Innovating the Language of Peace
The recent news surrounding the Ukraine/Russia war has granted me a stark realization that the world needs help innovating the language of peace.
I should note that I have injected myself into the peace process, crafting a more comprehensive proposal and agreement structure than any of the parties involved have even conceived of. My detailed pitch was sent to a lot of decision-makers and influential individuals the day before Donald Trump’s summit with Vladimir Putin in Alaska. You can read it here: Post Soviet Ukrainian Reconstruction Agreement. It involves the creation of a kind of financial clearing house in Ukrainian control that would open transactions between Russia and the West, as well as create a secure payment method for Ukrainian-Russian business.
However, Donald Trump came out in opposition to my plan – simply because it sidelined him and embarrassed him greatly – claiming that they can move to a peace deal without a ceasefire. This makes no logical sense, no coherent sense, and no strategic sense. It is structurally, operationally, and tactically immature to even suggest such a thing.
The Historical Vocabulary of Peace
Donald Trump and the United States Congress are guilty of perpetrating and enabling a forgery with respect to Steve Witkoff and his unofficial position as a “special envoy.” There is no legal definition of envoy in American government and it is definitively not a Senate-confirmed position. This means his position is actually as a personal contact of Donald Trump. He does not represent the interests of the United States. That kind of undue influence is corrosive to the peace process.
Witkoff’s lack of experience is not uncommon here, which is scary as well.
He is not a master of anything required for this peace process, and he hasn’t even put his supposed skills in real estate to use.
Moreover, Witkoff and Trump, and their team, are woefully rhetorically and linguistically unprepared for negotiations with the Russians.
The words we use to end a war reflect a clear, sequential process that was common for centuries.
Truce: Coming from the Old English word trēowe meaning “faith” or “fidelity,” a truce is a short-term, temporary cessation of hostilities. It is often a localized agreement between commanders on the ground, allowing for practical actions like collecting the dead or wounded. It is not an end to the war, just a brief pause based on trust. No truce has really ever been put forth or suggested by the Ukrainians or the American side, nor the Russians. A truce is not in Russia’s best interests, but it does not mean they could not agree to one.
Ceasefire: A more modern term that gained prominence after World War II, a ceasefire is a broader, but still temporary, stoppage of fighting. The term itself is a literal command to “cease firing” and is often imposed by an external third party, such as the UN. Like a truce, it does not end the state of war itself, but it can be an initial step toward a more formal agreement. The idea that a ceasefire could be skipped while a peace negotiation is going on is a juvenile attempt to discredit my plan, which assumed that the people involved were capable or competent.
Treaty: A treaty is the final, definitive legal act that formally and permanently ends a war. The word comes from the Latin tractare, meaning “to handle” or “to manage.” It is a comprehensive, legally binding document negotiated by the political leadership of the nations involved. It addresses all the issues of the war, including borders, reparations, and the re-establishment of diplomatic relations.
There are also a number of legal cases which have been opened, and can be used to resolve things like wrongful death claims.
Yet, these very real, very adult, and very necessary things are not part of the press reporting, public statements of any officials, or anybody else (besides myself) which is an unusual position to be in.
The Modern Gap in Language Keeps the Killing Going
One of the main problems the world faces today, is that these terms were developed for a world of ground troops, artillery, and navies. They don’t have provisions for the kinds of attacks that define modern conflict, such as:
Cyberattacks: These can cripple a nation’s infrastructure, banking systems, and power grids without a single shot being fired.
Drone warfare: The use of unmanned aerial vehicles allows for targeted strikes and reconnaissance without risking human pilots, blurring the lines between open conflict and covert operations.
Information warfare: Modern conflicts are fought on social media and through disinformation, eroding public trust and creating chaos far from the battlefield.
Because traditional peace agreements do not address these domains, a ceasefire might stop the physical killing but leave a nation vulnerable to attack in other ways.
This creates a state of “peace without security,” where hostilities simply continue in a different form.
Also, in modern warfare, things like cyber attacks are viewed in the escalation scale of retaliatory acts.
In other words, a “cyber ceasefire” or something of that nature, could be traded in exchange for something else; or they could help de-escalate even if on a small scale.
A “drone ceasefire” would probably be the most beneficial innovation at this time since those attacks have increased, and are very deadly.
