all of the main issues actually within the UK today and stand the best chance and hope of once again obtaining peace again in Europe and align systems to be created to better answer and solve all the major Interntional issues in improved ways that affect the world for the next century. I know this based upon findings I obtained by my work being used by others, the methodology is the most tried, tested and proven methodology in the world for answering the biggest issues in the world. 

So the use of Integrated Strategy Peace Roadmaps was a norm in the world from 2017-2021, these roadmaps were use in alignment with the interests of firstly people worldwide, secondly and in conjunction with the interest of countries. It's the only diplomatic methodology that has so successfully prevented a major war, ie a nuclear war and the reason that you do not know about this is due to the fact of UK law only and by the fact that this law ie putting country before the people of the country was created more than 1000 years before nuclear weapons even existed. Neither the Prime Ministers of the past, nor the House of Commons are prepared to change this arcane concept of government or even allow this to be discussed in the press or openly in politics as they wrongly perceive that it's in 'the national interest' to not admit to the public that there has been a very long list of lies told to them in the context of the use of political strategy work from 2004 onwards and yet by holding back that truth they are holding back the only viable way into a peace process that Russia, Ukraine, Turkey, China, India, and Brazil officially want and a whole lot of other countries also want. 

Whilst the UK's political conversation is about whether or not the UK needs another prime minister or not, the main most important conversation is being ignored and that is how the 'British Subject not Citizen' created peace roadmap that is the Grain Deal can be instigated further. In other words the actual thinking behind the first ever peace processes that is being successful that runs concurrently to a war, is being prevented from being understood by the media, by the electorate in the UK as that work was produced outside of the political system of the UK written by a UK author living in Spain originally and returning only to the UK after Brexit. Ie myself. My hands have been tied in writing the only viable way out of this war due to MP's in the Uk simply not acknowledging my letters, simply ignoring the best, the only way to actually bring the war in Ukraine to a peaceful end. 

In the context of peace roadmaps which were used by many countries worldwide, the only possible way they did function and are able to function is by putting the interests of 'the people' ie all the people in the world first in order to be able to obtain agreement firstly that keeps the world out of a nuclear war, and by doing that firstly in consideration that then automatically is in fact in 'the national interest' of all countries. The UK as a country is the only country in the world today that is putting what is considered, and of course what is not really and 'the national interest' before the interest of 'all the people in the world'. It's absolutely plainly obvious to see that it's incredibly dangerous for any country in the world to be totally incorrectly representing the foreign policy of the three superpowers ie USA, Russia and China and then add to that list the foreign policy of India, Pakistan, North and South Korea, Israel, Turkey, France and Germany under Angela Merkel, but that is exactly what the UK is doing by not allowing for there to be free press in the UK on the issue of 'Integrated Strategies' and the reason that that free press has not happened is due to the fact that if there was that free press it would show and prove that there has been a massive political cover up from 2003 until today in the UK in terms of exploitation of a British subject who in fact has answered and solved more conflict related issues worldwide with a tried, tested and proven peace roadmap methodology more of the most complicated of geopolitical issues than anyone ever has in the writing of peace processes. However, due to the position of former Prime Ministers and MP's this truth is being prevented from being known. So the actual truth is that a completely illogical practice in not allowing of free speech to all subjects in the UK being practiced by successive Prime Ministers in the UK is causing the biggest risk to 1. The Monarchy. 2. The People. 3. The whole of Europe. 4. All the people of Europe and all the people of the world. The war in Europe will never be won by Ukraine, never be won by Russia, will only ever be won by the Truth. 

No matter what the UK does as a policy nationally or Internationally. There is a global peace strategy methodology that is a part of world history, it is a part of the narrative of these times within governments all over the world. It's a part of what has kept the world largely at peace from 2017 until 2021. It's a part of the methodology of peace making that is the very best hope for ending the war in Europe and knowledge of this peace process has been and is being stopped due to the most unwise policy any government in the world has ever created and that is 'The Integrity Initiative' 

It's impossible for there to be an end to the war in Ukraine without the truth of the Integrity Initiative being known in the UK. Why? It's the diplomatic methodology that President Putin has referenced as being the best chance and hope for successful diplomacy with Ukraine that is being kept out of discussion and the media. Make no mistake this war was preventable, it was predicted that there would be a major war in the world if there was the continued incorrect knowledge and representation of peace roadmaps of the years of 2017 onwards. I tried to continually warn about this. Elon Musk is right there could be a nuclear war, the UK would be the country most at risk and the reason for that is that the UK's government has continually prevented and obstructed the truth being known about the good diplomacy that Russia and President Putin did from 2017 in the context of the peace process between North and South Korea. Whilst the politicians in the UK have incorrectly represented their own stolen policies from 2004 onwards. This was 'the fantasy in the long run up to Brexit that former Prime Minister John Major refers.' This is the same content that is a part of the most important peace processes of our time. 

If the UK's political system and or the media fail to bring this out and for this to be fully and openly discussed in the press then they are creating the conditions that will almost inevitably cause a nuclear war. It's this that Liz Truss will have probably found out for the first time having access to all the information as Prime Minister of the UK. 

If you live in the UK, you are the most at risk population in the entire world, whether you realise this or not. The one and only single factor that is causing that risk is the non-open and honest discussion of the peace processes of 2017 until today. The reason for that is due to the fact that this methodology is the best, most proven methodology of bringing peace from the incredibly complicated geo-political situation in Europe. 

Defence Secretary Ben Wallace I have great respect for, however for him to say that the invasion of Ukraine was unprovoked is not the full picture. Boris Johnson playing with plastic planes and threatening to bomb Russia from a disused UK bombing command centre in Kent, as foreign Minister was that not just a bit provocative? Yet, what's more, this occurred at the same time that Russia had prevented Uk service personnel from having to engage in one set of difficulties in the Korea's and enabled allies to exit from Syria due to it's foreign policy at the time, and the main reason that this was not fully known and discussed was due to policy of the government then not being fully truthful about peace roadmaps and peace processes and the reason for that was that the author writing them had had his work copied and used systemically in the UK for many years previously. 

The Uk is a wonderful country in so many ways and so too are the people of the country and yet successive governments have failed continually to tell the truth and that has affected in ways that many British people do not know the entire security of the modern world. To bring back that security, to bring back the chance of a good future for all is possible, yet the only good way that that is going to happen is via the truth about Integrated Strategy peace roadmaps being known and used to their best capacity.  

So Country or people what comes first? Well, if the truth is known fully the two are in actual fact inseparable. If the country is not doing well, the people are not doing well, if the people are not doing well then the country is not doing well. If the country is doing well and there is a good fair government in office then the people do well. If the people do well then the country is doing well. When world leaders have put the interest of all the people in the world first from 2017 until today this has created the greatest of improvements to those countries and to the people of those countries. 

This is absolutely clearly evident in the context of The Korea's, India and Pakistan, yet in other instances too. In a world where one country does look out for the people of other countries, there is actually an interconnected relationship that goes beyond laws, and the usual norms. The wellbeing of people within a country strengthens the country both domestically and Internationally. 

So what comes first country or people. How that has played out is when country and people come first the world was saved from a world war, the end of civilisation. So my answer to that is that civilisation comes first, protecting a civil world is what occurred in Asia. Yet, putting country before truth is what in fact simply causes chaos and confusion. It does lead to other countries being incorrectly represented, that can and in my opinion has led to a major war in Europe and its only by putting the truth first that good relations can be once again obtained and that is of the greatest importance to the protection and defence of both country and people. 

When looking at this from a holistic perspective, what's better a tress or a plant, a house or a car, a holiday or dance routine? There are all better in their own ways and yet there is an interconnected relationship between them. It's perceiving and considering that there is actually very much an interconnected relationship between country and people and the welfare and wellbeing of one enables the wellbeing of the other. 

The reason that we did not enter into a time where there would have otherwise have been a sequence of events that caused the end of trade, business, internet and the most important shipping lane in the world was due to countries agreeing to a peace roadmap and peace process that enables countries to all be on the side of the Universal interest of all and obtain greater peace, that is of the greatest importance for both country, all countries and people, all people too. 

The interest of the country is the interest of the people, the interest of the people is the interest of the country and every other country too. A country that is stable, together, balanced, respectful and proud of it's traditions, proud of it's accomplishments is protective of the welfare and wellbeing of it's people is is a good country, for the country and a good country for the people. In a world where a leader the other side of the world who maybe is unable to speak even a word of our language can potentially change everything their side of the world and our side of the world by a single decisions by implication puts us all into a situation of having to consider that the health of the world, of countries and of people are inseparably connected. It was from that mindset that on behalf of everyone that negotiations in Asia were successful and peace was maintained throughout 2017 and beyond them.  

How do we get peace in Ukraine?

In order to produce a viable peace process almost always requires a peace roadmap. 

In order to produce that requires information. 

In some scenarios enough information can be obtained from the media. 

In the context of the war in Ukraine, there simply is not what's required and that is connection and discussion with all sides.

I have attempted to get this. The way to get peace in Ukraine is the same way that peace was obtained in 2017 in the Korea's, then there was a preparedness to want an answer. Now, however the situation is so complicated in order to even consider perspectives to the situation requires considering things that are usually considered taboo. Ie forgiveness in exchange for an early immediate stop to the war before there are any more losses. The war is as wrong for those taken away from their normal life to fight as it is to those that are defending their way of life. 

