This writer believes NATO should work closely with President Zelensky while substantially improving relations with Russia.

Here is China’s attitude towards the United Kingdom

Here's Russia's attitude towards the United Kingdom

The U.K. supports Isreal-Palestine peace

North Ireland peace remains tremendously successful

Clearly the United Kingdom is prioritizing peace, the government is obviously exceedingly ethical. This is obvious in British communication. NATO media quietly hoped for peaceful decisions for a few years, by patterning helpfully in that regard. But they fully enjoy head of state support for peace now. Peace is very likely to result.

British media are uniquely persuasive. British communication couldn’t be better. It’s currently exemplary. We need that high integrity effort to continue for peace to become tremendously successful! And maybe eventually all NATO leaders will feel very comfortable declaring to everyone, “We love peace. Of course there’s peace!”

The United Kingdom is one of the most affluent, safe, peaceful and vibrant countries in Europe. The country has an amazing sense of history and tradition. England is known for beautiful architecture, leading universities, extraordinary art, popular musical groups, nightlife and more. Creative progress occurs quickly there because of respect for diversity and cohesiveness of the population. It's a wonderful place to travel.

And the country is vastly improving upon the foreign policy of past generations, and enjoying a better future. Great Britain followed NATO's lead and intervened in several other countries in a way that created England's immigration burden and desire to Brexit from the European Union.  NATO believed that Islamic nations were responsible for the airline incidences on September 11, 2001, and intervened in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. NATO far later intervened in Ukraine as well. Between twenty and forty million innocent people left their homes for hope and safety in other countries including the United Kingdom as a result.

The British government is deeply ethical and very compassionate, and therefore used to be completely welcoming to immigrants who were able to remain there. There is a cultural sense of generosity towards those in need. But the government was prompted by a popular vote to respond to an influx of people by attempting to reduce the flow of them across the borders... by "Brexiting" from the European Union and a valuable shared European marketplace in order to do so. The U.K. also started doing more to prevent people from entering the country without permission. This became possible because Brexit returned the right to the United Kingdom to better restrict immigration. But it was a very expensive thing to do. Some estimate that Brexit cost a half trillion to a trillion dollars. (There was also a trillion dollar fluctuation in the European equity markets after the initial vote, and a meaningful reduction in trade throughout Europe ever since.). This created a debt burden for the country. But the country enjoys a steadily growing economy and better living standards for the majority of the people anyway. This is because the British government uses their close relationship with the media to inspire the population. And the government is opening up trade with China and the United States. Probably the British economy will only become more competitive in the future.

There is presently a new government forming in Syria. But the British Royal Family and former prime ministers made every effort to improve NATO's relationship with the previous one. This took substantial courage but was clearly the right thing to do. Former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad loved the United Kingdom after living in London for many of his formative years while getting a post doctorate degree in medicine. He appreciated being there so much that he planned to start a career in England after graduating. He only returned to Syria at his family's and country's prompting, where he ruled for 24 years until 2024.  But he needed NATO to fully open up to Syria in order to continue his leadership there - and ultimately didn't have the support of enough additional countries.

President Assad's British education was one of the reasons he was for several decades a natural choice to lead Syria. He and his population assumed he could provide everyone there with great relations with Europe. He knew how to create mutual understanding between the regions. Syria had nothing whatsoever to do with the airplane incidences of September 11, 2001. But British-Syrian relations became strained when NATO's invasion of Iraq spilled over the wide open borders into Syria anyway around 2005.

President Assad's appreciation for the United Kingdom and desire for peaceful improving relations was reflected in his cordial meeting with the British Royal Family in 2015. His government obviously would have loved to have had peaceful vastly improving relations with Great Britain, and to have received the support of the rest of Europe. That was clearly a missed opportunity for everyone involved.

The United Kingdom has a deeply compassionate and ethical royal family. Their foundation is ending homelessness and integrating refugees from other countries into the British middle class. They also set the standard for peaceful communication with their media savvy appearances and exemplary public image. They are so caring about British society that they won't allow average citizens to serve on the front lines of conflicts without sending their own family members to be there along side them in person. That unique family leadership style is heroic. And it ensures a genuine desire for peace whenever appropriate, which is almost always.

The Royal Family loves one another. And like all families, they have real emotions and differences of opinion from time to time. Extraordinarily, the British Royal Family resolve theirs by holding what they describe to the media as "peace talks," which sets a near perfect example to governments and mass media experts of how to get the media to pattern "peace." By directing attention to "peace talks" any way that they can, the family encourages the media to focus on something peaceful that subtly influences countries and populations everywhere to feel peaceful. Helpful suggestions appear in articles and television shows that affect readers and viewers everywhere. The sophisticated media strategy reflects a deep understanding of pattern recognition. Heads of state around the world recognize their integrity and are grateful to them as a result. They have heartfelt friendships with distinguished leaders around the world in both competing and alliance countries.

