Even now about Ukraine, our NATO pole should keep proving to Russia + China as well as India and the whole world that democracy of our type is not mainly cheap immorality and masking of violence, as Soviet propaganda claimed. With a new spokesman, we can show goodwill. And we should propose mutual measures for the protection of people in military action by enabling evacuation; as enabled by President Trump.

I used to have a dream: that I was moderating the discussion between the highest representatives/Speakers of both poles - the spokesperson of NATO and the spokesperson of SCO; then (about Ukraine) between Mr. Biden and Mr. Putin, in the presence of Mr. Zelensky. In that dream, I always managed to get the main two to agree on a good peaceful solution. (In a dream, one does not deal with technology - that I would have to be a little trained in moderating TV debates and I have improved in the use of Google translator - with which I create language versions of these pages - enough to be able to use it even in the highest possible case. And that Mr. Zelensky would have the right to comment on each pair of answers, no longer than each of the main participants answers. And especially that someone at all in the world would have the ability and withal the interest to organize such a TV debate. What, in the current situation and the perspective, the UN makes really and effectively?)

Where my thoughts walked:

Perhaps the concept of yin - yang, originating from ancient Chinese philosophy, could help the Chinese overcome distrust of the balancing force ("There can't be two suns"), now in assessing the whole world in terms of current opportunities and experience; and allow them to constructively approach communication with the West.

I see Russia's use of force now again as a reaction to the insane atrocities of Hitler's German occupiers. The Soviet elite military action with the occupation of Czechoslovakia in 1968, whose repetition by Russia was recently so "feared" in our pole by Biden's war propaganda, at the time dissuaded me from conviction that even their distrust of that democracy could give the world an incentive to improve. But then, when I saw Biden's insidious preparations for the attack on Russia and that Zelensky's propaganda in the Congress of our pole superpower, I see that even in 1968 that Soviets, led by Ukrainian Brezhnev, were right in something.

India has experience with both the East and the West, and perhaps its representative could be a good mediator in such negotiations or directly be a good representative of the SCO.

NATO, after the failure of Biden's attempt to do the same with Taiwan as with Ukraine, should set reasonable goals, and the election of Trump as US president gives me hope for this, even though I stare blankly at the news that foreign policy did not play a relevant role in that election and that Ukraine was not even mentioned in the Republicans' program. (As a very old man with my lifetime of experience, I cannot imagine that the spokesperson for NATO could sucessfully be anyone other than the US president.)

Our NATO pole should take care, especially through the policy of its leading country - the USA, that this military balance does not turn into a deadly risky imbalance or multipolar chaos.

Guys, let's stop fooling, appreciate the balance of the late twentieth century and agree on its continuation with the perspective of improving mutual trust between our two poles, recognizing the need for goodwill for the entire world and that it is precisely this twopolar arrangement that gives that goodwill its best hope of success.

What Can We Do Against the Killing and Destruction?

Tomáš Pečený, 2/05/2025 (date of the Czech original)
I'm a technical physicist, a former air defense soldier, a witness to the Nazi occupation of today's Czech Republic.

What actually prevents people to come to an understanding that they want to live? And that it is possible by communicating and electing two leaders  competent to provide it. Now that the communication is so easy.

Pacifism, in the sense of refusing military service, is not a good solution, not even according to a great humanist: it is not good to be weak. The world is finding a solution that could allow civilization to survive the exuberant war technology: The world organization with two military poles has been showing for 70 years how it is possible to reconcile economic interests with peacekeeping according to Nobel's idea about the importance of a sufficient number of effective weapons. And that with the good will of both those leaders, beneficially for both sides, that balance can be tested without harming people and with destroying the material only to a limited extent.

Civilization could be destroyed, albeit more slowly, by the degeneration described by Huxley and Orwell, when one of the poles prevails too strongly. Every monopoly is dangerous!