There is only just now reports coming to the media from the Uk Intelligence that show there has been 'active avoidance' in terms of investigating alleged Russian interference in Brexit. Why? The reason is that there is a much biggest story that is being avoided. There is a very real threat of nuclear war and the actual cause of that is due to the incorrect representation of peace processes from 2017 until today. By having information on previous peace processes there is a narrative of how and why diplomacy was improved and peace obtained before. 

In a sentence how do we obtain peace in Ukraine, the answer is listening to all the issues on all sides and then seeking to find a middle ground.  

Yet, in terms of the proper consideration of peace process in the past, the subject just isn't considered newsworthy. The reason for that incorrect representation is due to the lack of investigation by MP's where there is 'active avoidance' in investigating what really happened in terms of diplomacy. In not having that, there is a lack of self realisation that is happening, the question not being asked enough can we change position to being more of a part of the answer? 

 The lack of truth has been causing anti-Russian rhetoric for decades. It's the misconception in terms of peace processes that has caused complete incorrect representation of leaders of countries and it's this that has put more and more pressure onto many countries. The whole situation is getting more and more uncontrolled and out of hand and the implications of any one of these three issues could land us squarely in the middle of a nuclear war. The reality is that the Uk Spy chief says that 'The Uk may not see a Russian Nuclear attack coming.' Nato says Russia can't win. Nato to launch nuclear drills after Putin's 'dangerous threats' Yet this is non-sense, Nato can't win against Russia either. The loss of the world's top five stock markets would be inevitable in a nuclear war. So too the Internet, so too all vital infrastructure to keep the world as being the modern world. There is no winner to a nuclear war only losers and that includes everyone in the world other than Indigenous people who are not reliant at all upon the systems that use money and essential communications and data gathering. 

Everyone else in the world is in the same position that Albert Einstein cited when he said I know not what weapons will be used in WW3 but WW4 would be sticks and stones.'. This was before the internet made all of modern humanity in all countries totally powerless to protect their political, economic, social systems from any attack by any country with the most advanced weapons in the world. 

The fact that the Nato chief cannot understand this and perceives that it's possible for any country or any number of countries to be able to defeat another country with similar weapons proves that his statement in itself is incredibly dangerous and wrong. 

The only answer that exists today is either the Western world accepts that there is a massive inefficiency in the UK Parliamentary system in the context of even understanding peace processes and that this is causing a distortion of information, which is preventing there being a perceived way out of this. Or the Prime Minister needs to appoint the intelligence services to over rule the UK Parliamentary Inquiry if it cannot immediately get to even investigating properly how MP's and former Prime Ministers have manipulated the truth being known globally about previous peace processes. It's these peace processes that are the best potential reference as to how the world can get out of the situation that it's in and yet MP's simply will not listen, they are actively obstructing an investigation into peace processes for the simple reason it exposes the corruption of former prime ministers. 

So in other words the fraud going on in the UK House of Commons is causing the deterioration of global relations and diplomacy to such an extent that unless there is the truth known and known fast, then there is almost inevitably going to be a nuclear war. 

President Putin and President Zelensky are both looking towards obtaining an answer of how to be able to stop the current situation from a Uk peace process method that UK MP's fail to accept even exists. 

We are in unchartered waters and there literally could be a nuclear war. The greatest risk to the country and the people are the lies, half -truths and the misinformation this has created in The House of Commons in the context of the misleading information in the context of peace roadmaps and previous peace processes. The whole truth known and the best methodology applied today is the only way out of this war getting worse that I can perceive. 

There are really three choices, 

1. The Inquiry immediately putting 'Integrated Peace Roadmaps' their use by countries around the world as being the focus of the investigation. 

2. MP's questioned in the context of the incorrect use of Integrated Strategy work'. This then correlated with information from the USA January 6th Inquiry so that MP's can perceive how this was a central part of US International policy during the time of the Trump administration.  

3. The conditions with limited information continue which are causing there to be uncompromising positions from all sides in this war, and the existing peace process in Turkey not held in as high enough regard as it should be and as a consequence of that there is simply more negative reaction, more retaliation rather than the chance for their to be more 'goodwill' in terms of peace making.

If the UK does not put to first priority MP's themselves fully understanding the peace roadmaps and peace processes used from 2017 they are causing the positioning of Russia and Ukraine to be unreconcilable. This is also putting Nato into the same position. These three powers in unreconcilable positions can only lead to a worsening situation for all.

1. The Issues surrounding the sabotage of the pipeline are serious, the risks of International, ie Nato owned property being affected by attacks on Ukrainian cities is a risk that as being a potential cause for the justification of the triggering of Article 5. Article 5 is effectively an acknowledgement that it's so impossible for human relations to be able to work any longer between any country it's effectively a global suicide pact via obstructing the chance for international relations to be able to improve again. The mindset of either with or against us is wrong, there is a side of peace making and obstructing that is exacerbating a situation of a war that is of course bad enough to possibly get worse.  

I have produced more win-win peace roadmap documents than any author, that have many times been used and have worked. No MP or even all MP's combined have even achieved 5% of what my work has and yet through silence there is the witholding of the very best potential of this work. My work has been excluded from discussion, yet the influence significant. It was my work that prevented the war in the Korea's, that caused President Trump to change his mind on airstrikes in Iran, that provided an exit strategy to Syria, that provided an answer that provided the method for diplomacy to end the war between India and Pakistan. The Chinese, Russian's, Ukrainian's and many other countries know this. The win-win thinking of my work is a part of to the Grain Deal Peace Process today. 

The full use of my methodology is the best chance there is for there to be a way out of the current situation diplomatically. Yet, MP's, all MP's or any MP's need to speak out enough about any of this. It's been recently cited in the press that all UK MP's that have been 'actively avoiding' investigating the truth about Brexit. 'Actively avoiding' understanding the peace roadmaps that have improved diplomacy enough during the course of years to keep the world at peace. Whilst in politics it may be perception that's truth in terms of geopoliitcs perception that is blatantly wrong and is resulting in affecting International relations in the context of wars is potentially suicidal for both the country and the people. You cannot have security based upon delusion and 'paradigms of perception' rather than reality. So whilst the UK domestic politics has gone on copying work for years giving it to apparently 'more qualified politicians' in the context of my work, it's effectively helped the entire world and left UK political leadership being among the last to really grasp just how much of a positive influence this has actually. In short by them taking my work and instigating it correctly and yet other leaders instigating it better, they have undermined the credibility of their own choices and behaviour. 

 In order to understand why there was a brexit referendum, it's essential to consider what happened just before that. David Cameron asked the EU to have new conditions for EU membership to the Union. To understand why that happened it's essential to recognise that prior to that he had been asked by the media to show the thesis of big society, which he could not and the reason he could not is that the Conservative Party had been lying about this from the first moment the term Big Society was used two elections, ie eight years previously. There was a fantasy in the long run up to Brexit is how John Major correctly said it. Yet, that lie, the fantasy then directly connects to the lie about peace roadmaps as used by USA, Russia and China from 2017 as the original work of those peace processes is exactly the same work that the House Of Commons is institutionally lying about on a consistent day to day basis. President Macron said at the time, 'The liar left the stage the very next day' yet the lie was never fully revealed. The non revealing of that lie has since caused the implications that on one hand kept the world at peace and avoided wars in the past and yet in the present provide the best means of helping get the UK, Ukraine, Russia, Europe the entire world out of the situation it's presently in. 

The Uk has got to stop blaming the EU for all the wrongs in the country, stop blaming other countries the fault has been within the selective narrative and the selective use of facts by MP's and by former Prime Ministers. If this prime minister is not prepared to also look into this then she is actually causing the risk of life to all British people. The real truth is that it is my peace roadmaps that helped the USA stay at peace from 2017 onwards and by doing so that kept the UK out of wars too. 

I know how to write a peace processes to prevent, end, exit a war, yet I do not know how to navigate through the lies, deception and completely dangerous and illogical practices in terms of how MP's ignore the most important work there is today or has been in recent decades for actually really and truly protecting the interests of the Uk by enabling the country to remain at peace. 

There may be some MP's that want to get to the full truth of what's really occurring globally in terms of the use of these peace roadmaps, yet it's impossible for any of them to get to the full truth without my work being fully known. Yet, every time I write to MP's they ignore my letters and 'actively avoid investigating to get to the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth. 

So as the entire notion of there being the chance of a viable peace process seemingly gets harder and harder to obtain. The whole concept of peace processes is not even being discussed, the facts are being almost as outwardly ignored as is possible.  

The answer from a UK perspective is to get MP's to openly discus Integrated Strategy peace roadmaps and if they don't know what they are then to hold an immediate inquiry. How can you obtain peace if those in politics don't even understand the very most basic concepts of how peace making was obtained previously.  

To get into a peace process MP's at least have to have enough 'goodwill' to even listen and yet to date, it's just been impossible to be heard over the opinions of 'experts' that actually are ignorant to how peace processes were obtained previous and in fact are frequently more likely to do lists of weapons than lists of reasons to generate peace. 

I have been trying to obtain help, money, support anything to help with this work and that has not been possible. The entire situation was overwhelming in 2017 and yet I put together answers that worked, yet the lack of full openness by many leaders in terms of peace processes then and making Integrated Strategies part of the narrative has just been impossible. 