Both the Royal Family and the elected British government has the full support of the United States. The United States has closely followed the British lead in improving relations with Muslim leaders, including with Syria. The United States even encouraged Saudi Arabia, a close alliance country, to achieve peace with Syria. This represented exemplary leadership for peace. 

See the Syria peace page

The United Kingdom and United States have also encouraged improving relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia, which brought comparable peace to Yemen after decades of internal conflict there.

See the Saudi Arabia peace page

We don't know what the foreign policy will be of the new Syrian government. But the former one participated in close to a hundred peace talks over the past twenty years. Dozens were initiated by then-President Barrack Obama and later by President Putin after Obama's term in office. Syria eagerly attended peace talk after peace talk. (That's how Syria developed a fantastic relationship with Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq, and achieved peace along most of its borders as a result.)

There was a possible misunderstanding in the Middle East. The airplane crashes in New York City, Washington DC and other populated cities around the United States in 2001 were followed by some in the Middle East, including a few years later. All sides attributed those events to one another. Central Baghdad buildings were destroyed in what people in the region assumed was an offensive action by the United States. Perhaps all sides thought the other was on offense when none really were initially.

It's very important for countries to give each other the benefit of the doubt whenever possible. Conflicts sometimes occur when governments hold each other responsible for unintended events.

A multi-decade conflict followed. Iraq initially deterred NATO by expanding their militarily presence into neighboring countries without permission. The United Kingdom and United States used freedom for Kuwait as a rationale for entering Iraq in vast numbers. Well over five hundred thousand NATO troops travelled there and retaliated against Iraq. NATO dominated Iraq in 2003 and 2004, nearly unopposed. The Iraqi army surrendered according to the Islamic faith, and even offered to join NATO. They might have been successful. But NATO made a fateful strategic mistake in this writer's opinion to decline the army’s peaceful offer to stand down and join NATO, and disbanded and sanctioned the group instead. Then NATO opposed them. Newly impoverished very well trained Iraqi militias expressed their deep dissatisfaction with tremendously capable opposition to NATO.

The problem in the Iraqi-NATO relationship initially wasn't economic. But sanctions seemed like theft to the populations in the region. The perception of unfairness became important to the determination to deter NATO from the area.

NATO sought to create a burgeoning democracy in Iraq that would set a western standard for ethical governing in the region. But NATO did not understand the customs, religion or even the language in the region. So the effort took decades to become successful. NATO leadership thought they were doing the right thing in "retaliating" and creating “freedom” when people in the region were stunned by airplane incidences in their cities, and subsequent western involvement in their affairs.

Eventually NATO and Iraqi militias increased the number of troops opposing one another in a conflict that spilled across a wide open border into Syria - of no fault whatsoever of the Syrians. Large sections of cities first in Iraq and later in Syria were destroyed by the conflict. Syria was innocent of the matter, and lost an entire city in one of the most regrettable moments in the history of warfare. The population in the region fled by the millions into neighboring Turkey and even further into Europe. Many Iraqis and Syrians now live peacefully in a compassionately accommodating United Kingdom as a result.

Some estimate that the United Kingdom grew by a half million people per year over the past two decades. The trend eventually reversed in 2021, when there was a slightly declining population level for the first time in decades.

Immigration has recently slowed into the United Kingdom because the borders are controlled better. Peace is also developing in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The British Royal Family showed the rest of British society that it was okay to make peace with Syria, and the United Kingdom and United States have been on the right side of improving relations with the country ever since as a result.

There is also peace - very importantly - with British support for Israel, which has been a steadfast alliance for NATO. With wholehearted British encouragement, Muslim countries have been signing Abraham accords with the Jewish Israeli government. It's a very thoughtful agreement that reminds readers of the considerable shared Abrahamic routes in the Christian, Islamic and Jewish religions. The peace accord says Christians, Muslims and Jews will always be peace between Christian, Islamic and Jewish states as a result. Probably there will be more Abraham Accords or a similarly compassionate new peace treaty.

Probably progress in British and Syrian relations will occur simultaneously with progress for peace between Jewish Israelis and Muslim Palestinians. That way the Israeli and Palestinian populations can feel safe as well.

There was a missed opportunity to sign an Abraham peace accord with the prior Syrian administration. However, there might very well be another opportunity with the new administration.