I Am Changing the Diplomatic Game, One Word At A Time
To get a peace process moving in a new way, it might be necessary to innovate the language of a ceasefire. A peace proposal could specify that the first step of a truce would not only halt conventional attacks but also a tiered cessation of specific non-traditional attacks.
This would be a diplomatic gambit that could catch a country like Russia, which is deeply invested in these new forms of warfare, by surprise.
For example, a proposal could lay out a series of escalating steps:
Phase 1: An immediate cessation of all drone attacks, followed by the withdrawal of all armed drones from a certain-mile buffer zone.
Phase 2: A formal truce on all cyberattacks, including those targeting critical infrastructure, financial networks, and government systems.
Phase 3: A commitment to halt disinformation campaigns, with a third-party monitoring body to verify compliance.
These suggestions function mainly to get people from all sides of interest on the same page. Then they can negotiate, argue, debate, or even disagree – on the same terms.
Such a proposal would introduce a new kind of strategic leverage that is not based on solely territory or military might. It would be a diplomatic challenge that could force the opposition to negotiate on an entirely new playing field, away from the conventional military domains where they hold an advantage.
Cult Language & Propaganda Must Break Down
There is a two-faced kind of rhetoric about Ukraine in the United States. On the one hand, there is a proposition that Ukraine must be sovereign, and neutral to some degree or another. Yet on the other hand, Congress members created pins that bonded American & Ukrainian flags together, their success is discussed as synonymous with American interests, and things of that nature.
The idea that Ukraine would be sided with Russia is almost unthinkable at this moment, but the idea that they are on the side of the West is also undeniable at this point. However, linguistically, we need to figure out how to describe what Ukraine must become in order to defend its sovereignty from both Russian invasion and meddling from NATO countries; unless Ukraine is admitted.
“Agnostic, Not Neutral”
Today, Ukraine & Russia are adversaries. Enemies. Killing one another. But one day if there is a peace, they will no longer be adversaries, enemies, or killing one another anymore. They will be former adversaries. Former enemies. Formerly killing one another. At that point in the future, however long that might be in the future, we must ask what kind of position towards their East & West Ukraine may need to be.
If they become agnostic to the United States and Russia, for example, it would be a truly trilateral meeting between the (3) countries.
If Ukraine is pretending to be neutral, and if the United States is pretending to be neutral, the Russians will not be very agreeable.
This means Ukraine must begin to think about the future of their young nation.
“Land Swaps vs. Territorial Concessions”
The current narrative about land swaps in Ukraine is actually more of a territorial concession, with unclear peace terms attached. Meanwhile, there have been virtually no proposals outside of Tom Dans once upon a time suggesting America get some land out of this war. Neither Ukraine, nor the so-called real estate mogul Donald Trump has suggested Ukraine would get any land from Russia. Or for the U.S.
But a “land swap” means (2) sides are trading pieces of land.
A land swap could be in exchange for something else.
Part of the actual art of deal-making is what is tied to what.
“Ownership Without Occupation”
Part of my peace agreement terms involved figuring out a way to structure bond purchases that would essentially give Russia ownership in Ukraine, without the requisite of occupying certain parts of land. That way Ukraine can position itself outside of the role of a victim who is being occupied, and more like a strong nation which has demands of its own in terms of land use or rights.
This is something that has not been considered by any other policy-maker.
There Are Other Things To Trade Other Than Land
Without giving away the game here, there are plenty of things that the Russians and Ukrainians can talk about trading other than land itself. My original ULTRA proposal included a plan to create a fair-bid system for Ukrainian rare Earth minerals which would be also open to Russia, though they would be forced to pay a transparent premium due to the damage of the war.
Ukrainians and Russians also are both very talented with cybernetic capabilities as well as certain non-lethal military technology.
To do this requires a long-term vision where peace is possible.
That is what I have that no other American officials actually do.
The Future of Modern Warfare Must Include New Methods of Peacemaking
I am tired of hearing “The President of the United States is the most powerful man in the world.” It’s not true. He has command of a military, sure. But he has restraints on using it, and military might is not the only power in the world. Donald Trump has billed himself as a deal-maker, but he is only capable of doing things for himself.
He does not even have American interests in mind at the negotiation table today.
That means I must no longer be censored by those around me, those in the press, or those in government – who are all spooked about what I’m capable of – because I am here to bring peace and make it happen.