Ensuring eSignature Legality for Employee Satisfaction Survey in European Union

How to eSign a document: e-signature legality for Employee Satisfaction Survey in European Union

let's get started with what has happened in The Summit in Switzerland before the summit we had put putting out preconditions for any sort of peace talks and negotiations that may happen in the future but how did you find the timing of this strategy on the part of I don't know if we can call it a strategy but he he was trying to influence The Summit in Switzerland he was putting out this preconditions just to show what Russia thinks at this particular moment right so it was an attempt to preempt the Swiss conference Swiss Swiss Summit I guess so conference and um to uh you know uh replace the agenda of the Ukrainian agenda and the Western agenda of a unified front uh with a discussion of um R the need for Russia to be at the table for there to be movement toward peace and I must say overall I think that that strategy worked because at the end of the Swiss conference most people uh it seems in the Press came to the conclusion that nothing was really accomplished there were obvious differences at the conference even among the people who were invited to the conference to to demonstrate Unity the the whole purpose of coming to the conference was to show solidarity with Ukraine and yet uh about 15 U people uh countries didn't even signed the final communic and that's about 15% and uh and as a result uh even the communic itself was very watered down and ended the communic with uh a very important point of which was that the statement that peace requires the involvement of and dialogue between all parties obviously uh that means Russia so I guess Ukraine is now on record as agreeing with uh the consensus in the world or the certainly the West on the need to uh involve all parties and have a dialogue with all parties yeah when it comes to the preconditions particularly they he pu was talking about Ukrainian Army just taking out their troops from donet Clans hon and zapar regions and just giving up under and under uh aspirations to join NATO the these these two were so bold in this precond conditions and he said something that was I think that was so amazing that he wanted to build on those negotiations in Istanbul that was a very positive Point coming out of this preconditions and the other point that it was so tricky in this precondition was that he said that these conditions are so fluid as time goes by they're not going to stay the same and how do you in how do you evaluate these preconditions uh so I think from Russia's perspective uh the objective was to reiterate the both the reasons that Russia invaded Ukraine and by the way it's important to remember that uh in the context of making uh and reiterating the basic Russian proposal for negotiations Putin uh in a very long speech to the um staff at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs uh explained the rationale for everything that happened so again he keeps coming back and reminding the world about Russia's fundamental issues with Western intervention in Ukraine and why the expansion of NATO is is seen by Russia as an existential threat a security threat and why therefore uh Russia needed to intervene because the West was ignoring ignoring its concerns so in the context of doing that what I think Russia has done uh successfully is to present an alternative to the 10o zelanski pce proposal simply by uh in the in this last uh statement that Putin made narrowing or let's say reducing the number from 10 10 points to just one which is obviously uh easier to remember and the one point that he insisted on was issuing an official statement that Ukraine does not intend to join NATO now that could be worded as a statement of neutrality as that's the way it was formulated in the Istanbul s which you mentioned um and uh beyond that uh in or so that's the only requirement for uh starting negotiations the the secondary aspect is to withdraw troops from the territories that are currently partly under Russian control to enable a ceasefire so I would distinguish between two objectives that I would say Russia is offering as immediate possibilities one is a ceasefire ending the Bloodshed simply by withdrawing the troops back uh from these uh territories that Ukraine claims but that are more that are de facto under Russian control for the most part and secondly uh the offer to begin negotiations without uh at this point any preconditions in other words they're not saying and you must do this and this and this uh let's sit down and negotiate what are clearly very different and positions that are far apart but until the negotiations begin and people sit down and discuss them you don't really know what compromises are possible and I think it is a good sign that uh Russia is willing to discuss uh at a table behind closed doors not in public what compromises can actually be achieved on the other hand we have the difficulty uh that Ukraine has and that the West has in uh arguing that no negotiations are possible no negotiations are possible and I think that puts the west and Ukraine in a in a difficult position uh viav uh the possibility of Peace it makes them look like they're not interested in peace uh because they're putting additional conditions and uh especially it it it makes it difficult for Ukraine to participate in principle even in uh a second uh peace conference that is uh in fact how the first uh Swiss Summit ended with a call for uh future dialogue and negotiations among all parties everyone is I guess now expecting that to occur but um Ukraine it's not clear if uh the west or Ukraine can participate uh in such a conference given uh the limitation on how it how it approaches the possibility of negotiations we thought that Russia would talk about adasa Nikolay they didn't talk any they didn't say anything about adasa nikol NEP Petros these cities that are so important and are the access to the Black Sea for Ukraine and it seems that they're open to negotiate on everything the problem is you don't see anything coming out of the West right after these preconditions coming out Lloyd Austin said Putin has no right to do that this is unbelievable it I I I don't see this as an advantageous position uh for for the West um it basically makes the West look very clearly like the ones wanting