All sides in this seemingly just want me to write documents that they can then adjust to their way of thinking, yet still percieve themselves to be on differing sides in this war, that is not win-win, we are all victims of the lack of diplomacy, the lack of peace and the lack of calls for this. Yet to be able to produce a roadmap for this I'm failing to be able to do this time and that is even when there are threats being made to do this work, I just can't do in with the lack of help I have to the best of my abilities. The reality is that all leaders in this world are being selective, too selective with peace processes in the past information, all they talk about is more bombs to destroy civilisation it's a situation that is not rational enough. There is a constant lie about there having been no provocation that has created this crisis yet there is plenty of televised information on this so many countries are lying to themselves and lying to their voters and forcing the situation into a no exit situation by just not being prepared to listen, not prepared to change their way of thinking by looking at facts.

 The action, reaction situation is being run by people that are incapable of actually properly thinking and yet have no patience with others and yet access to enough capacity to end everything, the world is in a place where these people in power either really consider there responsibility firstly as people, as human beings, where is the empathy for all others? They have put themselves into the situations they are in and believe they can lead countries and yet are seemingly not capable enough of leading a conversation into an agreement, that is what peace roadmap authoring is, and that is what is obtainable if only politicians on any side of politics were able to have enough sense of self-awareness, self-vision to realise that they are not themselves peace strategy authors and that they need these skills to be able to find a way into peace. 

To continue this document has been incredibly difficult as there has been so much wrong in this war in every way. In the decades before it, during and now. What's more my peace roadmap strategy method used and yet not used at the same time properly. I've put down my methods of how peace was feasibly best obtainable in my opinion, ie the use of the Istanbul grain deal, direct mediation by a small team between each side and this has gone unanswered openly. At the least a narrative, any narrative in any media on this would have helped or help today. The chance to put forward the thesis and the debate for peace making in contrast to the continuous list of losses on both and all sides. There is so much I have had to say about this and yet having only the chance to write rather than discus is a restriction that makes the seemingly impossible task of wanting the war to end, so much more difficult, seemingly for me almost impossible. The capacity to be able to explain, to have constructive two way conversations that explain to people how and why peace roadmaps worked in the past, how and why they are working in part today, yet not fully. To be able to have that discussion, that discourse to explain the full truth about what and how this work has enabled peace to be maintained, built, wars prevented, wars exited from should be a human right and yet in practice it's not. What is the single most important conversation anyone could be having to best protect all the interests of the UK Europe and the world has not even been openly discussed. It's of no suprise when this is known that the world is in the peirlous situation it's in. 

If the one subject area that is not allowed free press is how the world has been prevented from actually complete diplomatic failure in the recent past, then that makes the world predictably take the path again so narrowly avoided in the past become a potentially repeated risk, which then can cause a massive mistake.  

Whilst there are so many focussed and worried on how this can escalate, there is really so little talk of how this can deescalate this from where we are today, it can seem to most to be a seeming impossibility. 

Yet there is nothing good in escalation for any of this either. The press seem more focussed on the losses of both sides, social media on worst cases scenarios, and there are few voices talking about the end of the war and almost complete silence in terms of how, in terms of how, in terms of how ending this war can feasibly be made possible. How ending this war can be a reality, what steps are required, what are the potential difficulties in obtaining peace. What is the thinking or even the likely thinking required by all the parties that are involved in this situation for there to be a breakthrough to ending this situation? We are in the most complex of quagmires of the greatest seriousness and what's the worst aspect of this is that no one person is completely in a position to say the war is over. Whilst everyone looks to Putin for this, the reality is that there are issues between the West and Russia that unless they are resolved as I have cited in my previous document then whoever else is in Russia inherits the same position. IE a non communicative, undecisive West in terms of how Russia is perceived and interacted with by the Western world. Effectively how that's been since the 1980's. 

The real truth is that this geopolitical quagmire is actually much bigger than any one person, we did not get into this situation by choices of any one or even any two leaders. Anyone that thinks this is just about President Putin and Zelensky is as close to the truth as citing that Europe is all about Brussels, it's simply compoletely worng, there is much much more to Europe and there is much more to the sitution than only the choices of President Putin and President Zelensky. 

Both President Putin and President Zelensky have been saying they want diplomacy and yet there is seemingly a block on this, they are both trying to make the best choices they believed themselves they could make given the situation the set of conditions that they found themselves in. Russia is the biggest country in the world to not have a straight agreement with the West as to where it stands in the world. Is this the fault in policy of President Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, Biden? Or is this the fault in policy of President Gorbachev, Yeltsin, Medvedev, Putin? Is this the fault of the United Nations to have not considered this before. The European Union to have considered the importance of stability and good relations with Russia as a priority. Is it the fault of Nato in not realising the position that it's putting Russia in? Is it the fault of Central, South American, Asian countries to realise their dependency on Russian and Ukrainian peace and for them to have voiced concerns previously that a stance of putting pressure on Russia by Nato affects them more than other countries due to food supplies if there is anything other than a reasonable to good relationship between all the superpowers in the world. 

 It seems like the issue has evolved significantly due to the policy of Nato, not changing and adapting with the times fast enough. With Nato having had a consistent policy after the time of Reagan to mid Clinton, to effectively 'contain Russia' more so than to fully engage. In terms of the exit strategy, effectively there was not a really viable exit strategy from the issues of the cold war to actully help Russia enough progress beyond where it had previously been perceived to a better more win-win position via effective diplomcy and peacemaking. 

The War in Iraq and around the 2004, 2007 time seemingly is where a wedge began to evolve more so between Russia and the West. There was a non-conclusiveness in terms of providing a new mutually assured, win-win narrative between The West and Russia. There foreign policies played out in the world in different ways and yet there was never direct contrast between the two countries. The issues between Bush and Putin were seemingly okay, and yet the war in Iraq, a pre-emptive war that was built upon incorrect assertions, false information had caused the world to question the logic, the truths, the ethics of this. The unjustified war in Iraq created a whole catalogue of events to play out in the world since, all partly linked to this. refugees, other wars, the concept of regime change of another country as the leadership does not suit, instigated by a 'coalition of the willing'. The pre-emptive war caused by an irrational fear, ie London could be attacked by nuclear weapons that did not exist within forty minutes by a country that as it turned out in the end did not have the capability to do that in any case. It was the incorrect handling and presentation of 'the facts' 'the truth' that created that situation then and to some extent significantly the situation of today, more so than is known. 

Yet, in 2004 there were the mystery packages of 'powder' that could have been this or could have been that found in the mail systems. The heightened sense of fear in the entire Western world is what accompanied the war in Iraq. Yet, this was unfounded and yet what was true and real was the fact that Saddam Hussein had carried out chemical weapons attacks on his own civilians, the Kurds. However, more research shows that Saddam Hussein had been an ally to the West. The conversations before the original Gulf War did imply that the West would not get involved if Saddam Hussein decided to invade Kuwait. How much of this is really true is not actually fully knowable by an individual peace roadmap author, however what's clear is that from very much the sidelines that Russia was on at the time, the events that took place from one President to another, one prime minister to another showed that in terms of relations with the West there was good reason to be very cautious. There was a type of shifting sands that was playing out and clear commercial motivations that were a motivation behind how events in the Middle east played out in the early 2000's. It has been the selective and incorrect presentation and data collection and use in terms of understanding other countries that has caused more risk to all than any other factor. This has caused more loses in terms of incomes to essential services in Western countries, there is every reason to do everything to stop wars.   

 Whilst President Obama's intention was to pull out of the wars, this was proven to be not easy at all. The relationship between Putin and Obama more complicated. However, there were attempts to bridge build at times. The former President Barack Obama after leaving office likened Russia's Vladimir Putin to a tough Chicago "ward boss" in his writing. However, what has to be considered here is that the now President Biden was his Vice President at the time. 

So whatever President Obama believed is likely to be similar to what Vice President Biden believed at the time. However, the policy by the end of the Obama administration was of having amassed troops on the border of Russia. The culmination of the 10 previous Presidencies of non-effective dialogue with North Korea, combined with wars in the Middle East that both Europe and the USA wanted to find ways out of, found that the exiting of these wars was more difficult than first considered firstly, yet there were two major notable gains made. 

The first ever worldwide agreement on climate in The Paris Climate Accord and the Iran deal. Both of these were immediately reversed by the then new President Trump and yet the relationship that he had on taking office was very different to the relationship that any other previous President had had. 

He had long standing relations due to business with Russia. The pressures on the border of Russia stopped, and there was seemingly an improved relationship between President Trump and Putin, yet the governments in the West could not quite get a handle on exactly what that relationship was between President Trump and Russia. There were many claims together with a failed impeachment trial linked to what was presented as 'Russian meddling in elections'. What's more whilst it was a democrat President that had had the most issues with Russia in the end, ie President Obama, it was a Republican Senator years later in Kyiv speaking to Ukranian's calling for 'regime change' in Russia. So it's not beyond the realms of imagination to consider that President Putin may well have believed that whether their is a Democrat of Republican president, there would be an invasion of Russia and/or specifically rewind just four years and it was a Vice President Biden that was right behind President Obama as Vice President.  

