Russia and Ukraine: Who Started the War?

European politicians and the media have always sold us the idea that Russia started the war against Ukraine, and now Donald Trump comes along and says the opposite—that it was Ukraine who started the war. So, what’s the truth? Who’s right?
 
Donald Trump has claimed that Ukraine “could be Russian someday” and has suggested that the war could have been avoided if Ukraine had reached an agreement with Russia before the conflict began. His argument is based on the idea that Ukraine should have negotiated with Russia to prevent the escalation, implying that the lack of an agreement contributed to the start of the war. Furthermore, he has stated that Ukraine “never should have started” the conflict, suggesting that Ukraine’s resistance to Russia’s actions could be seen as a trigger.
 
These statements from Trump fit into his narrative that he could have prevented the war if he had been president at the time, reflecting a perspective that seeks to simplify the situation by focusing on negotiation as the solution to geopolitical problems. However, this view overlooks the broader context of Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its support for separatists in eastern Ukraine, which are crucial factors in the origins of the current conflict.
 
Ultimately, both Russia and Ukraine might have avoided this war if, from the outset, negotiations and international mediation—rather than taking one side or the other—had actively intervened to try to find a peaceful solution. And what seems quite likely is that we may never know who started it, but we can assume that Donald Trump—thanks to his mediation—will manage to end it, much to the displeasure of European Union leaders who have been left looking like incompetents who have only managed to complicate the situation, prolong the conflict, and fail to find any solution.
 

A journey through the history of the pharmaceutical industry and one of its great laboratories that had its origins in Alfred Nobel...

“From Alfred Nobel to AstraZeneca” (Vicente Fisac, Amazon) is available in e-Book and print editions: https://a.co/d/9svRTuI 

Israel: The endless war

From ancient times to the present day, Israel has been a theater of conflict, a land where the struggle for control, identity, and sovereignty has been constant and, often, violent. Understanding how Israel has managed to be a nation at war throughout the centuries requires examining a series of historical, religious, geopolitical, and cultural factors.

Ancient and Religious History
Israel's history dates back to biblical texts, where it is described as the Promised Land for the descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The biblical narrative recounts tales of wars between the Israelites and neighboring peoples like the Philistines, Moabites, and Ammonites. This religious legacy has deepened the Jews' connection to the land, providing a historical and spiritual justification for their presence there, but it has also sown the seeds of conflict with other religious groups claiming the same sacred territory.
 
Empires and Conquests
Israel, or Palestine as it was known under various rulers, has been a battleground for many empires. From the Assyrians to the Romans, through the Persians, Greeks, Macedonians, and finally the Ottoman Empire, each has left its mark on the region, often through conquest and warfare. Each shift in power has brought with it tensions and struggles for autonomy and territorial control.
 
The 20th Century and the Creation of the State of Israel
The 20th century marked a critical turn in Israel's history. With the rise of Zionism in response to Jewish persecution in Europe, especially after the Holocaust, the push for a Jewish state in Palestine intensified. The 1917 Balfour Declaration by the United Kingdom endorsed the idea of a "national home" for the Jewish people in Palestine, which exacerbated tensions with the established Arab population.
 
The 1947 UN partition plan for Palestine, proposing the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state, was accepted by Jewish leaders but rejected by Arab leaders, leading to the 1948 war, known in Israel as the War of Independence and by Palestinians as the Nakba (Catastrophe). Since then, Israel has been in conflict with various Arab neighbors and the Palestinians, with significant wars in 1956, 1967 (Six-Day War), 1973 (Yom Kippur War), among others.
 
Geopolitical and Strategic Factors
Israel is located in an extremely strategic region, near the vital oil resources of the Middle East and at the crossroads of three continents. This positioning has made Israel a focal point for global and regional powers, contributing to its constant state of threat and need for defense. International alliances, such as Israel's with the United States, have played a crucial role in its ability to sustain and defend itself.
 
Contemporary Conflicts
In modern times, Israel faces multiple conflict fronts: with Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the struggle for Palestinian sovereignty and rights in the West Bank. Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory, control over Jerusalem, and the status of Palestinian refugees remain ongoing points of friction fueling violence.
 
Culture of Resilience and Defense
The constant threat has cultivated a culture of resilience and defense in Israel. Mandatory military service and a highly militarized society reflect this reality of living in perpetual alertness. The collective memory of past persecutions and the survival of the Holocaust also reinforce a national identity that values security above all else.
 
The struggle over land deemed sacred by several religions, the imperial ambitions of countless powers, and the power dynamics from the 20th century to the present day have kept Israel in a state of perpetual conflict. Given this scenario of endless war, where historical, religious, geopolitical, and cultural factors intermingle, any attempt at finding...

A journey through the history of the pharmaceutical industry and one of its great laboratories that had its origins in Alfred Nobel...
“From Alfred Nobel to AstraZeneca” (Vicente Fisac, Amazon) is available in e-Book and print editions: https://a.co/d/9svRTuI

Only peace builds (The example of China)

In an article published by Newsweek magazine, a significant conversation between former President Jimmy Carter and Donald Trump was revealed, centered on China's rise as a global superpower. According to information available from various media sources, in an interview, Carter conveyed to Trump his perspective on why China has managed to surpass the United States in several aspects, with the key lying in its approach to peace and development....