to prevent negotiations um because they have not peace in mind and not an end to the Bloodshed but as they're very clear about Victory uh the objective of the West viav Russia in Ukraine is Victory um and then the question uh really becomes not a diplomatic one but a military one is anything that the West can offer to Ukraine capable of uh reaching or or attaining such a victory military victory over Russia and I along with I think most military analysts in the west believe the answer to that question is no no Ukraine is simply at such a substant iial disadvantage compared to Russia in its military forces military capability economic capability that no amount of support that the West can offer can overcome that disadvantage in a war of attrition in the kind of war that is that is being fought where does that leave us well it leaves no option if the if the West continues uh to um to fight for victory believes that the only uh objective that that uh it can tolerate is a victory over Russia then it must commit to putting in uh NATO troops in a direct fight against the Russian military and ultimately to engage in a fullscale war with Russia we have a real uh inconsistency a real contradiction between the stated military strategy of the West and its diplomatic strategy because uh it cannot achieve what it says is its diplomatic outcome which is Victory without a much more aggressive military strategy toward Russia which it says it doesn't want so the West is in a bind it needs to decide whether it's going to pursue a military Victory against Russia or a diplomatic resolution of the conflict because those are mutually exclusive I think yeah and how about you you talk about military Victory we know that turkey recently said that if NATO wants to fight Russia they're not going to be part of any sort of operations against Russia we know that how important turkey is within NATO is the the most powerful ground forces are from Turkey not even the United States as Po and as Colin Wilkerson pointed out on this talk show and yeah the other point if if we think that the West is trying to weaken Russia any sort of beaking militarily or their economy it doesn't show anything anything coming out of this conflict in favor of the West we know just World Bank recently reported they have been predicting that Russia would have a an eon an e economic growth equal to 1.3 right now they're talking about 2.9 it's much more double more than double than what there have been expected before and we know that in the military as you mentioned the these these experts are talking about that Russia is out producing in the War of Attrition which is the artillery is King of the battle they are right now out producing the whole West you know when it comes to these two aspects that are so crucial for this conflict in Ukraine it doesn't seem that the West is winning any of those fields but at the same time you see a total disconnection between the policy and what's going on in the battlefield in Ukraine which is why um we have the current prolongation of the war without any end in sight and the reason there is no end in sight is because the military means that the politicians are willing to consider do not match the political objectives that the politicians say they want and that cannot that cannot be resolved uh again as I said you have to decide do are you going to pursue a strategic Victory as uh Lloyd Austin uh Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said um over Russia or are you going to pursue a negotiated settlement which it is Poss it could possibly be interpreted by different sides as partial Victory not a victory for for only one side um but the Dilemma that we have is that in Europe and the United States wh why why do we not have any progress despite the obvious inconsistency the reason is elections we don't actually know what political forces will be in charge in Europe Western Europe and the United States 6 months from now and as a result we are in a limbo where nothing no initiatives can be taken by the West because it undermines the the the authority and credibility of the political candidates as they go into action as they go into to making their case for their past policies the past policies I think many would say have led to this failure to this to this error uh in relations with Russia that have led to such terrible outcomes uh internationally and regionally in terms of security and and economic prosperity for the world um but uh no one is going to change those policies before an election because to do so you would have to say well I made a mistake now I know what I'm doing I've changed my mind trust me and vote for me again of course the voters are going to say well what am I voting for am I voting for when you were all gung-ho for war or am I voting for a peaceful resolution of the conflict now I don't know anymore so we we are stuck with this paralysis the aid that was offered by the United States and Europe uh over the past over the course of this year and in previous years is not going to make any difference to the outcome for this year because it is too little too late by the time the the um funding is dispersed by the time it reaches the source by the time it is transferred locally into the various Outlets that it needs to be spent in um a half a year or more will pass before before the impact of this is sped so the objective of the uh of this Aid was simply to allow Ukraine to survive until the November us elections to survive but the problem is that the situation on the ground is more fluid that Russia is on the offensive and it is not clear how far this offensive will get before November and this adds a great uncertainty to uh the process of negotiation which in any case from the West perspective can only be resumed politically again at the end of the year after the American elections in November yeah in your opinion how much of these political changes that are happening in Europe considering the new elections are related to what going on and what has been going on in Ukraine I think um the impact of the war in Ukraine uh is indirect in other words it's not that people are saying oh I've changed my mind uh we should not support Ukraine or I think now as opposed to two years ago maybe Russia was justified I I I don't think that that's happened most people still think that in Europe that the Russian invasion