 So for President Putin to know at that time which US political party he was more able to be able to deal with would have been impossible to have known. Yet also in the wake of 2017, 2018, 2019,2020, 2021 peace roadmap use, it was as if President Putin, President Trump had one relationship and yet the relationship between President Putin and Vice President Biden was actually different. The USA and Nato were anti Putin and not prepared to consider a deal, yet President Trump was effectively giving and receiving geopolitical favours from and with Russia that was playing out geopolitically. However, this was only understandable if firstly there was proper and correct analysis of peace roadmaps and how countries positioned at each moment in time, the ways the USA, Russia and China helped each other was not always very obvious, especially if the only access to the news you obtained was the news. The reason was that there was this 'Russia threat' issue constantly being presented and discussed and reconsidered and rediscussed, accusations that were unfounded. A completely parallel situation to the build up to war in Iraq. Iraq/Russia meddling with WMD's/elections. However, the buildup of troops on the Nato borders of Russia. That being a perfect reminder of what was stored in the cultural memory of Russia in Operation Barbosa. That is the equivillent stored in cultural memory or reminiscence to the UK having Spitfires flying over the Southern Counties or the Foreign Minister of the time playing with plastic aeroplanes in a WW2 command centre in Kent. 

What perhaps the Obama administration did not perhaps perceive is the fact that for one hundred years the cultural memory of Russia was of troops gathering on the border of Russia and then all of a sudden an invasion that led to such suffering and war for many years, the biggest wars of WW2. The memory of President Putin from his earliest childhood through to today will be of those events, the crossing of the border that traumatised the entire country into defending itself.  

A type of Post traumatic stress disorder that is actually still there today in the memory. The more than one hundred year cultural trauma of any war effects the people afterwards yet also the geo-politics as a result. There are cultural reminders, memorials to what happened, the memory of how this affected entire families, whole communities. Even a walk in the woods to relax there were plaques remembering those that had lost their lives due to the past. 

So President Putin will have had the cultural memory from his very earliest of years being the story of the build up of troops on the border of Russia and then the events that followed would have been as much of a cultural influence in the Russia that he grew up in as it was in Poland. Effectively, it seems like there was a similar scenario, in the context of Boris Johnson, impressions of his early childhood in the years of the recovery of the second world war that had created strong impressions in his mind, hence the study and the relating to Churchill. The effects of the second world war have played out in films in societies since the war ended. 

Yet, throughout the time of President Putin working for intelligence before he became President, he would have spent much of his time considering the positioning of the country in the context of the past. The issue of borders how they had been breached in WW2, how they had been defended, how they changed during the time that the Berlin wall came down, how Nato had moved in the direction of Russia, the issue of borders, borders, borders would have been in his mind in one way or another during much of his entire childhood and working life too. 

In my opinion, putting troops onto the border of Russia during the Obama administration was a very wrong policy, it was a provocative policy which was clearly evident at the time, and yet when the full cultural post traumatic stress consideration is considered, this was in fact reenacting the biggest cultural trauma in Russian history in a similar place and in a similar way. The last time this had happened the implications of that would have influenced and affected every single family in Russia and whilst when this policy occurred of putting Nato troops on the border of Russia, there were so many other events occurring in the World. Ie Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Iran peace deal, Paris Climate Accord the actual link and trauma button pressed in terms of troops put onto the border of Russia was seemingly only one issue of many, yet this would have been culturally very traumatic for Russian people without a doubt. Fear is one emotion that causes so many to over react, it's part of the fight or flight response. There is not a single village, town of city anywhere in Europe where the people are in any way dismissive of the events of the second world war. Whilst there would at the time have obviously been just so much more going on between President Obama and President Putin than any of us can ever know, I just have to say with this that to consider that what happened then with the positioning of the troops close to the borders of Russia would have caused great fear and concern in Russia. Whilst I'm not in any way at all trying to justify the actions that have since happened in Russian troops going into Ukraine or all that has happened there. The reality of the situation is that putting Nato troops on the border of Russia was provocative. 

When we think about it, we have so much to be appreciative of today. We have modern facilities in every house that Kings and Queens did not have just one hundred years ago. We have collectively achieved so much as civilisations collectively by having had enough calm and rational and logical conversations. Freedom to be able to think and communicate independently has helped humanity so much. Yet, we are sensitive to issues of the past, we are to some extent all culturally affected by wars. PTSD is not only something that soldiers bring home from the battlefield it remains long after in the areas where these such tragic events of history occurred. When we have so many memories of how and why peace was lost and of the implications and ramifications of wars in the past, it's of little surprise that there is generally so much more talk in the context of conflict rather than peace making, yet every advancement that keeps our world as it is today is the result of the success of peace processes that helped bring an end to these collective traumas of the past. There may well be very good justifyable reasons for why Nato went to the border of Russia then, that I do not know and the reasoning of President Obama I do not know or understand in the context of this. What I do know though is that the PTSD of the wars of the past twenty years, the past one hundred years continue in populations of people all over the world. There is a general sense and a need to be able to make peace making viable and to actually work. The method that I use is to try and gain and consider perspectives from all sides. What's absolutely clear is that the cultural memory of what happened in Europe in the 1940's will be as much in the historical memory of President Zelensky as it is in the memory of President Putin. The concern, fear, sense of responsibility to your own people when troops gather on your border and how to respond as a leader to that situation is a joint experience that there are only two leaders of two countries in the entire world that have expereinced that. Of all the experiences that its possible for all people to have in this world, all the good ones and the bad ones too. There are two people out of 7,800,000,000 people on planet Earth that have had such a similar experience of having been in charge of a country when there are troops gathering on the border to potentially affect and harm the people you there in your job to look after and to protect. Those two people that have had that same experience of all the people in the world today are President Zalensky and President Putin. No too other people have any concept at all that can in any way relate to that experience they have both had.  

To say that Putin and Zelensky having nothing in common. 

Europe has the wounds of WW2 in a way that Americans cannot fully understand or appreciate as fully as Europeans.

What is it that really upset President Obama with President Putin?

Why not just recreate the great plague in the wake of Covid? 

I do not even like writing this, it's wrong, yet the actual action of putting Nato troops from so many countries on the border of Russia, complete with same rhetoric used before Iraq, ie the 'call for regime change in Moscow' by Senators whilst addressing the people of Kyiv. With these types of events occurring, the thinking in the mind of President Putin could so easily be that there was either a risk of an invasion or there would really be an invasion. Borders, invasion, borders loss of territory, borders conflict has been a part of the thinking in Russia for a long time inevitably and yet in addition to this there was the attempt made in order for Russia to join Nato twice and the EU. Russia has not been ever given a place of stability and recovery in the world since the Iron curtain went down. All of the countries of the former USSR in Europe were given the chance to a good future and yet it was the USSR without including Russia.  

The shift from Global Policeman to Making America Great Again, which is communicated into Geopolitical language as the USA and Western Allies back from countries abroad. What's clear is that the difference between those two policies is vast, they are opposites, the single biggest geopolitical shift of the most influential country affecting the most other countries in the world that any country has ever made. The only comparison that seems to come close to the levels of change that occurred could be likened to the British leaving Asia due to the Second World War and after. The ambiguity and complexity of what was occurring in India at that time, ie Partition and the difficulties that went with that is in fact representative to some extent in terms of the dangerous ambiguity of a situation which is caused by anxiety, ambiguity, repositioning of a country or countries. The tension of so much change does result in heightened fear, tensions, and tit for tat becoming more than that. Effectively the difference between the pre-Trump Obama and Biden policy could not have been more different, they were opposites and yet the post Trump Biden policy what exactly was that in the context of Russia? Having such ambiguity over issues of whether or not a country is going to be invaded or not is never good, yet what then added to that was the fact that there had been completely incorrect media coverage of peace processes that Russia had helped when the USA and allies were pulling out of various wars. 

If the British had had a policy in the context of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh of under one administration leaving, then another saying no we will go back, we here, no we are not, yes we are. There would have been an even worse situation created than actually played out. Uncertainty in the context of whether or not a person or a country feels safe or not is creative ambiguity in the minds of people that have to make choices and decisions to protect themselves and or their people. 

The ambiguity of exactly where Russia was in the world in the minds of Nato was made ever more complicated by the contested election in the USA, which was then again added to by the fact that it's evident that for the first time in US history there has not been a communication between Presidents that has had information consistency. All that is presented in the press is of information control. With information control there can be errors of judgement made.  

When President Biden came into office was the USA getting a version of the USA that was the first version the second version or was it Global Policeman to some extent or Make America Great Again, ie bring troops home. 

 To a substantial extent Russia did help create balance geopolitically by actually helping the USA from 2017 until 2021, and yet this unacknowledged was in fact wrong. If a country is being pressured in the media continually and yet incorrectly represented in the good peace work that they have done. When there has been many scenarios where 

US diplomacy was actually helped, like in terms of the Korea's, Syria and various other scenarios. That same covering the back of the USA was also a part of what occurred in Afghanistan. 