I encourage people around the world to invoke the goodwill of all leading politicians in the sense of a theme for those politicians and aim the question 'What exactly does military balance mean?' mainly at both representatives/Speakers of those poles, because it is easiest for two people to reach an understanding that will allow them to find the best mutually beneficial solution. People should think about how to test that balance, probably by sports-like methods. And leave the technical details of warfare to military specialists, because it is the militant considerations of one-party defense techniques that prepare people psychologically for the horrors of war, while accusing one of the parties of intent to attack in which none of those poles can be interested. Therefore such considerations are not only unnecessary but especially harmful. A war that kills is a sign of the stupidity of the politicians involved! Practical humanists, such as were presidents Wilson and Masaryk, can maintain that balance the same way as scientists use a good level of competition and cooperation. And prevent spreading hate. It is a question of how to find two politicians who will fulfill the legacy of Gorbachev and Havel - a world without wars - by both taking reasonable care of the interests of the other pole. Let us remind citizens of their responsibility for such a beneficial choice! And that the single-pole solution attempted by Hitler imitating Napoleon is not a good choice and that there had been a civilization based on the division of power between two people for centuries (the ancient Roman Empire, ruled by two consuls, each of whom was entitled to veto over the other consul's decision). And that both poles together have enough strength to dampen the fights in hotspots such as Syria and Ukraine, while a "military multipolarity" enabled starting WWII just like starting World War I. Both that poles should be, as much as possible, publicly forced to take advantage of this opportunity. Both the poles have already demonstrated such an ability to cooperate in  a military critical field: in the Soyuz-Apollo project and then by cooperation in transport to and operation of the International Space Station. During that 70-year period, small teams of people from both poles were able to function well in many other fields as well - for example, Heyerdahl's Ra expedition. Let us show people that the goodwill expressed in this way has positive results, as opposed to blaming each other and threatening war. Those poles can create joint teams of experts whose work results both will trust. And they can prevent not only that world war, but effectively prevent damage and killing in local disputes: Such a team can find out the exact nature of the dispute in question and begin to thoroughly investigate the murders in that dispute; and the two world leaders can thus agree to support the affected party and severely damage the guilty party and force them to negotiate. With their comments on the conclusions of those joint teams of experts, the two representatives can dampen the media of their pole in their need for bad news and de facto driving people to war - that's what I mainly meant by the term 'degeneration' of the social system.
Good will cannot be economically nor militarily one-sided - it has to be balanced by the goodwill of the other pole to exercise its authority over irresponsible members and should be symmetrical in terms of copyright and climate care. And it must undoubtedly include a consistent arrangement on the development of artificial intelligence; it threatens to become a common enemy, far more acute than an impacting asteroid and far more dangerous than climate change or man-made terrorism. This is particularly a matter of the political level of both the representatives/Speakers of the poles and the opportunity to show, during their mutual negotiations, how clear and unambiguous are the positions of the respective poles. And both the Spokespersons have room for the moral side as well - mutual recognition of merit. The world has two essential considerations for their choice: the hope that such an arrangement, even if only temporarily peaceful, will bring them more joy than the victory of some worldwide ideological chimera by war; and the hope that they will respect the interests of all people and not care only about the interests of their own country.

Mr. Biden from NATO and Mr. Putin from the SCO showed the necessary goodwill at the summit on 6/16/21. It is up to the other members of those associations, especially the European Union and China, to show goodwill, accept their mediation and thus help to prepare the world for the necessary two-pole democracy with the election of both the leaders of the respective pole.

