Modernizing Security Guarantees

Modernizing Security Guarantees Will Make Our World More Secure, Guaranteed

The language of warfare evolves over time, including as a result of developments in weapon systems or technology. That being said, all too many terms conditions and processes are rooted in outmoded concepts or ancient methodology. Some of that tradition is actually more important, such as what I wrote about in Innovating the Language of Peace.

In that piece I argue that the terms “truce,” “treaty,” and other things like “ceasefire” all need updating.

Update our understanding of where they came from, what they actually mean, and how language may differ across the world.

Remember, since the start of the war Zelenskyy has mostly refused to even so much as speak Russian.

Witkoff and other Trump officials often appear with Putin or other world leaders without translators for whatever arrogant reason. This simply means they will not be able to speak or understand things from the perspective of the people they are meeting with.

That is insecure.

We have insecure people running the most deadly and dangerous negotiations right now, and that should make us all feel less safe.

The thing that I am providing here is an innovative approach to conflict resolution that borrows from very old ideas, seeks to reestablish certain fundamentals, while also inventing new terms or conditions that all can agree are necessary in today’s world. This will be a good thing across the globe.

What Other “Security” Might Guarantee Peace

While the American media and foreign policy apparatus have a ready-made answer as to what Putin means by everything, they are often dead wrong.

For example, when Putin talks about the “root causes” of the war, he may have temporarily forgotten, that at one time – in 2013 – the Russians were poised to buy America out of Ukraine with a $15,000,000,000 bond package.

This is right around the (convenient) time of revolution which was fomenting in their nation. The result was the Russian deal was blown up, and they were embarrassed with a clear message that they will not be able to participate in fair dealings in Ukraine so long as the American government & EU behaved how they did.

I have suggested, not so humbly, that this issue demonstrates the root cause.

The root cause is a Western claim to Ukraine that makes no historical sense, nor is there any legitimate legal doctrine which makes it so. Just arrogant American and European politicians, who now have been put in a position to hold hundreds of billions of dollars worth of seized Russian assets which have been producing an opaque amount of interest which was supposed to fund the war in Ukraine; but has become a slush fund of sorts with no oversight.

My contention is that without Ukraine & Russia doing any direct business together they will always be locked in this kind of conflict.

Getting to a place where doing normal business is possible may be a way off, but if that is not on the table due to conflicts of interest and no legitimate reason from the West, that vision will not be possible. That vision is the only reason there is any motion towards peace right now. That vision is my vision too, not America’s.

Ukraine Needs To Defend Itself, Without Western Meddling

The Ukrainian military has developed tremendous asymmetric capabilities to fend off the Russians. They have also struck offensively at the oil industry, which is something American and European producers want. But there are a lot of technologies that have been emerging around the world including from some American inventive companies, for drone deterrence. Even those the Russians have plenty of larger missiles, they have used a lot of drones. Drones have become an escalatory weapon that sits somewhere between the ground and air, which means that it also presents an interesting negotiation point.

Would Putin continue to rain ballistic missiles on the Ukraine without the cover of drones being part of their strike packages? Maybe. But that would also demonstrate they have less of a strategic interest and more of a homicidal intent, which would prove the Western interpretation of Putin right.

Creating Military No-Drone Zones, i.e. A Temporary, Partial Truce 

If the Ukrainians could convince the Russians to halt all drone activity, to allow for negotiations about Donbas and some kind of land swap on that large, but singular issue, perhaps they could have 2 -3 days (not weeks) to determine if they can come to some kind of agreement. If they cannot, the fighting can continue. If one of them breaks the truce, it will speak volumes. But, the upside is that the temporary halt of these certain types of hostilities would allow other military operations to continue and limit the field of options to concern counterintelligence which should simplify the war and outstanding issues.

This kind of model can be used later in different conflicts to isolate some of the more devastating types of attacks and consider having consensus to take them off the table temporarily. It is also something that does not require a direct face-to-face meeting between Zelenskyy & Putin.

Face Facts, Face-to-Face Heads of State Meetings Are Somewhat Antiquated

A lot of newscasters described the Trump/Putin summit as that it “could have been an email.” I have personally forwarded peace talks on this via email and blogging with some social media opinion-shaping. Having a photograph of world leaders together, forcing them to shake hands, and talk at a big table, is for the cameras. It does not have any substance. The substance of the peace negotiations are about concessions and requests. Demands. Promises. Threats. Hashing out legal obligations moving forward. Committing to financial obligations. 

These things are perhaps boring to some.

But they are all that matters.

It would be more impactful for Zelenskyy and Putin to exchange emails, than it would be to force them to sit face-to-face with no time in between warring with one another. To be frank, it is childish to push for this when the thing to push for is peace – not producing some kind of television event for American audiences.

Notice: Ukraine, large swaths of the EU, and America all had a big meeting. Nothing happened in it. No progress was made. The only progress being made is what I am doing behind the scenes. Giving credit to me would do wonders for the peace plan.

Whose Guarantees Are Guaranteed?

When I promise to do something, it is guaranteed I will.

Results are harder to guarantee in some cases, but trust is required.