Yet, the only reporting and analysis in the media was of the former and the current Presidents citing that the chaotic exit of Afghanistan was the other Presidents fault. However, there was more to that, quite simply the fact that the peace roadmaps that were used in many scenarios previously were not helped, supported or funded created a situation that whilst the West has a budget of trillions in terms of the capacity for funding the best weapons and yet zero funding to help with the best peace processes, many media resources given to understanding weapons, zero media resources given to understanding how peace roadmaps and peace processes work. Those organising the withdrawl of wars, have not echo chamber bounce back of information on how to do effective peace making and diplomacy and therefore, then simply go via the assumption that it's someone else's job to properly consider how to exit when in fact there are not systems in place to actually enable there to be really intelligent peace roadmaps and peace processes produced, known of discussed, actioned, used and improved upon as there simply were only consistently incomplete explanations in all media about what really was happening in terms of peace making. The failure in Afghanistan in terms of making an effective peace process work that would have been a win-win for all through peace making, was actually a repeat of the incomplete thinking in terms of the instigation of various other peace processes. The situation today in Ukraine is a part of the same problem the ineffective consideration of enough perspectives. There has been this bull in a china shop type of mindset, rush into wars, rush out of wars, and all presented in the press from rather a holistic perspective and properly representing all of any facts in a really true and correct way. It's as if the media and their thirty second attention span are entraining the thinking of the politicians rather than the other way around. There are soundbite peace processes that are completely disconnected to the real peace processes that are being cognitively constructed globally in the minds of leaders and so in actual fact the more the media cover peace processes incorrectly, then more ambiguity that is actually being created in the decision making being taken by leaders of differing perspectives.  The soundbite, presentation of such important, the most important information that mankind can possibly communicate between each other is simply not there in a form that is intelligible enough to other countries of differing perspectives to be able to have anything other than uncertainty in their thinking. 

Add to that the domestic media in the USA that questions President Bidens capacity due to age and therefore inadvertently creates yet more ambiguity and uncertainty the truth is that the media not properly and fully explaining peace processes from a geo-political inclusive of all countries perspectives has and is creating a type of information chaos that is in fact the greatest risk. The non clear, non effective consideration and analysis out front in public in terms of the peace processes of recent years is simply causing there to be ineffective understanding in all including some leaders and that is simply taking the world into a place of what could be considered collective Alzheimer's where it's ever more difficult to really get full and proper perspective in terms of recent events and how this choice and situation created that choice and that situation. The best example of this is in fact with the media coverage that mockingly questions how on Earth could President Putin ever thought that Russia was going to be invaded? That is the line in all the media. Well here is a short list.

1. Promise to Gorbachev Nato would not expand beyond the borders of Germany.

2. Denial of Nato membership make to President Yeltsin.

3. Denial of Nato membership to President Putin.

4. Denial of EU membership to Russia by the EU as Russia is considered too big.

5 Nato expanding beyond Germany again and again. 

6. Bordering countries admitted into Nato.

7 Nato troops in vast numbers moved across Poland to bordering countries.

8 War games in Alaska.

9 Call for Regime change in Russia in speeches in Kyiv.

10. Ignoring the laws to limit the speaking of Russian by Russian speakers. 

11. Accusations of meddling in elections.

12. Boris Johnson making insinuations to Russia at a bombing command centre in Kent 

13. Ignoring of peace processes in the Korea's and Russia's involvement as the first country to cite their agreement to these. 'The Integrated Plan for talks between North and South Korea are evidently the best way to progress and even some in Washington agree'. 

14. Ignoring the fact that Russia helped mediate between Turkey, Israel and Syria therefore doing the most important favour that any country outside of Nato has ever done. This not being represented in the press fully, nor the implications of it. 

15. The likely ambiguity of not knowing what the future policy of the West whether it was 'Make America Great Again, ie moving troops back to Western countries or Global Policeman.

16. Battleships going into contested waters around Crimea.

What's absolutely clear is that there has been an incorrect representation of Russia's foreign policy that has helped the West and yet the narrative in the UK within the Conservative Party is actually to bring back Boris Johnson, which in fact would make mediation for peace seemingly impossible, yet the electorate within the Conservative Party are so incorrectly informed this consideration is simply beyond there perception as to why and what are the longer terms issues between Boris Johnson and Vladimir Putin.  

Whilst I do not want to provide only one side to all of this, there is of course many other issues which are worthy of more consideration what I'm showing here is that the media in the West is getting only narratives that cannot even fathom why President Putin could believe that there was any possibility at all of Russia being invaded and yet if those media were media in Russia then it would seem quite obvious that there is plenty of data and findings that could create that impression. In order to be able to make peace possible or viable it helps to be able to see a situation from a differing perspective, and whilst this may then create contradictions in terms of thinking, at least it's feasible to see and believe that there is some reasoning behind what has occurred or is occurring. In order to bridge build towards peace there has got to be honesty and quite honestly that is exactly what there has not been and in fact even citing facts now that add to broader understanding and perspective can cause people to consider that rather than trying to obtain a mediation in the direction of a viable peace process you are siding with one side or another. In the context of my work, my work has covered countries all over the world and has proven time and time again that increasing the conversation, the perspective can be a way to find enough common ground towards making peace actually possible. 

Whilst the invasion of Ukraine has been and is a terrible situation and the wrongs done to so many people are so great. I believe today what I believed previously that the only good way out of this is via diplomacy. That includes talks between the countries and yet also helped and encouraged by other countries. The considerations and statements made by other countries does make a difference and can help bring better diplomacy.  

One example, when President Trump foreign policy for Venezuela was seen to be in contrast to Russia. Russia did speak out and helped calmed tensions in terms of a situation that could have otherwise resulted in the first war in the America's for a long time. Yet, the So there was a type of ebb and flow synergy playing out between Presidents Trump and Putin which was in fact as uncharacteristic to any form of US norm or foreign policy practice as anything else in recent history. This practice of the former President Trump having these personal relationships with 'the bosses' of different countries did help keep the world out of war, and yet the unconventional practice is best exemplified by President Trump taking back to his home private letters and documents between leaders. What's the most strange about this is the fact that President Trump was in service to the US political system as representing the people of the USA and therefore, anything and everything relating to foreign policy especially with some of the most contentious relationships previously should all have been known to the new administration. The situation in the Korea's when Vice President Biden was in office was considered by President Obama to be the single most complicated geopolitical challenge of the incoming Trump Presidency, of all the documents that President Biden really required in order to best serve the interests of protecting the USA, to be fully up to speed on the relationship between the leadership of North, South Korea and the USA these documents especially personal letters should have been considered as being of the very greatest importance as it is only with those that the at the time New President Biden and his administration would have been able to fully even comprehend what the relationship between North Korea and the USA in actual fact really was. Any information on this relationship would have been so important, perhaps more important than any other foreign policy information simply due to the fact that there had not been a legitimate direct line of communication between the USA and North Korea dating back to the 1950's or before. From the 1950's until the time of President Trump there had simply not been a 'relationship' any relating between the two countries, and therefore any relating that did exist in the way of letters and documents relating to the relationship which until then had mostly been only in terms of media made one way statements combined with two meetings that there was only ever media coverage of the principle issues covered, it's true to say that the Biden administration needed that information in order to know how to be able to continue on with the very much improved diplomatic relationship that did form during the time of the Trump time in office with his talks and his personal relationship with Chairman Un. 

The fact is having ambiguity about what President Obama had considered the most challenging of issues of the Trump administration was very much misguided. how on Earth could there be a sense of continuity between the newly formed relations between the USA and North Korea without that information? So what has actually happened in a way is something that could be considered where there has been a type of dismissal in terms of the geopolitical policy gains of President Obama made in the context of Iran and Climate by Trump, yet the gains made by Trump in terms of North Korea, there has been a type of dismissal of that gain, caused significantly by the fact that the Biden administration simply was not given the most important information. So due to this it's no wonder that the situation there is the Koreas has once again become so tense. Irrespective of what's happening in Europe having a President and a former President of the USA not having a mature relationship in the context of the use and the sharing of information is in fact in itself incredibly dangerous to International relations. What adds to this is the fact that Vice President Biden was such an important part of the Obama administration and yet the Obama administration was so completely different from the Trump administration. So what in actual fact is the world dealing with here with the USA? Is it a more Obama type of perspective or is it a more Trump type of foreign policy perspective? Whilst the optimal would in fact be taking the best aspects of both Presidencies and finding a middle ground between the two. This is only best obtainable by the former President Trump not causing disruption, not being selective with information. Being a bit more worldly wise to realise that the world and it's relationships are a whole lot more complicated than the narrative of Donnald Trump and an ongoing soap opera in the USA of him navigating from one legal challenge to another. The intention of me writing this is anything other than to additionally disrupt in any way shape or form, no I crave for a sense of clarity, a sense of balance, not of actions being taken that either revert back to Obama influenced positioning of 2016, and not policy that is based upon incomplete information in terms of relationships with other countries where there have been difficult relations previously. 