Jimmy Carter, who normalized diplomatic relations between the United States and China in 1979, shared with Trump his observations about China's strategy. Since the normalization of relations with Beijing, Carter highlighted that China has not been involved in any war. This absence of military conflict has allowed China to invest massively in non-military areas, unlike the United States, whose history has been marked by numerous conflicts. 

Carter argued: "Since 1979, do you know how many times China has gone to war with someone? Not once, while we are constantly at war. The United States is the most warlike nation in the history of the world, because it wants to impose states that respond to our government and American values throughout the West, controlling companies that have access to energy resources in other countries."
 
Investment in progress
 
Carter emphasized that this peace has allowed China to focus its resources on economic and social development projects:
Infrastructure: China has invested in railways, infrastructure, intercontinental and transoceanic bullet trains.
Technology: Development of 6G technology, robotic intelligence.
Education and Health: Universities, hospitals, significantly improving the quality of life for its population.
Economy: Unlike military spending that consumes resources in the United States, China has used its funds to stimulate its economy, allowing it to surpass the U.S. in several technological and economic areas.
 
Carter suggested that if the United States had invested the same amounts of money in domestic infrastructure rather than in military conflicts, the country might have seen similar benefits like high-speed bullet trains, non-collapsing bridges, better-maintained roads, and an education system comparable to that of South Korea or Shanghai.
 
This conversation between Carter and Trump took place in a context where trade tensions between the United States and China were at a peak. According to some sources, Trump seemed concerned about how "China is getting ahead of us," to which Carter responded with a reflection on China's development strategy based on peace and investment in the well-being of its people.
 
Carter's message might have influenced Trump's strategy towards China, especially considering that, according to reports, Trump praised Carter's letter as "beautiful" and their phone conversation as "very good." However, Trump's actual policies towards China also included tariffs and the continuation of a trade war aimed at rebalancing trade, indicating a more complex and often confrontational approach.
 
The exchange between Carter and Trump illustrates a historical and strategic perspective on how peace and investment in national development can be the foundation for global power in the 21st century. While China has shown that focusing on internal development rather than military expansion can lead to economic superpower status, the United States faces the challenge of balancing its foreign policies with investments in its own development and social well-being.
 
Carter's message to Trump not only highlights the differences between the two nations but also invites reflection on how future U.S. policies could benefit from a more peace and domestically-focused approach, and should serve as a reflection for all political leaders worldwide.
 
Note: This conversation between Jimmy Carter and Donald Trump took place on Saturday, April 13, 2019, and Jimmy Carter made it public the following day during his Sunday school lesson on April 14, 2019, later reported by Newsweek magazine. 

An enthralling story of love, friendship and honor in the Olympic Games (2,600 years ago)
“Life debt” (Vicente Fisac, Amazon): https://a.co/d/hono34C

Topic of the day: The innovative proposal on Gaza

Out of all the information available relevant to February 10, 2025, one of the most significant events is the proposal by U.S. President Donald Trump to take control of Gaza and turn it into a "Middle East Riviera." This announcement has elicited considerable international reaction and could have broad geopolitical implications. Let's examine it in detail...
 
On February 10, 2025, the President of the United States, Donald Trump, announced a proposal that has shaken international politics: the intention to take control of Gaza and transform it into what he has termed a "Middle East Riviera." This declaration has not only sparked controversy but has also put Gaza and the Middle East region under the global microscope.
 
Trump's idea to control Gaza is based on a vision to economically revitalize the area, turning it into a tourist and business destination akin to the famous European Rivieras. However, this proposal is more complex than a mere economic development initiative. It involves the direct or indirect administration of a territory that has been a focal point of conflict between Israel and Palestine, and it could now drastically change the dynamics of power and control in the region.
 
The international community has responded in varied ways. The United Nations (UN) has expressed concern, highlighting that "any forced deportation or transfer of people without legal basis is strictly prohibited." This comment alludes to the potential implications of the proposal on Gaza's Palestinian population. Several countries, particularly those with interests in the region, have condemned the idea, fearing it might exacerbate existing tensions.
 
Political and Humanitarian Implications:
 
Regional Politics: The proposal could significantly alter the relationships between the United States, Israel, and neighboring Arab states. The possibility of the U.S. taking a more direct role in territorial control in Gaza could be seen as explicit support for Israel, which might further destabilize the region.
Humanitarian Impact: The population of Gaza already lives in precarious socioeconomic conditions with limited access to basic services. The transition to a "Riviera" model involves a massive restructuring of the territory, which could lead to forced displacements or significant changes in residents' daily lives.
Legitimacy and Rights: Control of Gaza by a foreign power raises questions about Palestinian sovereignty and rights. The legitimacy of such action under international law would be intensely debated, possibly leading to international court cases or increased criticism of the United States in global forums.
 
Now, from an economic perspective, if the proposal were implemented, it could attract significant investments and tourism development, but at the expense of potential social and cultural conflict. Transforming Gaza into a modern economic hub would require massive international collaboration and a paradigm shift in the region's politics.
 
Therefore, Trump's proposal on Gaza is not just about economic development; it deeply touches on politics, humanity, and international legality. While some might see this move as an opportunity for peace and prosperity, others view it as a threat to Palestinian autonomy and rights. The world watches closely to see how this bold plan will unfold, potentially redefining relationships and power balances in the Middle East.
 

An enthralling story of love, friendship and honor in the Olympic Games (2,600 years ago)
“Life debt” (Vicente Fisac, Amazon): https://a.co/d/hono34C