The minimum you must know

There is a new British Prime Minister following the Liz Truss and Boris Johnson governments, whose initial popularity reflected a deep understanding of communication. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is charismatic and uniquely persuasive. The media indicated next year’s elections are expected to be competitive, because there are talented people on all sides in U.K. politics. And clearly that includes the current leader. In his short time since taking office, he brought a fresh perspective to the United Kingdom, including new ideas for improving the nation's domestic and foreign policies. Although not explicitly calling for peace, which people love, his speeches have had calming vocabulary word frequency, and brought a sense of confidence and optimism to the population. This writer believes his communication team is patterning peacefully and ethically as well. There is also exemplary reporting at the BBC, Sky News, Guardian and other U.K. media organizations.

Less advanced governments seek peace treaties purely for prestige. (They're a phenomenal way to build credibility.) But this writer believes there's a significant possibility Prime Minister Sunak will make peace because he believes it's the right thing to do. The British Royal Family has also set a great example for him. He campaigned on reducing military spending. He hasn't yet, because the U.K. is keeping its promise to the United States to contribute 2% of GDP to NATO. But the United Kingdom probably argues its military know-how and capabilities are uniquely valuable to NATO. And everyone hopes NATO commitments to Ukraine can become used to rebuild in peacetime once a peace accord is reached.

Prime Minister Sunak ordered the United Kingdom to provide aid directly to the Russian and Ukrainian populations affected by challenging events near Crimea. That was a very peaceful humanitarian gesture from the United Kingdom that didn't depend upon peace developing in the region first.

There was a commitment of long range weapons to Ukraine from the British government, according to the BBC. This writer hopes that commitment will only be used for deterrent purposes.

Prime Minister

The United Kingdom

Rishi Sunak

Prime Minister Sunak is right to have a great relationship with President Zelensky. President Zelenksy used the word "peace" more times in last year’s United Nations speech than any world leader before him. He used the word “peace” with nearly the same frequency two months ago at the United Nations. This writer believes he has shown tremendous integrity in his public presentations. He’s also exceptionally knowledgeable. He’s a great and ethical relationship for the British government.

Peace may start seeming to Europeans like the obvious choice for NATO & Ukraine with Russia. Vocabulary word frequency in U.S. and European media is becoming obviously encouraging of peace. Here is a recent example of CNN - heroically - patterning peace towards Russia:

This writer believes NATO should work closely with President Zelensky for the foreseeable future. His knowledge and integrity will be important to the alliance well after Ukraine and Russia agree to peace.

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

Although there are no guarantees Prime Minister Sunak will publicly be a hero for peace, his administration is obviously exceedingly ethical, and his communication team has already contributed a lot to an optimistic future for everyone. And it may become easier and easier for him to publicly support peace because NATO media is becoming very supportive of that possibility, and patterning helpfully to prospects for peace. The media is clearly hoping peace will 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 is a phenomenal place to live, with 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.

And there is also a significant opportunity to improve upon the foreign policy of past generations, and therefore the country to enjoy and even 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. The United States believed that Islamic nations were responsible for the airline incidences on September 11, 2001, and convinced NATO to intervene in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. NATO 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.

The British government is deeply ethical and very compassionate, and therefore completely welcoming to immigrants who are 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. 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.

The British Royal Family and Prime Minister Suank have improved NATO's relationship with Syria. This took some courage but was clearly the right thing to do. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad loves the United Kingodm 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 was elected President and has lived ever since. 

President Assad's British education was one of the reasons he was a natural choice to lead his own country. 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 have been strained ever since anyway.

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 love to have peaceful improving relations with Great Britain.

President Bashar al-Assad

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. President Joe Biden has even followed the British lead in improving relations with Muslim leaders, including with Syria. The Biden administration even encouraged Saudi Arabia, a close alliance country, to achieve peace with Syria. This represented exemplary leadership for peace. More has to be done for the entire region to have a great relationship with all NATO states. But the progress is very encouraging because it reflects a great attitude from the United Kingdom and United States. According to U.S. government press releases and subsequent media reports, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations even announced billions in economic support for Syria.

See the Syria peace page

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

See the Saudi Arabia peace page

The Syrian government has been desirous of peace for close to two decades. The government wants Syrians to enjoy themselves with the British people some day without their being a deterrent relationship between the two states. This is obvious because the Syrian government has 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. (But Syria developed a fantastic relationship with Turkey, Lebanon and Iraq, and achieved peace along most of its borders as a result of them.)

There was a misunderstanding in 2003 in the Middle East. There were airplane crashes in New York City, Washington DC and other populated cities around the United States in 2001 through 2003 that the NATO intelligence community perhaps incorrectly attributed to Muslims. Were central Baghdad buildings destroyed during that timeframe from above as well? People in the Middle East thought that NATO was on offense when NATO probably was not. (This author doesn’t know for sure what occurred in Baghdad during 2001 & 2002. But his intuition is that NATO wasn’t intending to be on offense in the city then. Neither side wanted damage to occur there that way.) It's important that countries give each other the benefit of the doubt whenever possible. Because real conflicts can occur when governments hold each other responsible for events - even when the events weren’t intentionally caused. (Islam is literally named "surrender” and “peace.” So it’s very unlikely Muslim countries sought confrontation. And NATO doesn’t challenge countries without internal and even external permissions. The initiation of conflict was very probably unintentional, in this author’s opinion.)

Peace was interrupted to say the least. That may not have been the hoped for result by anyone. Iraq deterred NATO by expanding militarily into neighboring countries without their permission. The United Kingdom and United States then used Iraq’s imposition on Kuwait as a rationale for entering Iraq. NATO dominated Iraq almost immediately in 2003 and 2004 nearly unopposed. The Iraqi army clearly wasn’t hoping for confrontation with NATO, and gave up easily - even offering to join with them. That was a very ethical way to respond and consistent with Muslim teachings of peace and surrender. It was an awesome strategy because then perhaps both groups could become great friends. But NATO made a fateful strategic mistake in this writer's opinion to decline the army’s offer to join NATO, disbanded the group, and then opposed them with sanctions and physical conflict. Newly confronted, impoverished and very well trained, militias expressed their deep dissatisfaction with tremendously capable opposition to NATO.

The problem in the Iraqi-NATO relationship initially wasn't economic. But sanctions seems like theft to more than just militias. They seem that way to honest people throughout the Middle East. The perception of unfairness became important to the regions response to what this writer believes was initially just a genuine misunderstanding. A real conflict developed that was completely unintentional in the first place.

NATO leaders said they wanted 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 they were unsuccessful. NATO leadership thought they were doing the right thing in "retaliating" and creating “freedom” when people in the region were stunned by 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 NATO in pursuit of a disbanded Iraqi army. 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.

Number of Syrian Refugees in Turkey

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.

U.K. Pre-Pandemic Refugee Count

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.

Israel & Syria Peace

After Israel and four Middle Eastern countries made the Abraham Declaration, Israel's news station i24 TV indicated that Israel and Syria might do the same. The Abraham treaty doesn't require agreement between countries on questions of land rights, which can be left unresolved as friendly matters. The Abraham treaty simply acknowledges there is peace.


A World Peace Deal can allow all populations to enjoy adequate economic opportunities in their home countries, and stem the flow of refugees. It can reduce the humanitarian burden on all countries. It can help preserve the concept of a united European Union.