Whilst the war in Ukraine could in some ways be seen as President Putin taking advantage of a time where there has been dischord in domestic US politics, what he has also to consider is the fact that this did not ever provide an advantage to Russia being able to push out and increase it's lands as a result of this, wrongly perceiving a 'compromised position' of the USA is completely and totally wrong. Seeking to exploit a situation where the USA has been having to focus mostly on domestic issues has been a mistake. The reality is that whilst there may be on the surface some issues, the USA itself, along with all Nato countries that were in one way or another involved in the wars from the start of the 2000's have only ever acted with what can be considered relative constraint, not in terms of the effects these wars have had but more so in terms of their military capabilities. So inside what could appear on the outside to have been a failed war and withdrawal from Afghanistan. President Biden was following through on a prior agreement that was never fully and properly organised in the first place. Just as the end of the war in Afghanistan created what the world perceived to be a humiliating defeat of the West, the underlying truth is that Russia is in the same position today either via taking that choice, or in the same position that President Biden was wise to avoid which could have been a major escalation of the war in Afghanistan. Whilst the conversation is today in terms of worst case scenarios in terms of nuclear, more due to the notion of saving face for Russia than anything else, the reality is that a humiliated USA, UK and the rest of the Western Alliance in Afghanistan walked out of there and the fact that they did when they could have otherwise created a whole sequence of worse events in direct opposition to the Universal interests of all, they left. They did so and whilst nothing was ever publicly said, it's without question that the role that both Russia and China played in terms of helping to smooth over that exit and in meeting with the Taliban was in fact a significant favour that Russia and China did for the world at that time. 

Winning and losing.

The following countries were a part of the coalition in Afghanistan. Albania, Australia, Belgium, Uk, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Jordan, Latvia, Lithuania, North Macedonia, Monte Negro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Finland, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Turkey and USA. What has to be said is that each of these countries chose to exit together, yet the victory in that war was not a victory with a country in so much disarray afterwards, with an attempted recovery ever since created from a backdrop of extreme weather restrictions in terms of drought combined with the effect of Earthquakes. 

Whilst Russia and China helped mediate the reality is they did not have a loss from that war, yet a re-stabilized Afghanistan was as much in their interests as it was for the country itself and the rest of the world. 

What's absolutely clear is that all of the countries above acted in the universal interest of all by pulling out, the war was seen to be wrong in many ways, unwinnable in others and any escalation would have created only more of a loss situation for all sides. The only good option was peace, diplomacy, and exiting. Whilst none of this played out in the way in which anyone planned and wanted, the benefit to peace making for the world is absolutely clearly evident today. The reality is that wars can be started for one reason and yet in time that reason becomes only one of the reasons to continue and there can be many more reasons to exit. The leaders of all the above countries could have chosen otherwise, they could have escalated the war further and yet wisely chose not too. That is similar to the situation of today. There is very little reason to escalate the war in Ukraine, by doing so it simply creates a scenario that adds new levels of fear that would immediately transfer into aggression by many more countries than are on the above list. If the current level of war in Ukraine is unwinnable for Russia then the next level up is many times more unwinnable. The only way for there to be any winners in the current situation is the same way that there were winners through peace making in Afghanistan. An uneasy peace, is better than an unwinnable war, all wars in these times are on aa differing scale to being unwinnable as the costs and the losses to all of man is what remains.  

President Putin will likely be considering the pros and the cons of exiting from Ukraine, perhaps in the same way that 34 countries were considering exiting the war in Afghanistan. After the countries left from fighting the Taliban, the leaders of all these countries afterwards whenever they appeared afterwards on the world stage were required to wear vastly over-sized shoes, to have plastic flowers in their lapels that spirt water and were required to where make up with a red nose as a result of their humiliating defeat in the war. 

The 'humiliating defeat' in Afghanistan was not like that at all, in actual fact the world was pleased and relieved that the longest war for decades was finally over. Aside from the economic losses to all running into the trillions. Aside from the wasted lives, the death the destruction and the hopelessness of the situation the reality is that all countries exited and the world carried on. The exit of Afghanistan is now a historical event that is in the past it was a mistake, a mistake made by a great many intelligent people. There is no shame in realising that a war has been incorrectly calculated and immediately stopping the war to minimise the loss of life and property. 

What has to be considered is that the citizens of the countries involved in the war in Afghanistan may have been on the side of their leaders twenty years ago, and yet with so many wasted lives, and economic costs to each country twenty years later there were few that considered that anything else other than more losses could possibly occur by taking any course of action other than exiting the war. It's likely the same in Russia today. Yet, the twenty year change of perspective in these other countries is likely more like a change in thinking in Russia that has occurred within a few months. There is no appetite in Russia or anywhere in the world that wants to see a bigger greater Russia at the cost to the Winter heat in Europe and the food supplies for much of the entire world in just a year or two's time. 

In two years time there will be more drought inevitably due to climate. For every mine that needs to be demined in Ukraine whichever side laid the mine is another town or region somewhere in the world that will go hungry. Whilst we can leave our delusions about National glory obtained by winning wars firmly back into the last century where that thinking belongs. In the world two years from not there is only the paradigm of humiliation and loss for all that accompanies famine anywhere. The bread basket of the world needs to be saved today to provide bread for tomorrow. Any stretching out of the war, by a day, a week or a year is simply providing for the poorest of the poor the real humiliation of defeat from the implications of war in such a place so important to the entire world.

So reverting back to a consideration made earlier, the fact that there is clear deficit of information that is slap bang in the middle of the US administration does not actually make the USA any weaker, no in fact the continuity of their having been despite this a clear message, a clear communication in the context of the policy of the USA in spite of this deficit actually shows and proves just how strong and resilient the USA actually really is. What's more the ability for the USA to be able to keep a steady policy towards the situation in Europe whilst at the same time running the most complicated legal inquiry in decades, whilst at the same time dealing with one of the worst climatic events to affect the USA ever actually shows that the USA is incredibly resilient and able to crisis manage in an incredibly effective way. So in actual fact we should consider here the words of Sun Tzu in 'never underestimate an opponent. The reality is that the only way the war in Ukraine can possibly be won for any is via diplomacy. Via peace making. The reality of the situation is that the issue is much more than an issue of just Russia and Ukraine, there are issues within this that inescapably global. The reality is that the hungry of the world require peace in Ukraine no matter what. If you are hungry then you do not care who is the landowner of the land that produces that food. Hungry people live hand to mouth, leaders of countries care more about how their countries are considered than any people in the world that are in a state of famine care about. A viable peace process in Ukraine is not an end in itself, to get beyond this situation requires a recovery. 

To get into a real and complete peace process is a process. All that needs to be considered is where to begin to end this war. Whilst there is a narrative that all the fault in this situation lies with President Putin, that is not really the case and yet what is the case is that he alone has the most capacity, the best position to be able to enable the entire world including Russia to win the peace. 

What's clear as day is the fact that legally there is a defence to this war, yet logistically in terms of how this is affecting the entire world there is no defence for this war. Therefore, the earlier the war ends no matter how lands are negotiated the better it is for the whole world. Whilst the world does have full empathy for the people of Ukraine and of Russia that are affected the most by this. President Biden stated that the USA is not in conflict with the people but the policy that has resulted in this war. To try and apportion full blame to any one side in this is not proper and correct either. This is a unique situation that does require a balanced approach to considering all of the faults in the thinking of many sides and many leaders from the moment that President Reagan and Gorbachev met until today. 

A desperate Russia beaten down by an unfair scenario after this war places the world into exactly the same position that Germany was in after the end of the first world war. That scenario must not be repeated. World leaders today have got to do better than that. They have got to get beyond the paradigm of simply good and bad and properly and fully consider the situation from all perspectives. Consider all of what has created this situation in the past, what keeps the war going and what an effective and truly excellent peace deal would look like so that there is never again any consideration in Russia that the country is not itself safe and free from the prospect of invasion.  There has got to be honesty in this. The thoughts, ideas and impressions of the Ukranian people the day before the invasion began this year will not be too dissimilar to the same types of thinking that Russians living just within the border of Russia would have considered a possible scenario in the days that Nato troops were on the border of Russia in 2016. 

That action then was wrong and whilst we have seen since Russian troops went over the border so much destruction there would have been similar fears of this in the minds of the Russian people for many years previously. When Nato put tens of thousands of troops so close to the border of Russia were the Russians at the time thinking they were there just for fun, a bit of a holiday, a free love festival or a rave? No they would have believed that those troops were on the border awaiting order to invade, to take, steal, destroy, kill, maim, torture to abuse and to destroy. 

That policy of President Obama and all the other countries leaders was wrong. It was sowing seeds of fear and of terror into a population of people that had no choice in that situation. That action would have created very obviously a trauma in people as the last time that happened, where troops had gathered on the border of Russia was Operation Barbarella which did almost result in the invasion of Russia. The cultural imprint of that to Russian people will be as much of a cultural fear based imprint to them or more than 9/11 was to Americans. Just in the same way there have been generations of Americans that have grown up with the backdrop to world politics being that of 9/11. President Putin and his generation grew up with the cultural trauma of what happened when an army lined up on the border of Russia. What happened was Stalingrad, the death and destruction of the worst battles of WW2. The trauma of WW2 so much more etched into the land of Europe, all of Europe than the soil of the USA. There is no way to justify the horrendous actions that have been taken in Ukraine, and that is most certainly not what I'm attempting to do here. However, the reality is that it was so deeply wrong for Nato to have put troops on the border of Russia. it was as wrong as providing any other form of reminder to any people that suffered so much in WW2. I'm not saying that this is why the whole Russia the great type of narrative has surfaced in Russia, and yet what I am doing is drawing parallels. A country that was put down in WW1 created WW2. A country that was put down after the end of the cold war and not provided with a plan, a way to progress, a country that was intimidated using a reminder of the greatest ever prior trauma in the countries entire history was ethically very wrong. The policy of putting Nato troops onto the border of Russia with all factors considered was a form of psychological abuse to a population of people that were culturally traumatised with a form of PTSD caused by the same stimulous certainly in the living memory of some and yet in the wider cultural inheritance of the vast majority of the population in Russia certainly living near bordering areas. Those exact same areas where the Nato troops were stationed were exactly the same areas with the cultural memory of so many of the horrors of the second world war indelibly etched into the consciousness of the people of those regions.