In that June, we have seen that the media have failed to enforce the 'who won the summit' attitude; they both won and the whole world with them.
I believed that the US could lead our pole well; Presidents Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy were the pillars of my faith, and President Trump has not weakened it.
In December 2021, the situation seemed worse to me, but I held the hope that the tone of those negotiations by President Biden should not lead to a global catastrophe and that they still had the opportunity to build a peaceful solution in the spirit we dreamed of, in particular to create joint teams of experts whose results they will both trust.
In January 2022, I saw the situation even worse. President Biden's ideological academic naivety has driven him into further hopeless attempts, and he has continued Obama's risk of that third and final world war (with nuclear and biological weapons), which can have no other solution than the end of life on Earth.
February 2022: Biden's propaganda that, instead of proposing to restore and improve the Ukraine's neutrality, he was militarily supporting it only to prevent it from being invaded by the other pole: perhaps even a small child could not believe it; it was a silly attempt at an alibi to a prepared attack through the Ukrainians. It is very sad that some other NATO members, and especially their media, did not inspect the matter and thus allowed Biden and Zelensky to go to war.
Biden thus provoked, typically for the USA in recent decades, another war conflict far from the USA - he upset the balance explicitly ignoring President Putin's notification, expands NATO close to Russia and continues to arm Zelensky's clique at Ukraine, ie. he exploits the long-compromised Great German efforts to control the territory in Eastern Europe (Drang nach Osten). And with Zelensky deceives the whole world by blaming to President Putin and Russia on his and the US's role and by "proving" the difficulties of the Russian army against the heroic Ukrainian people (armed, however, with an entire arsenal to maintain balance with Russia + China - business is good!). Poor Ukrainians! But that's the way it has to happen if the nation accepts a collaborator with someone like Biden. Of course, I do not regret the Azov Battalion fighters there, who have the same emblem (Wolfsangel) as the Werwolfs, who killed the Czechs near the border even after the May surrender of Germany in 1945. Slovaks, Poles and Czechs: watch out for those (only Biden's?) Nazis! What was it like with the explosion of ammunition depot here?
I wondered if Putin's Russia would continue to defend their pole by remotely destroying the weapons now  being delivered to Ukraine, similarly as the USA intervened in Syria on April 7, 2017; but it might be prevented from doing so for fear that these weapons contain nuclear charges, the destruction of which would likely lead to their detonation devastating for Ukraine and the surrounding area. (That devastating explosion would be caused by destructing by an ordinary weapon: In the nuclear warhead, the primer charge pushing enriched uranium or plutonium fragments together can explode. A point for actions of the joint expert teams in that particular situation: The fact that a rocket or drone does not contain a nuclear warhead can be safely determined by measuring its radioactivity. And ensuring that nuclear weapons are not delivered to Ukraine would greatly reduce the probability of triggering the global nuclear and biological destruction that is now fully prepared. I know what I'm talking about. Such an agreement even between the warring parties is possible in principle - no war gases were used during WWII.) NATO and President Putin should have agreed in that war that observers from the other side would be present at the launch bases with the duty to verify by measuring radioactivity that the missiles being launched were not carrying nuclear warheads. (Those observers could also passively mediate a statement that the target area has been properly evacuated.) This is an example of the measures that the poles should now take together worldwide to protect people in all balance tests.
I appreciate the approach of the commander of the German navy, who refused to take part in that world's irresponsibility.

Up to now: I stopped fearing some even greater provocation and shifting of blame to the other pole; of course, especially if the Czech Republic were its victim. I also had a terrifying specific idea about it, but I did not describe it here - I did not want to "paint the devil on the wall". It explained to me the actions of those good = former top politicians of ours. The mentioned measure with observers would, in principle, also allow for an additional proper examination of the scary provocation and would thereby protect us as well. That is also why our good politicians should demand it.

If Biden really authorized an attack with American weapons deep inside Russia, he confirmed that the whole war was his attack with Ukrainian Nazis on Russia at the cost of Ukrainian lives; just as Fiala was to continue it at the cost of our Czech lives, by a war in Biden's interest against Russia, which saved the lives of all of us during my lifetime when the German Nazis launched a plan to exterminate us Czechs and other nations.

Further: Both representatives of the poles now have a good opportunity to prove to humanity that they are interested in balanced peace and not in spreading hatred through war and killing. Perhaps, by consistently notifying the other side of any further military tests of attacks from afar, especially on cities, in advance, allowing for evacuation. And by emphasizing that they will not use nuclear or biological weapons for this.

Two cannot agree and defeat the other at the same time: the Russians are fed up of the outcome of such negotiations as President Reagan led in the spirit of further non-proliferation of NATO.

Let's hope that the final World War has not yet been provoked.