was illegal and uh and and Russia deserves punishment for its actions but what they are being impacted uh now on now is the lifestyle their uh living conditions have worsened they are having to pay more for uh services and energy and the cost of uh Goods is going up and there's a general sense among European voters that there is no strategy in Europe that can get us Beyond this conflict and that can restore peaceful relations and security on the European continent and that's what they're voting against they would like to see in that sense a dramatic change in orientation even though they're not they don't necessarily like Russia now uh or anything like that they want the policies to change so that they have a more predictable future in terms of their own security and their family's security U in the countries that they live and in Europe generally in other words in some ways they'd like to turn the clock back if they could they probably can't and uh I don't think they're I don't think the opposition the countries that are in opposition to the political forces that are in opposition to the war have enough force uh have enough popularity to radically change uh the policies of um of their respective countries or of the EU gener generally and we don't know exactly who is who the U newly elected leaders of the EU and EU foreign policy are going to be but the names being floated are if anything more bellicose even than the and the head of NATO are more bellicose even than than their predecessors so what we may be seeing is another source of tension in Europe between a military Elite and a bureaucratic Elite in uh Brussels and NATO which is more and more supportive of a Hardline stance toward Russia and uh a commitment to fight fighting Russia for for decades if necessary for decades until the Putin regime Falls and maybe even Russia's dismembered uh you hear a lot of talk about that being pursued as a as an unofficial goal by uh some uh EU politicians uh and on the other hand their voters the voters in those countries who actually would like uh peace and some sort of accommodation so that this this conflict is resolve and that discrepancy is what has led to the rather dramatic rise of the far left and the far right um but it would take even more to displace the center yeah but in your opinion what's going on in Germany with considering IFD alternativ Germany and the rightwing in France do you see them as the same thing that we've been witnessing in Italy with Maloney are the same thing that if they would be in the same kind of in in the same category it seems that nothing going to change in the future considering these policies as a political scientist I would say that the most popular social political science theories the most popular political science theories uh argue that when um marginal groups are able to join coalitions and come to power that way in order to broaden their base they abandon their extreme positions and move toward the center that is historically the case but the problem we have in the case of Europe I would say is a little different from historical precedent in that the center itself is seen as taking very aggressive and destabilizing positions positions that undermine the safety and well-being of Europe itself in that context it might be more attractive for groups not to adapt them to to for marginal groups or extreme groups not to adapt themselves to the center but to try to force the center to to to take uh individual politicians away from the center and move them toward a broader Coalition around around the right or the left which would then redefine itself as a peace Coalition a coalition for peace and prosperity in Europe meaning an anti-war Coalition the the the really curious thing that today in Europe is that um is the the total absence of an of a popularly based and politically supported anti-war movement that historically in Germany for example has been the greens but the greens are now totally proar uh and that's very strange but when it comes to the policy in Ukraine in this in the recent G7 Summit they were talking about just sending this $50 billion dollar of the Russian Assets in the hand of Europeans together with the United States to Ukraine do you think that would be at the end of the day that would be possible or they would do that considering all these countries in the in Europe who are not agreeing with this type of policies what you're what you're asking is how important is power politics compared to legal to compared to international law which is more important I think the answer is obvious it is power politics and what that means is is whatever the law says uh the countries that are able to abuse that law to to manipulate that law to achieve the objective the political objective that they want will simply do so and they will thereby redefine international law they will say well we are the law and what we say is actually the law um and the consequences of this are I'm sorry to say this exactly what Vladimir Putin predicted in 2007 in his famous speech at the Munich Security Council he says if international law can be twisted any which way to the advantage of individual states then it it becomes meaning and the entire Global legal infrastructure and financial infrastructure collapses so the willingness of Western countries certain Western countries and the United States to uh simply seiz The Sovereign assets of any other country spells the demise of the current International order from which the United States benefits the most people Sor countries I keep saying people when I mean countries countries that have invested in the US dollar as a reserve currency only do so because they trust that their assets are secure and if they suspect that they are not secure then they will withdraw them and we're beginning to see this take place at significant levels now now the the main problem I'm not sure if we've spoken about this before it seems sounds familiar may have been something we talked about before but um the main problem is there is no immediate alternative to the current system and but it's being worked on and at in in his speech the one we've referenced at the uh to the uh foreign foreign Ministry Putin said we just very specifically stated we are working on this uh to accomplish this as soon as possible and I think it will be done and as soon as that's in place