Whilst the reasoning for President Obama to have done this are obviously much more complex and this issue alone should not be taken out of context to the fact that at that time there were conflicting issues and sides in terms of US and Russian foreign policy in various countries around the world at that time and most notably Syria. Then there were the issues of Georgia. So there are reasons and in some ways justifications for there having been that policy, and yet that does not distract away from the fact that when you put the troops onto the border of Russia that is going to create a fear based traumatic response to those people that could be compared to in 2002 standing in Wall Street. looking up in the air and shouting, 'oh my god what is that plane doing'? When it comes to how we interpret the news, the past, trauma and all of those things the human psyche, the human consciousness in all of us is incredibly fragile. It's fragile in ways that people who have not been in wars or similar sorts of traumas can not fully and readily relate too. We know this all so well, it's all so clearly fully documented. Whilst the effects of a war are always brought home in the minds of the people that were there, the effects of this irreversibly affects populations that were not actually there at the time. 

How many families in the 70's suffered due to the effects of the Vietnam war yet on the other side of the world. The same is true we know through statisitcs and voting in the context of the wars in the Middle East. Wars physically destory the human body and they shake up beyond the capacity of analysis the psyches of all of those that are either involved directly or are even in regular contact with those that were involved directly. So the truth is that both the dirt and the soil of both Russia and Ukraine are soaked in the memory of what actually affected and traumatised many generations of people. The reason, the only reason that this has not been more widely considered and discussed is the fact that the actual physical injuries, and the damage to land and to homes and businesses is what get firstly considered. 

What's more the sharing of feeling about past trauma is not something that the war generations of the last century did or were able to do as much then as now. What's more the immediate change from the Russia and Ukraine and many other countries going into the USSR after the war would have left very little space or position for people being able to talk freely and openly about the lasting effects ansd the trauma of the war. Whatever people returning from wars abroad bring home is actually much less than the memory that remains in the places where the war happened. When we consider the fact that together we live in a world that is a dot to dot of different baattlegrounds, especially in Europe and yet today we have a dot to dot of nuclear power stations and yet there are geenrations of people that are in some ways traumatised in different ways from the effect of wars and conflict, there is a very clear need ands requirement to handle the entire subject of war very carefully. With a sense of sensitivity to people. When there is the opposite then there is potentially a spiral of back into a fear causing aggression perpetual loop that can occure. 

The media have cited that the war in Ukraine today bring back images of the second world war, yet in actual fact if we are going to be truely honest about this the lining up of Nato troops on the border of Russia and the military exercises that went along with this did exactly the same in the minds of many people. 

In order to get to a place and a position of understanding in terms of even being able to grasp where we are today and how we got here, really does require considering what appears at first to be conflicting and contradictory information depending upon 'what side you are on' yet in actual fact we are all on the same side when it comes to the implications and the effects of war, any war. Whatever the political reasonings and justifications and the narratives of we are right and you are wrong in any scenario, there are elemental truths of the human condition that come into play. In terms of how we understand, interpret, consider, relate, compute in our minds in our bodies that effect of having to follow orders and carry out acitons as directed either by a leader or by what we ourselves fully believe to be the correct course of action in any moment, the reality is whatever side we are on and ofr whatever reason there are aspects to what people do, how the respond, how they react, how they relive in their minds the effects of wars. To a very significant, no substantial level we need to have empathy an sympethy for all of those affected in one way or another by wars as we are all affected in one way or another by wars. All that most of us can do and hope for is that leaders on all sides can at least silently aadmit to themsleves honestly errors in thinking that haave occured to allow for there to be at least in their own minds the consideration that there are many choices from the here and now moment and that holding a people or a world to ransom on the basis of not being prepared to be more conscious of how other people, innocent people are affected is completely wrong. It's wrong whether it's provocations and sabre ratling to induce a sense of control and power over a situation, it's also wrong in terms of actions taken that come at the cost to others that had no say in the first place in terms of the situation that they have been put into. 

In order to be able to take a calm and balanced view in terms of a peace process with another leader of a conflicting side, when there is so much wrong that has occured requires a completely new and higher level of courage. If we are cornered into a position it's easy to pretend we have courage and to act without considering our own welfare first. Yet when there is a situation where everyone elses welfare is at risk by us not accpeting or admitting that we could have done things differently, then if we seek to take others down with us, then that is an act of complete cowadice. It's no better than the heroin addict trying to get his girlfriend into heroin to stay with him. It takes a vast amount of courage to surrender ego, to mediate for peace no matter what as that is the best choice for others. Is that not the message of the bible, the putting of others first. Is that not an act of chivalry when the other considerations are only defeatest for all. The reality is that we are in a geopolitical mess, and yet there is a way out of this for all. The best way out is not through any more aggression yet by reasoning, to try to see the fact that we are all victims of choices and decisions implications, actions and reactions of so many other people that have gone before us. The really courageous position is to say thank you very much to the past. To acknowledge that what is in fact best for the people, yes the people, not the perception in the world of any one country, yet what is actually best for the citizens of all countries is actually effective peace making. If there is that, then that is the best outcome for all, that is irrespective of whether or not they live under a flag of one bunch of colours and a whole set of one lot of rules or under another flag and another whole bunch of rules. The fact is that people simply want a sense of normality in their lives and the moment there is war then that normality goes. There are not great leaders in this time that really believe that war, any war is the answer to anything other than the income and economic benefits of shareholders and if we keep that paradigm going in this world much longer then not only will there inevitably not be wars, there will not be a world that is actually as habitable as it's always been. The concept of conquest of land to increase what a country has is laughably ridiculous in a time where every country in the world is facing the prospect of collapsing ecosystems throughout the lands that they already have. After Ian in Florida, would it make any economic difference if each house and an extra one or two feet added onto the land of the house? Of course not. The truth is one village standing is better than two villages flattened. The connection that the climate has to borders of countries is the same level of connection that you have to geology on Jupiter. The war over land continuing is the most expedient way for all countries to lose the capacity to fully benefit from and to use the land they already have. 

There needs to be a higher level of thinking, a wiser level of thinking that finds at least as much fault in our own thinking than we have in the past sought out to find in the faults of others whether its countries or people. It's only be seeing a situation as wrong for a whole collection of resons, some of which are slef generated reasons and some from others can we enable there to be a more intellegent dicussion and therefore narrative emerge. 

The idea of which country administers which land is of course important, and yet it's not more important than the entire future of all people and it's that risk that has to be aovided and can only be avoided by there being a new level of more sensible conversation that begins. 

When you first build a house you do not have an accurate perception exactly of all the difficulties you will face and need to overcome, only an approximation of these. You have to enter the task with the belief that you will find a way through. You estimate your resources, your abilities the pros and the cons and enter into the task. What you don't know to begin with, you work out along the way. There are always some unforeseen circumstances and yet you enter the task with a sense of belief that you will find a way through. Entering into a peace process has also to be like that too. The belief that there is a way through, is the only way through. The act of admitting mistakes have been made and yet not compromising in indicating the errors made by others too, is vitally important to being able to find and obtain a middle ground. We live mostly in democracies, if we were to hold a vote on whether or not this war should end, the vote would be unanimous. I believe all of the people of Ukraine wishing to return home would vote that way, I believe all of the Russians that have left Russia would vote in that way too. Most of the rest of the people in the world do not know of the cities or the regions that this war is about and yet the first images they have ever seen of these places are of them almost destroyed. People's lives shattered by the games played at the top of world politics by a few of the ruling elite of both the West and the East, the voice of the average man, woman and child affected by this war and the implications of non agreement between the West and the East, lost by all these governments that claim to represent the voice of the people.  

Whilst the West has not been forthcoming enough in the representation and the full appreciation and understanding of peace processes. President Putin cites that those that call for peace do not want Russia to exist, yet there are so few even calling for peace, Where are they? There are the leaders of a few counties, a few organisations that receive no help or funding from any institutions, then there are a few in the media and myself that writes peace roadmaps that gets just a few people reading what I write. The reason to call for peace however is very simple, without peace the climate emergency becomes the climate extinction of us all. I have written consistently that the imperialistic colonialist types of ambitions of previous centuries is not only wrong for the past, it's even more wrong today and in future unless we get over this whole paradigm of seeking out new lands, unless there is an agreed red line by all countries on this there is zero hope at all for a good future for any of humanity. There is only one way that border issues should be going and that is for what exists today to be better protected and any contested areas in the world resolved democratically and with the interests of the Universal interest as central to the thinking. Any compromise on that is a universal failure in the short term of diplomacy and in the medium to long term the viability of the entire human race being able to maintain a modern world status on this planet. There is only one bad choice being made by one leader then reacted to in a largely very predictable way by another leader that can take us back to the dark ages. Take us back to a time of pre industrialisation. That's a massive statement to make, yet the technology we have that is shared by so many countries of different agendas is more than enough technology to destroy even the practice of having an advancing civilisation. Yet, even if there is this combined appreciation of just how economically, ecologically and logistically unstable the entire modern world actually is when worst case scenarios are considered. Even if the very factors that set us apart from the animal kingdom could be lost and jeopardised through a domino effect caused by wars, even with that appreciated and considered there is even more progress than that to need to be obtained in our thinking.  

