The end of the war in Ukraine

I am collecting feedback about the following vision.

As a lesson from the war in Ukraine, the NATO will soon start to withdraw all weapons from the territories around those of the Russian Federation. Instead of using weapons, they will reorient their armed activities towards non-violent resistance (NVR) by using modern and traditional technology to develop security infrastructure with three main priorities:

  • evacuate the population in case of danger and ensure their temporary living in a safe area

  • make the territory unusable for the invader and easy to restore when the conflict has found a resolution

  • record what’s happening on the territory so that later court decisions can be based on evidence

At the same time, the Roman Catholic church will appoint an international group of consecrated people that gives independent expert advice on territory claims. The members of this group have renounced from private property and have no heirs. Their decisions will be based on historic, ethnic, sociological and geographical evidence. This group assigns every geographical region of the world to a nation state that is given sovereign responsibility for regulating its usage. It will explain, also in Russian, the reasons for their decisions.

The International Court of Justice will register all material and human damage caused by armed forces during an incident, and all costs caused by the incident will be billed to the nation state that started to use weapons. Also the invaded nation will receive a refund for every day of occupation of their territory.

Invading a territory by armed forces will no longer be an option because the conquered areas are unusable and represent a considerable cost of ownership.

The UN won’t even need to “ban” usage of weapons because nobody will buy them any more. Trying to settle territorial conflicts using armed force will simply become financially unbearable. The NATO will start selling their weapons or convert them into protective material. NVR will become a new market.

The Russian Federation will, after a period of temptation to invade even more territories, quickly embrace the new rules of the game, prove their trustworthiness and become a successful exporter of NVR technology.


The word “weapons” needs clarification.

Even after Peace please only without NATO? and Thursday, April 7, 2022 (22:31) I still don’t understand why the NATO can’t develop a professional, systematic and efficient form of NVR that can be considered “military means”. We can read on their website that “NATO’s essential and enduring purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of all its members by political and military means.” Who says that “military means” requires usage of weapons? Merrian-Webster explains “military” as being related to “armed forces”, and “armed” indeed can mean “furnished with weapons”, but it can also mean “furnished with something that provides security, strength, or efficacy”. The Treaty itself says that they assist each other “as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.” It says “including”, not “only” or “mainly”. There is nothing in the Treaty that says that the NATO must use weapons.

In case you feel that the topic is too serious, watch Monty Python’s version of history in The killer joke.


Change history