we will begin to see I think The Reluctant transition from the doc from the dollar to an uncertain International Financial system into something that's that promises to be more reliable more honest and convenient maybe even at some point uh to countries uh than the current Breton Woods system which the United States created and which the United States primarily benefits from and it's a real Paradox why the United States why the political leaders of the United States uh do this which is essentially shooting itself in the foot although I I do have a preliminary answer to that question uh it's not a very uh generous one but I don't think American in particular politicians understand economics they just don't understand Global economics because they live in a system in which laws can be imposed by authorities to condition economic outcomes and we have a a Fe currency which uh the Federal Reserve System uh arbitrarily or at its own discretion essentially can set interest rates and influence the economy we do not this system cannot be translated globally I mean we have a great the Federal Reserve and the American economy has a great influence internationally internationally but the sovereignty of other nations can in fact stop that influence it it can it can level it entirely and it can expel uh countries uh and their their um their political instruments and their and their economic instruments as well and the the why do I say that American politicians don't understand this I look at the example of sanctions I believe literally that American politicians and the president believed that the imposition of sanctions even from the first round of sanctions would lead to the collapse of the Russian economy and the fact that there have now been 11 subsequent expansions of sanctions without that result is not affecting their thinking at all they they cannot accept the evidence of their eyes because it contradicts their fundamental beliefs about the omnipotence of American of American dollars and American power so this is not a rational discussion anymore it is one that is is built around a sense of faith and mythology about what the United States stands for for and it's only worse because we are getting into the heart of the election season where nobody talks about anything specific anymore it's all about visions and how I'm going to make America great again or it's never been as great as it is now or greatness is my middle name you know everything has to be great regardless of what you see before you and that is discrepancy is is becoming evident to people uh very much so again another I'll give you another example of this disconnect that that you've highlighted everybody can see that the president of the United States is deteriorating physically and is probably on the verge of senility everybody can see that yet we have major American television programs personalities and networks who say no no the opposite is true the the opposite is true and people look at this and they say this doesn't make any sense and they turn it off they said you're you're just lying to me now and they go to Alternatives in the social in social media which are no better because they're used to saying well the the major networks will tell me the truth or this is a vetted Source or I've listen you know these journalists have been telling me have been talking to me for years and I've trusted them and now the fact that they're lying to me about what I can see with my own eyes means that there's no there's no Alternatives because social media is a horrible place to get re to to get information and uh and most people at that point they would have to uh find independent sources multiple independent sources and nobody wants to do that everybody's got their own I mean I can do that you can do that because we're this is our profession if you will you know to know actually what's going on but 90% 95% of people uh just say well this is much too complicated for me and they're all liars and I don't want to get involved in this yeah when it comes to the negotiations and the way the West reacted to the Putin's PR conditions it's so amazing to see they're talking about those strategies behind the scene they're doing this they're doing that but it seems that it's so simple I don't know if you just correct me if I'm mistaken right now it doesn't seem that zalinski wants this conflict comes to an end because his position is at risk he he's continuing in his position under the martial law and in European Union they're trying to distract their own people with the conflict in Ukraine in order to stay in power right now in the United States Biden is trying to continue this war because of for the sake of 2024 presidential election it seems that everybody's position is in favor of the continuation of this conflict that's why we don't see any sign coming out of the West in order to have some sort of political settlement um I think that's right um but I would add one or two uh additional additional things um I think uh awareness of the conflict in Ukraine is much greater in Europe generally because it's closer and I think uh many of the initiatives the Swiss Summit various well NATO itself NATO headquarters NATO statements they all they all are important in EUR in a European political context here in the United States the vast majority of people don't care about Ukraine we it's it's not an issue on Daily News or even our weekly news to the extent that people watch uh the Nightly News it almost never comes up or it comes up in a very short uh very short report um so it is for Americans uh a problem that is very far away and that we have dealt with by sending money now leave us alone you got what you asked for you asked you asked for money you you got weapons you can buy the weapons you want with the money that we're giving you what more do you want from us I think is the and and you do see some of that discussion in the opposition uh to the the the extension of funds but uh sadly most Americans don't understand how deeply in debt the United States is and what the consequences of debt of this debt is and uh and that adds to the general perception that um you know Ukraine is a problem but not for the US it's a problem for the Europeans and uh we we're going to help the situation but it's not our problem and Biden understands that that's why his first words in all of his support