Failed relations between countries is the biggest obstacle to having a viable future that is within the temperature range that humans can live. 

The USA has just seen Ian, a hurricane that has caused the equivillent economic cost of 1/200th of the USA's annual GDP of 2021. 

Whilst an economist could consider that a .5% economic loss is something that 99.5% of the economy can cope with, what has to be considered is the ripple effect of that firstly, secondly there is not one hurricane a year, there are more and they can affect other areas. Yet, even if they affected the same areas again there is a compounding effect.  

What also has to be considered is how the millions of people affected by this then depend upon millions of other people for help in terms of recovery. Then also the consideration that whilst the GDP is most of benefit and affect to the more wealthy institutions and companies, the impacts of Ian affect everyone in an area. How many homes and businesses are affected for the next ten years due to this. So one or two more Ian's in one year and we will be seeing Natural disasters destroying the entire infrastructure of countries as much as war does. The recovery from Hurricane Katrina, Jose, Maria are still ongoing and yet Ian, with an I brings us not too far way from the next J and K lettered Hurricane. We are living in a world of diminishing returns economically and in terms of resource use and need, whilst the scale of consumerism was great before these weather phenomenon became so evident, the question has to be asked is how much rainforest will be felled in order to repair and replace the losses of Ian. We are trying to recover from these storms by creating more of what caused the storms in the first place and unless we get very, very much more smarter in terms of how we use all resources we are simply making the situation worse. So in order to get the situation to a better position for any of us, there has to be cooperation on scales never accomplished before globally. Each war may be between two countries and yet it creates unspoken rifts between many. The only type of diplomacy that really gets countries all on the same side is when there is successful peace making and diplomacy as a result. Not just temporary improvements to relations but long term permanent improvements or the gains made in the short term are not sustained. The best example of this today is in the Korea's. What can be said though is that we have a template an example of how there was successful peace making, if there would have been much more goodwill put into that, then the situation today would inevitably have been better and whats more there would have been more mutual respect and trust on all sides which is a prerequisite for creating stability and long term peace.  

To be on the side of peace is to be on the side of the only viable future there is for any country. I have a spent hundreds of hours thinking, working and writing to try and find a way to end the war in Ukraine. Yet. what the problem really is, is that political leaders, all of these leaders not one of them puts enough emphasis into the use of peace roadmaps to keep the entire world safe from 2017 onwards.

 It's the non-representation of these and the non valuing of peace processes enough fully that is at fault and this is the fault of every leader in the world. There has not been even one statement made by Nato about diplomacy and peace roadmaps and peace processes that were not produced by Nato. Nor direct statements by the United Nations about this, nor the European Union, Nor ASEAN nor any of the other institutions and countries that have benefited from peace roadmaps and peace processes. 

To try and blame the victim of incorrect representation for which the entire club of world leaders whatever their geopolitical positions have been and are is not correct at all. It's a completely distorted paradigm and in terms of playing by the rules, the rules have been of domination and of imperialism for hundreds of years until the first win-win peace agreement was used in the context of the Koreas. If there had not been the use of that by all sides then there would have been a major war then in 2017, a world changing war that would have destroyed the economy, ecology and life as we know it, if that had happened then it would not be the viability of any one country that is in question, but the viability of every country. What is a landmass, where the currency no longer functions? Where the communication systems, the electronics, the electricity no longer functions. It's not anything like we have ever known, nor widely considered and yet that is what the worst cases scenarios of there not being diplomacy in 2017 that was effective enough used could have otherwise looked like. If there would have been correct representation then of that peace process then the situation in the Korea's and in Europe today would been better than it currently is today. 

The reality is that Russia and Germany almost a century ago both have had wars due to the issue about their own countries feeling threatened. In the context of Germany it was the bad agreements made after the end of WW1 which created a narrative in Germany that Germany as a country was being faced with countries trying to destroy it. Like Poland and it's invasion of Germany, by the attacking of the radio station in Germany by Polish soldiers, which is the version of events told and believed by the German people, which was of course a false flag operation used to justify the invasion of Poland. 

In the context of Russia and today, there is some justification for Russia believing that there was a potential threat to it's country with Nato troops put onto the border of Russia, and yet that was many years before what's happened this year. However, in the case of today, it's been the writing of peace roadmaps of the recent past and today that has helped produce a Grain Deal for the most affected countries in the world, at no juncture has there been anything said or even implied that is negative to Russia as a country, in fact what's been said is actually the importance of there to be good relations with Russia by the rest of the world due to the size and importance of the county in the world order. Why on Earth President Putin needs to believe himself that Russia is anything other than a great country when it's in fact the largest country on Earth is something I do not understand. I can understand Andora, Brunei or Bhutan wanting an even bigger country. I can understand Russia wanting to protect the language of Russian speakers, just in the same way that the UK wanted to protect the people of British origin in Zimbabwe under President Mugabe's regime.

 I can understand the fact that President Putin now questions so much about the world as a whole and how the response from Ukraine was different to what may have been previously believed. However, if there really is not any hope and belief in peace making, in peace makers that have helped countries like China and India remain voices of reason, mediation and progress out of the current situation. If there is not universal respect given to peace making then there is no Russia. Why? The voices only of retribution, revenge get heard and as Ghandi said, An Eye for an Eye makes the whole world blind. Whilst Ghandi and his followers obtained an Independent India, it came at a cost of 1 million people dying in the plan for partition of the Indian Sub continent. We do not need to consider just how much divide and rule as a concept has caused harm that perpetuates far beyond where it was first applied and used.

There was the genocide in Rwanda as another example. It's the hundred year affect that policies for colonisation and conquering of peoples perpetuates that is today dividing and ruling over all the countries and the militaries in the entire world. They are focused on relations between other countries and have all as a result taken their eye off the ball. The ball, being the Earth and the bigger picture playing out that a single hurricane can cause as much damage as almost anything else. God forbid, yet if the same weather event played out in any one of the major coastal cities in the world that are economic hubs, then the disruption from one storm would not only be 1/200th of the US GDP, it could be a disrupter to the entire functionality of the economy and thus affect billions of people. It's not a question of if, but a question of when unless we can get our attention back onto the key issue of this century and that is the consideration and policy making for the Universal interest of all people. 

To be able to look at the facts, all the facts in terms of global diplomacy with all countries presents the chance for better mediation and diplomacy and therefore the continuation of healthy democracy for years and decades ahead. If there is to only be the selective consideration of facts, then underneath all of that there are perpetual resentments between leaders that then fracture relations, lead to saber rattling and wars. The inescapable truth is that the peddling of a certain line when considering one country or another is creating instability in relations and causes a ripple effect in all relations that then creates an inability to want to cooperate.

A person with Alzheimer's disease, with dementia perceives the world around them in a way that differently selects and makes sense of the information around them. Tasks that were so easy previously become increasingly more difficult such as remembering thing, places, people, relationships properly. The collective mind of wise government, worldwide does need to remember information in a correct and true form in order to be able to maintain proper and good or even amicable relations. Selectivity with the media, with the truth is actually super imposing a type of Alzeimers effect that is impacting all relations. The brotherhood of The USA, Russia and the UK that led to the successful mediation between such different political systems last century in cooperation does need to be remembered. We all have had the best of our days due to that relationship then providing the fruits of the modern world we have. A world where we have more access to more items of convenience than any people on the planet ever have. Yet, if we value these golden calf technologies so much more so than the relationships that enabled this progress then we can get back in return only a form of regression.

That regression takes the form of countries speaking in terms of cross purposes, no longer seeing a collective reasoning for wanting and needing to find agreement. You did that, well you did that, yes but you did that and yet I did this. These are the makings of any divorce scenario. Countries in this world are effectively married together for better or worse, that's how it is and if the interests of the whole human family are forgotten then what could have been resolvable is lost. Lost forever, lets hope not. We are moments before the time when there is one country in the world which is a major pillar to the stability of everything being very much disproportionately affected by the climate. We have seen the makings of this both in Pakistan and in the USA this year and in other countries to a lesser extent perhaps this year, yet maybe not next.

We do need to prepare for that time, the time where there are climate effects that one of the G7, G21 or any other country stops being able to function overnight due to a climatic issue. In order to be able to prepare for that moment we need a status quo in the world of being able to firstly work through issues together and secondly to be ready to provide as much help and support to both allied and non allied countries in order to be able to maintain continuity, togetherness, order stability in very soon future years. In order to get to that position we can only really describe ourselves as being fools today if we are not working as diligently as possible on bridging differences and doing this by being honest about the good diplomacy work of all countries in the past and recent past. If we fail to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in terms of peace roadmaps and peace processes today then what's actually happening is that every country in the world is actually making it's own country a whole lot more vulnerable to conditions that will inevitably occur sooner or later that disproportionately affects the functionality of one country or another or many simultaneously in the future at most and the very near future as being a very distinct possibility. Getting beyond countries differences, is the difference that generates from here the best possible future for the most people.