Ukraine's rulers - Zelensky's clique - and secret services have now , at a time of thousands of the most destructive bombs and missiles, played a Balkan-like role in provoking the First World War. At the same time, they could try more balanced policy between NATO and Russia to initiate a joint, most peaceful solution. From my point of view of a Czech pensioner: If they had considered global strategic initiative of us few, we could all be fine in the world now. Of course,
except for Biden, Zelensky, Frau von der Leyen and Prof. PhDr. Fiala, Ph.D., LL.M.
After the Zelensky threats that Ukraine will defeat Russia, it was already appropriate to declare Zelensky wanted to buy Ukraine's prosperity and became a mass murderer of the Ukrainian people in the service of Biden's clique.
After all, no one capable of elementary thinking could have imagined that Mr. Putin would be fooled by the chatter of democracy and rights that the US itself does not respect; and let from its pole cut off the territory critical to Russia's defense and let the Ukrainian Nazis continue to kill the Russians living there.
Zelensky's speech before the US Congress clearly confirmed what Biden was all about, even at the cost of the dead and maimed Ukrainians and Russians: the creation of that unipolar world, freshly ruled by the US, attempts at such have already caused so much suffering to humanity and, under Mr. Obama and Biden, threatened the very existence of human civilization. What I considered to be Biden's ideological naivete, it now seems to me like his intoxication of visions of the US world government, again by the path through Ukraine that Napoleon and Hitler tried.
The process of replacing Biden was slow. This is unfortunately a well-known weakness of democracy and the people were then always faced the results of their little awareness - see Churchill's familiar statement. But will there be any people on Earth soon? Meanwhile, we don't know about any other civilization in space! This war with nuclear and biological weapons is therefore ready to completely destroy, from the point of view of believers, the highest creation of God! Meanwhile, in the USA, the renowned Wall Street Journal published an article with a headline worthy of a madman: The US should show that it can win a nuclear war. And there is a Russian system of automatic full destruction of the world that must be deactivated regularly.
Einstein is right that a nuclear and biological world war cannot be won or survived!! This explains Fermi's paradox 'Where are the civilizations that had the same conditions for their emergence as ours, when there are many planets similar to our Earth in space?'; namely, by the fact that those close enough to us were killed by such stupidity that is already ready on Earth.
To save humanity, we don't need angels, but just two powerful enough people who will show enough good will to balance and agree on something similar to a marital relationship.
Let's hope that in Mr. Trump we have a good enough spokesman for our NATO pole. And that the state of our two poles NATO and SCO/BRICS will not turn into a deadly multipolar chaos and that their competition/cooperation of good will will lead both their leaders/spokespeople to cooperate with other countries of their own pole. (I can think of a frightening example: the Ukrainian Brezhnev = leader of the Soviet Pole, occupied us Czechoslovakia - then ally - in 1968; in this I saw a clear manifestation of the collapse of the Soviet Union and soon, together with all Czechs, I took advantage of the military mistake of Brezhnev's preparation - he sent here soldiers whom we understood; with the intent that they would help us against the German imperialists. Those soldiers were mainly Russians and they - how incomparably better than the murderous German occupiers! - therefore tried to convince us Czechs of the correctness of their approach through discussions; and in that situation, of course, they were rejected and reaped world-wide satire and refusal to sell them beer and food.)

It would be best if the USA listened to the prominent expert on the situation, Henry Kissinger, about Ukraine.

Consider a system for selecting the two representatives in the best possible case: Should the two  be elected with the (advisory?) participation of the other half-world? Should the other pole have the right to veto candidates? When such a system proves successful (the moral responsibility of those representatives will lead, through practical steps of both poles, to improving mutual trust), it will be appropriate to think about how to codify such a status by international law and, possibly, use it to restructure the Security Council; only these two poles would become its permanent member with the right of veto. The UN would thus become like the parliaments of the great democracies, in which the system of the two great parties naturally developed. The thinkable result of such codification is indicated by the question:
What about the criminal liability for failure to provide assistance by these two people?

With the growing influence of China, the mental dimension of that polarity is also returning; as in those parliaments, this is a degree of central regulation.

Now, the world is small: if someone wants to arrange something through a chain of acquaintances with anyone else on Earth, on average less than four further contacts are needed.