are we will not send troops don't worry we are not sending Americans troops into Ukraine we'll send everything else etc etc and you know I support democracy Etc we're not sending American troops because that's the only thing Americans will hear is that they they want to hear that we're not sending uh American boys to die uh in in this country uh Far Far Away um so I think that's the the basic problem uh that um that exists in in in this relationship the second the second aspect that I want to highlight is that when in the United States arguments are made in favor of supporting Ukraine by politicians they are entirely mercenary in other words they say we're not sending money to Ukraine we're sending money that will go to American factories that will uh that will produce weapons and not just for Ukraine for for everybody and as a result we are building up the American economy and we are strengthening America's defenses and it's America America America uh and Ukraine is not the point for these initiatives it is any conflict would do uh which can be used to bolster uh and increase significantly the American military spending which involves so much of the economy and involves so much so much distribution of arms and bases around the world I mean it's it's it's a huge Endeavor that is indeed significant and important to the American economy now NATO the the NATO standards are essentially American Standards so and that is purposefully done because America needs to be able to sell its Advanced Weaponry to Nato so the increase in NATO military spending again helps the American Arms industry and that's a very big reason why there is so little interest in a peaceful resolution of this conflict on this side of the Atlantic in the United States not only is it because you know uh the cause of Ukraine is right and democracy must be supported and and the rule of law must be supported but we are also benefiting economically from the sale of weapons and with Europe's withdrawal from a much more profitable partnership on energy from Russia who are they winding up buying much of their or some portion of their energy from again from the United States at a much higher rate and that again helps us economically the big economic Losers of this and this is one of the reasons that there is a riff in the political perceptions uh especially in the opposition in Europe is that we're the ones getting uh disadvantaged economically as a result of this war and the United States has said it is not going to provide the kind of support the these kind of um subsidies to European economies because that would never work here that you couldn't sell that uh to American voters um and as a result uh the cons The Economic Consequences of this conflict which is hurting European economies will be born in fact in increasingly over time by uh European voters and they don't all think that's a good idea yeah we there is an article recently in the financial times that says Russia has Russia overtook the United States in supplying gas to the European Union in May despite yeah despite all of these difficulties that they're having in providing Europe with the gas with energy But Here Comes the question the deepest question would be is is can the United States separate Europe from Russia in terms of their energy the things that Russia are supplying to the European Union is is it a viable choice for the United States or even let's consider that for the European Union well uh this energy relationship uh was important to the European economies and the decision of the EU and individual states to sever that relationship has come at a great cost to the welfare of their citizens the answer to your question can this be a total cut off no no that that's impossible no country is totally cut off from the rest of the world not even I mean people imagine that this is true of North Korea but it's not they imagine that it's true of of Iran but it's not and and the problem is not sanctions or the inadequacy of sanctions the problem is the nature of of Economics the nature of hum of of humanity of trade uh trade and economic relations are as natural as breathing and wanting to seek shelter uh it's like water it will always find a way through any obstacles and you see this time and time again and the we what we are literally seeing and this is always the case with sanctions and always will be the case with sanctions is that sanctions always try to catch up to the innovation of humanity trying to outwit or get around these sanctions and because the sanctions regime itself any sanctions regime has to go through legal hoops and be written up and must be implementable in X Y and Z whereas people just flexibly as uh as commercial entities or Traders or you know all sorts of of find find ways around them repeatedly and then the whole legal structure has to get re-engaged to catch up with that and they're always behind they always will be behind um which is why it's a self it's a self-destructive path uh that that it it is the literal opposite of what used to be the liberal idea which is that through trade we establish the kind of not only relations but dependency upon each other that will make War Impossible now of course we are undermining these Mutual dependencies which leaves us with War as a logical option then uh I although again the ultimate purpose of this war is is not exactly clear um because it wouldn't lead to what everybody wants in principle which is uh a peaceful world with free trade and free travel so we in the west are moving away from the from our own liberal ideals in the name of I guess I mean there's still ideals for the long term but we just can't honor them right now which is again I I can only think of as the definition of Incan yeah doing something that is directly contradictory to your own long-term interests and expecting that by going in the opposite direction you'll reach you know that goal it just cannot happen so The Logical alternative and the Phil philosophically politically morally correct alternative is to pursue peace peace is not an easy objective but at least if you say that is our goal then having stated that goal then the question becomes how does one achieve it and then you start you start by negotiating 0.1 Point 2 3 no that doesn't work for me I I'll go you know I'll do half of 0.1 but I can't go any further okay let's go to point two