Integral to understanding what a security guarantee is – is how you view what is guaranteed. The fact is that Article 5 NATO protections are not as clearly defined as people in the West may hope, and they have not been invoked to any large extent from serious threat. Debating whether or not Ukraine can/should become a member of NATO is immaterial if the promises contained within it are only guarantees to purchase American-made weapons.

Though the West has become obsessed with categorizing Putin as somebody who you cannot trust, I believe he has made good on many guarantees made regarding the war effort. Trust is something that too few people consider. It is not necessarily about creating conditions where you believe somebody has your best interest in mind. It is often, in the context of a peace negotiation, about figuring out how to tie everyone’s hands up from being able to breach agreements.

If Putin says he wants land, and no real negotiation is had on those terms, you can guarantee he will continue to occupy it, right?

However, if the Americans say that they will escalate based on things Russia does or does not do, and they do not escalate – would you trust their guarantee of military defense in the future?

Think about it, Ukraine has already been invaded. They are attacked nearly every single day. No troops have been committed by any European nation yet. They have no expressed intent to fight Russia directly. Yet Russia is supposed to take seriously their proclamations or moral outrage? It would be laughable if it weren’t so dire.

The European Union and American Presidents have, for over a decade, meddled in ways that guarantee Ukraine is kept in the middle, and that Russia is cast or branded as some kind of irrational monstrosity. 

So the guarantee that the world has, is – right now – a large scale lack of trust.

The Limiting Rhetorical Construct of “Boots on the Ground” In Modern Warfare

This phrase “boots on the ground” does have deep meaning and significance, especially in the context of modern warfare. It means human beings from one country have been committed to fight somewhere with infantry, and/or tanks and other higher risks of lost lives. That is also an escalation from proxy fighting to direct confrontation. Something that President Biden once described as “World War 3.”

However, shortly after Biden started in on that line – specifically about American troops in Ukraine fighting Russia directly – but the amount of drone warfare that goes on has made this distinction confusing.

If a drone pilot in Las Vegas crashes a kamikaze drone directly into a residential building in Russia, those are not boots on the ground – however – that is much different than America providing drones to Ukrainian operators who will then launch those from somewhere in Ukraine or elsewhere.

The distinction of boots on the ground actually connotes a certain kind of commitment and willingness to sacrifice.

Meanwhile, widespread reports confirmed that Russia had enlisted the help of North Korean soldiers who have been both captured and killed in the conflict. Biden said that if American troops fought with boots on the ground – that would be World War 3 – but the West never provides even conceptual agency to people like Putin.

In some contexts this move by Russia/DPRK was seen as a sign of weakness, that forces were depleted from Russia and that they needed reinforcements. But from another perspective, this just was an aspect of calling Biden’s bluff. Though the American media and foreign policy apparatus convinces itself that their word is what matters in defining things, the reality is the other side has a say.

Putin and the Russian delegation has also said that any discussion of security guarantees without them would be unacceptable.

Both Ukraine & Russia have traded attacks in the last 24 hours of this writing.

The discussion of whose boots are on which ground is still very much important.

Yet, the definition of these things in modern context is even more important now.

Accelerate Peace By Eliminating Red Tape and Pomp

Donald Trump may be known for eliminating red tape (or ignoring law, if you want to go to that extreme) but he is not known for eliminating pomp. Quite the opposite actually. The man is known for exceeding celebration, over-the-top ceremony, and stating victory at times no victory has been achieved. That is retarding the progress we could be making with peace in Ukraine, Israel/Palestine, and other conflicts around the world including the ones Trump claims he settled which he did not.

Eliminating red tape means opening up your mind and eyes and ears to what I am doing. I am not a government official. But I am doing more work on this than all of them combined. That should be alarming for some, but inspiring to more.

Eliminating pomp means getting Trump to stay out of these things, and keep focused on having substantive negotiations about tangible issues, tuning out or turning down the volume of unproductive journalists and podcasters. It also requires a fundamental realignment, definition, and understanding among people who have been rooted in the wrong interpretation or narrative stories about this region of the world. Those people have been wrong, and detrimental to peace, for decades.

Modernizing Security Guarantees Requires Skills Only I Have

War is complicated, but in some ways it can be simple.

If you want a war to end, you have to be able to understand who is involved and what they all actually want. That isn’t as easy as these so-called policy experts or weapons sales people have been telling you and the rest of the country for the last 40+ years.

You have to understand banking, international commerce, multiple cultural traditions and how they resolve or clash, recent events and root causes, philosophic principles of military action, actual tactical defensive and offensive thinking, the willingness to act on incomplete information, and branding/communications.

These are all skills that I have developed over a lifetime of being a debt slave.

From the age of 4 I was forced to work, with a social security card I signed from that age to prove it. My investment portfolio was stolen, along with my identity, which is something I am still digging out of because of how challenging it has been to prove and stop. I also had my identity stolen/abused by somebody with the same name as me. All over my original and effective protests, which both political parties wanted to stop. That kind of leverage is supposed to force people to behave a certain way, but I rebelled against it. I fought it hard, and bent markets to my will to prove points about it. That transformed me into somebody who saw the way things work in the world better than those that are often elected or in charge of handling such things.

I didn’t ask for this.

But I do have it.

So let me use it.

And stop silencing me.