this is what I'm willing to consider it's anyway it's a simple negotiation what human beings have been doing for more than 5,000 years there's nothing new Under the Sun uh and again all we have to do is decide that um this politicians have to decide this is what they want to do in a democracy countries that claim to be democracy should have an easier time listening to their people who I think clearly uh expect such an approach to the extent that they are able to deny such an approach and and reject it and pursue some other policy uh that is not advantageous to their people I think it does call into question the degree to which our Western countries our Western Civilization can claim to be Democratic I think as you mentioned peace is is the most difficult thing to have right now but is the safest as the and the most beneficial thing that we have so far and right and I I understand that there would be uh objections they saying what do you mean by peace we can't have peace at the barrel of a gun we can't have peace if it's not going to be if it's not going to last and things like that all of these matters have always existed throughout human history all of these objections and the way that you resolve them is the same as it has been as they've been resolved throughout history which is through direct negotiations there is in fact no way to get everything that I want or the other side wants but except through killing the other side through through eliminating them entirely then you're left all by yourself uh and can do whatever you want presumably but in a world in which there is more than one state you always have to compromise and the nature of that compromise is what the people most involved in the conflict have to decide for themselves there's just no other way around that and everybody who comes from the outside and says oh you can't do that you can't do that we can't support that has ulterior motives has ulterior motives that we need to understand we need to understand why would you object to un negotiated settlement of the two people in Conflict what is your interest in the conflict in in having this conflict continue I mean those are all important questions to answer along the way to achieving a sustainable peace yeah just to wrap up this session we know that turkey beside having this decision he they wanted to be part of brecks they don't want to pick a fight with Russia and we know at the same time they want to be a energy Hub to provide European with energy that comes from Russia and goes to Europe and the decision here would be on the part of Europeans would they prefer to have a to have the Russian gas from a third country or from directly from Russia because if they goes through turkey or India even India it's unbelievable it would be they can easily manipulate these prices that would not benefit Europe in the long term and how do you see do you think do does it have anything any importance in today's European policy that is precisely how Russia's income for gas and natural resources has been increasing these past three years through these intermediary parties that either get around the existing sanctions or have been allowed by Europe and the United States and other countries to get around sanctions in other words they've simply uh turned a blind eye to what they know is happening and again I don't think there is any way to totally isolate any economy any economy ever you can therefore if if that is true of as and has always been true uh if you look at the sanctions literature uh of much smaller economies than Russia's then you understand a priority that the task is an impossible one and elected uh officials should be asked why they are then pursuing what they should know from a basic study of Economics is an impossible task and why are they putting putting their voters through uh this uh Financial aggravation when no political benefit can be achieved from it uh it's it it it's an unfortunate situation but the only way out is to vote huh the people who are pursuing these illogical policies and policies that are damaging to their own citizens out of office however uh this is very very difficult at least in certainly I think and not likely in this round of Elections because I think the situation will need to get worse in the West and people will need to find have be be uh subjected to Greater insecurities deprivations and tensions before they will realize and think about what the sources of those tensions are and begin to think of alter look for alternatives to them the alternatives are out there but they are not receiving wide attention because uh well for obvious reasons the uh mainstream media Outlets are not interested in promoting these alternative narratives uh they receive their support and their funding from the powers that are currently uh in control uh and the solution uh among uh the a more common solution in the west has been to control the narrative and to suppress uh dissident voices hopefully allowing for a continuation of current policies which benefits which does benefit certain groups uh and Elites uh in the West in Ukraine and probably in Russia as well there are always people who make money on war Warfare uh it's always been a lucrative business um all all the the manufacturing and weaponry that goes into Warfare and whole new generations of weapons that are generated as a result of the Lessons Learned in Warfare uh for the Next Generation but uh I don't think that's very much in the interests of the average person and so if uh if the common man is going to have an impact on politics they will have to start looking for alternatives to the people that U they have elected in the past and uh think about ways to curtail actually the military-industrial complex which I can speak for the United States no elected official that I can think of would be comfortable today no National collected official uh stands against an expansion and support for the American military-industrial complex we've gotten very very far from Eisenhower's warning about the danger uh in his in his farewell address about the dangers of a military-industrial complex to American democracy um I think uh Samuel P Huntington the famous Harvard Professor put it very well he said at this point the United States it's not that the United States has a military-industrial complex United States is a military-industrial complex